Authors
Taylor, P; Panagouleas, T and Ping Kung, S
Date
2011
Keywords
Social inclusion, access, financial objectives,
facilities, public sector
Country of research
United Kingdom
Summary of findings
This paper uses data from Sport England’s National Benchmarking
Service (NBS) to examine the usage of English sport and leisure
centres by disadvantaged groups and the relationship with financial
performance and type of management (private, trust, direct
provision) between 1997 and 2006. Such groups are defined as:
11-19 year old; two lowest socio-economic groups; 60 plus; black,
Asian and other ethnic minority groups (BME) - all measured by a
‘representative ratio’ (i.e. the proportion of users in relation to
their proportion in the catchment area population) – and disabled
under 60; disadvantaged discount card holders; females; unemployed
which are measured by a ‘percentage of visits’. The national
benchmarks are set at three points in the distribution of scores
for each indicator – 25th, 50th (median) and 75th percentiles – and
local authority performance is assessed within this framework.
The analysis uses datasets from the NBS for
1997, 2001 and 2006 to explore whether the use of centres by
specific groups has changed over time and the extent to which
changes may have been constrained by financial objectives. In
2006 only 11-19 year olds were ‘over-represented at the 75%
benchmark and BME groups at 50% and 75% benchmarks – all others
were ‘under-represented’. Between 1997 and 2006 the data
indicate that (i) young people’s access performance has declined,
(ii) BME groups’ performance has increased, (iii) 60 plus has
stayed constant, (iv) because of definitional changes it is
difficult to comment on the two lowest socio-economic groups, (v)
disabled and unemployed show a slight decline in usage. The
only unambiguous upward trend is for disadvantaged card holders and
females have greatly increased usage, being the majority of users
(55%). Cost recovery has improved from 72% in 1997 to 80% in
2006 and income per visit rose by 89%.
The authors use regression analysis to explore
the extent to which there is a relationship between improved
financial performance and access. They find ‘patchy evidence’
of a trade –off. The direct evidence of a trade-off is the
negative effect of higher cost recovery on BME and lowest
socio-economic groups and also the negative effect of disadvantaged
discount cards and visits by unemployed on cost recovery. The
indirect evidence is the negative effect of discount cards and
private contract management (both good for financial performance)
on 11-19 years access; the negative effect of private contract and
trust management on 60 plus access and the negative effect of more
deprived locations on cost recovery. But the evidence of a
trade-off is not comprehensive, with the majority of access
variables not having a significant negative effect on cost
recovery. Structural variables (type of management, location,
size and type of facility) feature more consistently than trade-off
variables. There were also some seemingly contradictory
results such as the positive effect of private contract and trust
management on BME and lowest socioeconomic groups’ access
performance. The authors conclude that financial performance
does not appear to seriously constrain access performance and
access performance does not seriously constrain financial
performance. The evidence does not challenge the consistency
of government policies which promote social inclusivity and impose
tighter budgetary requirements.
The authors draw two broad sets of implications from this.
Firstly, there is a need for greater targeting of subsidies and to
strengthen the accountability of local authorities to access
objectives. Secondly, the location decisions for new facilities
need to be made with a remit for socially inclusive access.
Further, private contract and trust management both have a positive
effect on financial performance and if access improvement is
important these approaches seem a better bet than in-house
management. The authors finally conclude that there is a need for
specifically targeted activity programming and promotion and more
outreach provision, rather than depending simply on price
discounts.
Methodology
National Benchmarking Service (NBS)
Source of reference
Managing Leisure 16(2), 128–141
Web reference
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rmle/2011/00000016/00000002/art00005