coaching workforce gap analysis

Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Gap Analysis ResultsMore Coaches, Better Coaches, More of the time.

CJ LeeCoaching Development Manager12 July 2010

Purpose of Coaching Audit and Gap AnalysisCoaches are central to developing, sustaining and increasing participation in sport. With the right qualifications, skills and support coaches can guide improvement in technical, tactical, physical, mental and lifestyle skills as well as in personal social development. They drive enhanced performances and increased success. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight has a strong tradition of sports participation from school PE, through to local clubs and up to elite level. This is underpinned by a workforce of voluntary and paid coaches who support participants of all ages and at a variety of levels. Sport Hampshire & IOW actively supports this workforce, working closely with coaches, clubs, schools, colleges, universities, local authorities and governing bodies in an attempt to create an active, highly-skilled and qualified local workforce.

Sport Hampshire & IOW is the lead agency in the development of a local Coaching System Support Network (CSSN). The group, made of up a variety of local partners including education, local authorities, private coaching providers and governing bodies, has been tasked with creating a coaching strategy and action plan for the benefit of Hampshire and Isle of Wight’s participants and coaches. However, in order to commence this project an analysis of the existing infrastructure must first take place. Without a strong evidence base that can accurately identify gaps in the workforce, and the system that supports the workforce and its deployment, efforts to improve the impact and quality of coaching risk being partially or wholly ineffective. Given the current economic and political landscape such inefficiencies cannot and must not be tolerated.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Coach Workforce Audit,

Setting the context for workforce auditing and gap analysissports coach UK (scUK), the lead agency for coaching in the UK, carried out a national workforce audit in 2008, creating the baseline data and workforce development projections required to create a world leading coaching system in the UK by 2016. In 2009 Sport England invested in the national roll out of Coach Development Managers (CDMs) to ensure this work could be developed at a local level (the Delivery Plan), by leading the development of local CSSNs. One of four initial tasks for CDMs was to conduct a gap analysis. The aim of this analysis was threefold: -

1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the local coaching system and its ability to plan, prioritise, meet and assess agreed strategic workforce aims and objectives.

2. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the local supply of coaching workforce and its ability to meet the demands of local children, players and athletes at a variety of levels.

3. Provide a sound evidence base from which a local coaching strategy and action plan could be developed, which in turn will provide a roadmap for local partners and key stakeholders to coordinate efforts and resources and achieve maximum impact.

The collection of accurate workforce data (workforce auditing1) by key stakeholders is key to developing effective and appropriate coach development strategies and action plans at a local, regional and national level (workforce planning2).


1 Workforce auditing involves the collection of information on the quantities and characteristics of the coaching workforce.

2 Workforce planning involves using this information to strategically and operationally plan future developments and delivery of coaching.

Recruit

Employ/Deploy

Regulate RetainDevelop

Manage QualifyDevelopRetainRegulate

Aims & ObjectivesThe aim of the gap analysis was to better understand the experiences of local coaches and, combined with additional supporting evidence (i.e. partner-focussed gap analysis) to identify key priorities arising from the challenges affecting coaches who live and coach locally as well as those supporting coaches.

Our objectives were to: -

• To examine the level of qualifications held amongst ‘active’ coaches.

• To identify barriers (actual and perceived) to coaches accessing qualifications and training.

• To assess the value of informal CPD i.e. mentoring and communities of practice etc, amongst the coaching workforce.

• To assess the will and capacity of key stakeholders to recruit, manage and develop an appropriately active, skilled and qualified workforce to fulfil local demand.

Methodology & Limitations The collection of data can involve a range of methods, depending on the type of data required (qualitative versus quantitative), type of analysis (hypotheses testing, performance measurement etc.) and the scope of the research being undertaking.

Over the 2-month period from May to June 2010 Sport Hampshire &


The UK Coaching System

A Professionally

Regulated Vocation

Front-line Coaching

Support for Coaches

Research & Development

IOW conducted the following research interventions: -

1. A small scale coaching survey2. Online survey of coaching employers, deployers

and other coaching partners3. Face to face interviews with key partners4. Telephone interviews with key partners5. Informal focus groups and meetings with key

partners.

Coaching Survey & Partner SurveyBoth surveys were designed using Survey Monkey, an online survey tool, primarily used to collect quantitative data, with some scope for qualitative feedback through open data field responses.

The coaching survey was distributed via local sports development officers, Partnership Development Managers and governing body officers across the county in addition to being sent directly to over 700 coaches from Coaching Hampshire & IOW’s member database.

However, whilst the online survey was made available to well over 1000 coaches , the data below represents data collected from 105 coaches who completed the survey. Therefore whilst the data can in no way be described as representative of the coaching workforce in the local area, there are no doubt some useful indicative issues and comparisons that can help to inform initial workforce planning priorities.


Figure 1. The UK Coaching Framework

The partner survey was designed to create a baseline for key issues relating to the 7 coaching system components. However, after an initially poor response (less than half of partners identified had yet to complete the survey), efforts were made to improve responses by conducting the survey via telephone and in some cases, face to face. This second attempt highlighted that there were very different levels of understanding amongst partners around coach development and the terminology being used by lead agencies (namely by scUK, Sport England, and County Sports Partnerships).

Both surveys were organised into 7 specific themes based on the UK Coaching System Components which are listed below: -

• Recruit• Employ/Deploy• Qualify• Manage• Develop• Regulate• Retain

The coaching system components provide a template for workforce planning as set out in the UK Coaching Framework, underpinning elements of all five strategic actions (see diagram on Fig.1, page 5).

Additional questions were added to highlight the demographics of the local coaching workforce (e.g. where coaches live and coach and in what settings i.e. schools, clubs etc.). However, the analysis did not seek data on age,


Demand Supply

Number of Participants

Demanding Coaching

Number of Coaching Hours

required

Number of Coaches providing

coaching

Number of Coaching Hours

provided

Gap Analysis

Identification of Coaching Workforce(projected and planned)

Gap Analysis

Identification of Coaching Workforce(projected and planned)

Children’s Coaching

Participation CoachingTalent Development Coaching

High Performance Coaching

Qualification Level and expertise:

unqualified, Level 1-4, novice to expert

Voluntary, paid part-time, paid full-time

Children’s Coaching

Participation CoachingTalent Development Coaching

High Performance Coaching

Qualification Level and expertise:

unqualified, Level 1-4, novice to expert

Voluntary, paid part-time, paid full-time

Figure 2

ethnic origin or gender of the workforce. Future questionnaires will pick up these and other issues as they relate to refreshed aims and objectives.

12 Strategic Actions AnalysisA more detailed face to face analysis was undertaken with 2 of our Unitary Authorities (Portsmouth and Southampton). This focussed on using the 12 strategic actions from the UK Coaching Framework, as a reference point for both system and workforce gap analysis.

This was an invaluable exercise that whilst covering the 7 coaching system components, also gave more detail in terms of strategic approaches to coach development based on the supply/demand model. Much of the discussion during these interventions highlighted some of the challenges involved around the evolution of coaching development terminology, with large portions of interactions taken up by the researcher explaining key concepts and justifying the need for a more strategic approach. Other reoccurring themes included the limited amount of time Sports Development Officers have to invest in Coach Development (in some cases involving less than 5% of their overall work programmes) and how as a consequence many of their interventions tended to be reactionary as opposed to ‘needs-led’, planned and proactive.

Supply and DemandThe analysis herein is predominantly ‘supply focussed’ (Fig 2 and Fig 3). Given the capacity and organisational objectives of the stakeholders involved in this project, there was limited scope to investigate and understand the ‘actual demand’ of coaching in relation to what local participants want and need. Whilst it is not unreasonable to presume that many organisations have an understanding of their participant segments, the level of understanding tends to be largely anecdotal, and differs significantly from stakeholder to stakeholder. This work must be included in future studies of the workforce, but equally requires more input from governing bodies, many of whom are in the process of developing detailed participant development models. Terminology and Communication


Figure 3

Coach Development auditing and planning processes are evolving. The reliance on data management systems, short-term consultations moving towards long-term system development is relatively embryonic, but indicates a significant step change in our approach to coaching development. The language used by governing bodies and lead agencies to describe the functions, tools and processes within coaching systems and networks are by no means common place and this has, at times, been a challenge in sharing information, educating partners and collecting feedback from stakeholders. However, the process of conducting this audit has equally resulted in increased discussion, awareness and the start of a number of new opportunities involving a wide variety of parties.

Finally, it is generally accepted that the sole use of an online questionnaire may have affected both the number and quality of responses3. Depending on budget and timing the use of postal mail/paper questionnaires, face to face and telephone interviews can increase responses and the level of understanding by respondents. However, on this occasion cost and time were factors, both of which must be given appropriate consideration to ensure the collection of robust and reliable data in future data collection efforts.

Notes for Future AuditingAs the diagrams above (Fig 2 and Fig 3) demonstrate, workforce planning should be based on a constantly evolving demand-driven model. As the needs and expectations of participants change, so must the supply adapt and develop accordingly. Workforce auditing must therefore become an ongoing process aimed at constantly assessing demand (what participants want and need) against supply (the right coaches, in the right places at the right times). 2010 Coach Workforce Data


3 The Coaching Workforce User Guide, 2010

Figure 4


Workforce Auditing and Planning Summary1. Clear aims and objectives of the audit process must be established from the offset to ensure that appropriate

methods and resources (tools, time and expertise) are factored into the planning, collection and analyses of data. A variety of data collection methods must be utilised in order to collect reliable data on the quantity and quality of the coaching workforce.

2. Ongoing gap analysis should be used to create a credible evidence base for developing robust support systems, networks, and an appropriately active, skilled and qualified workforce (supply) that meets local participant need and expectation (demand).

3. Coach Development exists as only one of many competing priorities for employers, deployers and local Sports Development. Consequently interventions are sometimes reactionary, lacking strategic focus and forward planning. However, there are many examples of good practice amongst partners and sports organisations. Where this exists it must be recognised, promoted and shared across the network.

4. There are partners within the network that have the will, expertise and capacity to contribute to ongoing workforce, system and Key Performance Indicator measurement and assessment e.g. School Sport Partnerships, Higher Education Institutions, local Sports Development and the County Sports Partnership. A coordinated approach to this effort would reduce duplication of effort and provide better intelligence for all parties involved in the creation of workforce and system solutions.

5. Coach Development systems and planning is evolving, creating new models and terminology for meeting the challenges of creating world class community sport systems. Communication to stakeholders needs to be jargon free and accessible. Partners need to be educated and supported appropriately throughout this process.

Whilst the coach workforce data only provided a small sample (105 coaches completed the survey) of the actual number of active coaches working across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, the data reflects a surprisingly balanced cross-section of sports (Fig. 5) and an equally balanced picture of where our coaches live and coach.

The settings in which coaches work vary from schools through to the representative performance settings4. All settings include both paid and volunteer coaches, with a significant number of volunteer coaches working in community club settings.

Local Coach Development PlanningAll of the data collected here has to be put into a wider Coaching System Support Network context. Key factors that affect outcomes and success of any work in this area include: understanding where coaching development sits in the organisational priorities of various network partners; the resources available that affect capacity to develop, deliver and respond to outcomes; and the maturity of planning and infrastructure.


4 Information was not collected on those coaching in elite/high performance settings.

Figure 5

Coach RecruitmentThere is limited evidence supporting a standardised approach to the recruitment of coaches. Whilst 35% of employers and deployers recorded using adverts and interviews (55% used a combination of adverts, interviews and observation of coaching practice) an equal number relied on coaches approaching them or conduct no recruitment at all (Fig. 6). 75% of those surveyed developed coaches from within the club. Internal recruitment should be encouraged and remains an important route to swell the potential coaching workforce. However, its important that this approach is underpinned by the right processes to train, support and develop these individuals.

In community clubs there is very little succession planning (see Fig 7). There is limited evidence of coach talent identification within local settings, though, some governing body talent development programmes involve senior coaches mentoring less experienced ones. Traditional coach recruitment tends to be reactionary, occurring only when an existing coach retires or leaves the club.

One of Hampshire’s and the Isle of Wight’s strengths is the large number of Specialist Sports Colleges, Further Education Colleges (FE Colleges) and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Dedicated sports programmes such as the Young Ambassador programme, Sport Education and Step Into Sport provide the ideal breeding ground for developing leadership skills and the first steps into coaching. All four HEIs provide opportunities for students to undertake coaching qualifications as part of student enrichment and community enterprise initiatives. Portsmouth University has established an innovative coach


Figure 6

education and deployment initiative5, providing formal and informal education and development opportunities for newly qualified student coaches, who are placed with experienced coaches in school and club settings. Southampton Solent University runs a Coaching and Community Development degree, which involves final year students delivering coach development projects in the local area. Both university programmes work in conjunction with local partners to ensure student coaches provide maximum impact and meet locally identified need.

In spite of the existence of such programmes there is also anecdotal evidence to suggest that coaching qualifications are frequently undertaken by local residents and students wanting to develop their CVs more than they want to engage in actual coaching. As a consequence some local funding is being invested in coaches who do not plan to coach.

Finally, there are a wide variety of funding pots from which local coach development and the workforce can benefit. Sport Hampshire & IOW (in conjunction with Hampshire County Council) runs a workforce scholarship which, for the most part, is used to support the development of local coaches. A number of local authorities provide small grants (up to approx. £500) to support local clubs and coaches through community Service Level Agreements. School Sport Partnerships (SSPs) have secured funding through the Youth Sport Trust6 and Sport England7 in support of increasing participation amongst children and young people. HEIs have been offered funding via Sport England’s Active


5 http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/studentsupport/sportandrecreation/upforsport/

6 http://www.youthsporttrust.org/page/our-programmes/index.html

7 http://www.sportengland.org/support__advice/children_and_young_people/community_and_club_activities/sport_unlimited.aspx

Figure 7

http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/studentsupport/sportandrecreation/upforsport/

http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/studentsupport/sportandrecreation/upforsport/

http://www.youthsporttrust.org/page/our-programmes/index.html

http://www.youthsporttrust.org/page/our-programmes/index.html

http://www.sportengland.org/support__advice/children_and_young_people/community_and_club_activities/sport_unlimited.aspx

http://www.sportengland.org/support__advice/children_and_young_people/community_and_club_activities/sport_unlimited.aspx

University pot8. National Governing Bodies and County Sports Partnerships can access additional funding opportunities via Skills Active9 and the National Skills Academy10. Even in the current economic climate there exists a large number of direct


8 http://www.sportengland.org/funding/active_universities.aspx

9 http://www.skillsactive.com/sport/news/934_south_east_coaches_benefit_from_funding_boost

10 http://www.sportactivensa.co.uk/howwecanhelpyou/funding/gameon-thefuturejobsfund.ashx

Recruitment Summary1. Whilst some good practice does exist the recruitment of coaches lacks consistency across the industry. This

culture must be changed if we are to create an attractive, accessible and effective coach development pathway for local coaches.

2. Community Clubs and Talent Development programmes must establish coach development plans designed to meet future demand (succession planning). The identification of future talent through internal and external sources must become a systematic and proactive process.

3. In spite of a wide variety of opportunities for young people to get involved in coaching and undertake coaching qualifications, only a small percentage of these actively coach in local programmes.

4. The large number Specialist Sports Colleges, School Sport Partnerships, FE Colleges and HEIs in Hampshire provide vast potential to develop the next generation of sports coaches. Newly qualified coaches must be deployed in local opportunities guided by active, skilled and qualified mentors.

5. Future coach education and funding should be matched to further development and deployment opportunities.

6. A variety of funding pots exist to support workforce development. These include local, regional and national schemes accessible by partners from across the network.

7. For funding to have maximum impact at a local level it must be needs-led. Greater coordination underpinned

http://www.sportengland.org/funding/active_universities.aspx

http://www.sportengland.org/funding/active_universities.aspx

http://www.skillsactive.com/sport/news/934_south_east_coaches_benefit_from_funding_boost

http://www.skillsactive.com/sport/news/934_south_east_coaches_benefit_from_funding_boost

http://www.sportactivensa.co.uk/howwecanhelpyou/funding/gameon-thefuturejobsfund.ashx

http://www.sportactivensa.co.uk/howwecanhelpyou/funding/gameon-thefuturejobsfund.ashx

and indirect sources to support coaching. Nevertheless, locally the distribution of funding resource appears uncoordinated. There is little coordination of funding between agencies, local employers and deployers. As a consequence investment in the workforce is erratic, often leading to duplication of effort and resource.

Coach Education and QualificationsOf the 105 coaches involved in the survey qualifications were held in all 49 sports surveyed11. This included a significant number of respondents who coach without any formal qualifications (approximately 192 out of 370 coaching interactions12). The most commonly held qualifications were in the following sports:

Athletics, Badminton, Canoeing, Cricket, Football, Gymnastics, Hockey, Movement & Dance, Mountaineering, Netball, Rugby Union, Swimming and Tennis.

However, there is a growing need to supply coaches in an ever-increasing variety of sports. Efforts to engage non-traditional participants has seen a rise in new team, extreme and individual sports such as Ultimate Frisbee, Handball, Volleyball, Street Gymnastics/Parkour and Skateboarding etc. This is particularly relevant to the those organisations working to increase the participation amongst children and young people.

Over 66% of coaches believe that additional coaching qualifications will make them a better coach. More than half of the coaches surveyed (over 55%) plan to undertake further coaching


11 The 49 sports were chosen according to the sports recognised by Sport England in May 2010.

12 A single coach can be responsible for multiple coaching interactions i.e. coach more than one sport.

Figure 8

qualifications and general knowledge of where to find information on qualifications appears satisfactory.

Finally, there was very little consensus on issues such as the quality of coach educators, the timing of coach education courses and whether or not coach education was more valuable when delivered on a sport specific-specific or multi-sport basis.

On the other hand there was considerable agreement that the three main challenges to accessing coach education were location (70%), cost (65%) and frequency (63%) (see Fig 8). In professional discussions with governing body representatives the limited/restricted number of active, skilled and qualified coach educators13 was identified as the chief barrier to increasing the number of coach education opportunities. The introduction of the UK Coaching Certificate (UKCC) has been viewed as the principle protagonist in the rise in costs and reduction of coach educators. scUK is in the process of conducting a review of the issues surrounding the implementation, quality assurance (including the impact of the recent changes to the Qualification and Credit Framework) and


13 There are notable exceptions. Cricket is one sport that has spent considerable time investing in the development of an active, skilled and qualified workforce that can meet local, regional and national demand.

Coach Education & Qualifications Summary1. The will for coaches to undertake further qualifications i.e. The

Learning Coach, is high.

2. The three main barriers to coaches undertaking qualifications are: - a) location, b) cost and c) frequency.

3. The introduction of UKCC has placed greater pressure on all three of the main barriers to accessing qualifications.

4. NGBs suggest the biggest challenge to providing more frequent delivery is access to an active, skilled and qualified tutor, assessor and verifier workforce.

5. Local partners and coaches know where to find information on courses and qualifications, though, having a centralised place for all coach education would save time and resources.

6. There are particular challenges trying to find appropriately recognised courses for less traditional sports such as Handball, Parkour and Ultimate Frisbee.

economics of the UKCC, and is due to report back to stakeholders in the summer of 2010.

Employment & Volunteering - CoachesOur sample group compared favourably to national statistics on the deployment of the coaching workforce, with 76.1%14 of the workforce engaged in volunteer coaching, 34% involved in part-time paid coaching (9% only did part-time paid coaching) and 14.8% full-time paid coaches.15

Not surprisingly the vast majority of volunteer coaches (approx. 76%) do so within community clubs, although, there is an increasing trend for coaches to be paid to work in all the settings surveyed (Fig 9).

Paid Coaches work predominantly in school (curriculum), school (after school) and community clubs.

Coaches support a broad spectrum of participants from children taking their first steps into organised sport to masters (35+ depending on the particular sport) participating for recreation and/or elite competition.

The vast majority of coaches surveyed support children’s activities at a variety of levels with over 78% of paid coach interventions and over 69% of volunteer coach interventions in children’s programmes (see Fig 10).


14 There was no option for full-time paid and non-paid, so the number of coaches volunteering coaching hours may be higher than the number recorded here.

15 According to scUK’s 2008 coaching workforce audit of 1.1 million coaches 76% were volunteers, 21% were part-time and 3% were full-time.

Figure 9


Hampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching SurveyHampshire & Isle of Wight Coaching Survey

Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?Who do you coach?

PaidPaidPaidPaidPaidPaidPaidPaidPaidPaidPaidPaid

Answer OptionsAnswer OptionsBeginners/

FUNdamentals

Children/Recreationa

l

Children/Talent

Development

Children Elite

Adults/Recreationa

l

Adults/Talent

Development

Adults/EliteMasters/

Recreational

Masters/TD & Elite

Response Count

School (Curriculum)School (Curriculum) 10 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 19School (After School Club)School (After School Club) 7 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 23Club (Community)Club (Community) 3 8 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 21Club (Further Education)Club (Further Education) 0 3 1 0 4 2 1 0 0 11Club (Higher Education)Club (Higher Education) 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 5Club (Professional)Club (Professional) 0 2 3 4 1 2 3 0 0 15Leisure Centre/Vacation CampsLeisure Centre/Vacation Camps

1 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 11

Representational/Talent DevelopmentRepresentational/Talent Development

0 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 7

21 37 22 12 8 7 5 0 0 112UnpaidUnpaidUnpaidUnpaidUnpaidUnpaidUnpaidUnpaidUnpaidUnpaidUnpaidUnpaid

Answer OptionsAnswer OptionsBeginners/

FUNdamentals

Children/Recreationa

l

Children/Talent

Development

Children Elite

Adults/Recreationa

l

Adults/Talent

Development

Adults/EliteMasters/

Recreational

Masters/TD & Elite

Response Count

School (Curriculum)School (Curriculum) 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4School (After School Club)School (After School Club) 3 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16Club (Community)Club (Community) 8 15 14 2 5 1 2 1 1 49Club (Further Education)Club (Further Education) 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 5Club (Higher Education)Club (Higher Education) 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3Club (Professional)Club (Professional) 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 8Leisure Centre/Vacation CampsLeisure Centre/Vacation Camps

1 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 7

Representational/Talent DevelopmentRepresentational/Talent Development

0 0 5 2 1 1 3 0 0 12

15 26 26 6 12 9 7 2 1 104

Figure 10

Coaches work anywhere from 1 hour per week to full-time (30+ hours per week). However, the data didn’t give a clear indication of how many hours individual coaches worked. On the whole there was nothing of significance in the data on number of hours coaches work.

Employment & Deployment - PartnersAgain experiences and programmes delivered across the range of partners consulted differed greatly. However, both the questionnaire data and one to one discussions suggests a decrease in the number of Local Authorities who employ high numbers of coaches. Though a small number of Local and Unitarity Authorities still employ sports specific coaches through programmes like Street Games and Community Sports Coach Scheme, a significant number of authorities have moved towards franchising partnerships or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with SSPs, Private Coaching Providers and Community Clubs. In this way the time pressures involved in recruiting, employing, deploying and managing coaches is resourced externally.

Coaching salaries and wages vary greatly across partners, highlighting the challenges of working within an economically unregulated industry. Based on data collected from employers and deployers Level 1s are paid between £10-15 per hour; Level 2s receive between £10-25 per hour; Level 3s receive between £14-35; Level 4s receive between £14-50 per hour. This included a number of deployers (mainly voluntary groups and clubs) who only cover travel expenses and some which pay nothing at all.

On the whole an attempt has been made to ensure a quality workforce by writing certain quality assurance prerequisites into SLAs e.g. coaches must have a Level 2 qualification, a Criminal Records Bureau check (CRB) and Safeguarding training. Often where clubs and coaches struggle to meet these minimum standards, local partners make efforts to provide or subsidise access to this training.

The portability of CRBs was an issue raised by a number of employers and deployers. In spite of attempts to agree a system for portability within school settings16, there is much confusion over the rules surrounding the portability of CRBs within schools and other settings. Consequently where coaches work in more than one setting they are often required to hold several CRBs


16 This system affects Hampshire Schools only. Contact Ian Beacham, Education Officer (Sport) for further information.

(one partner suggested that one of their coaches has 8 CRBs). This is clearly a time consuming and duplicitous process. A more streamlined process which promotes safeguarding would be provide measurable benefit to coaches and employers/employers alike.


Employment & Volunteering Summary1. At the time of this survey the evidence suggests there is a growing number of paid employment opportunities

(albeit part-time) for coaches.

2. The paid workforce support all settings including, school (curriculum and after school), Further Education, Higher Education, Clubs (community and professional), Talent Development and Elite sport.

3. The vast majority of coaching interventions take place in children’s programmes at all levels.

4. Payment for coaches differs significantly across all sectors. Coaches are predominantly paid according to level more than by experience, as is common place in other industries.

5. There are no consistent employment/deployment procedures for coaches. However, there is general agreement that Minimum Standards for Deployment (MSD) should be related to the settings and participant groups coaches work with i.e. all children’s coaches should have Criminal Records Bureau checks, undergo safeguarding training and should hold a minimum level coaching qualification.

6. The lack of industry standards for employment is confusing for employers/deployers and coaches alike, creating inconsistencies, duplication and general confusion for all those involved.

Coach ManagementThere was sound evidence to suggest that coaches receive varying levels of line-management support in all coaching settings. However, the quality and consistency of line management varied greatly amongst the coaches with positive and negatives instances described, for instance:

“Progress is discussed at committee meetings and is fed back [to]other coaches, club members, parents and leisure centre managers.”

“No one is interested save for X Sport development officer”.

Coaches tended to demonstrate a real willingness to develop their experience and expertise through a wide variety of methods including (but not limited to): -

• Peer mentoring & Mentoring• Watching other coaches deliver• Video tutorials (DVD/Online)• E-learning• Reading Coaching Articles• Conducting Training Needs Analysis (TNA)

However, what is less clear is the support received from coach managers to encourage and support this process.

When asked directly about the value of line management there were a range of strong feeling from the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps including: -


Figure 11

Comment 1“Presently Head Coach of club and don't feel that there is anyone within our club that has knowledge, skill & experience to advise on coaching content. However if there was an individual I'd welcome some feedback and to be fair, this is one of the main reasons that I've joined a coaching team at representative level. At this level the coaching team is more experienced and have a broader understanding of the game and I get access to other coach development opportunities.”

Comment 2“I would welcome mentoring / being challenged by more experienced coaches.”

Comment 3“Past experience has shown me this can just be an overhead that takes away from coaching. In the past this has led to pointless box ticking exercises following the latest government ideas on what is good practice. These

change with governments, with personnel change at NGB's, with direction changes at Sport England and other bodies. These "box ticking" policies are I feel largely responsible for the huge drop in the quality of coaching in this country (although official surveys may show improvements - I know which way the trend has been over the last 25 years).”


Figure 12

Comment 4“The phrase "Line managed" conjures images of someone breathing [down] your neck or monitoring performance with a clip board and stop watch. I would have preferred if the phrase 'mentored' was used. I think mentoring is critical”.

When asked (see Fig 13), employers and deployers suggested that line management was a reasonably consistent feature in the Coach Development process and there was concrete evidence to suggest commitment to Coach Development was high17. However, there was a significant disparity between managers involving their coaching staff in Training Needs Analysis (designed to help staff be better at their jobs through training and upskilling) and the number of actual line-management interventions undertaken by managers.


17 Hamble School Sports Partnership delivered its first Coach Development Conference in September 2009. The day was an opportunity for partnership coaches to meet, understand the partnership’s aim, objectives and values, as well as their role in delivering key outcomes around increasing participation amongst children and young people. There was a practical element to the the day where ideas on practical delivery were expressed and shared.

Figure 13


Coach Management Summary1. On the whole coaches are keen to engage in development activities using a range of tools and mediums.

2. Mentoring is valued by a large number of coaches and there appears scope to develop this tool further across a variety of settings.

3. Terminology is key when promoting ideas around ‘line-management’ and its value in the development process. Fears around detracting from coaching and ‘box ticking’ must to handled sensitively, and the value of the management process must be made clear to all stakeholders.

4. Though experiences differ greatly, on the whole local partners generally invest limited time into the management of their coaching workforce. Raising awareness of the value and impact of effective coach management could improve the experiences and effectiveness of local coaches and their respective employers and deployers working locally.

5. More focus on developing appropriate line-management structures from within clubs would prove beneficial to ensure coaches are appropriately supported and challenged. Any such process should include clear performance measurement i.e. number of participants to be coached, satisfaction of participants, route to next qualification, route to next coaching role/position.

Figure 14

Coach Training and Professional DevelopmentOur sample coach data suggests that this is an area of work that could prove of significant value to those responsible for developing coach education and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programmes, if replicated on a larger scale. The data here clearly illustrates which courses coaches would value and attend if delivered locally (assuming the courses were also cost effective).

There was less strong evidence from coaches on who should lead training courses, time of year (in season versus off season) and sport-specific versus mixing with coaches from other sports. There was some evidence to suggest that training run during week nights (i.e. 6.30pm-9.30pm) was marginally more popular (39.3%) than training run at weekends (24.%). Approximately 71.5% of respondents were open to the idea of one-off conference to undertake bite size chunks of their annual CPD requirements.

Whilst managers offer a variety of incentives to promote CPD, the majority of existing CDP offered to coaches focuses largely on the Minimum Operating Standards18 suite of courses which include: -


18 Minimum Operating Standards relates the Active Sports programme, which continue to be used many employers and deployers as a guide for minimum standards. scUK is currently working on Minimum Standards for Deployment, which will cover a wider variety of sports and consider coaches in different settings.

Figure 15

• Safeguarding & Protecting Children• Equity in Your Coaching• Coaching Disabled Performers• First Aid


Good Practice FocusBrockenhurst College - Creating Coaching Development Centres• Brock is already the home of AFC Bournemouth junior academy and is an RFU academy• Brock currently offers coach education units which include scUK courses• Brock have great IT, classroom facilities and teaching expertise• Brock runs a number of sports courses and has a ready population of students who regularly undertake

coaching courses

Based on the features already in place there is considerable scope for the existing programmes on offer to be extended to the local community, putting Brockenhurst in a position to act as a local coaching development hub.

Further Education and Higher Education institutions often have a range of resources that make them ideal hubs for creating Coaching Development hub sites and Centres of Excellence.

A similar system operates in Portsmouth where the City Council work closely in partnership with Portsmouth University and who now provide all Coach Education for the student and local populations.

Figure 16

This is understandable given the priorities of many community clubs and local authorities being focussed around acquiring club accreditation and establishing good practice. However, the survey of coaches tends to support the idea that a wider range of CPD subjects would be welcomed, including topics such as Long Term Athlete Development, Strength & Conditioning and Managing Challenging Behaviour etc (see Fig 15).

Mentoring is a development tool valued highly by both coaches and employers/deployers (see Fig 17). A large number of coaches agreed that mentoring would help them develop their expertise and should be a contingent part of the line-management process. However, it should be noted that understanding of the difference between line-management (performance measurement based on clearly identified roles, responsibilities and targets) and mentoring (identifying areas for development and methods by which development can be achieved) differ greatly amongst stakeholders.

Communities of practice (CoP)19 was another area that employers and deployers recognised as having potential value in the development process, however, 45% of those surveyed did not know enough about them to give an opinion.

Partners have a relatively good understanding of where to access CPD, with NGBs, scUK and the County Sports Partnership being the major hot spots for accessing coach education and CPD (see Fig 16).


19 Communities of practice are groups of coaches who share ideas, challenges, experiences and solutions as part of an informal situational learning setting. The Sports Coach as Educator, Volume 1, Part 3 June 2006 , pages 97 - 112

Figure 17

Retention of CoachesCoaches are motivated by a whole host of factors including (but not limited to); a thank you from athletes and parents, becoming the best coach they can be, wages/salaries, recognition by their peers etc. Chief among those surveyed was gratitude shown by performers (79.8% of coaches put this in their top three), followed by investment in CPD and personal/professional development (60.9% of coaches put this in their top three) and then receiving money to cover expenses (51.3% of coaches put this in their top three.)


Coach Training and Development Summary1. Minimum Operating Standards type courses in First Aid and Safeguarding Children appear to be well catered

for.

2. There is some interest in attending a wider variety of CPD courses in subjects such as LTAD, Strength & Conditioning, Plyometrics, Movement mechanics, Fundamentals in movement and Video Analysis etc, providing traditional challenges to access can be overcome (i.e. cost and location).

3. There is a good level of interest in mentoring and ‘communities of practice’, but few formal mentoring and CoP interventions take place at a local level.

4. There is reasonable evidence to suggest that an annual coaching conference would be well supported by the coaching workforce. A one-off event, whilst not appropriate for everyone, would allow partners to maximise economies of scale and provide an opportunity for a wide variety of CPD to be covered in a relatively short period of time.

This is illustrated in the comments from the respondents below:

Comment 1“[I am motivated by]...personal enjoyment, sense of being part of team and watching players achieve their potential and enjoying themselves.”

Comment 2“I have no issues not getting paid to coach, but I resent having to pay to volunteer. It would help me out if my club could make a contribution towards my travel expenses.”

Comment 3“Predominantly our engagement with coaches happens through the Hampshire Youth Games and SLA process. [We] have struggled to get clubs to identify volunteer/coach coordinators to support coaches...We’re working with the clubs to get them to create [an] attractive environment that coaches want to commit to.”

Employers and deployers employ a range of methods to retain their coaches from paying wages to paying for/subsidising CPD (Fig 18).

However, only a small percentage (26.3%) had their own reward programmes, with a large number dependent on county wide awards programmes i.e. Sport Hampshire & IOW Sports Awards, to recognise their coaches’ achievements.

Furthermore, the lack of a recognised coaching coordinator in some organisations means that the role of supporting, monitoring and recognising the coach is sometimes overlooked (this tends to be a bigger challenge for voluntary clubs than in paid settings).


Figure 18


Good Practice FocusCreating a Local Workforce Development Group

• Creating a suitably active, skilled and qualified workforce that can meet the needs of a variety of participants, with differing needs and in differing settings is a major challenge.

• Any local area will involve a number of partners looking for a ready supply of appropriate workforce to fulfil local demand.

• Efforts to make the process of recruiting, employing, qualifying, managing, developing, retaining and regulating more streamlined can be achieved by creating a local network approach to managing and developing system components.

• Portsmouth have created such a workforce development group, combining expertise and resources from a number of organisations (SSP, University, the City Council, Community Investment Partnerships and Portsmouth Football Club).

• Each partner performs a specific role in supporting the workforce e.g. the University provides a large portion of the workforce by promoting coaching to the student body and also organises a large portion of the coach education.

• The group will utilise the affiliate tool on Coaching Hampshire & IOW’s database to create a localised data management tool to audit their workforce.

Regulation of CoachesThe coaches surveyed were generally open to the idea of coach regulation. They were offered a variety of measures to consider (the percentages can be viewed in the table below), which included: -

• Coaches should have a minimum level of qualification.

• Coaches should conform to an agreed set of Minimum Standards for Deployment i.e. Qualifications, good practice policies, CRB, Insurance etc.

• Coaches should be regularly observed by an expert coach and provided with feedback.

• Coaches should attend reorientation/CPD/upskilling events every 3-years.

All the measures suggested received majority support from the coaches surveyed (see Fig 19).


Retention Summary1. Coaches are motivated by a wide variety of factors. In this survey respondents valued gratitude from

performers, investment in personal/professional development and receiving money for expenses above wages, awards from the club and awards from their peers.

2. Employers and deployers have relatively few internal opportunities to reward coaches beyond wages and the provision of kit/uniforms. The occasional ‘thank you’ and taking an interest in a coach’s professional development should not be under-estimated.

3. Identifying personnel who can undertake line-management and mentoring e.g. a director of coaching or coach/volunteer coordinator, could improve the experiences of many coaches, particularly those who coach on a voluntary basis.

The evidence here suggests that there is plenty of good practice being utilised, albeit hard to make distinctions between coaches in different settings (paid versus non-paid).

Though there is considerable support for ensuring we have the right coaches working with our participants, the challenges involved in administering and policing regulation at a local level are best summarised by one parter who explained that:

“Our ability to regulate coaches is limited as we do not directly employ coaches, but try to include some of these [quality assurance] standards as part of club SLA agreements...

I see the benefit of the Athletics' model where coaches have to complete a certain amount of CPD throughout their career in order to be ‘licensed’, which ensures they have to prove they have up to date techniques and standards. This would help drive the delivery of CPD...

Its difficult for a local authority to have that kind of influence. But we've looked at discounts for clubs and coaches who have accreditation/qualifications and MDS.”

Key to the regulation process is the collection and management of accurate workforce data. Its vital that we understand where our workforce is and how active they are (deployment strengths and gaps), their suitability for purpose (quality assurance) and their development needs (coach education and CPD planning). Though a small number of the larger NGBs have the capacity to monitor their coaching workforce, many do not. Even where NGBs have the infrastructure, its estimated that many governing bodies are only aware of a portion


Figure 19

of their active workforce at a local level20. Coach Development data management systems, like CoachWeb - a system now used by more than 50% of County Sport Partnerships, including Sport Hampshire & IOW - allow employers, deployers and other system builders to promote minimum standards, monitor workforce growth, whilst at the same time providing an administrative and measuring tool for development and regulation.

Finally, whilst regulation has a large number of supporters, there are those who are quick to point out some of its potential short-comings and additional pressures that could be faced by local coaches, employers and deployers should licensing and regulation become more widespread. Chief amongst these concerns is the qualifications debate.

Whilst a considerable amount of work is taking place behind the scenes with lead agencies like scUK and the various governing bodies of sport, there is no legal minimum coaching qualification required to lead a coaching session. In addition, any requirement for coaches to have more qualifications and CPD could have a negative impact on the number of people willing and able to volunteer their time, particularly if the licensing process develops into an overly complex or onerous process.


20 The Coaching Workforce 2009-2016, p107, scUK

Regulation Summary1. Regulation is generally supported by coaches,

employers and deployers.

2. Regulation can be a difficult process to manage and police and therefore requires a coordinated system involving NGBs and local agencies.

3. Workforce data management systems can play a vital role in the regulation process in addition to monitoring workforce gaps, assessing coach development priorities and measuring workforce growth.

4. Regulation requires clear and efficient administration that drives CPD and improves the quality of the workforce.

5. Ultimately licensing will be most effective once it becomes a ‘bottom-up’, ‘top-down’ process, backed by a robust legal framework.

Inclusion StatementThis document reflects the inclusive vision, values and aims of Sport Hampshire & IOW. As such our aims are to ensure that all activities and services are available to, and accessible by all sections of the community regardless of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, social background and religious or political beliefs and as such are included in all references to children, players, athletes, participants and coaches.

AcknowledgementsThe Hampshire and Isle of Wight Gap Analysis Results document forms a principle part of Sport England’s Delivery Plan and the UK Coaching Framework, led by sports coach UK.

The results here will lay the foundations for the development of a Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Coaching Strategy on which all partners involved in the development of the local coaching workforce will be asked to consult.

A number Local and Unitary Authorities, National Governing Bodies, SSPs, HEIs, FE Colleges and Private Coaching Providers were consulted in the preparation of this work. Equally local coaches were asked to share their opinions and experiences. Whilst efforts were made to include the widest number of stakeholders, it is accepted that the views here do not represent a unilateral view as experiences, resources and settings of stakeholders differ from one end of the spectrum to the other. Nevertheless, all contributions were gratefully received, valued and included where possible.
