Background

Sport, football in particular is used in a wider range of policy contexts than ever before as a delivery mechanism for social, economic and health objectives across departments including Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (as part of the social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal agendas), Department for Culture Media and Sport (in response to PAT 10[1]), Department for Education and Skills, Department of Health and Home Office.

Evidence base

Little evidence is available to support the effectiveness of the approach, therefore it is not possible to give examples of good practice.

Even on a theoretical level the mechanisms through which such interventions may impact on risk behaviours such as drug use and criminal activity are poorly understood. Nichols (1997) attempted to identify rationales for these types of interventions, these included;

·         a reduction in the ability to take part in crime;

·         meeting a need for excitement;

·         increase in self esteem;

·         development of cognitive competencies;

·         importance of role models;

·         provision of employment opportunities; and

·         physical fitness

He noted however that these arguments are poorly developed on an ad hoc basis and the interrelationships are not fully explained. They have also been constructed intuitively as sports based programmes have not been subject to mechanistic assessment, whereby the effect of the intervention on the proposed mediator is investigated. Regardless, McKenzie (1997) suggests that self-esteem is less important than addressing characteristics that can be altered such as attitudes, substance use, peer groups etc.

There are some studies that support the notion that participation in sport may be a protective factor against substance use. For example, participation in organised sports activities may delay drinking and intoxication debut in teenagers (Hellandsjo Bu et al., 2002) and female students actively participating in team sports are less likely to be substance users or engage in sexual risk behaviours than those that were inactive (Kulig et al 2003). However, there is no robust evidence of the impact of sports based interventions specifically targeted at reducing or preventing drug use among young people who may otherwise not have chosen to engage in sport.

Despite the high profile of such an approach, evidence of the effectiveness of sports provision in prevention is sparse. In a conference paper Waddington (2000) identified key problems with the assessment of the success of programmes:

·         lack of systematic monitoring of outcomes, making the efficacy of a programme difficult to determine;

·         over emphasis on individual participants that gained from the programme rather than taking a more systematic approach that may reflect the programme as a whole; and

·         absence of clearly developed rationale for the programmes, many programmes make claims about benefits of participation in sport, including for example self esteem but no explanation is given about how improved self esteem is achieved and indeed how that would affect a young person’s drug use or involvement in crime.

Davis and Dawson (1999) reviewed Home Office projects using diversion to deliver drug prevention education to young people, one of which was based primarily around physical activities. They reported that even the most impressive projects studied made only modest claims of influencing drug using behaviour in the longer term and all conceded that even if an impact was achieved it was extremely difficult to prove.  However some features of projects which were believed to lead to success were identified including; the use of highly desirable and rewarding activities, consideration of how the messages will be transmitted and who the target audience is, the importance of planning and need for projects sustainable for the longer term. Particular emphasis is placed on the project workers. It is suggested that essential qualities in order to gain credibility are:

·         an envied level of talent/skill in the particular activity

·         local experience and knowledge allowing them to understand current pressures on the young people they are working with.

It is also noted that, in common with all drug prevention approaches, the workers need to be confident in delivering drug prevention messages and are likely to require more than “hastily delivered training” (1999, pp3).

Positive Futures

Launched in 2000, Positive Futures (PF) defines itself as a relationship strategy using sport and other activities to engage young people who may be socially marginalized and establish relationships with them to open “life path gateways”. While the aim of PF is to  “have a positive influence on participants’ substance misuse, physical activity and offending behaviour”, the achievement of this goal has now been altered  to relate to the ongoing personal and social development of participants limiting the emphasis on measurable outcomes. A large-scale evaluation of the programme incorporates regular monitoring of projects, surveys of lead and partner agencies, young people’s views research project snapshots and case study research (includes a focus on Wandsworth partnership with Chelsea football club for coaching and workshops including drugs issues & Liverpool partnership with Liverpool & Everton). Monitoring and evaluation impact reports are produced twice yearly. Subject specific interim reports from the case study research will be presented in May and November 2005 with the final report due autumn 2006. It is hoped that this will lead to improved understanding of the effectiveness of such projects and good practice lessons.

While, football remains overwhelmingly the most common and popular activity offered, projects have diversified, in particular to attract more young women.

Much of the research evidence generated to date in relation to Positive Futures has focused on output data, which has limited use in determining successful outcomes.  By October 2004 108 partnership projects had been established and almost 70,000 young people had been involved in regular PF project activities since the programme launch (Home Office, 2005).  More than half of the referrals to projects are self-referrals which is interpreted as success in the aim of ‘engaging with young people by helping them to learn something they think is worthwhile’, although it is possible that those that most in need are less likely to self refer.

Some evidence is also presented of improved social relations, educational improvements and securing employment. The most common social development among the young people being identified as improved relations with their peers, with some evidence of improved family relations, reduced aggression, improved self esteem, increased leadership skills and the ability to work in teams (Home Office, 2005). These data must be treated with caution however as no detail was given about how these were assessed (e.g. objective assessment vs group leader opinion) and the role of Positive Futures in these achievements has not been analysed.

Although, some preliminary consideration of the ways in which sporting activity may influence wider social relations is included in the most recent impact report this has not yet been thoroughly explored. These mechanisms have been divided into the following categories:  kudos or ‘glamour’ and getting into something ‘special’; taking activities to the people; respect, trust and honesty; individual attention, affirmation and recognition; non-authoritarian relationships; and step-by-step progression.  No direct association has been demonstrated between success in achieving their objectives and impact on substance use.

Specific substance use interventions are being developed in many projects using a range of approaches including leaflets/literature, informal discussions, workshops, informal advice through sport, drop in surgeries and other initiatives including film making and quizzes. These are typically a joint venture between a specialist agency and the PF project and the strength of relationships built with the young people are seen as key to getting the drug prevention messages across. The only reported measure of effectiveness of these interventions is the opinions of the projects themselves, which indicate that they believe that specific activity is more likely to be very effective than core practice or innovative activity in informing young people about issues surrounding substance misuse.

While no recommendations for project development have been made some lessons could be learned from the progress of PF so far. As with the findings of Davis & Dawson (1999) the recent PF impact report claims that “the staff who work for Positive Futures are fundamental to its success and progression” (2005, pp.40).  The ability of staff to earn and reciprocate participant’s respect is presented as key to maintaining the interest and involvement of the young people.  The ability to maintain these relationships is attributed to project diversity and the flexibility to adapt to local conditions. The need for specific consideration to be given to the engagement of girls and young women is stressed, as is the importance of working with schools both to raise the project profile and aid reintegration of disengaged pupils.

Through a three year, participative, qualitative evaluation of the estate based sports interventions of Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme, which was primarily focused on two Positive Futures projects in the East of London, Crabbe and Slaughter (2004) examined the mechanisms through which the project is developed, participants engaged and results achieved. Again the research emphasises the importance of skilled staff with an intimate awareness of local culture and sporting excellence, recognising that the most significant impact will be achieved when relationships are formed and opportunities for personal development, education and training are made available through the interventions. The report recommends a flexible approach within a non-hierarchical organisational structure. Practical recommendations made for the delivery of projects include:

·         There are considerable benefits to working with charitable rather than statutory status, in terms of attracting funding;

·         Ideally sports programmes should form part of a wider social inclusion programme both to encourage referrals and to provide routes into the mainstream;

·         It is important that agencies are accessible not only at the point of delivery but also in terms of their administrative centre;

·         Agencies must be effective cultural intermediaries, able to operate comfortably in both the worlds of the participants and professional practice;

·         Agencies must show long term commitment to provision and not rely on the assumption of future assimilation into the mainstream;

·         Objectives should focus on the realistic and deliverable and claims that are likely to remain unsubstantiated should be avoided even at the expense of ambition;

·         Successful projects are likely to be professional but flexible, long term and open ended with a recognition that changes will be incremental and uneven.

Other Projects

While several sport based prevention projects are listed on the Drug Education and Prevention Information Service (DEPIS) website[2], none are satisfactorily evaluated.

The Exchange on Drug Demand Reduction Action (EDDRA) database[3] includes evaluations of Positive Futures and Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme.  Evaluations are also included of Making Kids Strong Through Sport/Make Children Strong implemented in Austria/ Germany to encourage established sports clubs to become involved in prevention work.

Summary

Although the efficacy of sport based approaches to drug prevention has not been proven, they have also not been proved to be ineffective. Research reviewed suggests that the ability of the project staff will be fundamental to any successes of this approach. The need for a flexible, long term approach is also emphasised.

Further Reading & References

Blackshaw T & Crabbe T (2004) New perspectives on sport and deviance: Consumption, performativity and social control. London, Routeledge.

Crabbe T & Slaughter P (2004) On the Eastside: Research report into the estate based social inclusion interventions of Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme. (http://www.positivefuturesresearch.org.uk/index.php/Section12.html)

Crabbe T (2000) ‘A sporting chance? Using sport to tackle drug use and crime’. Drugs: education, prevention and policy, Vol. 7 (4) pp381-391

Davis G & Dawson N (1999) Using Diversion to Communicate Drugs Prevention Messages to Young People: An Examination of Six Projects. London, Home Office.

Department for Culture Media and Sport (1999) Policy Action Team 10: Report to the Social Exclusion Unit - Arts and Sport. London: HMSO.

Hellandsjo Bu ET, Watten RG, Foxcroft DR, Ingebrigtsen JE & Relling G (2002) Teenage Alcohol and Intoxication Debut: The Impact of Family Socialisation factors, living area and participation in organised sports. Alcohol and Alcoholism Vol. 37 (1) pp 74-80

Home Office (2005) Positive Futures impact report: Staying in Touch. London, Home Office McKenzie D (1997) Criminal justice and crime prevention, in Sherman L et al. (eds) Preventing Crime: what works, What doesn’t, What’s promising?  (http://www.cjcentral.com/sherman/sherman.htm)

Nichols G (1997) A Consideration of Why Active Participation in Sport and Leisure might Reduce Criminal Behviour. Sport, Education and Society, Vol. 2 (2) pp.181-190

Waddington I (2000) Sport focused interventions for young people at risk: do they work? Paris, Practiques Sportives dees Jeunes er Conduits à Risques Conference Paper