The influence of a collaborative structure on the sport promotional effect of a youth sport camp : A multilevel - analysis

AIM. Already since the 1990s, collaborative structures have been frequently used to solve complex public problems, such as health related issues (Turrini, Cristofoli, Frosini, & Nasi, 2010). Physical inactivity is considered one of the most crucial health issues among children, therefore the promotion of physical activity and sports is an important task of governments. Field information shows that governments often rely on collaborative structures to meet this health tasks. However, literature provides few indications on whether collaborative structures are a preferable way of organizing sport promoting programs. In this research, we compare the effectiveness of youth sport camps as sport promotion programs, organized in a collaborative structure and sport camps organized by one institution. The research question we want to answer is if collaborative structures are more successful to promote sports versus non-collaborative structures. Data on the effect of these sport promotional interventions (sport camps) are used to answer this question. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND. Local governments increasingly rely on partners in order to acquire resources and serve their clients better (Thibault, Frisby, & Kikulis, 1999). Since through a collaborative structure effectiveness and coordination of service delivery is increased and fragmentation of services reduced (Turrini et al., 2010), we assume that collaboration with external partners may increase the potential positive effects of sport promotional interventions. An already long existing example of sport promotional interventions are youth sport camps. Almost 90% of Flemish municipalities organized sport camps in 2010 (Van Poppel, 2012). Van Poppel (2012) noted that 70% of the Flemish municipalities organized sport camps individually. If the municipality collaborates for the organization of sport camps with external partners, sport clubs (50%) and private organizations (40%) are the most common partners. Since sport camps have a sport promotional goal, we may assume that a sport camp was successful when the participants start to 1 of 3 Abstract Reviewer E A S M 2 01 4 practice sport, or at least show more interest in sports, after participatingin the camp. However, other factors influence sport participation ofchildren. Thus, when analyzing the effect of collaboration in sport camps,we need to take into account previous research on correlations betweensport participation of the child and parental support, parental beliefs andparental physical activity (Edwardson & Gorely, 2010) and the child’s typeof motivation and degree of self-determination towards sports (Aeltermanet al., 2012).METHODS. Data were collected using a questionnaire completed by 418parents of 5to 9-year old participants in 50 youth sport camps of which32 camps were organized in collaboration with an external partner and18 camps had a single organizer. The parents completed an onlinequestionnaire on current sport behavior of the child, parental support andbeliefs, motivation towards sports, and the child’s change in perception ofsports. We compare data on children’s sport behavior, motivation, campexperience, and sport club membership at level one in a multilevelanalysis with the presence of collaboration as level two variable.RESULTS. Data collection of this study is still ongoing in April 2014.However, preliminary results on 150 respondents show that the majorityof the participants (90%) are member of a sport club and most of them(70%) were already a member prior to the camp. Twenty percent of theparticipants, who were not members of sport club prior to the camp, butare in a club now, state that participating in the camp influenced theirchoice to subscribe in the sport club, and, this choice correlates with thefact that the camp is organized by a collaborative structure.Detailed multi-level analysis on the total sample, including the effect ofthe collaborative structure, will be conducted in the following weeks andthe definitive results will be available for presentation at the 2014 EASMconference in September.CONCLUSION. This study wants to contribute to literature on sportpromotion and the effect of a collaborative structure. For practitioners,this work can provide a useful support in the decision if they would orwould not collaborate with external partners for the organization of sportpromotional initiatives. ReferencesAelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., Van den Berghe, L., DeMeyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2012). Students' Objectively MeasuredPhysical Activity Levels and Engagement as a Function of Between-Class and Between-Student Differences in Motivation Toward PhysicalEducation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(4), 457-480.Edwardson, C. L., & Gorely, T. (2010). Parental influences on differenttypes and intensities of physical activity in youth: A systematic review.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(6), 522-535. doi: DOI10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.05.001Thibault, L., Frisby, W., & Kikulis, L. M. (1999). Interorganizationallinkages in the delivery of local leisure services in Canada: Responding 2 of 3Abstract ReviewerEASM2014 to economic, political and social pressures. Managing Leisure, 4(3), 125-141.Turrini, A., Cristofoli, D., Frosini, F., & Nasi, G. (2010). Networkingliterature about determinants of network effectiveness. PublicAdministration, 88(2), 528-550.Van Poppel, M. (2012). Cijferboek lokaal sportbeleid 2011-2013. Brussel:Departement Cultuur, Jeugd, Sport en Media. 3 of 3Abstract ReviewerEASM2014