A level playing field: social inclusion in public leisure

Abstract

Purpose -The transfer to partnership in public sector management has created significantly new modes of service delivery and is suggested to be the best means of ensuring that disadvantaged groups are socially included. This research set out to examine New Leisure Trust (NLT) structures in public leisure provision relative to direct, in-house managed facilities and privately run Leisure Management Contractor (LMC) facilities. In particular, NLTs receive significant government funds and subsidies through tax breaks that are not forthcoming to rivals which raise questions as to whether NLTs deserve such aid for delivering upon the social inclusion agenda of the government. Methodology -The research involved a national survey questionnaire to 1,060 public leisure service providers in England. Empirical testing through multiple analysis of variance and regression analysis was applied to the dataset. Findings -We find that NLTs do not follow social orientation strategies to any significantly greater degree than rivals nor seem to create social inclusion to any greater degree. Further, NLTs have the least to gain in terms of business performance from creating social inclusion whilst in-house (in particular) and LMC facilities stand to gain the most. Practical implications -Though each approach to provision examined places a considerable strategic emphasis on being socially oriented they are not effective at increasing the social inclusion of recreationally disadvantaged groups. Originality/value -This paper calls for the current public leisure management playing field to be levelled in a rebalance of opportunity and investment through the removal of anti-competitive measures.

Sport participation: From policy, through facilities, to users’ health, well-being, and social capital

“…On the contrary, the views expressed seem to suggest that the type of facility or the facility objectives pursued have no direct effect on their perceived health, well-being, or social capital. It could, therefore, be argued that facility type and the specific objectives pursued might actually not materialize in expected outcomes (i.e., a socially-oriented nonprofit provider does not necessarily achieve social outcomes beyond those realized by private agents; see Hodgkinson & Hughes, 2012). Rather, participation is driven by the opportunity for social encounters and a social network (Yoshida, 2017), but this appears contingent on users' desire to co-create social capital.…”

Corporate governance practices and outcomes in social enterprises in the UK

“…Changes in the economic environment for social enterprise appear to have provided the impetus for this shift. For example, as more opportunities for social enterprises emerge, particularity in public service delivery, they are likely to engage more with external stakeholders including suppliers, investors and the community as supported by the work of Lewis et al (2004) as well as Hodgkin and Hughes (2012). This paper therefore argues that innovation in governance models has become an important prerequisite for success in competitive markets.…”

“…The authors acknowledge the need for further research to explore the stewardship governance model for social enterprise as this is a dramatic shift from the ideology underpinning the concept. This obviously requires strong state support (Cornelius and Wallace, 2013;Hodgkin and Hughes, 2012). Source: survey data Source: survey data …”

The Effectiveness of Community Sports Provision on Social Inclusion and Public Health in Rural China

“…Along with this, there is a growing body of sport management literature on social inclusion [18][19][20][21]. Among them, Liu [14], and Hodgkinson and Hughes [22] focused on the inclusion of disadvantaged groups in public leisure activities in the UK, while Pitts and Shapiro [23] explored the inclusion of people with disabilities in the sport business industry and sport management of the United States. Frisby [24] and Forde et al [25] investigated the role of sport in in the settlement of immigrants in Canada, while Shaw [26] examined the potential of anti-homophobia policy to develop social inclusion through community sport in New Zealand.…”