Tett et al. (2003, p38) state that "themes of collaboration and partnership ... are at the centre of New Labour's vision of a modernised welfare state". Concomitant with this government focus, the quantity of research on partnership and collaboration has expanded rapidly. However, there have been few studies of these types of relationships in the field of PE, school and community sport. In order to begin to address this gap, this study examined partnership and collaboration in the context of the New Opportunities of PE and Sport (NOPES) programme. The study was underpinned by a variety of theoretical concepts included those, such as policy networks, that may be specifically related to partnerships and collaboration as well as others, such as governmentality, that are more generic. Within three case studies of specific local authority areas, interview data from stakeholders in the NOPES programme was combined with documentary evidence where available. Cross-case analysis identified a variety of complex forms of partnership and collaboration both within the NOPES programme itself and its wider context. These different partnerships and collaborations all had an effect on the NOPES policy process in the respective case studies but in varied ways according to their different forms and the agencies involved. As a result of these findings, a number of implications for future policy related to partnership and collaboration were identified. In particular, it was suggested that a more nuanced policy approach based on an understanding of the complexities of partnerships and collaboration should be adopted. The findings also stimulated suggestions for theoretical development, especially of the policy networks concept, and for future research both in the context of sport and other policy areas.

Community sport policy is characterised as complex and multi-faceted partly due to the number of agencies involved. This thesis explores the community sport policy process in England, specifically the significance of the relationship between CSPs and NGBs in the community sport policy process. The four key objectives of this study are (i) to analyse the significance of the relationship between CSPs and NGBs with regard to the national community sport policy process; (ii) to analyse the significance of the relationship between CSPs and NGBs in local-level policy making and policy implementation; (iii) to identify CSP and NGB attitudes and perceptions toward the community sport policy process; and as the study focuses on the meso-level of analysis, (iv) to evaluate the explanatory value of selected meso-level theories of the policy process in developing a better understanding of the community sport policy process. This study uses a mixed method comprising a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Initially, a quantitative questionnaire was used to gather information regarding CSPs and NGBs and support the selection of CSP cases. From this CSP-based case studies were developed involving semi-structured interviews with CSP, NGB and local authority representatives. The study draws attention to the hierarchical nature of the community sport policy process, the implications for collaboration, the mediating role of CSPs in national and local policy settings, and the associated challenges that agents face in implementing community sport policy. The study emphasises the value of theoretical pluralism in analysing the community sport field, particularly the combined used of meso-level frameworks such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Policy Networks Approach with micro-level considerations from implementation theory and the partnership literature. It concludes that empirically, it is only by giving policy agents a voice that we can develop a more accurate understanding of the policy process and that practically only by harnessing the commitment and energy of the grassroots can we step toward a more effective policy community.

This study analysed the strategies of selected National Governing Bodies (NGBs) and voluntary sport clubs (VSCs) in the process of policy implementation of Sport England s generic Clubmark (a quality mark accreditation framework). Within the overarching Clubmark framework, other policies (safeguarding and increasing membership and/or participation) adopted by VSCs working towards the accreditation (or re-accreditation) standard were also examined. Policy-makers are predominantly centrally located, often a distance from the point of delivery where, it is argued; the environment is highly variable, pressured and political, often requiring negotiation and interpretation during the process of implementation. Traditionally, implementation analysis assumed two distinct approaches: top-down theorists (e.g. Hogwood & Gunn, 1984) suppose a perfect rational, systematic process as the starting point, with the focus placed on central policy-makers. The top-down theorists acknowledge that the ideal is unattainable but use the perspective to establish generalisable descriptive policy advice; in contrast, bottom-up theorists (e.g. Lipsky, 1980) argued that to gain a more realistic understanding of implementation the role of street-level bureaucrats (e.g. VSC members at the point of delivery) should be the focus for analysis and seek to offer prescriptive advice. More recently, a number of theorists have developed hybrid implementation models, which offered a synthesis of the two contrasting approaches, such as Matland's (1995) Ambiguity-Conflict model. The combination of these three approaches coupled with Kingdon's (1997) Multiple Streams framework, used to help organise and set a context for the understanding of implementation during analysis, established the theoretical framework that guided this study. The research adopted a qualitative approach using case studies for the three sports of boxing, swimming and rugby union. Data collection consisted of 29 semi-structured interviews from VSC members, NGB officials, a senior Sport England official and a County Sports Partnership officer. The interview data were combined with document analysis (from VSCs, NGBs and Sport England), which included policy documents, guidance templates, electronic communications and various website content. Two clubs from each sport were examined (one urban, one rural). VSC member selection was based on positions of authority within the committee who had some prior knowledge of Clubmark. Three to four NGB officials from each sport provided data for the top-down perspective of policy implementation. Analysis of the data revealed that policy implementation is not straightforward; NGBs had to be flexible with their strategies and be willing to modify criteria to deal with the varying nature and capacities of VSCs. Available NGB capacity to offer VSC support proved to be pivotal for implementation success in addition to the ability of the NGBs recognising the range of contextual constraints, which limited VSCs in the implementation process. At the club-level, motivation and willingness of VSC compliance for the three main policy strands varied across sports and clubs, which demonstrated how the role of the VSC members, as implementing agents, was fundamental in the policy process. At the NGB-level, the urgency or importance placed on the three policies and the variable capacity (to offer support) affected implementation. Application of the theoretical framework that guided the research proved effective in developing the understanding of implementation in this particular sport context. Furthermore, this research has provided a contribution to the literature by demonstrating how the complex and heterogeneous nature of VSCs affects the implementation process in community sport, which provides a useful point of reference for future comparative studies analysing NGBs and VSCs in different contexts.