Date of Graduation

1980

Document Type

Thesis

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the role of six problematic areas in one hundred sports centers in England and to determine if standards for management policies and procedures did exist among various types of sports centers, namely, education, public, and joint provision. Another major purpose was to compare five sports centers selected by a vote of one hundred sports center managers as being the most effective in England in terms of the six areas of consideration with that of the randomly selected institutions. A descriptive survey questionnaire on management practices was utilized to solicit information from the subject sports centers. Specifically, the questionnaire was divided into six subheadings regarding, personnel, organization, scheduling, finance, maintenance, and dual use. Fifty-two sports centers replied to establish a return of 52 percent. The five best sports centers voted by the managers of the random sample all responded. All data were interpreted by the use of descriptive analysis using percentages of total response and displayed according to the six general subheadings through use of listings and thirty-two descriptive tables. The results of this study as categorized under the six general subheadings included the following: (1) Personnel. Previous employment backgrounds of chief administrators were from administrative and teaching sectors. The majority of these were ex-teachers of physical education. (2) Organization. Unquestionably, the public, joint provision, and the best five sports centers have definite standards concerning organizational patterns for the management of the facilities. (3) Scheduling. All sports centers surveyed have a priority list for bookings of recreational activities, and the chief administrator is solely responsible for the scheduling of competition/non-competition events. (4) Finance. The responsibility for determining the recreational budget in the random sample was either a management committee, director of physical education, local authority, manager, finance committee or a policy and resources committee. In the best five sports centers, just one body, the management committee, took the responsibility for determining the recreational budget. (5) Maintenance. Maintenance practices at the various sports centers were indigenous to the particular facility for which they are developed and are determined by local conditions, facility utilization, available apparatus and personnel capabilities. (6) Dual Use. The public are encouraged to use the facilities of most random sports centers, apart from some education establishments, during the operation of the facilities. Needless to say, the best five sports centers encourage maximum participation by all. In conclusion, when the policies and procedures related to the management of personnel, organization, finance, scheduling, maintenance and dual use were identified and compared with the best five sports centers in England to determine the most effective managerial plan, the best five sports centers had the most effective managerial plans. Therefore they should serve as a guide to all concerned in sports center management in England.

Download

Share

COinS