4.1 Article

Quantitative evidence for the benefits of Moving the Goalposts, a Sport for Development project in rural Kenya

Journal

EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 370-381

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.01.001

Keywords

Sport; Development; Impact; Evaluation; Africa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sport for Development has many reported benefits, but quantitative evidence of the impact of these interventions in Low Income Countries remains sparse. A new monitoring and evaluation toolkit was used in a cross-sectional survey at Moving the Goalposts (MTG), a football project aiming to empower young Kenyan women. We wished to determine empirically whether increased membership duration brought increased benefits. MTG selected and translated toolkit items consistent with the organisation's strategic aims. We collected 333 completed questionnaires at 15 sites. Psychometric validation revealed some reliable scales; remaining items were scored separately. Scores were sensitive to differences between members defined by sociodemographic and site characteristics. Bivariate and multiple regression analyses showed that increased membership duration brought increasing benefits across several domains (perceived lifeskills: social life: insights about HIV/AIDS; outcomes related to female empowerment). Improved leadership skills were mainly age-related. Members attending more established sites experienced greater benefits, but members at more and less accessible sites benefitted similarly. Positive thoughts and feelings were related not to membership duration, but to how long a site had been operating. This indicates the importance of creating a positive culture over time. This cross-sectional study provides quantitative evidence for the benefits of Sport for Development initiatives. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available