|  | Feature: “Ethical Issues in Coaching” | No.58 January 2010 |
|  |  | print / save view |

A Critical Review of Coach Conduct Using a Human Rights in Sport Model Elaine Raakman, Kim D. Dorsch and Daniel Rhind |
Introduction As agencies around the world try to combat increasing rates of childhood obesity through the development of youth sport programs, it is important to consider the outcomes of these experiences. Within the youth sport context, children deserve certain innate rights. These rights need to be protected by those who develop and administer sport policy and programs, as well as by all of the adults who participate in various roles within the framework of individual sporting associations. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC; of which Canada is a signee, 1993) sets 42 substantive, legally binding provisions, 37 of which have a direct relevance to child athletes (David, 2005). Coakley (1994) suggested that all children under the age of 18 be protected by a code of conduct that adheres to children’s rights regardless of the level of competition. Given, therefore, the guarantees set forth in the Convention, and the importance of ensuring positive outcomes of youth sport participation, to what extent does the general conduct of coaches violate these provisions and what is the nature of those violations? What might the outcomes of these violations be and how can they be addressed? It is now generally acknowledged that coaches have a powerful impact on the experiences of young people within sport (Arthur-Banning, Wells, Baker and Hegreness, 2009). In fact, a substantial amount of research indicates that the coach is the most influential individual in the youth sport equation in regards to outcomes for participants (Chow, Murray and Felz, 2009; Coaching Association of Canada, 1996; Guivernau and Duda, 2002). Additionally, recent research has indicated that behaviours modelled by coaches have more impact on the participants than what the coach says (Shields, Lavoi, Bredemeier and Power, 2007). This would support previous research that has found modelling by the coach, whether attitudinal, moral or behavioural is positively and strongly associated with the equivalent attitudes, morals, and behaviours of the players (Arthur-Banning et al, 2009; Chow, et al., 2009; Shields et al., 2007). With this knowledge, we have but one choice, to work together to ensure that coaches not only understand their position, their power, and their influence, but that they have tools, programmes, and policies that direct and support their positive intentions, and help them to make positive choices that protect the rights of children. Purpose The purpose, therefore, of this study was twofold. Firstly, to analyse descriptions of coaching behaviour that had been deemed as “unacceptable” (as perceived by the official), in an effort to ascertain the general nature and scope of poor coaching behaviour, and to determine which articles of the UNCRC and ‘key obligations’ (David, 2005) were most frequently violated. By understanding the inherent weaknesses of youth sport coaches, it is our belief, that we can better provide and develop the systems necessary to ensure the outcomes that make youth sport an environment of personal growth for all participants. The second aim of the study was to assess the utility of the data provided by the Justplay Behavior Management Program (JPBMP), an independent monitoring tool for youth team sport environments. Key Findings Of particular significance to our current study of coach conduct is the concept of psychological and emotional abuse, both direct (towards the athlete) and indirect (towards another individual with the athlete as an observer). Article 19 of the UNCRC recognises this type of violence and is the first major human rights treaty to do so; unfortunately they failed to define it. However, the Committee on the Rights of the Child clarified the meaning of ‘mental violence’ referring to acts such as deliberate humiliation, harassment, verbal abuse and the effects of isolation (Hodgkin and Newell, 2002). Sport governing bodies and organisations are therefore bound to prevent and protect young athletes from all forms of psychological violence (p.82). We would argue that this includes indirect violence as well. Upon close examination of the data, the authors discovered that a significant aspect of negative coach conduct is not often recognised, nor accounted for in respect to research, and youth sport experience outcomes. This behaviour or conduct can be described as background anger (BA). Omli and LaVoi (2009), note that BA is a concept that has a particularly poignant application to youth sport, since much of the conflict reported is often between adults. Background anger is defined as the presence of an angry verbal, nonverbal, or physical interaction between two or more people that does not directly involve the observer (Cummings, 1987). The 509 comments that were analysed (from ice hockey and soccer) indicated that children and youth are exposed to these types of scenarios on a consistent and regular basis, and that the behaviours described violate key obligations and articles of the UNCRC (David, 2005). Behaviours that occurred in the presence of children, but not directed at them, were classified, by the authors, as indirect violence – exchanges that took place between adults in the presence of the players. A staggering 82% of all the reported comments were of this type. It was also discovered that the key obligation and its associated article most often violated was, ‘respect the physical, sexual, and psychological integrity of the child’ Article 19 (David, 2005, p.226). The following are example comments of this violation: “the head coach was taunting fans and screaming obscenities loudly in the rink,” “ ____ coach, does not know the definition of body contact, and what is and isn’t allowed in novice/non-contact hockey. After we spoke and I told him we were calling a fair game he threatened to tell his players to go around hitting ____team.” Conclusion The second aim of the study was to assess the utility of the data provided by the Justplay Behavior Management Program (JPBMP), an independent monitoring tool for youth team sport environments. The data and information provided by the JPBMP are a fundamental key to on-going research, providing systems of accountability and program development for all stakeholders in youth sport. Without an independent monitoring tool such as Justplay, it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of policies and strategies implemented to improve the service and program quality, and assuring outcomes consistent with the UNCRC. It has been noted by a number of prominent researchers and governing bodies that there is a serious lack of data, research and monitoring of the youth sport environment (e.g., Australian Sport Commission, 1999; Brackenridge et al, 2005; Clairano et al, 2007; Chow et al., 2009;). It is time for youth sports to adopt systems of transparency and accountability. Anecdotal knowledge is no longer enough. If, as research suggests, the coach is the most influential individual in the youth sport environment, then coaching leadership, education, and support must become a priority, at all levels of sport. References Arthur-Banning, S., Wells, M., Baker, B. and Hegreness, R. (2009). Parents behaving badly? The relationship between the sportsmanship behaviours of adults and athletes in youth basketball games. Journal of Sport Behavior. Vol. 32, 1. Australian Sports Commission, Confederation of Australian Sport, School Sport Australia, Standing Committee on Sport and Recreation, Committee of Education Systems Chief Executive Officers. (1999). National Junior Sport Policy (1994) a review: Final report, National Junior Sport Policy Working Group. Brackenridge, C., Pawlaczek, Z., Bringer, J., Cockburn, C., Nutt, G., Pitchford, A. and Russell, K. (2005). Measuring the impact of child protection through activation states. Sport, Education and Society. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 239-256. Chow, G.M., Murray, K.E. and Feltz, D.L. (2009). Individual, team, and coach preditors of players' likelihood to aggress in youth soccer. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Vol. 31, 425-443. Clairano, S., Genelli, F., Molinengo, G., Musella, G., Rabagletti, E. and Roggero, A. (2007). Sport, stress, self-efficacy and aggression towards peers: Unraveling the role of the coach. Cognition, Brain and Behavior, XI (1), 175-194. Coaching Association of Canada. (1996). Straight talk. Coaching Association of Canada. Oakville, Ontario. Coakley, J. (1994). Sport in society: Issues and controversies. University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. Cummings, M.E. (1987). Coping with Background Anger in Early childhood. Child Development. Vol, 58, 976-984. David, Paulo. (2005). Human rights in youth sports: a critical review of children’s rights in competitive sports. New York: Routledge. Guivernau, M. and Duda, J. (2002). Moral atmosphere and athletic aggressive tendencies in young soccer players. Journal of Moral Education. Vol. 31, No. 1. Hodgkin, R. and Newell, P. (2002). ‘The evolving capacities of the child’, Children’s rights, turning principles into practice. Stockholm: Save the Children-Sweden, UNICEF. Omli, J. and LaVoi, N.M. (2009). Background anger: A perfect storm. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32 (2), 242-260. Shields, D., Lavoi, N., Bredemeier, B. and Power, F.C. (2007). Predictors of poor sportspersonship in youth sports: Personal attitudes and social influences. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Vol: 29, 747-762. United Nations (1993). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Contact Elaine Raakman University of Regina Canada and Justplay Sports Services Ltd. Regina, Canada Email: elaineraakman@wejustplay.com Kim D. Dorsch University of Regina Regina, Canada Email: Kim.Dorsch@uregina.ca Daniel Rhind Brunel University London, UK Email: Daniel.Rhind@brunel.ac.uk http://www.icsspe.org