From leadership research to district action: Community sport organizations, regional governance, and sport policy implementation in Ontario, Canada

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. Proposed district actions are separate from the original authors’ findings and recommendations. Independent peer review of this guide is not asserted.

Read source Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and transfer

Education-related source: verify which participants, institutions and outcomes were actually studied before district adoption. Source publication type: brief-report. License and identity checks do not establish study quality or causality.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the source license:

Abstract Within multi-level sport governance systems, community sport organizations (CSOs) can be understood as implementers of sport policy. In Canada, extensive research exists examining governance at the national level, and the managerial implications for clubs at the community level. However, there is a dearth of research on the role of governance/policy at the regional level. In this brief research report, we examine the role of CSOs as implementers of sport policy in Ontario, Canada. We used a case study methodology to answer two research questions: (1) How do actors from CSO's in Ontario understand their roles in developing sport participation opportunities? and, (2) How do CSOs’ institutional and community contexts shape organizational practices and the translation of ideas within sport development? We collected data through semi-structured interviews with 12 managers of CSOs affiliated with the same sport/provincial sport organization. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings indicate that CSOs have limited capacity for adaptation or change and that they experience powerful external pressures and competing demands. This research provides empirical insight into sport policy implementation processes in Ontario and highlights the importance of facility access as well as policy from other organizations/institutions (particularly municipalities and school boards) in shaping CSO practices. Keywords: sport policy, policy implementation, community embeddedness, regional governance, sport development

Study methods

The present research project was part of a larger, multi-study research relationship with one PSO in Ontario, Canada. For this research, we used an instrumental case study methodology (29). The case examined is the translation of ideas between one (single sport) PSO and its constituent CSOs. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with managers/board members (n = 12) from CSOs. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling approach. Invitations were initially sent to all (n = 144) CSOs affiliated with the PSO. Follow up emails then targeted CSOs from specific regions of the province to obtain a sample that reflected the geographical makeup of affiliated CSOs (i.e., we specifically sought participants from all regions of the province). Based on discussions with partners at the PSO, we intentionally sought the perspectives of clubs with different organizational characteristics (e.g., large/small, professionalized/volunteer run, and primarily competition/recreational or social purpose focused). Interviews were conducted virtually, lasting between 23 and 79 min, and focused on participants work developing sport participation opportunities, their relationship with the PSO, and their understanding of policy and its impact on their organization. Data were analyzed using a six-step thematic analysis process (30) resulting in the development of two themes: (1) limited capacity for adaptation and change, and (2) external pressures and competing demands.

Limitations

No passage was selected automatically. Inspect the complete source before adopting a practice.

A 90-day district inquiry

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Read the source methods, recruitment, comparator, outcomes and limitations. Record how the study setting differs from your district and which claim the design can support.
Days 16–30 · Design. Select one recurring district decision. Publish the decision owner, evidence requirements, consultation process and appeal route; test the process on a bounded low-risk decision. Agree participation, privacy protections, baseline and stopping rules before starting.
Days 31–60 · Observe. Collect the pre-agreed measures, keep a log of implementation changes and invite confidential voluntary feedback. Preserve existing support for staff and learners.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Track decision time, unresolved objections, documented reasons, appeals and access differences. Review whether the process changes who can participate and who carries the burden. Make a dated decision to stop, revise or extend the inquiry.

Board decision brief

Present the local problem, source setting, evidence limits, intervention, responsible owner, total cost, measured changes and uncertainty. Separate staff perceptions, implementation measures and student learning outcomes.

Attribution and reuse

Kyle A Rich; Dante Losardo. Community sport organizations, regional governance, and sport policy implementation in Ontario, Canada. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living (2025-06-10). https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1549966

Prepared 2026-11-07. Source authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract and source passages are attributed extracts; this editorial guide is offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license.