Korfball Ecology: korfball’s development reconsidered
A paper for the BKA AGM 2007
Dominic McDonald, BKA Development Officer
1. Background
1.1 When I took on the role of BKA Development Officer in Summer 2006, I did
so on the understanding that I would undertake a thorough review of British
Korfball’s “Development” structure. This includes the work which goes on to
increase the number of players at each level within the sport, including youth and
adult players, coaches, referees, and administrators (collectively, these roles will
be referred to throughout this paper as “functions”).
1.2 I apologise in advance if this paper is sometimes wordy. I have tried to keep
the ideas as simple as I can, while not losing the clarity of the ideas I am trying to
express.
1.3 The review which I have undertaken has occurred in a number of ways.
Initially I undertook a semi-formal process of consultation with a number of
people closely involved with korfball development in the UK. Appendix 1 gives
the names of those consulted in this way.
1.4 I subsequently instituted a formal consultation, with a workshop bringing
together representatives from a number of different areas of interest within the
korfball community. The workshop looked specifically at korfball’s competitions
structure, being the place where all the functions within the sport coincide. Those
who attended this workshop are listed in Appendix 2. This workshop also took
representations from others who were unable to attend, but who wished their
views to be taken into account. Those who submitted views are also listed in
Appendix 2. The workshop gave rise to an ongoing process of consultation
involving those who participated.
1.5 At the time of writing, a follow-up workshop is being planned which will further
develop the proposals, and these will be presented to the AGM in a separate
paper which lays out some alternatives for the future direction of British korfball’s
competitions structure.
2. The current korfball landscape
2.1 Geographical diversity
Korfball in Britain is played by approximately 3000 people on a regular basis.
These people are not uniformly spread across the country: there are a number of
geographical areas where the sport is much more common. However, it is
important to note that even in these areas korfball is still played by a very small
proportion of the population: for instance, in the City of Oxford, where korfball is
relatively common, the participation rate is approximately 0.05% (i.e. 1 in 2000 of
the population are active korfballers). Cambridge, Norwich, and a few other
towns will have a rate which exceeds this, but most will have a rate which is
lower. Furthermore, all areas will have a rate which is lower if one takes into
account an entire county (or comparable area) rather than a specific town. Within
Oxfordshire, for instance, the rate drops to approximately 0.01% (i.e. 1 in
10,000).
2.2 Player diversity
There are significant differences between the distribution of the age of players
who take part in the sport in different areas. Within all areas there is a base of
adult players, but in some areas a significant proportion of those participating are
youth players (eg Kent, South London, Norfolk). In other areas a significant
proportion of participants are students from local universities (eg West Midlands,
South Yorkshire, Lothian).
2.3 The level of the players participating also varies significantly from area to
area: in some areas (eg London, Kent) there is a significantly larger proportion of
players whose play is at a high level technically and/or tactically; in other areas
there are few (if any) players at such a level.
3. Korfball ecology
3.1 Broadly speaking, these differences in the geographical distribution of the
numbers of players, and the types of players found in individual areas, can be
explained by looking at the historical development of the sport in Britain. For the
purposes of this analysis, I have chosen to focus on clubs, rather than players. It
is my contention that the vast majority of players experience the vast majority of
theor korfball within the context of their club: therefore, without understanding
how clubs have developed it is impossible to understand how players have
developed.
3.2 From an original base with a small number of clubs in the South Central
London area, the sport initially expanded into the adjacent areas of Kent and
Surrey. During this period, a number of youth korfball clubs were set up which
ran alongside the adult clubs (“Primary Colonisation”).
3.3 From there, the sport began to colonise other areas which were not adjacent
to existing korfball areas, as players who had been introduced to the sport in
London, Kent and Surrey moved around the country. The major element of this
“Secondary Colonisation” occurred in universities between the mid-1980s and
mid-1990s.
3.4 Those university clubs generated players who then proceeded to found clubs
in areas adjacent to the university once their period as a student came to an end
(“Tertiary Colonisation”).
3.5 These three forms of colonisation have been of different significance at
different times during korfball’s development. However, we are now in a phase
where these three types of colonisation are proceeding in parallel, and where
each is making a significant contribution to korfball’s growth. There has been a
continuing process of Primary and Secondary Colonisation: the former where
new adult and junior clubs have been set up in what are (by then) existing
korfball areas; the latter where university clubs have been set up in entirely new
areas through the actions of former students or former youth players. Tertiary
colonisation is continuing in areas where until recently the only korfball being
played was in the local university (Birmingham being the most recent example of
which I am aware).
4. The current “Development” landscape
4.1 The current structure which is used to manage the development of korfball in
Britain is one which has been in place since the early 1990s. It was originally
designed as a way of ensuring that clubs at the top level were actively
developing youth korfball, in order to ensure the supply of top level players in the
future (the assumption being that in order for a player to attain the top level in
their mid-20s, they must have started playing in their early teens).
4.2 The system is a metrics-based system, in that it awards “Development
Points” to a club which undertakes certain activities which are believed to
contribute to the development of youth players, such as participation in local
friendly matches, or attendance at the annual korfball summer camp.
4.3 In the late 1990s, the system was amended so that it now awards Points for
other forms of development (i.e. not only those focussed directly at juniors). A
club which does not achieve a certain number of Points in a given year has the
shortfall deducted from its total in the National League for that season, although
clubs that over-achieve in a given year may carry over some of their Points to the
following season.
4.4 Below National League, individual Area Associations are responsible for the
development structures which they follow. There is currently no central direction
or support from the EKA for Areas, other than that a club applying to join the
National League from one of the Area “Feeder leagues” must have its application
endorsed by its Area Association: it is implicit (although not explicit) that such an
endorsement should include some assessment of the club’s situation as regards
development. The EKA also supplies funds for clubs in their very early phase of
development. These funds are not necessarily delivered via the Areas, although
they may be.
4.5 The characteristics of the “Development Points” structure are that
1. It rewards “good” behaviour by clubs in the National League, by giving
them a greater opportunity to access a valued resource, namely, if they
participate in development activities then they will have a greater
probability of playing at a higher level than if they do not participate.
2. It only applies to the National League clubs (at the time of writing there are
15 of these); therefore,
a. it does not currently apply to any clubs outside the Kent, London,
Cambridgeshire, East Midlands, and Norfolk Area Associations (nor
is it likely to do so in the foreseeable future)
b. it only applies to a subset of clubs within those Area Associations.
3. It is bureaucratic, making it labour intensive on the part of the EKA, and
therefore its expansion (for instance to include all clubs in the EKA) is
unrealistic given current constraints.
5. Analysis
5.1 It is my belief that the current Development Points system has run its course.
The problem with metrics-based systems of this type is that they assume that
those setting the targets (i.e. me, in my role as BKA Development Officer) are as
knowledgeable about the factors which will promote the sport’s development in a
given region as those who are on the ground.
5.2 This is simply not true: it is clear from the consultation which I carried out in
late 2006 that the people on the ground in each region have a far better idea than
I do of what is required for them to develop further. What they are lacking,
however, is the resources to implement their ideas. These resources are of three
types: the finances to pay for development activity, the people to deliver the
activity, and the expertise to ensure the best deployment of the resources which
are available. This is what the National Association can and should provide.
5.3 This would be excusable if the current structure had produced a significant
growth in the sport. However, it has not. If we take the growth rates achieved in
the areas where the development points regime currently is in force (i.e., LDKA,
KKA, NKA, CKA, EMKA), and compare them to the areas where the regime is
not in force (i.e. OKA, SWKA, NWKA, S&CKA, YKA, WMKA, SKA, WKA), we find
that although we can identify differences in the age and level of the players who
are entering the sport across the two groups, we cannot find that there is a
significant difference in the success of those areas’ development policies. It is my
contention, therefore, that the Development Points system is, at best, having no
effect on the success of korfball development across the UK. What it is doing is
validating development policies which clubs would be implementing anyway.
5.4 However, there are two ways in which the current system actively
discourages effective development. Firstly, by monitoring development by “clubs”
it ignores the fact that effective development is by its nature labour-intensive, and
so requires human resources which individual clubs may find hard to provide.
5.5 Secondly, in areas where the sport is relatively common, such as in Kent or
South London (where inter-club collaboration on youth development is already a
reality) effective development requires a level of strategic co-ordination which
necessitates inter-club collaboration. The current Development Points system is
essentially competitive, and so works against co-operation between clubs in
close proximity.
5.5 Therefore, it is clear to me that by monitoring and rewarding development by
Clubs rather than by Areas, the current system has the unintended effect of
reducing the effectiveness of the work that goes on to develop the sport. The
impressive development work which is taking place across the country is
happening in spite of, rather than because of, the system that is supposed to be
supporting the people delivering it. Our recent development successes are a
testament to the enthusiasm and skill of those driving British korfball forward.
6. Proposal
6.1 I am therefore proposing that we radically restructure the way that we
manage and monitor the development of the sport in the UK. Rather than trying
to micro-manage each club’s development policies by setting centrallydetermined targets, we will enable Areas to set their own priorities within a
national framework.
6.2 This would work as follows:
 The National Association sets its long term development goals (looking 5
years into the future). These are reviewed annually at the AGM.
 Each Area works to a Development Plan, looking 18 months into the
future.
 Each year, an Area’s plan is submitted to the EKA, evaluated and
approved. In the plan the Area estimates the number of those filling the
different “functions”, and identifies shortfalls which may be acting to
restrict further development. It looks at barriers which may be restricting
recruitment into those functions, and then specifies the measures that the
Area thinks it can take to overcome those barriers, together with any other
steps which the Area feels will develop korfball in that region during that
period.
 The EKA Development officer sees all the plans from all the Areas in a
given year, enabling him/her to become a central repository for the
expertise which is currently out there in the korfball community, but which
is not easily shared. S/he is therefore able to make suggestions as to how
each Area’s plan might be improved, either to enable more efficient
implementation, or to fit better with the strategic direction to which the
AGM has committed the National Association.
 The Area’s plan rolls forward through time, changing at each iteration, but
always being a useful approximation of the things that an Area was trying
to do (even if they don’t always achieve their goals).
 Plans are submitted by a given date (eg 1 February to cover July – June,
i.e a plan would be looking 18 months ahead). The Development Officer
undertakes to review the plans within a certain period of time (eg by 1

March), and get them back to the Areas in time for the plans to be
amended if necessary in advance of a second deadline (eg by 1 April, by
which point the plan would be looking 15 months ahead). Failure to meet
either deadline would lead to an Area’s teams being excluded from EKA
and BKA Competition for the following season.
As currently, clubs wishing to access National resources such as funding
or competitions, would have to have the endorsement of their local Area.
6.3 Strengths of this proposal
 Under the current system, extension of the Development Points regime
across the whole of the UK would lead to an unacceptable strain on the
BKA. This proposal (broadly) maintains the current level of administrative
burden on the BKA, whilst enabling the Development regime to be
extended across the whole of the UK.
 By moving away from a metrics-based system it enables Areas (and their
constituent clubs) to take ownership of their own development, instead of
them jumping through a set of hoops whose size and position have been
determined by someone with little or no knowledge of the local context.
 By enabling Areas to connect more directly with their clubs as regards
development, it means that they will be encouraged to engage with the
issues that their clubs are facing and look for shared solutions, rather than
each club attempting to solve its own problems in isolation.
 By taking an annual “census” of the people in each area who are
participating in the sport in different capacities, it enables the National
Association to plan its provision much more effectively, creating a more
efficient use of funds.
6.4 Potential barriers
 This proposal relies upon an Area being capable of overseeing a coherent
development structure. If it fails to do so, then its clubs’ exclusion from all
National Level competition for a year. Currently, not all areas are at
sufficient strength to be able to sustain this shift of the administrative
burden away from the clubs and onto themselves. The “big stick” of
exclusion for all the clubs in an Area is designed to ensure that clubs
encourage their members to sit on Area committees, such that the Area is
able to develop and implement its development policies effectively and
efficiently.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: People consulted as part of the broad review of korfball development
in the UK (Jul 06 – Jan 07)
Andy Bissell (YKA)
Graham Box (ex-BKA Coaching Co-ordinator)
Gill Brunskill (OKA)
Corinne Buckland (BKA)
Phil Buttinger (NKA)
Caroline Cautley (Oxford City KC)
Liam Clarke (LDKA)
Damien Fraysse (OKA)
Lesley-Anne Goodisson (YKA)
Jackie Hoare (BKA)
David Hubbard (BKA)
Anna Jeanes (BKA)
Pete Lindsey (Croydon KC)
Paul Meaney (Oxford City KC)
Anne Merrill (OKA)
Katie Metters (OKA)
Rich Sederman (OKA)
Peter Sage (Oxford City KC)
Frank Sieber (KKA)
Cath Wilson (Oxford City KC)
Appendix 2: Attendance at the Competitions review meetings
(1) meeting on 4 February 2007, Oxford; (2) meeting on 28 April 2007, Oxford
Tom Brady (Bec KC, Facilitator: 1,2)
Dom McDonald (BKA/EKA Development Officer: 1,2)
Kevin Allen (EKA Refereeing Co-ordinator: 2)
Tamara Burnell (Bec KC: 1,2)
Andy Dowding (Nottingham City KC: 1)
Jif Earl (Kwiek KC: 1,2)
Debby Etheridge (NWKA: 1)
Michael Grayer (LDKA: 1)
Emma Hendry (LDKA: 1,2)
Reda Ibn Tahaikt (CKA: 1,2)
Jackie Hubbard (KKA: 1,2)
Katie Metters (OKA: 1)
Frank Sieber (KKA: 1,2)
Sam Stevenson (SKA: 1)
Michiel Ten Hove (Oxford City KC: 1)
Written submissions received from
Peter Allan (Nomads KC: 2)
Steve Barker (National u19 Team Coach: 2)
Liam Clarke (LDKA: 2)
Josh Cockburn (WKA: 2)
Dirk Sercu (National Senior Team Coach: 1,2)
Dave Thomas (WKA: 1)