The Night-Shift Netball Club
A community netball association in a regional town has 420 registered players aged 12–17. Only 38% meet the national physical activity guideline of 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity daily. The committee has $18,000 from a local health grant and two competing proposals. Proposal A: subsidise fees by 50% for 60 players from low-income households ($15,000) plus a free shuttle bus ($3,000). Proposal B: fund a 10-week after-school skills and fitness program run by two accredited coaches ($14,000) plus social media promotion ($4,000). Baseline data show that the main barrier reported by players is transport (44%), followed by cost (27%) and confidence (19%). Attendance at training currently averages 61%, and dropout peaks at age 15–16.
1. Using the baseline data, evaluate which proposal is more likely to improve population-level physical activity participation, and justify your judgement.
Read the worked answer
Judgement: Proposal A is the stronger choice on the evidence given, but neither proposal alone addresses the confidence barrier.
Reasoning:
- The dominant reported barrier is transport (44%), and Proposal A directly funds a shuttle bus, so it targets the largest single constraint. Cost is the second barrier (27%), and the fee subsidy addresses it.
- Proposal B targets confidence (19%) and skills, but it adds a new session rather than removing a barrier to existing sessions. Players who cannot get to training on a Saturday are unlikely to attend a new after-school program unless it is at school or walkable.
- Equity: Proposal A reaches 60 identified low-income players, a defined subpopulation, which is consistent with a settings-based and equity-focused approach. Proposal B reaches whoever already attends and is confident enough to sign up, risking the 'inverse care law' where the already-active benefit most.
- Cost per participant: Proposal A is roughly $300 per subsidised player including transport; Proposal B's cost per attendee is unknown and depends on uptake, which is a weakness in the evidence.
- Limitation: The subsidy is one-off, so dropout at 15–16 may continue unless the underlying reason (likely school workload, part-time work, or changing identity) is addressed. The committee should pair Proposal A with a retention strategy such as a junior coaching pathway.
Conclusion: Fund Proposal A, retain the shuttle bus beyond the grant period, and use a small remaining allocation to trial a confidence-building session for the 19% group.
2. Explain how the association could use the Ottawa Charter action areas to strengthen whichever proposal is adopted.
Read the worked answer
The Ottawa Charter's five action areas can be applied concretely:
- Build healthy public policy: The committee could adopt a written equity policy that guarantees a fixed number of subsidised places each season and requires the shuttle route to be reviewed annually, making the benefit structural rather than a one-off grant.
- Create supportive environments: Scheduling training at a school or community hub on a bus route, and providing safe change facilities and lighting, reduces the physical and social barriers that the 44% transport figure reflects.
- Strengthen community action: Form a player and parent reference group, including 15–16-year-olds who are dropping out, to co-design the season calendar and social events. This builds ownership and addresses the confidence barrier through peer support.
- Develop personal skills: Embed short warm-up education and basic nutrition and recovery messaging into training, delivered by the accredited coaches, so players gain competence and confidence, not just fitness.
- Reorient health services: Partner with a local physiotherapist or youth health nurse to run a free screening and injury-prevention session, linking the club to primary care and normalising help-seeking.
Synthesis: The action areas work best combined. Policy secures funding, environment and community action reduce barriers, personal skills build confidence, and health service links add credibility. Evaluating against participation and retention data closes the loop.