The Pursuit of Social Justice Through Sport for Development Organizations in the United States

Abstract

While Sport for Development (SfD) scholars have deconstructed the interplay between global development discourse, policy, funding, practice, and local agency, SfD organizations in the Global North have yet to be deconstructed with the same intensity, rigor, and scope. In this paper, the complex, dynamic interplay among development discourse, policy, funding, practice, and local agency will be deconstructed as it relates to SfD provision in the United States. There will be a particular focus on SfD leadership structures that can unlock more sustainable, egalitarian development discourse and practices which promote and advance social justice.

Sport for Development (SfD) is defined as the intentional use of sport to achieve development and/or social change outcomes (Schulenkorf et al., 2016), with Coalter (2007) describing two models of SfD: sport plus, where sport is adapted and often supplemented with parallel programs to reach developmental outcomes; and plus sport, where sport is a ‘hook’ to attract people to education and training programs. Within the last 15 years, SfD scholars have deconstructed the interplay between development discourse, policy, funding, practice, and local agency, with a particular focus on how global and transnational practices shape Global North-South relations (e.g., Darnell, 2012; Hayhurst, 2009; Giulianotti, 2023; Rossi & Jeanes, 2018; Straume, 2019). While this has enhanced our understanding of global and transnational power relationships and inequities, SfD initiatives in the Global North have yet to be deconstructed with the same intensity, rigor, and scope (Banda & Gultresa, 2015; Millington et al., 2019). This is concerning, given the similarities between some communities in developed nations and communities in under-developed or low to middle income countries, with shared struggles as reflected through social and health indicators (e.g., life expectancy, poverty) (Rossi & Jeanes, 2016; Sen, 1999). Narratives of progress and renewal, along with hardship, oppression, and exploitation, unfold in the Global North as well as the Global South, with Global North initiatives often being configured around a rhetoric of development grounded in neoliberalism rather than neocolonialism (Diedrick & Le Dantec, 2017; Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Nols et al., 2017). In this paper, the complex, dynamic interplay between development discourse, policy, funding, practice, and local agency will be deconstructed as it relates to SfD provision in the United States (U.S.). There will be a particular focus on how to unlock more sustainable, egalitarian development discourse and practices which promote and advance social justice.

1. Neoliberalism, Meritocracy, Paternalism, and Systemic Inequity

Inequities and injustices abound in the U.S., from the shrinking middle class, declining social mobility, and high poverty rates (i.e., 11.1% in 2023; The White House, 2024) to ranking as one of the most inequitable countries in the world (i.e., 23 out of 30 developed nations in the ‘inclusive development index’, which assesses data income, health, poverty, and sustainability; World Economic Forum, 2018). These inequities and injustices extend to institutional, systemic, and structural racism, failing school systems, persistent gender gaps, binary gender divisions, ableism, and beyond. Despite neoliberal modes of governance and regeneration efforts promising broad-based prosperity for all Americans, the economic growth experienced since the end of the Cold War has reinforced, rather than transformed, these inequities and injustices (Harvey, 2005; Jonas & McCarthy, 2009; Qureshi, 2023; Siripurapu, 2022). The Global North is experiencing “levels of social and economic inequality not seen … since the early 20th century” (Gusterson, 2018, p. 210), with recent social and political movements in the U.S. rooted in this growing inequity, wage stagnation, and economic insecurity (Hallin, 2019; Scott, 2024). While the reasons for this are quite convoluted, the neoliberal paradigm has been critiqued as a foundation upon which these inequities and injustices are reinforced (Harvey, 2005; Krugman, 2007), with profound influence on SfD practice and policy (Darnell, 2012; Giulianotti, 2023; Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Hayhurst, 2009; Rossi & Jeanes, 2018). Instead of governmental control and oversight, the neoliberal paradigm emphasizes personal responsibility and entrepreneurship unlocking pure, market-based performance and achievement. This approach to governance aligns with the steadfast belief in meritocracy in the U.S., where individual talent and effort drive achievement leading to the American Dream, rather than factors like heredity, wealth, race, or gender (Adams, 1931; Young, 1958).

Neoliberal policies aim to restrict the role of the state, empowering private and volunteer sector organizations like SfD initiatives to take more responsibility for public and collective action (Harris & Adams, 2016; Hayhurst, 2009; Hartmann, 2016). In response, two different tracks have emerged for neoliberal youth sports in the U.S., with one targeting mainstream, middle-class youth and the other serving populations perceived to be more impoverished and disempowered (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011). Most SfD initiatives target the second track, with the neoliberal paradigm influencing their practices through an inordinate focus on individual development, such that participants carve their own paths and pursue their dreams (Camiré et al., 2023; Coalter, 2010; Jones et al., 2017; Massey et al., 2015). These initiatives tap into notions of meritocracy and the American Dream, as well as the romanticized ‘power’ of sport, with the belief that knowledge, skills, and determination developed through sport can overcome the vast systemic and structural inequities and injustices they are facing (e.g., generational poverty, failing school systems, community violence, and institutional, systemic, and structural racism; Coalter, 2010; Darnell, 2012; Whitley et al., 2023). Individual narratives of success are touted as evidence that SfD initiatives have cracked the code, although many of these individuals also happened to avoid significant childhood trauma and toxic stress (e.g., low ACEs score), experience tremendous luck (e.g., access to a specialized high school), and/or possess generational talent beyond that which SfD initiatives can control.

Not only can these personal narratives create a sense of false hope for SfD participants, but the focus on individual development “represents, facilitates, and allows some manner of development change…but does so while eschewing significant and direct challenges to the structures that sustain inequality for vast populations” (Darnell, 2012, p. 51). These narratives, grounded in neoliberal notions of individual development, empowerment, and social mobility, provide further ‘evidence’ that the existing economic, social, and political structures are equitable and just, while usurping questions about the antecedents and implications of inequities and injustices (Crabbe, 2009; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011). This is reinforced by the assumption that sport is founded upon:

… an ethos of universal egalitarianism [e.g., ‘fair play’] that can and often does serve to legitimate and rationalize the existing social order to both organizers and participants. In a seemingly meritorious, market-based system, after all, everyone has the same chance of success and social mobility so long as they have the right mindset and skills.

(Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011, p. 292)

While this may be comforting to those who benefit from existing structures, those who are marginalized or oppressed may also cling to these meritocratic notions of individual development, empowerment, and social mobility, as broader changes often feel insurmountable. This may explain why 53% of Americans still believed the American Dream was accessible in 2024 (Borelli, 2024), as the possibility that systems are rigged to reinforce hegemonic power and ideals can be incapacitating.

While some SfD initiatives adopt a singular focus on individual development, most connect micro-level (i.e., individual) efforts to macro-level (i.e., societal) change (Coalter, 2015; Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Massey et al., 2015). However, even when they unlock individual pathways to success, they frequently fall short of “addressing larger societal constraints and achieving meaningful structural change” (e.g., macro-level; Sherry et al., 2017, p. 304). This is not surprising, given the history of isolation, scarce funding and resources, and limited infrastructure and capacity (e.g., non-profit starvation cycle; Kidd, 2008; Lecy & Searing, 2015; Massey et al., 2015; Svensson et al., 2018; Welty Peachey et al., 2017) that hinder efforts to address the systemic and structural inequities and injustices holding back so many. Additionally, SfD initiatives often rely on depoliticized frameworks that overlook broader political, economic, cultural, and social contexts (Nols et al., 2017; Spaaij et al., 2018). In 2016, Schulenkorf and colleagues identified positive youth development and social capital as the most frequently used theoretical frameworks in SfD, and yet these approaches often take a depoliticized approach (Jones et al., 2020a; Nols et al., 2019).

Even for initiatives adopting more activist approaches, their efforts “can be tangled, complex, and reinforce the very power relations that these [initiatives] had meant to challenge” (Farrell & McDermott, 2005, p. 45). For example, Newman et al. (2024) noted that it can be humanizing for coaches to help athletes recognize and embrace their agency, yet this also risks “reinforcing existing systemic social inequities that permeate sport (e.g., racism, sexism) by suggesting that athletes simply cope with these marginalizing dynamics as individuals” (p. 19). Additionally, longitudinal effects are not fully captured in the existing SfD evidence base (Whitley et al., 2019a; Whitley et al., 2019b), with many challenges inherent to individual development within these systems and structures still hidden. For example, while many SfD initiatives in the U.S. measure college enrollment as a marker of success, how many also track college graduation, meaningful employment, and/or community engagement, which may indicate a former participant’s successful navigation through the systems and structures in place? In other words, even SfD initiatives’ ‘success stories’ may have very different realities further into the future, which may inhibit their ability to fully engage in systems change within their communities. Other challenges facing SfD initiatives include the correlation between individual markers of success (e.g., college enrollment, elite sport participation) and residential mobility, with individuals who have achieved ‘success’ sometimes relocating rather than using their knowledge, skills, and determination developed through sport to facilitate community change. This results in diminished human capital within communities struggling with systemic and structural inequities and injustices (Nadel & Sagawa, 2002).

Returning to the neoliberal paradigm, SfD initiatives have been critiqued as yet another form of social control and regulation for those residing in ‘at-risk’ communities and perceived to be otherwise problematic due to their underprivileged or deviant nature (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Spaaij, 2009). This begins with sport as a form of distraction from their everyday realities (e.g., poverty, inadequate housing, violence, misogyny), along with the inequities and injustices reinforced by the neoliberal paradigm (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2014). The individual pathway to success offered also distracts attention away from requisite structural and systemic initiatives which would affect broader change (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Nols et al., 2017). Essentially, the neoliberal approach to governance limits the role of the state and empowers private and volunteer sector organizations to take more responsibility for public and collective action (Harris & Adams, 2016; Hayhurst, 2009). This has resulted in a more disorganized and diffused approach. Within this mode of governance, many SfD initiatives are mobilized (and complicit) within the politics of assimilative nationalism and ‘responsibilization’ (Kelly, 2019). SfD participants are integrated into the existing socio-political status quo and expected to participate in competitive capital rather than “challenging the social and economic relations that abject individuals and groups of young people” (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011, p. 190; Camiré, 2022; Diedrick & Le Dantec, 2017; Ronkainen et al., 2021; Spaaij, 2009; Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). In essence, SfD participants are socialized to ideational and behavioral norms that increase the likelihood they will develop into mature, disciplined, productive citizens (what Camiré referred to as ‘normative life skills’), while reducing the potential for disruptive forms of deviance (referred to as ‘transformative life skills’ by Camiré) (Camiré, 2022; Coakley, 2011; Soss et al., 2011). This is not limited to the provision of “tools for self-improvement and self-management” (i.e., knowledge, skills, values) to unlock the American Dream, but the recalibration of participants’ identities (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011, p. 288). Failure is then (mis)interpreted as individual character flaws or inadequacies, rather than systemic and structural inequities and injustices (Darnell, 2010; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2014).

Along with the neoliberal paradigm guiding much of SfD practice in the U.S., many initiatives are also influenced by paternalistic values that restrict freedoms and responsibilities of those who may be perceived as deviant, marginalized, or ‘at-risk’. In essence, those who ‘know best’ endeavor (perhaps too idealistically) to act in their best interest (Darnell, 2010; Forde, 2015). While strides have been taken to increase participant and community engagement (e.g., bottom-up development approach) (e.g., Hoekman et al., 2018), the “process of localizing” is still critiqued (Rossi & Jeanes, 2018, p. 196). For example, SfD initiatives are often started with substantial input and engagement from external funders, policymakers, ‘change agents’, and others. These individuals tend to privilege the neoliberal paradigm which targets beneficiaries for development, reinforces the status quo, and prioritizes the needs, interests, experiences, and politics of these external agents (Camiré et al., 2022; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2014; Straume, 2019). There is also a tendency for external stakeholders to track the number of participants served, number of services provided, and/or short-term outcomes related to positive youth development, rather than systemic and structural change over a longer period of time (Burnett, 2015; Coakley, 2011).

Non-local practitioners and volunteers may be positioned (or even (sub)consciously position themselves) as ‘saviors’ of those unable to help themselves, similar to Thorpe and Chawansky’s (2016) critique of the ‘Girl Effect’, among others (e.g., Darnell, 2007; Forde, 2015). This is not confined to the Global South, as U.S. communities struggling with systemic and structural inequities and injustices have also experienced an infusion of external stewardship, charity, and/or aid following a steady stream of federal and public disinvestment (Kelly, 2019; Pitter & Andrews, 1997). This process has unearthed intricate ties between neoliberalism, paternalism, race, and class (Heron, 2007; Forde, 2015). In 2012, Cole (2012) provided an exacerbating series of tweets critiquing this trend:

The fastest growth industry in the US is the White Savior Industrial Complex; The white savior supports brutal policies in the morning, founds charities in the after-noon, and receives awards in the evening … The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice. It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.

In essence, SfD initiatives may provide a space for those with privilege to adopt a dominant, paternalistic approach as they seek to help others less privileged. This ultimately reinforces hegemonic power relations and social hierarchies and reproduces the construction and maintenance of racial and class dominance (Darnell, 2007; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011; Forde, 2015; Jeanes et al., 2013). This unfolds through the actions of SfD initiatives in the communities being served, as well as internal organizational structures and processes. For example, despite deliberate efforts to engage local community members as volunteers, mentors, coaches, and other personnel within SfD initiatives and reengage former participants in various capacities (Hoekman et al., 2018), many SfD staff members tend to enjoy privileged backgrounds, with expertise and labor brought into ‘communities in need’ (Darnell, 2014; Darnell & Huish, 2015; Whitley et al., 2023). This includes SfD organizational leaders in the U.S., with only 29% of SfD initiatives reporting that at least 40% of their senior leadership grew up in the community the initiative serves (Laureus USA, 2019). Thus, many SfD initiatives still operate within traditional hierarchies and binaries (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011), with leaders taking certain rights and entitlements for granted that may be inaccessible to their SfD colleagues and the participants being served (Rossi & Jeanes, 2018). This begins with economic benefits (e.g., full-time salary, health insurance, paid vacation), but may extend to the (unintentional) use of participants and the community as an educational tool and stepping stone for their own personal, social, and professional growth and development (Forde, 2015). More critically (or cynically), this leadership structure enables those with certain privileges to profit from SfD initiatives which claim to address systemic and structural inequities and injustices they may not have experienced themselves (e.g., poverty, inadequate housing, racism, violence, misogyny; Forde, 2015), and yet rely upon neoliberal notions of individual development, empowerment, and social mobility to inform the direction and activities within the SfD initiative. Thus, meaningful systemic and structural changes are unlikely to transpire, with the cycle of leadership within SfD generally being inaccessible to those without certain privileges (e.g., education, race, class).

In the section below, I outline an alternate vision of SfD leadership throughout the U.S. which transcends the neoliberal paradigm, meritocratic ideals, and paternalistic values frequently embedded in these efforts. While I recognize the challenges inherent to this transformational change, I believe those with privileges, histories, and realities that diverge from the participants and communities being served (myself included) must release any hold on SfD leadership in these communities. We cannot effectively recognize, challenge, or transform existing systems and structures while maintaining hegemonic power relations and social hierarchies founded upon constructs of racial and class dominance.

2. Reconceptualizing Development

One’s interpretation of development can vary based on the geographical, cultural, social, political, and historical landscape, along with one’s position, philosophies, and values within that landscape, from a philosophical perspective (e.g., progress of humankind) to a practical process (e.g., urban planning), from an individual level to a systems level, and from neoliberal rule of governance to an emancipatory path for social change. This “multiplicity and ambiguity around conceptions of development” is a pressing challenge for the SfD sector (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011, p. 286). While this has been deconstructed at the global and transnational level over the last 15 years (e.g., Darnell, 2012; Hayhurst, 2009; Giulianotti, 2023; Nols et al., 2017; Rossi & Jeanes, 2018; Straume, 2019), there is a need for careful examination of development discourse as it relates to SfD provision in the U.S., with a particular focus on its complex, dynamic interplay with policy, funding, practice, and local agency. This includes the ways in which local stakeholders currently “receive, translate, interpret, resist, manipulate, or embody development discourse” (Lie, 2011, p. 65), and how this could transform into more sustainable, egalitarian development discourse and practices which promote and advance social justice.

Within the U.S., SfD initiatives are largely founded upon the dominant, neoliberal vision of development, where sport helps to maintain and reproduce established economic, social, and political structures (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Kelly, 2019). In this vision, assimilative nationalism is intertwined with the neoliberal philosophies and paternalistic values discussed earlier (Camiré et al., 2023; Kelly, 2019; Rossi & Jeanes, 2016), with development construed as a homogenized, individualized pathway to success. This vision of development has been critiqued as controlling, oppressive, disciplining, and falsely generous, with SfD participants learning how to operate within inequitable and unjust systems and structures (Black, 2010; Kochanek & Erickson, 2020b; Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). This dominant, reproductive approach does not embrace any systems (i.e., macro) level development discourse which may seek to transform conditions of inequity and produce sustainable economic, social, political, and material change (Crabbe, 2009; Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011). Seccombe (2002) described this as “beating the odds” rather than “changing the odds”. A more radical, destabilizing vision of development centers on “processes of empowerment, emancipation, and liberation involving the full and active participation of those previously marginalized”, with SfD initiatives facilitating systemic and structural transformation and change (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011, p. 294).

An important differentiator is the conceptualization and pursuit of empowerment, emancipation, and liberation. Presently, SfD initiatives founded upon the neoliberal paradigm embrace meritocratic notions of individual development, empowerment, and social mobility. These initiatives typically define empowerment, emancipation, and liberation as individual pursuits rather than systems level change, with SfD leaders adopting a paternalist approach in their oversight of participants’ individual development, liberation, and transformation. Additionally, while there has been a concerted effort to increase engagement with local stakeholders and create pathways within SfD initiatives for leadership, these are often limited to direct-service (i.e., frontline) and middle management positions, rather than true ownership of the process. This leadership structure tends to reinforce hegemonic power relations and social hierarchies, while also reproducing the construction and maintenance of racial and class dominance (Darnell, 2007; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011; Forde, 2015; Jeanes et al., 2013; Kochanek & Erickson, 2020a). This highlights Giulianotti’s (2011) call for a critical model of SfD in which initiatives are self-governed and utilize self-empowering strategies (discussed below), rather than relying upon others to both govern and empower.

In the next section, I argue for a reconceptualization of development grounded in a discourse of human capabilities, freedoms, and social justice, with guidance from Freire (pedagogue), Sen (economist), and Nussbaum (philosopher). These thought leaders argue that poverty, inequity, exploitation, and ignominy are not conditions from which people must be saved; instead, human beings are “responsible agents who can alter their destiny” (Flores-Crespo, 2007, p. 55). Freire, Sen, and Nussbaum believe in the agency of individuals to transform their own realities, as do I. While Rossi, Jeanes, Spaaij, and colleagues have adroitly explored this discourse as it relates to the pedagogies underpinning SfD initiatives and Camiré, Newman, and colleagues have examined this discourse as it relates to critical positive youth development (e.g., development of critical consciousness, social justice life skills, athlete activism), I will examine this discourse as it relates to SfD leadership structures. It is important to note that SfD differs from critical pedagogy and critical positive youth development in that the development of the individual—through reflection and action—is “just one piece of the puzzle, a fragment of the broader tapestry of the transdisciplinary field of SfD.” (Whitley, 2024, p. 12). The SfD field embraces the critical exploration of (and emphasis on) social arrangements (relational), institutional structures (organizational), geographic, economic, political, and governmental realities (community and policy), and social and cultural norms (societal), in addition to the individual (Whitley et al., 2022).

3. Discourse of Human Capabilities, Freedoms, and Social Justice

In 2018, Rossi and Jeanes outlined a framework which could facilitate a transformation in SfD from an “endeavor heavily supported, influenced, and dependent on high-income countries to a sustainable entity, embedded and owned by the communities it seeks to serve” (Rossi & Jeanes, 2018, p. 192). I would like to extend this framework to SfD provision in the Global North, particularly within the U.S., given previously stated concerns with the influence of the neoliberal paradigm, the meritocratic ideal, and paternalistic values on SfD initiatives. We must embrace Sen’s (1999, 2010) argument that ‘development’ should focus on supporting the freedoms people have and eliminating the ‘unfreedoms’ (i.e., injustice) restraining their lives, with human agency at the heart of development. From Freire’s perspective (1970/2008), freedom should not be confined to a neoliberal paradigm (i.e., market-based freedom) or a right to question (or even reject) the existing economic, social, and political structures, as this dominant approach to development is inauthentic and dehumanizing. Instead, freedom is the “indispensable condition for the quest for human completion” (Freire, 1970/2008, p. 47). Through this social justice lens, SfD initiatives must raise individuals’ awareness of existing systems and structures which are inequitable and unjust (i.e., conscientization), which leads to authentic empowerment, emancipation, and liberation through which individuals can actively engage in destabilization and transformational change (Camiré et al., 2022; Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Jeanes & Spaaij, 2016; Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). Ultimately, development through SfD should be determined by its emancipatory and liberatory capacity (Freire, 1970/2008; Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011).

By developing (rather than restricting) the freedoms of individuals, their sense of agency can emerge through meaningful and self-determined participation, leadership, and achievement within and beyond SfD. To achieve this, SfD initiatives must denounce the paternalistic values that restrict freedoms and responsibilities of individuals perceived as deviant, marginalized, and/or ‘at-risk’ (Rossi & Jeanes, 2018). This means that SfD initiatives should not approach development as a process by which knowledgeable coaches, mentors, teachers, social workers, and others deposit knowledge and skills into participants such that they can pursue individual pathways to success (i.e., ‘banking concept’), as this assimilates participants into the logic of existing systems and structures (Jeanes & Spaaij, 2016; Mwaanga & Prince, 2016; Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). Instead, SfD actors must embrace development as a form of collective resistance in which they actively engage with participants in shared processes of conscientization, through which they share vulnerabilities and take risks (hooks, 1994; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2012). They may serve as problem-posers and dialogue-leaders within these processes, which should challenge the status quo (i.e., ‘denunciation’) and articulate alternative pathways for emancipation and liberation (i.e., ‘annunciation’; Freire, 1970/2008; Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Nols et al., 2019; Shor, 1993; Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). This is far from a simple process, with research on the experiences of coaches in promoting critical consciousness and embracing their critical praxis (i.e., awareness and action) related to social justice showing just how challenging—yet important—this can be (Camiré, 2022; Kochanek & Erickson, 2019, 2020a, 2020b; Newman et al., 2024; Nols et al., 2019). Yet there need to be opportunities for participants to engage in critical reflection and discussion in partnership with adults, and then take leading roles in the activation of these alternative pathways for emancipation and liberation.

SfD initiatives also need to examine their leadership structures, such that they can bring about the change they wish to see in their own communities. This draws on the ‘capabilities’ approach (i.e., what people can do, what people can be), which is positioned as a precursor to freedom and social justice (Nussbaum, 2011; Sen, 1999). This localized approach to development is not judged by external criteria (e.g., economic metrics, externally defined performance indicators), but rather by the values and objectives defined by these local agents of change, with a particular focus on quality of life (e.g., well-being) through social justice efforts (Rossi & Jeanes, 2018). By drawing upon local capabilities while also supporting self-empowerment and self-determination, the freedoms being developed (as well as the unfreedoms being eliminated) are more likely to be relevant, meaningful, and sustainable (Rossi & Jeanes, 2018). One way to do this is ensuring local agents of change are driving the decisions being made for SfD initiatives and for themselves, from the goals that are set to the methods that are implemented to the skills they want to acquire. Additionally, when SfD initiatives strive to facilitate denunciation and annunciation, local leadership is less likely to face suspicion and resistance from individuals and communities who have been marginalized and oppressed by external agents (e.g., government, funders; Schulenkorf, 2012). This requires a transformation in SfD, unlocking access to the leadership structures within existing SfD initiatives as well as support for local stakeholders to develop their own SfD initiatives, such that the norm becomes self-governance and self-empowerment in SfD provision throughout the U.S. (Giulianotti, 2011). Through this approach, individuals who have experienced the systemic and structural inequities and injustices within their communities can engage in the collective struggle over meaning, representation, and identity as they seek a path through which SfD can contribute to the “conscientization, the ‘authentic liberation’, and the humanization of marginalized youth” (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011, p. 294).

Not only does this perception of development move away from the common practice of external stewardship (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2014; Kelly, 2019; Pitter & Andrews, 1997), but it deconstructs the neoliberal philosophy and meritocratic ideal narrowly focused on individual development. In essence, individual agency is not just self-motivated and accessible through individual pathways, but multifaceted and symbiotic, with the development of the self tied to the role of the self in developing communities (Sen, 1999, 2010). Thus, community-wide efforts must create freedoms that unlock opportunities and dismantle unfreedoms that are restrictive. While SfD is often constructed as universal or apolitical, this process is politically charged, with a focus on destabilizing the systemic and structural inequities and injustices so frequently overlooked or minimized (Crabbe, 2009; Darnell, 2012; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011; Hayhurst, 2016; Spaaij et al., 2018). In essence, it is not simply restoring local control of SfD initiatives, but recognizing, challenging, and actively transforming systems and structures of inequity, oppression, and exploitation (i.e., social justice). Additionally, individuals should “participate critically in the transformation of not only their own experiences in society, but also of the world itself through a collective resistance against the hegemonic structures and relations of inequality that get reproduced through sport” (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011, p. 293). Ultimately, individual agency and self-determination are closely aligned with transformational, sustainable community change, which can unlock the American promise of “liberty and justice for all” (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, n.d.).

4. From Discourse to Practice

We must unlock access to the leadership structures within existing SfD initiatives. Internally, there is a need for a strategic approach to leadership development, such that local staff members and former participants have routes through which to pursue senior leadership positions (Hoekman et al., 2018). This includes the development of skills, knowledge, and expertise that will enable them to transform SfD initiatives from within, although Hoekman and colleagues identified the need for further investigation into organizational practices which may engage and nurture these local change agents. Externally, there is a need for human resource personnel to value leadership candidates’ local knowledge, experience, and networks during the hiring process, given the value these features bring to senior leadership roles. However, even with strategic, localized upskilling and hiring practices, these local leaders are still frequently confined by internal organizational structures and processes and external power relationships and inequities, along with the neoliberal paradigm, meritocratic ideal, and paternalistic values often embedded in SfD initiatives. Much more extensive efforts are required by these leaders, and others, to recognize, challenge, and transform these existing systems and structures, which should not be overlooked. It is also critical for SfD scholars to study these efforts, producing research that can point to evidence-based practices that are effective and feasible.

A more transformative approach could be pathways for local stakeholders to develop their own SfD initiatives. This could facilitate true ownership of the process from the outset rather than requiring the oft-challenging transition to self-governance and self-empowerment through the internal and external pathways identified above (Giulianotti, 2011). While there are some SfD initiatives founded by local stakeholders, an ongoing debate within SfD is the degree of input and engagement from funders, policymakers, ‘change agents’, and others (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2012; Lindsey & Grattan, 2012; Rossi & Jeanes, 2018). This begins during the start-up phase, as external agents may unduly influence foundational decisions that privilege the neoliberal paradigm, ultimately targeting ‘beneficiaries’, reinforcing the status quo, and prioritizing the needs, interests, experiences, and politics of these external agents (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2014; Straume, 2019). Additionally, the success of these initiatives may be defined by external agents and measured through external criteria, rather than by metrics set by local leaders that are considered meaningful in the community (Rossi & Jeanes, 2018). Thus, even though these SfD initiatives are founded by local change agents, these individuals rarely have true ownership of the process. There have been several ideas about how this may transpire through place-based, bottom-up approaches, such as accelerators and incubators (Svensson & Cohen, 2020; Whitley & Welty Peachey, 2022), social entrepreneurship (Cohen & Welty Peachey, 2015; McSweeney, 2020), shared leadership (Jones et al., 2020b), and bridge-building (Svensson & Loat, 2018), among others. Ultimately, we should be prioritizing sustainable, egalitarian development practices which promote and advance social justice, with local change agents leading these efforts and SfD scholars studying these efforts.