From Conflict to Connection: Examining the Use of Sport as a Mechanism for Cross-Community Engagement and Youth Crime Prevention in Northern Ireland

Introduction

Sport-based interventions have increasingly been employed within national and international youth justice strategies as mechanisms for prevention, diversion and desistance (Richardson et al., 2017). Grounded in a growing body of evidence linking physical activity to improved mental health and well-being, strengthened social connections and the cultivation of pro-social behaviours (Morgan et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2022; World Health Organization, 2022), sport is frequently positioned as a vehicle for transformative change among young people at risk of criminality and radicalisation (Richardson et al., 2017). In relation to crime-related outcomes, such interventions are associated with increased self-esteem, reduced aggression and the development of a sense of purpose and belonging within the community (Jugl et al., 2023). Programmes that combine sport with education, mentoring or accreditation pathways are often regarded as holistic responses that not only divert young people from offending but also equip them with the skills and confidence to pursue employment or further training (Morgan et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2022). The field remains under-theorised, and there is a notable absence of robust longitudinal evidence to support claims of long-term impact (Murray et al., 2024). This has led to calls for deeper critical engagement with the mechanisms through which sport may contribute to crime prevention and broader processes of social integration. However, the belief that sport can play a transformative role in the lives of young people, particularly those in marginalised or conflict-affected contexts, remains a widely accepted premise in both policy and practice.

The present article explores these dynamics through the lens of a case study situated in Northern Ireland (NI). The 1998 Good Friday Agreement initiated the formal peace process in NI, which has led to many describing the region as a ‘post-conflict’ ¹ society. However, the legacies of more than 30 years of violent conflict continue to shape the lives of many young people, particularly those living in working-class areas of Belfast, Derry/Londonderry and smaller towns. In some communities, paramilitary influence and sectarian divisions remain prominent and, for some young people, constitute a significant part of their everyday experience (Harland and McCready, 2014; Walsh and Cunningham, 2023; Walsh and Schubotz, 2020). Youth justice responses in NI must contend not only with conventional criminogenic risk factors but also with complex socio-political contexts in which violence, intimidation and criminality remain embedded.

Against this backdrop, the NI Executive, alongside the Irish and UK governments, launched the Fresh Start Agreement in 2015, aiming to address systemic social and economic challenges, including the ongoing influence of paramilitary activity. Under this framework, Action A3 specifically committed the Executive to working with civil society actors to ‘take a stand against criminality in NI and promote responsible cooperation with the authorities as part of a culture of lawfulness’ (NI Office, 2015). One intervention designed in response to this directive is Fresh Start Through Sport (FSTS), which seeks to engage young people at risk of involvement in paramilitary and/or criminal activity through the ‘universal appeal of sport’ (Department for Communities, 2020). In October 2020, four of the largest sporting organisations in NI joined forces to design and implement FSTS. These included the Irish Football Association (IFA), Gaelic Athletic Association, Ulster Rugby and NI’s professional Ice Hockey club, the Belfast Giants. Funded by NI Executive’s Programme on Paramilitarism and Organised Crime, delivered by the NI Department for Communities, and involving the Police Service of NI, the project aims to engage young people aged 16 to 24 from areas experiencing multiple deprivation who may be ‘at risk of becoming involved in paramilitarism and/or organised crime’ (Department for Communities, 2020).

The premise and strategic hook of the FSTS interventions to date is that sports have ‘universal appeal’ and can serve as a vehicle to motivate young people to develop their agency, self-confidence and self-efficacy through opportunities for physical activity, sports-based learning and person-centred support (Nichols, 2007). The sporting partners collaborate to provide sport-based modules that cover a range of subjects, including racism, disability and the mental health benefits of sports. These are designed to offer guidance and support to participants, with the intent of helping them identify and make positive life choices. Ultimately, the objective is to create pathways for participants to transition away from paramilitarism and towards community engagement, coaching or volunteering within or alongside their preferred sports and activities.

The aim of this article is to examine some of the key mechanisms within FSTS that may help to alleviate the propensity for young people to become involved in paramilitary and/or criminal activity. The article explores how sport (and FSTS in particular) may be mobilised for ‘good’ within diversion and prevention strategies, highlighting the crucial role of those involved in the operationalisation of such interventions in harnessing the ‘power of sport’ for social integration. The article explores the intervention’s capacity to promote pro-social behaviour, disrupt potential pathways into criminality and foster critical dialogue around identity and community relations. Consistent with the Fresh Start Agreement’s Action A3 to promote a culture of lawfulness, FSTS is best understood as a secondary prevention intervention that targets young people in multiply deprived interface areas who are at risk of paramilitary and/or organised-crime involvement. Our analysis therefore focuses on proximal mechanisms plausibly linked to crime prevention rather than on distal offending outcomes.

Drawing on interviews and focus groups with young participants, as well as interviews with programme facilitators and organisers, the article contributes to growing conversations within youth justice scholarship on the role of sport in post-conflict and marginalised settings. In doing so, it evaluates whether, and how, sport can form a meaningful part of wider efforts to reduce youth offending and paramilitary activity, and to build inclusive, lawful communities. The article concludes by suggesting that sports-based interventions for young people in communities (sectarian and otherwise) may offer significant social and psychological benefits, particularly when embedded within broader programmes of support.

Youth, Sport and Criminal Justice

In the United Kingdom at least, sport has long been used as a tool for the ‘crisis management’ of a range of social problems (Parker et al., 2019) and as a vehicle through which governments have sought to service a variety of wider political concerns. Meanwhile, academic debate has tended to criticise the utilisation of sport as a form of social intervention, highlighting it as a mode of benign policing (Norman and Smith, 2023), or as a means to categorise citizens on the basis of their ability to contribute to society economically, politically and morally (Morgan and Parker, 2022; Paton et al., 2012). As a consequence, sports-related policy has often been seen as carrying a hidden agenda; the social control of the lower classes (Ekholm and Dahlstedt, 2023). Consequently (and despite much exposure amid related policy rhetoric), the empirical and theoretical basis for sport’s potential to address social ills is somewhat unproven, with critical commentators suggesting that presumption and implication, rather than evidence, has informed this position (Coalter, 2015).

In terms of its potential to act as a mechanism to engage ‘vulnerable’, ‘marginalised’ and ‘disadvantaged’ groups and/or to provide some kind of social palliative, sport has remained a viable investment. For this reason, it is not unusual for sport development projects to be aimed at primary, secondary or tertiary prevention. While space does not permit a detailed examination of these approaches, primary prevention is aimed at the general population, where sports are often used to promote positive development in young people (Lösel, 2012); secondary prevention is directed towards individuals at risk of exploitation and/or criminality; and tertiary prevention targets those people who have already committed crimes (Public Safety Canada 2017). In the context of tertiary prevention, sports programmes are implemented in prisons as well as in the community (Murray et al., 2024; Parker et al., 2014).

According to Nichols (2007), sport has the potential to reduce youth crime in three main ways: (1) as a distraction or as a surveillance mechanism, (2) as cognitive behavioural therapy and (3) as a ‘hook’ or a relationship strategy. What Nichols advocates is a rooting of sports projects within community sport development principles so as to ensure that the vehicle of sport is sufficiently and appropriately mobilised to achieve the wider social objectives of the community and partners concerned, as opposed to simply being promoted as an intervention tool in and of itself. Available evidence strongly suggests that sport alone is not sufficient to address youth crime (Coalter, 2015), but that it can work effectively if intervention occurs before delinquent behaviour sets in (Morgan and Parker, 2023; Parker et al., 2014), and/or when it is provided alongside a range of other support structures to minimise socialisation into criminal/anti-social behaviours (Muncie, 2009). Collectively, such research findings highlight the extent to which both the personal and social aspects of sport can positively impact marginalised young people by promoting human, social and psychological capital (Morgan, 2018). In this sense, sport can serve as a powerful tool via which to address issues concerning personal and social education, recognition and acceptance (Morgan and Parker, 2017).

Another area where sport has been utilised extensively to combat youth crime is as an enabler of citizenship development (Garratt and Piper, 2014; Parker et al., 2019; Theeboom et al., 2010). Typically, when used in this way, sport becomes the basis for teaching personal responsibility (Westheimer and Kahne, 2004), whereby qualities such as honesty and law-observance which are developed through sport are transferred to wider contexts (Parker et al., 2019). Consequently, the onus is on social control and the reduction of citizenship to a passive form, presenting sport a particularly cost-effective and hence scalable tool to address unrest within locales perceived to be problematic (Paton et al., 2012), or as a rehabilitative mechanism for those in custody (Murray et al., 2024; Parker et al., 2014). However, such interventions have been criticised for reproducing neoliberal ideologies that frame social problems as individual moral deficits, rather than addressing the structural inequalities that contribute to youth marginalisation and subsequent criminality (Parker et al., 2019). Furthermore, Coalter (2015) argues that the instrumental use of sport relies on untested assumptions about its inherent value, with little by way of empirical evidence to support trenchant claims of sustained behavioural or civic transformation.

In contrast, some authors (e.g. Lyras and Welty Peachey, 2011; Parker et al., 2019) have argued that initiatives which align more with social welfare objectives (rather than social control), and focus on an investment into the personal development of participants of sport-based interventions, may be more beneficial for citizenship development, concerned as they are with the enhancement of more active forms of citizenship. More specifically, sport-based interventions that emphasise a social welfare approach may enable participants to develop a more deeply involved sense of connection with their community, and an analytical engagement with society which questions and challenges established structures and systems which, historically, have supported social injustice (Parker et al., 2019; Westheimer and Kahne, 2004) or social division (Spaaij and Schulenkorf, 2014).

Such findings enable perspectives which view engagement with sport-based interventions as something which has the capacity to develop skills, construct interpersonal relationships, facilitate a range of psychological qualities (such as confidence and resilience) and nurture a sense of citizenship among participants (Parker et al., 2019; Theeboom et al., 2010).

Sport in Divided Societies: The NI Context

Much of the literature focusing on sport in divided societies examines sport-based initiatives through the lens of the ‘sport for development and peace’ (SDP) phenomenon. SDP refers to the mobilisation of organisations to utilise sport, physical activity and play to achieve specific global development and peace objectives, including promoting health, education, gender equality, and the empowerment of women and girls. The concept received international recognition and affirmation when the United Nations designated April 6th as the International Day of Sport for Development and Peace (Svensson and Woods, 2017).

Academic research in this area has examined various aspects of SDP, such as young women’s education and empowerment through sport (Kay, 2009); the effectiveness of sport in fostering social capital in divided communities (Skinner et al., 2008); the effectiveness of community leadership models (Welty Peachey and Burton, 2017); the use of sport in supporting trauma-relief efforts as a post-disaster intervention (Gschwend and Selvaranju, 2007); and the use of sport in addressing Global North–South power relations (Giulianotti et al., 2016). Of most relevance to the current article, SDP initiatives have been used to bridge the gap between communities that are divided across social, political and cultural lines (Schulenkorf, 2010). Research suggests that when programmes are delivered in a group format to young people, sport has the ability to build connections between people of contrasting identity backgrounds and contribute to peace (Dorokhina et al., 2011; Rodríguez et al., 2024). The academic criticisms outlined above in relation to the use of sport to combat criminality, including the tendency to oversimplify complex social issues by assuming that sport inherently produces positive outcomes, the lack of robust evidence supporting its transformative potential and the risk of perpetuating neoliberal ideologies by prioritising individual responsibility over structural change, are equally applicable to the use of sport within development and peace initiatives (see Coalter, 2015; Parker et al., 2019). Others, particularly those writing in the context of the Global South, argue that the dominant SDP paradigm neglects cultural context, resulting in interventions that with limited resonance in local communities. Consequently, initiatives lacking contextual authenticity can fall short of delivering meaningful outcomes (Mwaanga and Adeosun, 2020). In a similar vein, it has also been argued that SBIs are designed and implemented without meaningful input from the communities they aim to serve; a top-down approach that may inadvertently marginalise the populations that SDP programmes are intended to empower (Collison, 2016). These critiques highlight the importance of culturally sensitive, community-driven approaches in the design and implementation of SDP initiatives in order to ensure that they are responsive to the unique needs and contexts of target populations. Mitchell et al. (2021) argue that considering the wider social and material context in which SDP initiatives operate is crucial to understanding their effectiveness. This article focuses particularly on the use of SDP in relation to conflict resolution, peaceful co-existence and reconciliation in divided societies (Sugden and Wallis, 2007).

The Good Friday (Peace) Agreement (GFA), signed in 1998, marked the end of several decades of violent ethno-nationalist civil conflict in NI, commonly referred to as the ‘Troubles’. This period of conflict resulted in approximately 3700 deaths and 40,000 physical injuries (McAlinden and Dwyer, 2015). Since the signing of the GFA, NI has undergone a sustained period of transition, which has seen the reformation of the police force, the establishment of paramilitary ceasefires and increased levels of inter-community cohesion (Walsh and Schubotz, 2020). However, moving beyond the longest-running violent conflict in contemporary European history has been a complex and challenging process, characterised by significant political instability (Lynch and Joyce, 2018). A notable period of political turbulence in 2015 created a risk of the collapse of the NI Executive and Assembly, and a potential return to Direct Rule. ² Despite these challenges, cross-party negotiations eventually overcame the impasse, leading to the commitment of political parties to the ‘Fresh Start’ agreement. This agreement aimed to address long-standing socioeconomic concerns and, crucially, the ongoing impact of paramilitary activity and associated criminality, which are particularly relevant to the focus of this article.

Despite the initiatives introduced under the Fresh Start umbrella, NI remains a divided society, riven along political, cultural and social lines (Harland and Scott-McKinley, 2018). Segregation is both visible ³ and institutionalised, with communities continuing to be separated by religion, schooling (Roulston and Hansson, 2021), sport (Bell et al., 2020) and differing perceptions regarding the efficacy and legitimacy of law and order (Coyle, 2023; Holland, 2021). Many communities still experience high levels of paramilitary activity and political violence (Harland and McCready, 2014). Paramilitaries continue to recruit and, through ‘paramilitary-style attacks’, they enforce brutal forms of extra-legal justice, including community exile, punishment beatings and shootings (Hamber and Murray, 2022; Murray, 2023). Community awareness of these brutal ‘punishments’ is often suggestive of at least tacit local support for these activities in some areas (Reilly and Gordon, 2023). Within these contexts, children and young people are often exposed to both direct and indirect forms of paramilitary influence, ranging from witnessing and experiencing violence, to internalising narratives of protection, power and belonging associated with paramilitary groups (McAlister et al., 2018).

Young people’s involvement in paramilitary or organised criminal networks emerges from a complex interplay of social exclusion, poverty, trauma and perceived lack of alternatives (Lucas et al., 2019; Walsh and Cunningham, 2023). These factors lead young people to experience what Morrow et al. (2016) describe as a ‘switching off’ from society, driven by low expectations, poor educational engagement and diminished trust in formal institutions. Within these socially atrophic conditions, paramilitary organisations often fill the void, offering status, identity and even basic material support (Morrow et al., 2016). In those communities most indelibly marked by intergenerational trauma and sectarianism, involvement in organised criminal groups may appear less a deviant choice, and more as situational adaptation to socio-structurally constrained life chances (Walsh et al., 2021). Consequently, the intent and function of any intervention seeking to divert young people away from these trajectories must be situated within a wider context of ecological vulnerabilities that underpin recruitment and participation in such networks (Ahlin and Antunes, 2021).

Methodology

The research reported here was commissioned in October 2020 by the IFA on behalf of the NI Executive’s Department for Communities with the aim of evaluating the pilot phase of the Fresh Start Through Sport programme in relation to participant experience and programme benefits and outcomes. The study adopted a qualitative methodology, grounded in an interpretivist approach, with the aim of eliciting the subjective interpretations of respondents in relation to their experiences of the various aspects of the programme. The study was developed in line with the British Society of Criminology’s Statement of Ethics (2015) and granted ethical approval by Ulster University’s Research and Ethics Committee (REC/21/0013). Data collection took place between October 2020 and August 2021. The quantitative element of the study involved the administration of an initial questionnaire survey to all programme participants (n = 41) which, alongside basic demographic data, was designed to harvest information regarding what sports participants were most looking forward to engaging in and their motivations for taking part in the programme. A second questionnaire survey was administered at the conclusion of the programme which asked participants about their development of new skills and knowledge, and their overall experiences of the intervention. Programme participants were aged 16–24 years (mean age 17.7 years), they were mostly male (n = 32) and they came from four geographical areas: East Belfast, North Belfast, Rathcoole and Carrickfergus. Participants were identified through referrals from PSNI neighbourhood officers, community organisations and youth services operating in targeted areas identified by the wider ‘Fresh Start’ initiative. Sports bodies did not lead participant identification. As such, this referral model means FSTS functioned as secondary prevention rather than a universal offer. In total, 82.5 per cent of the young people had played sport previously.

The findings reported in this article are drawn from the qualitative component of the research, which consisted of focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Two focus groups were conducted, each comprising six young people (n = 12 in total; n = 8 from Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist (PUL) backgrounds and n = 4 from Catholic/Nationalist/Republican (CNR) backgrounds), lasting 50 and 45 minutes, respectively. Five one-to-one, semi-structured interviews were carried out with young people (n = 3 PUL; n = 2 CNR), with an average duration of 48 minutes. Interview lengths ranged from 31 to 60 minutes. A further six semi-structured interviews were conducted with programme facilitators and organisers. All participants, including young people and facilitators/organisers, were white, which is not uncommon in research conducted in NI. ⁴ The first (B.C.) and second (C.M.) authors were present and facilitated both focus groups, and divided interview responsibilities: B.C. conducted three interviews with young people and three with facilitators/organisers, while C.M. conducted two interviews with young people and three with facilitators/organisers.

Discussion during focus groups and interviews centred on individual experiences of, and attitudes towards, FSTS with interviewees being asked to reflect on the most positive aspects of the programme, as well as those that might benefit from improvement. Interviewees were also asked to reflect on the online and/or hybrid delivery of the programme. The public health restrictions put in place by the NI Executive to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the ability of the partner organisations to deliver the programme in the way that they had initially hoped (in-person), with the majority of meetings with participants being completed via online delivery. Of course, the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on marginalised and vulnerable populations has not gone unnoticed (Vacchiano, 2023). Likewise, the restrictions on the delivery of FSTS necessarily had an impact on some of the proposed programme outcomes.

Thematic and axial coding was used in relation to the analysis of these data where the research teams adopted a cyclical process of examination and inductive interpretation to draw out themes and meanings in response to the primary aims of the research and in line with the key themes and concepts identified from the existing literature (Braun and Clarke, 2021; Charmaz, 2014) The reliability and validity of the analytical process and final theme construction were established through a number of checks conducted throughout the study to ensure accurate and rigorous findings are presented to the reader (Sparkes, 1998). Data were analysed in four stages. First, the transcripts were read in full to gain an overview of the data. Second, each transcript was individually coded and indexed whereby a capturing of the different aspects of participant experience took place. Third, these experiences were then categorised into a number of over-arching topics which were chosen on account of the fact that they broadly encompassed the key issues emerging from the data; these comprised: ‘acceptance’, ‘recognition’ and ‘inclusion’. The final stage of analysis involved the formal organisation of these topics into generic themes by further exploring the key issues around participant experience and framing these experiences within the context of existing conceptual debate (differentiated by respondents). Two of these themes provide the framework around which our findings are presented and comprise: (1) breaking down barriers in relation to cross-community interaction, and (2) programme outcomes and impact.

Breaking Down Barriers: Encouraging Cross-Community Interaction

The interviews provided young people with the opportunity to talk openly about sectarianism in their geographical areas and the kinds of challenges they faced (Liston and Deighan, 2019). Interview discussion also allowed them to reflect upon how sport-based interventions could be used to provide more of an understanding about other communities, as one respondent commented:

Sometimes you would be cycling past . . . and they were running out and trying to jump you. But it was the same in our community . . . As soon as they came down the . . . road they[d] try and jump them and it was basically over nothing. There was no indication. There was no slabbering. It was just they’re Catholic or they’re Protestant. These programmes and courses are better for the community because they actually give you an understanding [of things]. (P2)

Despite the everyday realities of cross-community existence, interviews and focus groups with young people revealed a firm belief that the FSTS programme served to dilute oppositional sectarian attitudes:

Whenever you get talking to other people it brings . . . tensions down because whenever you are out and about, you are seeing each other as enemies . . . When you just get to speaking to them [young people from different communities], you realise everyone’s just ‘dead on’ [personable/amicable]. (P2, FG1)

Of course, FSTS programme delivery did not function entirely in isolation in this respect. On the contrary, some young people openly admitted that elements of maturity and personal development had also played a part over time (Coyle, 2019). Here, for example, two programme participants allude to ‘growing out’ of certain behaviours:

P1: When we were all younger, I was probably trying to hit [someone] or something at that age, you know what I mean.

P2: I think there was constant fighting but as you grow you realise what are we at? You know what I mean like, you wise up. (FG1)

In line with a number of previous studies on the use of sport-based interventions with marginalised and disadvantaged young people (see, for example, Hartmann and Kwauk, 2011; Morgan et al., 2021), FSTS participants shared the belief that sport-based interventions were an effective way to bring people from different backgrounds and communities together, and provided opportunities to meet new people:

Because they [programme activities] were all, kind of like, team-building things, you . . . got to know everybody. There were some people there . . . from different ethnic backgrounds . . . it was good to get out and meet different people and do different things. (P1, FG1)

Organisers and facilitators of the FSTS programme also recognised the importance of bringing together people from different ethnic, geographical and religious communities. There was consensus regarding the role of FSTS to serve as a potential vehicle for developing positive peer influence and building rapport (Sugden, 2010), and several commented positively on how young people began to acknowledge and realise the many similarities they had with each other even though they were from different communities:

A lot of them are from a similar background, similar areas, facing similar challenges. Some maybe haven’t had many opportunities in life. Some are obviously from traditional loyalist or nationalist/republican backgrounds . . . [Some] know who the drug dealers are, they know who the paramilitaries are. Some of them have been used in the past for various bits and pieces, and some have been involved in, maybe, more negative things within their communities. (F2)

A number of organisers/facilitators had previous experience working with young people in the community prior to the onset of the programme. In line with previous research (see, for example, Watson, 2023), they were of the view that FSTS could be successful in diverting young people away from joining paramilitary/organised crime groups. Yet, in order to achieve this, they believed that the programme needed to break down cultures and opinions about the role and influence of paramilitaries and the police:

You have a good general base of what’s going on in their lives beforehand and who they’re associating with in the community . . . Within these communities not many will come out and say: ‘I’m part of an [paramilitary] organisation’, but from your interactions [with] or speaking to them, you sort of read between the lines sometimes and get an idea that this is a big possibility for a young person . . . Sometimes, you get ones saying: ‘But I’m protected’ . . . These statements really send alarm bells ringing. (F5)

As well as presenting opportunities for the opening up of more general lines of communication between young people, the programme also facilitated cross-community interaction in relation to sports which have traditionally been associated with the communities in question (Edwards, 2015; Schulenkorf, 2017; Sugden, 2010):

[There were people from] two different sides. Obviously, half would play Gaelic [football]; whereas on our side, everyone would turn their nose up at it and be like: ‘I’m not playing that. That’s only Catholics play that’. But then [the programme] brought us . . . from the other side to come over and actually try Gaelic [football] and some of them actually enjoyed it. (P2, FG1)

Moreover, focus group data revealed that in addition to engendering a greater appreciation of difference, some young people’s opinions had significantly altered as a consequence of programme participation. Here, a young person from a PUL background articulates their recalibrated view of ‘Catholic’ sport:

My views have definitely changed . . . Playing those sports that were so-called ‘Catholic’ sports . . . Like, before I had no chance to play them; whereas now I know they are good fun to do. So, if there was a chance to play them, it is a bit of fun, and we would do it now. So, it has definitely changed my views in terms of that. (P3, FG1)

Others found learning about the governance of sports associated with other communities equally impactful in presenting a perspective on sport (and community) that was previously misunderstood:

On the practical side of things . . . it was pretty good to actually play it [Gaelic football] and take part and see what it was like. Even on the online session, that was pretty good learning about the different structure and stuff and the way . . . the GAA [Gaelic Athletic Association] is made up – you know the way it being non-profit and the money going back into the community . . . It was new information and I found that pretty interesting . . . It is a good sport. I think if there was something like that in schools a lot of people would be interested in it . . . (P1 FG2)

These accounts suggest not only bonding within groups, but also bridging across historically coded sports and spaces (Schulenkorf, 2017). Under cooperative, supported conditions, positive contact in this sporting context reframes the ‘other’ (from ‘enemies’ to teammates), normalises shared routines and widens what counts as legitimate participation (Sugden, 2010). Viewed through the preventive objectives of FSTS, this combination seems to reduce hostile attribution, narrow situational opportunities for sectarian flashpoints, and introduces mixed-identity activity in a way that strengthens pro-social ties (Ahlin and Antunes, 2021).

It was evident that representatives from each of the partner agencies involved in the delivery of the programme had a passion for their own sport, but at the same time, strongly advocated that their sport was for everyone. For these organisations, breaking down barriers was not just about a religious/political divide but also about a number of wider social variables; gender being one example:

Rugby is a game for all . . . rugby is for everyone, guys, girls of all ages and abilities. It is not just for people who have played it all through school . . . Historically, rugby would have been a middle-class, Protestant sport. But we have thankfully thrown those shackles off . . . Rugby is fully inclusive; it is an All-Ireland sport as you are aware. Our growth area is the female game . . . we’re trying to promote a mixed player sport. (F4)

While believing in the potential of the FSTS programme and endorsing its activities, some sporting partners spoke of the challenges of recruiting participants from different communities (Giulianotti, 2012), as this had previously proved to be a difficult task in relation to other sport-based interventions:

We have ran [sic] events like this, but getting participants was always the challenge. Once that was taken off the hands of the sports bodies and into the PSNI or community links to get those young people involved, that makes our lives easier in terms of delivering the programme . . . When you had that link already made, and the participants are basically hand delivered to you, that makes our jobs easier and we can talk freely and do the activities. (F1)

Following a similar theme, a number of programme organisers and facilitators queried whether or not the right young people had been recruited to the programme, and whether they were at risk of joining paramilitary organisations or entering the criminal justice system:

My take is that this is a diversity programme, to encourage young people to stay on the right tracks, to broaden their knowledge and their horizons and learning about other sports and cultures. I suppose the challenge is: are the right young people involved? Are we always getting the ‘good kids’ out of those areas, so the feedback’s always going to be positive, or is there ones that definitely could have been led into other activities [paramilitarism/crime] and possibly through their engagement with this [FSTS] would have seen a bigger picture? (F1)

Rather than indicating a programme flaw per se, these views reflect a systemic gatekeeping challenge common to secondary prevention: multi-agency referral routes can prioritise safety and feasibility, but also filter who is invited or feels able to attend (Jugl et al., 2023). This selection effect helps explain practitioners’ ambivalence about ‘the right’ participants while leaving the underlying programme logic of FSTS intact.

Programme Outcomes and Impact: Accreditation, Volunteering and ‘Giving Back’

The focus groups revealed that engagement with FSTS, as with many similar sport-based programmes of its type, offered clear motivation for young people to ‘get out’ and be exposed to novel experiences and develop new skills (Morgan et al., 2021). To this end, the more specialist and technical modules of the FSTS programme appealed strongly to participants. In a similar vein, during the one-to-one interviews, some young people spoke of their desire to gain further knowledge and experience about sport:

I wanted to gain experience within the different sports because I didn’t know much . . . I gained a lot of knowledge [even about] the sports that I thought I knew a lot about . . . I didn’t think I was going to get as much out of it [the programme] as I did. I got way more out of it than what I thought. (P1)

Individual interviews also revealed that the programme had provided some participants with additional communication skills and helped those who had previous experience of anxiety to get involved in something different that they would not have normally put themselves forward for (Breslin and Leavey, 2024). Others had developed the skill of patience, and for others still the FSTS had been beneficial in helping them to meet new people, and to engage in social activities (Morgan and Parker, 2017).

It makes you . . . more willing to give anything a go, like any sports or like anything in general. You going: ‘Oh flip, I might not do that, but do you know what, I’ll just do it, what’s the worst?’ Even if you don’t think it suits you, give it a go anyway. You know . . . I had no interest at all in doing it, and then I loved it. It’s class. Unreal. (P1, FG1)

Likewise, programme organisers and facilitators were mindful of the need for participants to gain a sense of purpose and hope from their FSTS experience (Morgan et al., 2021) and that acquisition of qualifications and accreditation was key to this. In line with previous research (see Theeboom et al., 2010), the opportunity for participants to obtain formal, recognised qualifications provided an important foundation to explore potential employment pathways related to sport:

I suppose the opportunity to participate in the sessions and again, accreditation to them and stuff, all of that is important . . . I’m hopeful a few of our guys [young people] will sign up to that and that’s then something that could potentially lead to offers for paid employment. (F6)

The programme also provided a range of pathways and opportunities in terms of further involvement in sport and coaching. Indeed, some participants found the prospect of gaining coaching qualifications and related experience a central motivator for staying involved (Morgan et al., 2021), as illustrated by the following participants:

Some people have kids, so if they are taking their kids to football there will be some football teams who are saying: ‘Is there any chance that you would give us a hand to coach’. Obviously, if we have those qualifications, it’s going to make it easier for us to give more to them and stuff. (P1, FG1)

I know with some of my friends, the older ones . . . the concept of the coaching . . . getting involved in different things along those lines and maybe there being more opportunities down the line, that would intrigue them. (P1, FG2)

In turn, programme facilitators recognised how influential participants may be among their peer groups and hoped that they might use past participants as ambassadors in the future (Welty Peachey et al., 2014):

I would like to have a number of ambassadors at the end of each of the programmes that would be involved in other programmes . . . Some of the people that . . . get involved, that they actually are qualified at the end to deliver other stuff within their communities. (F2)

This testimony was indicative of a wider finding that highlighted how several of the programme participants were inspired to explore volunteering roles in sport. A number of participants articulated how the programme had provided opportunities for them to volunteer at the community level, and these opportunities were highlighted by them as some of the most significant and impactful moments of their FSTS experience:

They also made us go down and volunteer which was a real highlight . . . giving back to people who were less fortunate and stuff and trying to actually help people out which obviously makes you feel good about yourself about: ‘Why flip haven’t I done this before’, where I can put a smile on someone’s face just by doing this and its very beneficial towards yourself. (P2)

I think the best thing that we done . . . it was all of us involved in the course, we all went . . . and sorted out the hampers for families that didn’t have much. I think it was about two weeks before Christmas. I loved that. Literally, loved that. It was just you realise how much you are helping . . . it was unreal. (P1)

With this in mind, opportunities for volunteering were frequently highlighted by programme facilitators and, as a consequence, programme content provided participants with a sense that there were people in their community who needed help, and that through their desire to volunteer they could make a real difference in, and beyond, their community (Hallett et al., 2021):

We actually . . . volunteer[ed] by packing up parcels and stuff around Christmas time which was actually good to be involved and to ‘give back’ to the community . . . You see everyone doing [things] but sometimes you never get the chance to do it yourself or have the confidence to go down and do it like, just: ‘Can I come down and help?’ Whereas they [the programme facilitators] opened that door for you . . . (P2, FG1)

I think it’s something a lot of us take for granted is having a Christmas dinner sat down in front of you and a few toys around the tree whereas 1-in-3 or 1-in-4 kids in NI live in poverty and might not have that opportunity. So, it puts it into context about how lucky you are do you know about being able to give back even if it’s just a couple of hours to help out towards that . . . (P1, FG2)

These opportunities to ‘give back’ and support others seemed to provide legitimate status, recognition and adult endorsement, broadening young participants’ circle of concern beyond their own enclaves (Welty Peachey et al., 2014). Read through a prevention lens, these shifts are indicative of emergent collective efficacy, consolidating attachment and commitment to pro-social institutions while increasing identity stakes inconsistent with paramilitary affiliation (Morrow et al. 2016; Nichols, 2007).

In terms of outcomes and overall impact, during focus group discussion programme organisers and facilitators shared participant views on the value of the programme’s integrated volunteering opportunities, and across this group there was a clear aspiration that FSTS would encourage further engagement and participation in community-based volunteering opportunities (Hallett et al., 2021):

. . . we were very impressed at how stuck in they really got into it and got involved in it. There was a few that continued on past the time where we said: ‘Right the session is over, you don’t have to do this anymore’, and they were all: ‘We want to finish, this what we are doing’. I think it’s important to us, it is important to our organisation and to our culture, so I think to imprint that on the participants is an important part [of the programme] for us. (F3)

Respondents also reflected on the future potential of FSTS to continue to offer tangible benefits to programme participants, not only in the short-term, but also as a more sustained influence on future aspirations (Morgan et al., 2021). For example, programme organisers and facilitators commented on the potential longer-term impact of FSTS, but recognised that any transfer from the programme might be delayed, partial or gradual (Morgan and Parker, 2023):

You can be caught in your own silos, and neighbourhoods and not go too far beyond that. If you are up for the challenge of educating yourself . . . it can be a real eye opener and real life-changing thing. Hopefully . . . some of the young people may well pick up on that and decide on changes . . . It mightn’t be something that initially or immediately changed but two years down the line, those experiences could manifest themselves into what choices that young person makes. (F1)

I think there always has to be a legacy, should that legacy be getting involved in coaching or volunteering or refereeing with sport, volunteering in the community, whatever . . . From that point of view, I think aspirations is to deliver the programmes that we are contracted to deliver but to make an impact in that they do say to us: ‘Right, this has been so good we want to extend this programme, we want to make it a mainstream programme over the years’. (F2)

A similar view about the impact of FSTS on long-term aspiration was presented by some of the programme participants. However, of arguably more importance was the view that a continuation of FSTS held significant potential to engage more constructively with their local communities, support a broader understanding of NI politics and make progress towards cross-community cohesion:

I would say that it has potential . . . I think it’d be a great time to get more . . . young people involved in cross-community, showing them that people across the road are just the same as you, they just support a different football team or a different political party. It’s not the end of the world. So, there would be great potential to do something like that with this type of programme, obviously with great facilities and the backing of the major sort of organisations that they have. (P1, FG2)

Conclusion

This article set out to explore the mechanisms within a sport-based intervention (FSTS) that may promote cross-community engagement in a fractured socio-political context, and is intended to reduce and prevent youth involvement in criminal and paramilitary activity in NI. In this article, we have attempted to uncover some of the social and political factors which feature large in NI, and how these impact young people in relation to their experiences of marginalisation. We have also sought to examine the ideals upon which much sport development activity has traditionally been based and the clear connections between these ideals and the benefits deriving from FSTS. These benefits were most notably in relation to the enhancement of participants’ personal and social skills and their sense of community integration via cross-community exposure, experiences with new or unfamiliar sports, and embedded volunteering opportunities. On the evidence presented here, sport has much to offer as a mechanism via which young people might gain not only a sense of personal and behavioural development, but also a sense of social engagement, community cohesion and citizenship (Parker et al., 2019; Westheimer and Kahne, 2004).

To what extent, might we ask, did FSTS facilitate its original objectives in terms of ‘using the universal appeal of sport’ to provide physical activity, sports-based learning and support for individuals, engaging with young people who are at risk of becoming involved in paramilitarism and/or organised crime’? Findings demonstrate that FSTS served as a means by which to enable young people to aspire to engage more constructively with their local communities, to think more positively about their futures and to interact with a wider network of people and agencies, including on a cross-community basis. Participants’ accounts indicate that carefully curated cross-community contact reduced hostile attributions and normalised shared activities across historically divided communities. In addition, volunteering and accredited opportunities offered legitimate roles, recognition and belonging across community lines. Read through a prevention lens, these are proximal mechanisms, with the additional of capable guardians, a narrowing of situational opportunities for sectarian confrontation (Ahlin and Antunes, 2021), and the introduction of ‘hooks’ into conventional commitments (Nichols, 2007). Situated within the Fresh Start Agreement’s Action A3 ‘culture of lawfulness’ and multi-agency delivery, participation in FSTS also offers opportunities for legal socialisation and cooperation with authorities (Department for Communities, 2020; Northern Ireland Office, 2015). On the face of it, these outcomes may not appear to directly address paramilitary and/or criminal activity, or to fully alleviate some of the socio-structural stressors that might lead young people down these paths. However, they do provide evidence to suggest that, as a consequence of their participation in the FSTS programme, young people were beginning to think differently about their lives and about how and where they might better invest their time.

While these findings support existing research regarding the potential of sport to operate as an effective ‘hook’ to engage ‘at risk’ youth (Nichols, 2007) and enhance aspects of their citizenship (Garratt and Piper, 2014; Parker et al., 2019), what is also clear is that for some participants at least, active citizenship development was taking place via an increased awareness of community need and a generative desire to ‘give back’ (Welty Peachey et al., 2014). This reinforces suggestions that while sport-based interventions of this nature rarely extend beyond the realms of social control and the policing of marginalised populations (Ekholm and Dahlstedt, 2023), if implemented appropriately, such interventions can also have a wider community impact. We acknowledge that our findings emanate from a limited sample of young people, and therefore do not (and cannot) reflect the experiences of all project participants in terms of generalisability (Coalter, 2015). In addition, while we did not measure offending or victimisation directly, our contribution is to specify proximal mediators through which sport-based interventions can function as crime prevention in post-conflict settings. We believe that there is evidence here to reinforce the value of sport-based interventions, and to invite further research which examines the specific aims and outcomes of such programmes.