SPORTS AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE POLICIES: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM PROJOVEM ADOLESCENTE

ESPORTE E POLÍTICA DE ASSISTÊNCIA SOCIAL: ANÁLISE DO PROGRAMA PROJOVEM ADOLESCENTE

ABSTRACT

This work sought to analyze sports in the service offered through Brazilian Social Assistance Policies, the Service for Coexistence and Community Reinforcement (SCCR), with a central axis of analysis in the qualification program for the people aged 15 to 17, called Projovem Adolescente. Here we explain the theoretical and conceptual understanding of SCCR in Brazil and its structuring axes. We also describe the theoretical and methodological proposal for sports in Projovem and develop a methodology for analysis that proposes to reveal whether the sports experience proposed in the program is aligned with the delimitations of the SCCR. This article is characterized by a qualitative social research of exploratory nature, using bibliographical reviews and document research. We concluded that there is considerable alignment between Projovem's sports field proposals and SCCR regulations, in addition to its success in its theoretical conception, from a critical perspective on sports and advances in originality.

Keywords:
Sports; Adolescent; Bonds; Social assistance

RESUMO

Este trabalho buscou analisar o esporte no serviço ofertado na Política de Assistência Social brasileira, o Serviço de Convivência e Fortalecimento de Vínculos (SCCR), tendo como eixo central de análise o seu programa qualificador para o público de 15 a 17 anos, o Projovem Adolescente. Em suas linhas explicitamos o entendimento teórico-conceitual do SCCR no Brasil, assim como seus eixos estruturantes. Descrevemos também a proposta teórico-metodológica para o esporte no Projovem e desenvolvemos uma metodologia de análise que propõe revelar se a vivência esportiva proposta no programa se alinha ao exposto sobre o SCCR. Este artigo caracteriza-se como uma pesquisa social qualitativa de caráter exploratório, utilizando-se de revisão bibliográfica e pesquisa documental. Concluímos que há um alinhamento considerável entre as propostas do Projovem no campo esportivo e as normativas do SCCR, além de ser bem-sucedido na sua concepção teórica sob uma perspectiva crítica de esporte e fazer avançar na originalidade.

Palavras-chave:
Esporte; Adolescente; Vínculos; Assistência social

Introduction

As a widespread sociocultural phenomenon in contemporary society, sports have great approval from youths. This predominance is confirmed by data from the UNDP Report^1), which shows that younger people practice physical and sports activities (PSA) twice as much than older people. Furthermore, that age range, when combined with the higher per capita income marker, constitutes the social group with the greatest rate of PSA practitioners.

In the context of the Brazilian state actions, when we observe sports and leisure policies, we frequently identify the presence of two conditions which filter the access to them. The first condition is the definition of the youth segment as a target; the second is the focus on risk territories and social vulnerability. This context dialogues with social assistance policies in Brazil. In this context, sports can take place in Social Assistance Reference Centers (Portuguese acronym CRAS), as well as in Coexistence Centers (state-owned or in non-governmental organizations), through Coexistence and Community Reinforcement Services (Portuguese acronym SCCR). In the case of teenagers, the priority target audience are beneficiaries of income transfer programs, those who came from socio-educational or protective measures, and young people out of school, considered as being at risk or in social vulnerability. In these centers, where sports can be practiced, the SUAS 2015 Census shows that around 64% of them offer activities directed to the teenager public, aged 15 to 17².

Although the relationship between sports and social assistance touches the widespread notion of social inclusion through sports, there is practically no scientific research analyzing this relationship. This gap can be seen via an exploratory search with the keywords “sport” and “social assistance” on the databased maintained by the Higher Education Personnel Improvement Coordination, CAPES (Portuguese acronym). After examining the 117 articles found, only one of them analyses this relation, in the Brazilian Journal of Sports Science, RBCE³.

After searching with the keyword “Projovem” in six important journals on the Physical Education field, on August 22nd 2019, only one article was vaguely related to the topic. The magazines were Revista Movimento, Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte (RBCE), Revista Licere, Revista Brasileira de Ciência e Movimento (RBCM), Revista Pensar a Prática e Motrivivência. A research on the same day, in the Google Scholar database, retrieved more entries, but resulted in only two works after applying filters. The first work was a master’s thesis from 2009, published by the Postgraduate Program in Education at the Federal University of Pernambuco⁴, and the second work was a specialization monograph on School Physical Education at the Paraíba State University.

As a result, this article seeks to explore that gap by bringing to the scientific debate the existing relations between sports and social assistance policies in the Brazilian reality. To this end, we analyze a specific program from that policy, Projovem Adolescente - Socio-Educational Service. This program was created in 2009 as an action by the National Youth Inclusion Program (PROJOVEM), regulated by Law n. 11,692/2008, developed by the MDS in compliance with the National Social Assistance Policy - PNAS and the National Classification of Social Assistance Services - TNSS, aiming to be a qualifier for SCCR and the public aged 15 to 17.

Our analysis is guided by three questions, developed throughout this text, namely: (i) what is the conception of social-educational services, coexistence and community reinforcement, proposed by the SCCR? (ii) which pedagogical axes structure Projovem Adolescente? (iii) how are sports systematized in that service as pedagogical praxes in the Projovem Adolescente guidelines? These questions are related to the objective of this article to analyze whether the form and content proposed to sports in Projovem Adolescente are aligned with the perspective defended towards the audience of social assistance services in its resolutions, guidelines and publications.

To meet the previous objective, the article was structured in three parts. Initially, we seek to clarify the theoretical and conceptual understanding of SCCR in Brazil, as well as its structuring axes. Afterwards, we describe the theoretical and methodological proposal for sports within Projovem Adolescente. Finally, we developed a methodology for analysis that proposes to reveal if the sports experience proposed in the program is aligned with SCCR’s tenets and its guiding documents.

Methods

This article is characterized as a qualitative social research because it is dedicated to unveiling the processes inherent to a certain aspect of reality⁵, namely: the relationship between sports and social assistance policies in Brazil. In addition, from a progressive approach to this relationship, we seek more precise criteria on the effectiveness of sports content within the Projovem Adolescente program.

At the same time, this article is configured as an exploratory study⁶ due to the incipience of studies on the relationship previously described, which in turn paves the way for new interpretations of the phenomenon described here. Considering the complexity and particularity of the research object, bibliographic review and document research were adopted as methodological procedures.

The literature review composed what Minayo⁷ defines as an exploratory stage: (i) to define and to better delimit the object; (ii) to elaborate the research hypotheses; and (iii) to structure the conceptual-theoretical framework for the analysis and interpretation of the phenomenon/object.

The document research, which constitutes a valuable methodological instrument, would correspond to the fieldwork from Minayo’s perspective, since, at this moment, we promote a dialogue between the theoretical construction of the first stage and the document materials. The following official materials from Projovem Adolescente were analyzed: the “Conception and Foundations Notebook,” the “Methodological Layout” and all available “Social Advisor Notebooks.” In addition, we included “Conceptions of Coexistence and Community Reinforcement,” which aims to dialogue with the various actions in the field of social protection of social assistance, to guide SCCR throughout the entire Unified Social Assistance System - SUAS.

Coexistence, community reinforcement and social education

According to PNAS, social assistance basically proposes to guarantee three social securities: survival, reception and coexistence. The SCCR’s focus is to secure coexistence, which is considered a new term in the context of social assistance protection. The objective would be the prevention of vulnerabilities and social risks through development of abilities and strengthening community and family links. That is, the SCCR acts in the “relationship dimension of the social vulnerability”⁸.

Before the 2004 PNA, the logic of social work with individuals and families used to assume characteristics of social integration, both from disciplining behaviors and from a fragile and precarious insertion into the productive world. “In the case of children, teenagers and older people, this work was characterized by cultural, sport and recreational activities, which were disconnected and disjointed. These activities were justified as a need to ‘occupy one’s time’⁸. In our point of view, this is in key with the perspective of sports as a redeemer of social ills⁹.

Unlike that paradigm, and according to guidelines, the concept of coexistence services points to a situation in which the user's participation in guiding the service is essential and whose aim is to provide spaces of collective construction and social reflection, focusing on political and democratic participation in public life and on the strengthening of familiar and community bonds.

Thus, the concept of coexistence and community reinforcement assumes that coexistence and bonds are “attributes of the human condition and modern life, which occur among legal subjects who constitute themselves as they relate to each other”⁸. Coexistence is characterized by the way it occurs in social relations, as the space where it is possible to understand and modify the world. Community reinforcement is the expected result of actions in the scope of offered services. To that end, it proposes that social care users experience equality, sensitivity, creativity, and participation as forms of stimulating coexistence and strengthening bonds over subordination and powerless environments that only stimulate social isolation and the weakening of bonds⁸.

The idea of strengthening bonds is the result of the social work that intervenes in situations of relational vulnerability, which fosters protection via social assistance. Among the situations/contexts of social assistance activities within SCCR’s scope in the perspective of strengthening links, we find relations of kinship, of choice (linked to friendship), organic relations (linked to productive work), of citizenship (linked to the enjoyment of rights, collective efforts to overcome problems of daily life etc.), in the relationship with social care professionals, and with the territory (understanding the local reality and valuing its potentialities)⁸.

The materiality of the concept of coexistence and strengthening of bonds in a social assistance context occurs through the theoretical and methodological materials, in addition to technical guidelines printed by the MDS that seek to substantiate SCCR based on a concept of social education, in which knowledge is considered horizontally, regarding both the knowledge proper to coexistence and the one related to education and modern sciences.

Thus, social education poses two challenges for its social assistance horizon: (1) to produce practical knowledge, which implies: (i) expanding the knowledge of specific techniques; (ii) broadening the learning required by research and access to information in a broad sense (learning to find and to analyze information); (iii) learning how to deal with conflicts, live with differences, explain ideas, support collective decisions etc.; (iv) creating a logic in which work becomes a form of expression for potentialities and not for discipline. (2) To encourage social participation, which presupposes: (i) expanding cultural occupation in different spaces; (ii) encouraging participation in institutional or non-institutional spaces of policy control and propositions, such as student councils, school councils, community councils, associations etc.; (iii) democratizing the spaces within the social assistance policy itself, especially within the SCCR, to encourage the participation of users.

In that sense, the conceptions defended by the analyzed documents seek to overcome the decontextualized and disciplinary logic that has historically caught up with social work within the scope of social assistance, a possibility highlighted by Raichelis¹⁰. However, we must be careful not to idealize such proposals because of their limited - and somewhat psychological - character as structural changes in society.

Structural axes in the Service of Coexistence and Community Reinforcement (SCCR)

The concept of coexistence and community reinforcement, as well as the perspective of social education that theoretically underlies the SCCR’s proposal for the pedagogical structure in the 15-17 year cycle has, as its central axis, basically, two elements: social coexistence and citizen participation (for teenagers aged between 15 to 17).

The social coexistence axis is characterized as “part of the social dynamics in which the sense of belonging, the construction of identity and the affirmation of individuality develops. By those means, the social and cultural codes are transmitted and the values that guide life in society are established”¹¹. In an integrated way with the previous one, the axis of citizen participation has a democratic and decentralizing character, recognizing the teenager as a developing subject of rights with effective participation in the public world, aiming at “the development of potentialities that result in the critical, protagonist and transformative performance in public life, in the exercise of an active citizenship, in creating new rights, new participatory spaces and with a commitment to democracy”¹².

From the structuring axes of social coexistence and citizen participation, we developed transversal themes that cross the social and educational actions in the SCCR’s pedagogical praxis throughout, outlining the various domains and content for the understanding reality and the social participation of users in their individual and collective growth and development processes¹².

Figure 1
Cross-cutting themes in the SCCR

Thus, the MDS programmatically systematized publications about transversal themes proposed in Projovem Adolescente, through a set of guiding books that propose activities, reflections and debates across the socio-educational paths, including the topics of sports and leisure.

Sports and leisure in the Projovem Adolescente program

Projovem’s Methodological Outline has two large programmatic units, named cycles 1 and 2. Each one refers to an annual cycle of the program, respectively emphasizing the axes of ”social coexistence” and “citizen participation.” In the first cycle, the articulation between the structural axes and the transversal topics “aims to deepen young people’s knowledge of their reality, to contribute to the construction of a comprehensive worldview, and to strengthen the collective unit”¹². The second cycle, however, is focused “on the collective action in public spacse and on the formation for the world of work, valuing expression and communication, widening young people’s horizons and catalyzing their process of social inclusion”¹².

The theme of sports and leisure in cycle 1 is organized into four socio-educational paths, each one with specific objectives. These paths outline the course to be followed by a collectivity during a complete activity and support cycle, subsidizing Social Advisor and Workshop Facilitators in planning and executing socio-educational actions in meetings and coexistence workshops.

The first Socio-Educational Path begins with the theme Body Culture, understood as the broad and rich field of culture that encompasses the production and experience of bodily practices in their participatory, playful, creative, subjective, cooperative and competitive aspects¹³. Subsequently, sports are approached from their origins until the present days, inquiring as to contradictions, both fostering values and significant experiences that contribute to the formation of young people and reinforcing values such as the overvaluation of competition and individualism¹⁴. In another moment, the path considers the dichotomy between “work time” and “free time;” then, it is possible to understand “time” as an essential element for leisure, considered a modern phenomenon arising from the contradictions between capital and labor.

In the second Socio-Educational Path, the discussion focuses initially on the relationship between body culture and health, trying to show limits and possibilities of physical activities as a synonym for the promotion of health¹⁵. In a second moment, the reflections are oriented towards the internal organization of sports and games, especially the possibilities for the collective formulation of rules and their pedagogical potential for coexistence and sociability.

In the third Socio-Educational Path, the idea is to map and to discuss the spaces and equipment for leisure and sports that already exists in the territory, aiming to broaden their significant experiences during free time¹⁶. Finally, the proposal of the fourth Socio-Educational Path is to encourage young people to propose collective actions that contribute to public policies for sports and leisure.

In cycle 2, under the emphasis of the “citizen participation” axis, there is a single (fifth) path, whose proposals inform a critical perspective based on body culture. It seeks to reflect on: physical activity as health promotion, its possibilities and limitations; recognizing possibilities of bodily practices available in one’s territory and how to access them, as well as reflecting and mobilizing actions for the conservation of preexisting spaces, and the possibilities of creating new spaces for sports and leisurely practices; knowing the social sports programs available in the communities, and reflecting on ways to mobilize and act in these programs; finally, understanding more broadly the politics for sports and leisure, by looking at the configuration of the National Sports System and its nuances. Therefore, cycle 2 tries to delve into the topics addressed in the previous cycle by relating them to the social reality of the youth collective in its territory.

After clarifying the theoretical and methodological proposal of Projovem Adolescente in the area of sports and leisure, we now look at the objectives, content and activities proposed in each socio-educational path.

Socio-educational Path 1 - Creating the Collectivity

This path begins with a discussion of what body culture is. To that end, the text introduces the meaning of work for humankind, beginning from the idea that this is the key factor in the relationship between humans and nature, and that, unlike other living beings, humans do it consciously, that is, rationally and teleologically. This conception of work is brought to the guidelines to affirm that sports and the relations produced by it are the result of human action, both cultural and not natural. Thus, all bodily practices, with sports as one of them, are part of culture, more specifically body culture. We infer that the text from the guidelines brings this discussion in order to expand the bodily possibilities for young people beyond sports.

In a second moment, this path inquires the manifestation of the most well-known and experienced body culture in society: sports. The text highlights the educational potential of sports in human development, with the 1^st National Sports Conference as a moment that proposed the democratization of access to sports as a right. It proposes a more critical look at the possibilities attributed to sports as a promoter of social and health equalities, in addition to the struggle against drugs. It begins by debating the genesis and development of modern sports, noting its contradictions on to the dynamics of capitalist societies. It also discusses the role of the state in promoting public policies that provide access to sports as a right for all.

Subsequently, it delves into the contradictions present in sports, many of those often intensified by the media, which values high performance sports. This part of the text from the materials brings two important excerpts about the concept of sports it stands for. Firstly, it states that sports “cannot be used exclusively for discovering talents or seen as a possibility of social ascension. Sports must be practiced by the youth, so that the taste for the practice is lived and not just observed or spoken about”¹⁸. Secondly, it makes it clear that:

[...] it is not a question of denying high performance sports, but rather of trying to identify and join it to a proposal in which pedagogical assumptions prevail, contributing to make sports an activity that favors the construction of collective citizenship, in which young people identify themselves as a class, unifying for changes in their territory/neighborhood, regarding the public provisions of sports and leisure conditions and opportunities¹⁷.

Four activities are proposed for this path: i) to map manifestations of body culture practiced by young people, and in their experience to perceive the main values expressed (competition, individualism, cooperation, solidarity etc.); ii) to walk freely (blindfolded) in a space, set to the rhythm of a song; once it stops, they would look for a colleague and try to identify them through tactile perception in order to recognize and respect bodily differences; iii) to rescue sports and popular games experienced by older generations, allowing the understanding of changes occurred in the different manifestations of body culture; and iv) to work on the contradictions and social inequalities present in the most popular sport in Brazil, soccer. In order to do that, young people have to conduct research on players’ salaries and make a comparative table with that data.

Socio-educational Path 2: Consolidation of the Collectivity

This path begins with a debate on body culture and health, whose goal “is to show young people the distinctions between physical fitness and health, and the limits and possibilities of physical activity as a synonym for health promotion through reflection on the way physical activity has become more of a commodity than a citizen’s right within the promotion of health”¹⁸. It proposes a broader conception of health, collectivity, not simply linked to biological aspects of physical fitness, based on two activities: 1) reading, debating and developing propositions about “Letter to the People for Health;” 2) inquiring the relationship between bodily health and body standards.

After the discussion about health, the debate on the organization of sports and games and their differences is proposed. The material says: “The value of games is evidenced in its practice as the only end, with clearly playful goals. Professional sports do not have this characteristic, because its practitioners are workers like any young person inserted in the world of productive work”¹⁸. The activity proposed for this discussion is the practice of sports (of their choice) under the institutionalized rules of a sport; afterwards, they play the same game with flexible, but predetermined rules, with men and women playing together, which enables greater equality.

Socio-Educational Path 3: Research Collective

In view of the previous title, the theme addressed in this Socio-Educational Path is related to research activities on spaces and equipment for sports and leisure in the territory occupied the young collectivity. According to the text in the material, “Projovem also proposes to democratize sports and leisure for young people, trying to expand the supply and access to these services through public policies”¹⁹.

As an activity, young people should do research in groups, within their territory, about spaces, leisure and sports equipment. They should note: the space’s total area; which and how much equipment is available (whether there is a soccer field, with or without a ceiling, whether it is painted, the conditions of the ground, which could be in cement or in tar surface, if it has a fence around it, if it has bleachers, among other characteristics); if sports supplies are available in these spaces or not; and if the spaces are clean, if they have bathrooms, lighting and security, transportation and intervention plans²⁰. After this field research, the construction of a model that makes it possible to propose the best use of the idle spaces in the territory for leisure purposes is suggested.

Social-Educational Path 4: Questioning Collectivity

This path inquires the organization of the community in which the collective is inserted, from a relationship between local and global scopes, demonstrating that the territory is articulated within a broader context that influences it and is influenced by it. The proposed activity for this theme is linked to the title: questioning. Thus, young people should understand the way their community is organized based on sports and recreational activities in their leisure time/space, that is, if they enhance forms of collective organization in the region.

For observation on the available sports and leisure spaces, the proposal is that they describe the place’s and the equipment’s history; whether that space had always been there or if it was for another purpose. What existed before in that place? Has it undergone renovation? When was it opened? Which agency or institution is responsible for the equipment/space (city hall, state government or a private company)? Where is it located and how many people often go to this space? The idea would be to encourage young people to perform a critical analysis of these spaces.

Social-Educational Path 5: Articulator-Doer Collectivity

This path is linked to the program’s second cycle, predominantly articulated with the “citizen participation” axis. Five challenges are presented to contribute to the program’s execution:

1. “Youth Corner” and the democratic expansion of opportunities for physical activity.

The proposal is to “organize the ‘Youth Corner’: a space for discussion, training and information about the possibilities of physical activity in the neighbourhood and the region, not to mention the existing sports and leisure public policies that are offered today”²¹. It aims to bring into this space a set of public and private agents to discuss the progressive accountability of society and unaccountability of the state in the field of health. On the one hand, the participation of those responsible for the government that act in the management or implementation of health policy is suggested to give young people the vision from the state on the subject. On the other hand, in the debate about responsibility of the individual about health, bringing professionals related to the practice of physical activities/sports is recommended to dialogue with young people about the limitations of the search for body performance through physical activities to seek health; and at the same time, it means to guide them in the practice of safe and regular physical activities as a factor for the proper functioning of the body.

2. From Berimbau to Pandeiro, from Senzala to the Collectivity: Capoeira as an expression of youth.

In this challenge, the idea is to bring the history of capoeira, with its roots, to understand it as part of body culture, valuing its configuration as a game, a dance and a fight, including its guiding elements such as ginga, moves, musicality and the circle. Thus, the suggested proposal was: “to map the existence of capoeira circles in the territory or in neighboring communities; to expand or to create an environment favorable to the development of capoeira practices; [...] to propose the organization of capoeira circles with the participation of the community”²⁰.

3. Young People as Social Agents in discussing Sports and Leisure Programs from the Countryside and the City.

Here the challenge is to mobilize young people to map programs aimed at practicing sport and leisure activities in the community and, after inquiring them, to assess whether they fit the local reality in the cultural and infrastructural context and whether they provide spaces for the democratization of sport and leisure. In addition, the proposal also falls within the scope of the proposition, that is, to present alternatives for the extension or reconfiguration of programs. Therefore, it is suggested to know the programs both in theory and in practice, visiting them.

4. Claiming public spaces for leisure and sports: what to consider?

In this topic, the challenge was to mobilize young people in joined and organized actions to present data and propositions on the “conditions of spaces and equipment, claiming improvements, when appropriate, or presenting positive points about their existence and maintenance”²¹. It also aimed to diagnose, with the community, their opinion about sports and leisure spaces, their needs and demands on issues such as safety, infrastructure, accessibility, maintenance, among others.

5. National Sports and Leisure System: exercising collective citizenship.

In this topic, the suggested activities aim to delve into the themes of Socio-Educational Path 1, “Sports in modern society” and “Organization of sports and games”. In order to achieve that, the proposal was to get to know better the current National Sports System and the propositions for modifications that appeared in National Sport Conferences. It presents a suggested activity to better understand the relations between the system’s idea of and the access to sports in the city; afterwards, it suggests the organization of a forum (which may be virtual) with other collectivities to discuss that and other themes. Finally, it suggests the exposure of those propositions raised by the various collectivities to the offices responsible for sports and leisure policies in their region.

Sport analysis in the Projovem Adolescente program

To accomplish this task, we will focus our efforts on analyzing two central issues: i) whether the proposal for an experience of sports conceived in Projovem Adolescente’s guiding materials is in accordance with the theoretical conceptions and structuring axes of the program; and ii) whether the form and relationships within sports, enabled by their experiences, are aligned with the goals typified for SCCR in the 15 to 17-year cycle.

We tried to analyze these issues through some key questions, which attempted, above all, to guide the analysis for the configuration that sport assumes in this program, that is, one that discovered under which social, political and pedagogical relations sports were developed in the space of welfare policy. We emphasize that these questions derived from an analytical reading of both the first and second topics of this article, with SCCR normalizations typified in CNAS’s Resolution n. 109/2009. After that, we have the following key questions:

1. Which sport perspective predominates in the program: leisure or performance?

2. Does the proposed sports experience make it possible to incorporate sports as part of culture and as a means of social reflection?

3. Is there encouragement of relationships of respect towards personal identities (body, culture, generation, ethnicity, gender, opinions) and of solidarity in sports activities?

4. Are sports related to occupation, preservation and political performances in public spaces and facilities in the community?

5. Are there intersectoral actions for user insertion in sports sector policies of their territory?

Our analysis of the contents and activities proposed in the Projovem materials converges in the understanding that, along its entire course, it has aligned itself with a sports proposal from the perspective of leisure, similar to what we found in Bracht¹⁴. This made it possible to diversify and broaden the possibilities for sports in politics, including levels beyond sports. Mainly in path 1, by inserting the notion of body culture as the basis for the conception of sports, depth was demonstrated in the theoretical treatment of the sports.

This association brought, as a background, reflections on the genesis of sports and its development, based on the contradictions of modern society, as established in global studies by Giulianotti and Robertson²¹. This, in our view, enables reflections on the constitution of the society in which we live, with unequal access to social rights and a socioeconomic inequality in general, with mediatic influence over the way sports are enjoyed and practiced. In addition, there are proposals for inquiring on health, the marginalization of women in sports, individualism, exacerbated competition, respect for personal identities, among others. These elements are linked to the activities, to the coexistence axis and the typified SCCR objectives, such as:

To ensure reference spaces for groups, communities and social life, with the development of relationships of affection, solidarity and mutual respect;

To enable the expansion of the informational, artistic and cultural universe of young people, as well as to stimulate the development of potentialities, skills, talents and to foster their formation as citizens²².

The “citizen participation” axis was deeply explored in the Socio-Educational Paths, especially in paths 3, 4 and 5. We noticed an intention to provide adolescents with a more affective and critical look on the territory of their life, stimulating deeper perceptions about belonging, preserving and proposing what is public in sports and leisure. The proposed activities were progressively developed, from diagnostic research to known public spaces, through data collection, community involvement, public agencies and organized civil societies, culminating in the phase of propositions and political action. This pedagogical organization demonstrated an intrinsic relationship with the SCCR objectives. We quote: “to provide experiences for the achievement of autonomy and social protagonism; to encourage participation in the public life of the territory and to develop skills for a critical understanding of social reality and the contemporary world”²².

The idea of intersectionality was somewhat stimulated within PNAS’s proposals, acting in the sports and leisure policies in territories both by understanding the social reality of the community, and through network articulation, proposed in the activities. In path 5, especially by proposing to know social sports programs and other community activities in order to reframe them or even to expand them, there was a display of interest in influencing other policies through the protagonism of young people.

Another important factor to note is that the scope of this program, analyzed here only in the field of sports, tries to break with many historically developed practices in social work, related to users of social assistance services, that is: instead of offering activities only to “occupy their free time,” disconnected from the social problems experienced by users, the program sought to incentive protagonism in young people and to create spaces for reflection on society and on their community and life.

Conclusions

We noticed in our analysis that the theoretical and methodological content, and the activities proposed to develop Projovem Adolescent program in the field of sports, are very close to the objectives proposed in the National Typification of Social Assistance Services for the SCCR, from the material named “Coexistence and Community Reinforcement,” along with the theoretical foundations that guide the axes of social coexistence and citizen participation built by the MDS.

Regarding the analysis of meaning attributed to sports in this program, we understand that the program makes progress in many important themes, aligning itself with a critical perspective of sports and the world, especially if one looks at the history of sports policies in Brazil, for the following reasons: i) it questions the social and political transformations that influence sports, trying to leave the idealistic perspective behind (in which sport is understood as politically neutral, a savior from social problems); ii) it seeks to create ways to democratize access to sports, as a social phenomenon to which all people are entitled; iii) it questions sports within public policies and social programs; and iv) it creates means of mobilization and political action by young people in sports policies, both regionally and nationally.

Regarding the intersectional perspective, we noted that the proposed activities intend to mobilize young people to act upon the policies developed in their territory, something important and necessary, but this should not be mistaken for the creation of a structuring relationship between social assistance and sports policies.

It is necessary to emphasize, despite the positive situation raised by the article, that the deficit in the democratization of sports in Brazil is very large, considering the data raised by the National Diagnosis of Sports² and the recently released Report on Physical Activities and Sports UNDP¹. They all corroborate the problems raised by Sánchez, Gavira and Diáz²³⁾ when studying the case of Spanish sports.

By recognizing that the Brazilian Social Assistance Policy has a limited field of action to foster structural changes in the daily lives of young people, especially under the sectoral logic under which it is organized, the need for more empirical research or in the format of case studies about the benefits of sports for young people and society become much more than a theoretical and conceptual aspiration expressed in official documents.

Aknowledgementes:

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior- Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001

References

• ¹
  Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento. Relatório nacional de desenvolvimento humano no Brasil - Movimento é vida: atividades físicas e esportivas para todas as pessoas. Brasília: PNUD; 2017.
• ²
  Ministério do Esporte. DIESPORTE (Diagnóstico Nacional do Esporte): caderno 1. Brasília: Ministério do Esporte; 2015.
• ³
  Antunes SE, Silva OGT. Entendimentos e concepções dos profissionais do Creas sobre o papel do esporte nas medidas socioeducativas PSC e LA. Rev Bras Ciênc Esporte 2018;40(2):170-176. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbce.2017.10.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbce.2017.10.002
• ⁴
  Caú NAJ. PROJOVEM: impactos da inclusão dos jovens - uma análise dos egressos da qualificação profissional do arco esporte e lazer em Recife. [Dissertação de Mestrado em Educação]. Recife: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 2009.
• ⁵
  Minayo MCS. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde. São Paulo: Hucitec; 2007.
• ⁶
  Severino AJ. Metodologia do trabalho científico. São Paulo: Cortez; 2007.
• ⁷
  Minayo MCS. O desafio da pesquisa social. In: Minayo MCS, Deslandes SF, Gomes R, organizadores. Pesquisa Social: teoria, método e criatividade. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes; 2016. p. 9-30.
• ⁸
  Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social. Concepção de convivência e fortalecimento de vínculos. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social; 2012.
• ⁹
  Melo MP. Esporte e juventude pobre: políticas públicas de lazer na Vila Olímpica da Maré. Campinas: Autores Associados; 2005.
• ¹⁰
  Raichelis R. Intervenção profissional do assistente social e as condições de trabalho no Suas. Serv Soc Soc2010;104:750-772. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-66282010000400010
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-66282010000400010
• ¹¹
  Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social. Projovem Adolescente - Serviço Socioeducativo. Caderno do Orientador Social: Ciclo I: Percurso Socioeducativo I: “Criação do Coletivo”. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social ; 2009.
• ¹²
  Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social. Projovem Adolescente - Serviço Socioeducativo. Traçado Metodológico. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social ; 2009.
• ¹³
  Castellani Filho L, Soares CL, Taffarel CNZ, Varjal E, Escobar MO, Bracht V. Metodologia do Ensino da Educação Física. São Paulo: Cortez; 2013.
• ¹⁴
  Bracht V. Sociologia crítica do esporte: uma introdução. 3. ed. Ijuí: Unijuí; 2005.
• ¹⁵
  Moretti AC, Almeida V, Westphal MF, Bógus CM. Práticas Corporais/Atividade Física e Políticas Públicas de Promoção da Saúde. Saúde Soc2009;18(2):346-354. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902009000200017
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902009000200017
• ¹⁶
  Matos FL. Espaços públicos e qualidade de vida nas cidades - o caso da cidade Porto. Observatorium 2010[Acesso em: 20 nov 2019];2(4):17-33. Disponível em:Disponível em:http://200.19.146.79/index.php/Observatorium/article/view/44194
  » http://200.19.146.79/index.php/Observatorium/article/view/44194
• ¹⁷
  Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social. Projovem Adolescente - Serviço Socioeducativo. Caderno do Orientador Social: Ciclo I: Percurso Socioeducativo II: “Consolidação do Coletivo”. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social ; 2009.
• ¹⁸
  Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social. Projovem Adolescente - Serviço Socioeducativo. Caderno do Orientador Social: Ciclo I: Percurso Socioeducativo III: “Coletivo Pesquisador”. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social ; 2009.
• ¹⁹
  Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social. Projovem Adolescente - Serviço Socioeducativo. Caderno do Orientador Social: Ciclo I: Percurso Socioeducativo IV: “Coletivo Questionador”. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social; 2009.
• ²⁰
  Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social. Projovem Adolescente - Serviço Socioeducativo. Caderno do Orientador Social: Ciclo II: Percurso Socioeducativo V: “Coletivo Articulador-Realizador”: Participação cidadã. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social ; 2009.
• ²¹
  Giulianotti R, Robertson R. Sport and globalization: transnational dimensions. Global Networks 2007;7(2): 107-112. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2007.00159.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2007.00159.x
• ²²
  Conselho Nacional de Assistência Social. Resolução nº 109, de 11 de novembro de 2009. Tipificação Nacional de Serviços Socioassistencias. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Assistência Social; 2009.
• ²³
  Sánchez DM, Gavira JF, Díaz AR. De la democratización del deporte a la hegemonía de los mercados: el caso español. Movimento2014;20:109-124. Doi: https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.47377
  » https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.47377

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  31 Jan 2022
• Date of issue
  2021

History

• Received
  01 Jan 2020
• Accepted
  11 May 2021