Laureus Sport for Good Foundation

Global Summit 2012

Impact Report

Ecorys UK

March 2013

Contents

1.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................1

1.1 The Laureus Sport for Good Foundation ................................................................. 1

1.2 The Global Summit 2012 ............................................................................................ 2

1.3 The purpose and scope of the Summit report ......................................................... 3

2.0 Report on Summit Activities ....................................................................4

2.1 Opening address ........................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Speed Networking Session ....................................................................................... 4

2.3 Maximising the impact of sport for social change .................................................. 5

2.4 Sport based demonstrations ..................................................................................... 5

2.5 Workshops ................................................................................................................ 10

2.6 Reflection and Collaboration Sessions .................................................................. 18

3.0 Impact findings ...................................................................................... 20

3.1 Effectiveness of the Summit ................................................................................... 20

3.2 Project interaction levels ......................................................................................... 22

3.3 Comparison with the Laureus Global Summit 2011 .............................................. 28

4.0 Case Studies........................................................................................... 31

4.1 Virreyes Hockey ....................................................................................................... 31

4.2 I Challenge Myself .................................................................................................... 32

4.3 Peace Players International ..................................................................................... 33

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................... 34

5.1 Overall effectiveness of the Summit ....................................................................... 34

5.2 Key lessons .............................................................................................................. 35

Annex One: ................................................................................................1

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Laureus Sport for Good Foundation

The Laureus Sport for Good Foundation promotes sport for development by investing in “more

than 140 projects, which use the power of sport to provide coaching and education to young

people in some of the most challenging and deprived environments around the world”1. Laureus

achieves its vision not only through sport, but also by measuring its impact and through

developing the evidence behind it2.

The community sports based programmes that the foundation supports around the world deal

with a variety of important issues, such as: social exclusion; peace and reconciliation; health;

education; community integration; and gun and gang violence. The way the foundation supports

them is through gaining access to funding, training for measuring and using sport as a tool for

social impact, knowledge sharing Summits, forums and membership of a global network of

grantees.

The foundation has gone from strength to strength in recent years, expanding globally and

scaling up its impact. The keys to this success according to Edwin Moses, Chairman of the

Laureus Foundation, have been the development of its global network and its advocacy strategy

though the Laureus World Sport Academy. The former has allowed the foundation to develop

global expertise that has resulted in the use of more strategic partnerships, to the benefit of its

members. The latter has helped promote the foundation and give it a voice in the world of sport

for development.

1 www.laureus.com

2 See For example ‘Sport Scores: the Costs and Benefits of Sport for Crime Reduction’, and other research reports at

http://www.laureus.com/publications

2

1.2 The Global Summit 2012

Riding on this wave of success, the foundation organised its second Global Summit, which was

to take place in the famous Camp Nou stadium, home to FC Barcelona, in November 2012. The

Summit welcomed representatives from over 100 sports-based community projects, from 34

countries around the world. Laureus-funded projects and associates came together at this three

day event to enjoy networking, training and knowledge sharing opportunities.

Laureus Academy members and staff with Barcelona FC President Sandro Rosell

The aims of the Summit were to:

facilitate the sharing of knowledge and good practice in the use of sport as a social and educational tool;

strengthen and unite the global network of Laureus funded projects;

put concrete plans in place with Laureus projects that will continue to deepen the social impact of Laureus in 2013 and beyond; and

create a platform to spotlight the worldwide impact of the Laureus Sport for Good movement.

The Summit activities included:

inspirational talks from the Laureus academy;

sport based sessions showcasing the latest good practice in the use of sport as a social tool;

interactive workshops on a range of themes that projects themselves requested including leadership, innovation, and collaboration; and

networking opportunities with fellow participants and members of the Laureus academy.

3

The Summit built upon the success of the Laureus Global Summit in 2011 and various other

initiatives that Laureus has delivered over the years (including training courses, youth

exchanges, Summits, project twinning and retreats), all of which have enabled Laureus and the

projects it supports to deliver better social impacts through sport.

1.3 The purpose and scope of the Summit report

Ecorys was commissioned by Laureus to carry out an evaluation of the impact of the Laureus

Sport for Good Global Summit 2012.

1.3.1 Aims and objectives

The Summit report covers the following areas:

1. Impact on participants, including:

Summary statistics on how they ranked the Summit’s effectiveness.

Examples of key learning that participants took away with them and used to influence project delivery in country.

Examples of new partnerships built.

2. Impact on Laureus network of grantees including:

Measurements of the increase in project-to-project collaboration taking place as a result of the Summit.

Example of new exchanges, partnerships and collaborations occurring as a result of connections established at the Summit.

3. Impact on profile of Laureus including:

Measurement of the increase in awareness of the Laureus Global Summit and its projects through social media.

4. Provide a summary of the event including:

What took place, and the key learning items coming out of each workshop

1.3.2 Key evaluation questions

This evaluation sets out evidence to answer the following questions:

How effectively did the Summit meet its core goals?

What key learning emerged and what aspects could be improved?

What did participants and Laureus Academy members think of the event?

On balance, is the Summit a useful investment for Laureus?

4

2.0 Report on Summit Activities

This section of the report summarises the Summit, looking at the sessions and events in turn

and shows what participants thought of them. This report follows the chronological order of the

Summit over the course of the three days.

2.1 Opening address

The Summit opened with an inspirational

talk from Edwin Moses, which set a positive

tone for the rest of the Summit. This was

followed by a talk from the young Peace

Players Area Coordinator in South Africa,

Nasiphi Khafu. One project participant said:

“What a great inspiration Nasiphi Khafu

was. What a fantastic job Laureus is doing

in helping organisations to nurture and

shape such young minds and souls. Hearing

about the impact we are making on them

inspires us to work harder and do more for

these young people”.

The opening address was warmly received by all participants, with 87% of Summit feedback

survey respondents rating it highly.

2.2 Speed Networking Session

The opening address was followed by

an interactive networking session to

energise participants, get them

engaged and at the same time

introduce the key themes of the

Summit. It definitely broke the ice,

allowing everyone present the chance

to meet each other in a fun, friendly

and fast paced environment. The

process was informal with participants

being allowed two or three minutes to

meet a fellow project representative

and find out as much as they could

about them and their projects before

moving on to the next person.

Connections were nurtured and relationships triggered, for further follow-up during the Summit.

5

83% of survey respondents rated the session as either “excellent” or “good”. A few people

mentioned that the session may have been too informal and that effective communication was

restricted due to the noise generated by the session. However, the overall impression was very

positive. A few of respondents’ comments included:

2.3 Maximising the impact of sport for social change

This morning session on the first day was focused on project representatives sharing problems

that they face in their countries and trying to problem-solve by harnessing the global knowledge

network.

Overall, 78% of respondents ranked this interactive session as “good” or “excellent”, with the

majority providing a “good” rating. Most of the comments given on the session suggested that

although it was a good concept, the session was limited by time constraints, and it would have

been better if there had been more structure to its implementation. This would have allowed for

more direction and focus to the session, preventing it from becoming too descriptive.

2.4 Sport based demonstrations

During the afternoon of day one, project representatives donned their Laureus shirts and were

taken to the Llars Mundet Sports facility in Barcelona to see how sport is being used to tackle

specific social problems worldwide. The four ‘Sport for Good in Action Sessions’ were delivered

by some of the leading Laureus-funded projects.

Overall, respondents thoroughly enjoyed the sports demonstration aspect of the Summit, as

figure 2.1 below shows.

- “Very good. It enabled us to interact with many partners in a very

short space of time”

- “An effective tool to introduce and meet cohort”

- “It took me out of my comfort zone and it was good for me”

6

Figure 2.1 Percentage of respondents who rated the demonstrations as “excellent” or “good”

The sports based demonstrations were ranked “excellent” or “good” by 92% of respondents

overall, ranging from 91.2% to 97.3%, a very positive result. The only slight drawback to the

sessions was identified as a lack of time, which in some cases led to sessions possibly not

being explained clearly enough. Nevertheless, feedback was very positive, as demonstrated by

the general comments below, and the sessions should be considered a great success in terms

of participants’ satisfaction.

Key examples of feedback along with brief summaries of the four activities are provided below.

- “Fun and good evidence on the quality of leaders in the various projects”

- “Entertaining and engaging. I would have liked to have had another session on

day two!”

- “A nice relaxed start to the conference, not to much pressure to work"

7

Figure 2.2 Key feedback from sports based demonstrations

2.4.1 Disability Inclusion through Sport (with the National Paralympic Committee of

Rwanda)

During this session participants had a chance to try out sitting volleyball with

Dominique Bizman, President of the National Paralympic Committee of

Rwanda. Sitting volleyball is one of fastest-growing sport for inclusion of

people with and without disabilities. Participants were taught four key skills

used in sitting volleyball: the pass; the attack-hit; the block; and the serve. The

session was fully inclusive and highlighted the challenges faced by people with

disabilities, generating empathy among the participants, but also the ability to

overcome adversity through sport.

According to survey respondents, Disability Inclusion through Sport received

the most positive feedback of any of the sessions over the Summit, with the

highest average rating of 4.6 out of 5.

Disability Inclusion

through Sport

"Fun and informative"

"A brilliant example of

Laureus' work" Life Skills

through Sport

"Great ideas and

practical

examples" Peacebuilding

through Sport

"Good to see the

elements of 'inclusion'

and 'exclusion'

through sport"

Drug Prevention

through Sport

"Delivered

professionally and

effectively”

“Excellent”

8

2.4.2 Drug Prevention through Sport (with Coaching For Hope)

The session began with an inclusive warm-up activity to encourage

communication and team working skills. Participants were given numbers and

then divided into four zones and then had to pass the ball in the numbered

order. There were several different levels to this game to keep people engaged.

The main activity revolved around a normal game of football except that there

were four ‘clarity zones’ which only one team could use, as they were given

less players. Eventually the ‘clarity zones’ are reduced, which was used to

demonstrate how young people can be encouraged to discuss their fears and

coping mechanisms, identify risks and safe areas and what happens when

those are challenged. It was highlighted that this exercise has the potential to

uncover highly sensitive issues in young people’s lives.

Cla

rity

Zo

ne

Cla

rity Z

on

e

Clarity Zone

Clarity Zone

9

2.4.3 Life Skills through Sport (with Waves for Change)

2.4.4 Peace Building through Sport (with PeacePlayers International)

Waves for Change hosted a practical workshop demonstrating life-skills

education through sport. The session used an adapted lifeguarding exercise to

educate and combat the stigma attached to men with few sexual partners in

Xhosa communities - 'Isishumane'. The session demonstrated the practical

difficulties associated with achieving one’s life goals when attached to too

many partners. The exercise is also part of the Waves for Change HIV

education curriculum.

PeacePlayers International hosted this basketball skills session to

demonstrate how using a relaxed and interactive format can help to build trust

to reach children even when discussing sensitive topics, such as HIV/AIDS

prevention, gender roles, and drugs and alcohol awareness. The session also

demonstrated the negative effects of excluding individuals within the

community, through a basketball game where one team was not allowed to

pass to their captain.

10

2.5 Workshops

Over days two and three, Summit delegates participated in leadership and innovation

workshops. They chose two out of four leadership workshops to attend and two of the five

innovation workshops. The workshops were facilitated by leading experts from across the world,

representing a wide range of topics and fields. These included many experts from projects from

within the Laureus network.

Overview of the workshops and delivery partners

Leadership Innovation

Measuring Success

(Acumen Social Technologies and Ten Monkeys)

Moving beyond the cheque

(Mercedes Benz USA and Laureus USA)

Leading Yourself and Others

(Impact Consulting)

Best practice in international development: importing and exporting learning to the sector

(Martin Kalunga)

Scaling Up

(Magic Bus)

Diversifying your revenue

(Kick 4 Life)

Collaborating in a competitive arena

(Streetfootballworld and Laureus)

Unlocking innovation from young people

(Laureus, PeacePlayers International and Indigo Youth Movement)

Embedding Innovation in Communications and Advocacy

(Caj Sohal)

When considering the workshop sessions overall, 88.5% of respondents rated them as either

“good” or “excellent”, with a strong average rating of 4.1 out of 5. Interestingly the overall rating

is higher than for any of the individual workshops, as shown in Figure 3.2 below. This suggests

a positive bias effect from perception of the Summit as a whole, reflecting well on its

organisation and methodology.

This section of the Summit also had the highest levels of variation among ratings, ranging from

68% to 86.7% for individual sessions. The results imply that it would be worth considering the

merits of individual workshops. ‘Scaling Up’ and ‘Unlocking Innovation from youth’ received the

highest scores.

11

Figure 2.3 Percentage of respondents who rated the workshops as “excellent” or “good”

From a qualitative perspective respondents’ comments were very positive about the workshops,

although a few people mentioned that there appeared to be a trade-off between how in-depth

and time-constrained the sessions were, given the variety and amount of sessions that were on

offer. This seems only natural given the diverse schedule of the Summit, and rather than

altering significantly the structure of the workshop element we would recommend looking to

enhance individual workshops, in order to improve the overall level of quality.

The boxes below provide more detailed reports of the 9 workshops that were on offer.

- “The workshops were so practical and full of ideas, or idea stimulating, that

can be applied in our organisations”

- “Excellent subjects, delivered enthusiastically by knowledgeable specialists”

- “Generally interactive, creative, stimulating and inspirational”

- “Needed more time in each [and] I would love to have attended more than three

sessions”

12

2.5.1 Leadership workshops

2.5.2 Measuring Success

2.5.3 Leading Yourself and Others

This session explored how organisations can create simple user-friendly

systems to track and communicate their impact. The session focused on what

makes good monitoring and evaluation and how organisations can improve

upon what they are already doing.

Of those who participated 81% rated the session as “good” or “excellent”, and

the average rating was 4 out of 5, although there was significant variation in

the scores received. Participants provided the following comments:

-“Very practical and useful activity”

-“Really opened my eyes and showed us how to work with youth in

organisations”

-“Just what we needed”

Attendees of this workshop learnt about what it takes to be an inspiring leader

through the idea that leadership is a special kind of action, not a special kind

of person. The session gave straightforward insightful advice on what it means

to act, and what leaders can do to get the best out of themselves and those

they work with.

The session was given a rating of “good” or “excellent” by 82% of

respondents, with an average score of 4.4 out of 5. This is reflected in the

following comments:

-“Great workshop. Have just learnt that leadership is behaviour, not the role.

Helps put a lot of things into perspective”

-“Incredibly useful materials, discussions and activities”

-“Entertaining and refreshing”

-“Too much content in the time delivered”

13

2.5.4 Scaling Up

2.5.5 Diversifying your Revenue

This session looked at the story of Magic Bus and how it has managed to

successfully scale-up its operations rapidly in recent years. As scaling up

means different things to different people, discussions were centred on how

organisations can grow their operations yet maintain quality at the same time.

Scaling Up received one of the highest ratings of any workshop and an average

rating of 4.3 out of 5. Respondents were very positive about the workshop

overall, with an apparently infectious enthusiasm to learn more about this topic

partly generated by the speaker, Pratik Kumar:

-“Pratik is a special guy. I truly believe he will reach 1 million kids”

-“Fantastic – this should be packaged and offered to groups outside of the

meeting”

-“Excellent, I think people would love to tap into Pratik’s knowledge more”

The aim of this workshop was to discover how Kick4Life and others are

embracing Social Enterprise with ‘out of the box’ thinking to create innovative

products and services. There was also a chance to explore and share

opportunities to develop enterprises and discuss how the network can help push

forward this area. The workshop recommended information sharing, project

visits, provided case studies and a list of available resources, and the idea of a

Laureus Social Enterprise network was discussed.

This session was rated 4 out of 5 by most participants and 75% rated the

workshop as “good” or “excellent”. Some examples of the comments received

included:

-“Absolutely inspiring”

-“Inspiring, informative and informal delivery served to enhance the information

transfer”

14

2.5.6 Collaborating in a Competitive Arena

This interactive session included an interview with Tom and Maja on the

partnership that Laureus and Streetfootballworld have built over the last two

years. Their partnership aims to help projects around the world measure and

communicate their social impact. This includes developing a package of support

for grassroots NGOs called InFocus, which is a set of M&E tools and software

designed to track the progress of projects over time. The group discussion drew

on people’s experiences and perspectives of partnerships, focusing on three key

areas of partnership: principles; processes; and pitfalls.

Although this workshop was rated the lowest by respondents in terms of the

percentage of “excellent” or “good” responses, the average score was still 4 out

of 5. This suggests quite similar scores between respondents, which presents an

opportunity to address common issues to improve upon the workshop further.

For example, one person mentioned that the development of a toolkit to take-away

would have been useful. Comments overall were nonetheless positive:

-“It was fantastic to go through the list of guidelines which can help to develop

collaborations”

-“A good mix of presentation and discussion, helpful best practices as take-

always”

15

2.5.7 Innovation workshops

2.5.8 Moving Beyond the Cheque

Moving beyond the cheque looked at how Laureus USA successfully engaged with

their corporate funder Mercedes Benz USA to maximise the benefits for both

Laureus USA and Mercedes Benz USA. The session covered key issues such as

how to build a long-lasting relationship with the funder; how to deal with

challenges of pitching to a corporate funder; and how to effectively engage a

corporate funder in your project. The group discussion asked projects what can be

done to connect with corporate funders to help them move beyond the cheque.

Moving beyond the cheque was rated “good” or “excellent” by 71.4% of

respondents, although it received the lowest average score among the workshops

of 3.7 out of 5. This is still a very positive score but shows rooms for improvement.

Respondents made it clear that this was a useful workshop, but perhaps was too

focused on larger organisations, as the comments below illustrate:

-“Some useful ideas; maybe not totally relevant to all”

-“Could have been a little more interactive after a long day beforehand. Very

informative and highly professional”

-“Innovative partnership and engaging facilitation – it would have been good to

have had more concrete examples at the smaller investment level”

16

2.5.9 Best Practice in International Development: importing and exporting learning to

the sector

In this session Martin Kalunga explored different techniques to help release

creativity and innovation in all of us and gave everyone the opportunity to

practice this. It looked at case studies from other organisations that are doing

good things through collaboration with other organisations and new ideas of

different ways of working. There was also an opportunity for everyone to discuss

how innovation and creativity happens in their own organisations.

Looking at the number of respondents who attended workshops, this appears to

have been the least popular, with only 13 of the 54 having attended. Of these 13

there was wide variation in ratings given, although 85% gave the session a rating

of “good” or “excellent” on average. Comments from the session were full of

praise:

-“Compelling and insightful. A great personal experience”

-“Really inspiring and emotional”

-“This is so much better than it said on the tin”

17

2.5.10 Unlocking Innovation from Young People

2.5.11 Embedding Innovation in Communications and Advocacy

2.5.12 Dinner with Sean Fitzpatrick

It should be noted at this point that on the schedule there was a pre-dinner interview planned

with Sean Fitzpatrick for the evening of day two. However, the event had to be cancelled, with

one participant noting that they were “very disappointed”.

During this session participants examined how organisations can share

knowledge and tap into the innovation and fresh thinking that youth can bring to

a sport for good programme. By fostering youth participation from a project’s

inception in the right type of environment, not only does innovative thinking

arise, but young people can also benefit from participation. It helps give young

people confidence and allows them to take control of their lives. Youths can face

a multitude of barriers to development which highlights the importance of

encouraging participation, whilst at the same time brining benefits to the

organization through fresh ideas.

This was the second least popular session of the conference in terms of

attendance, with only 15 respondents having attended. However, of those who

went, 87% rated it as “good” or “excellent” and gave it an average rating of 4.3

out of 5.

This session was delivered by communications expert Caj Sohal. It looked at

how organisations can use innovative communications and advocacy initiatives

to increase their creditability, profile and impact.

This workshop was rated by 74% of respondents as either “good” or “excellent”

and given an average score of 4 out of 5. One respondent disliked the fact that it

was of exactly the same format as last year, but feedback was generally very

positive as reflected in the following comments:

-“Brilliant presenter, succinct and extremely helpful advice and tips – great flow

to an engaging session”

-“Great facilitation and practical application”

18

2.6 Reflection and Collaboration Sessions

2.6.1 Collaboration Session

On the morning of the final day after the repeat

of the workshop sessions, the Summit

participants came together for an interactive

session that provided them with a chance to

structure their own meetings and identify

potential collaborators that they could work with

beyond the Summit. The aim of the session was

to strengthen the Laureus network.

As participants could only attend half of the

workshops on offer, there was an opportunity

during the collaboration session for participants

to meet the presenters of other workshops if they wanted to find out more about a particular

topic they had missed. Alongside this there were regional meetings to discuss collaboration

opportunities for African, Latin American and Australian project participants. Laureus staff were

also on hand to offer participants a chance to share ideas and Laureus’ social media team were

there to offer their expertise on Facebook, Twitter and how to use social media.

Of the 52 respondents, 83% of them gave the session a rating of “good” or “excellent”

highlighting its success. This is reflected in some of the comments that attendees gave:

2.6.2 Feedback Session

This session provided an update on the Foundation’s strategy and looked at how the Summit

fits in with the future direction of the Foundation and where it will be in years to come. The

strategy has three principles and it simple terms embraces the following:

1. To maximise the impact on young people around the world;

2. To gather better information on how they are making a difference to young peoples’ lives;

3. To effectively communicate this so that funders, governments, and businesses understand

the value of their work and will invest in the sport for global change sector.

-“Great process and at the right time in the programme”

-“After a long week and overloaded it still worked well”

-“Great addition to the conference. Good format to have tables and

open space”

19

There was a lot of feedback on how useful it was to see Laureus’ strategy, and overall 71%

rated this session as “good” or “excellent”, as reflected in the following comments:

2.6.3 Reflection and Action Planning

This session was designed as a springboard for post-Summit collaboration. Participants were

given action planning questions, asking them to reflect on what they had taken from the Summit

and how they will now go about putting this into practice. The questions were as follows:

1. What are the most useful ideas you have heard at the summit?

2. What can you take away from the summit and apply?

3. How will you engage your organisation with these actions?

A personal journal was provided for

participants in the packs given to them at the

beginning of the Summit.

Overall, 60% of survey respondents rated this

session as “good” or “excellent”. As this

session came at the end of 3 days there was

mixed reviews about it due to energy levels;

some thought it was a bit too long or tiring,

while other thought it was brilliant. As one

respondent sums up in the following words

as:

“Appreciated overview of strategy and opportunity to give feedback

on meaningful initiatives”

“It was good to learn what direction Laureus is heading towards”

“It was great to realise how much more focused we all were in my

group after the 3 days of packed communication”

20

3.0 Impact findings

This section analyses the main results from the survey of project representatives at the Summit.

The results were gathered from two sub-surveys, one of which evaluated the Summit and the

other which was a network consultation which generated a baseline for later comparison. There

were 54 and 51 respondents for each survey respectively, a more than sufficient quantity to

make statistical inference from. Three months after the Summit, a follow-up survey was carried

out to compare interaction levels pre- and post-Summit.

Most of the survey questions asked project representatives to respond to each question with a

rating between 1 and 5, which is interpreted to mean “bad” or “very little”, to “excellent” or “very

high” depending on what was being asked. For feedback on what themes respondents would

like to see more of, and how they feel that they could contribute to the Laureus network see

Appendix 1. The key findings from the Summit are as follows.

3.1 Effectiveness of the Summit

3.1.1 Participant feedback

In terms of participant feedback, the Summit was deemed to be a great success, with 100% of

respondents rating the Summit overall as between “good” and “excellent”. Roughly 96% of

participants rated the overall organisation of the event and overall service from Laureus staff as

“good” to “excellent”. This was reflected in the positive comments received, several of which

are included below:

36%

60%

4%

Figure 3.1 Overall Ranking of the Sport for Good Summit

Good

Excellent

Very Good

- “I felt energised and enthused to

carry on the fight”

- “Excellent, practical and proof that

feedback about the Summit is

taken seriously”

- “Very professionally organized, a

good space for exchanging ideas,

a diverse range of topics and

speakers”

- “Thanks for this incredible event

and for giving us the possibility to

live this fantastic experience”

21

3.1.2 Social media impact

It is of value to consider the social media impact that the Summit delivered in order to assess its

popularity, how well-known it has become, and it also serves as one indicator as to whether the

Summit was a good investment for Laureus. This is the first time the social media aspect of the

Summit has been looked at, which will be useful in future evaluations as a benchmark for

comparison. The social media impact draws on information from the Laureus website1 along

with a limited amount of wider internet analytics.

The Laureus website saw its greatest amount of hits during the initial stage of the Summit, with

425 hits on 12th November, falling to 250 by 16th November. Although most themed searches

on the Laureus website focused around FC Barcelona where the Summit was based2, this traffic

cannot be associated only with the Summit as three other news pieces ran that week on the

Laureus website, some of which had more Facebook ‘likes’ than the Summit itself.

Social Media interaction demonstrates the level of interest associated with the Summit globally.

The graph below shows the frequency of social media users that mentioned the Laureus

Summit. There was a significant amount of traffic around the time of the Summit, however this

quickly fell post-Summit suggesting little follow-up activity on the web. The reason for this can

be partly explained by the Twitter ‘tweets’ of the Summit’s participants and a few members of

the general public.

Figure 3.2 Number of social media interactions around the time of the Summit and

afterwards

Source: Topsy.com

However, this search engine is very term specific, and looking at individual websites and blogs

reveals a lot more buzz around the Summit, with most of these websites experiencing Twitter

‘tweets’, Facebook ‘likes’, or comments. The Summit photos posted on Laureus’ Facebook

group alone received 2,235 views (18% of its members) and 40 social interactions i.e. ‘likes’,

‘comments’ or ‘shares’ on Facebook. Several participants of the Summit also posted news

articles or blogs on their websites. One participant, the Right to Dream organisation based in

Ghana, then received a comment from an organisation called CHILD Liberia, expressing an

interest in the opportunities and possible linkages with the Laureus network. This highlights the

potential benefits of harnessing social media effectively.

1 Provided by Metlwater Buzz on behalf of Laureus.

2 Data provided by Meltwater Buzz on behalf of Laureus.

22

According to Meltwater Buzz, there were 1,079 hits on Microblogs (87%) during the week of the

Summit and 119 hits on social media sites (9.5%) that referred to Laureus itself. Although it is

not possible to distinguish general Laureus interest from the Summit, the fact that an estimated

21% of these hits came from Spain where the Summit was held, suggests that the Summit was

responsible for a significant number. The popularity of Microblogs suggests that there is a lot of

active interest as opposed to passive interest, such as Facebook ‘likes’, which would imply a

dedicated fan base for Laureus and the Summit in general. This coupled with the popularity of

Laureus’ Facebook photos means that there is a wide-range of interests.

In general, as this is the first time social media has been incorporated into the Summit

assessment it is difficult to make any direct comparisons, particularly given the basic media

tools used here. However, Ecorys would recommend a greater emphasis on social media

advertising by both Laureus itself and by encouraging participants to do the same, in order to

raise the profile of the Summit and attract sport for development projects.

3.2 Project interaction levels

3.2.1 Project interaction levels prior to the Summit

In order to create a relevant baseline assessment of the existing interactions between projects

before and after the Summit, the framework proposed by Ecorys (2011) was used.

Respondents were asked to rate themselves against the following:

Respondents were asked to rate themselves against these three measures during the Summit

in order to assess the amount of interaction they had with other Laureus projects pre-Summit.

23

The survey looked at project interaction levels both within a project’s country (if applicable), and

across the wider Laureus network.

From the 51 survey responses received, there was a relatively high level of awareness and

knowledge of other projects, particularly within project representatives’ own countries. The

average rating for this measure was 2.8 out of 5, or “good”. As Figure 3.3 below demonstrates,

within country 35% of participants said that they were quite aware to strongly aware of other

funded projects and 37% had some to strong knowledge of the activities that other funded

projects are involved in. This compares to 30% and 22% respectively for projects within the

wider Laureus network. Respondent’s awareness and knowledge of other projects was

relatively heterogeneous across ratings, as shown in Figure 3.4. This high variation is most

likely due to the mix of old and new members at the Summit.

The level of communication and knowledge exchange was slightly lower than general

awareness and knowledge of other projects. The average rating for this second interaction

measure was 2.3 out of 5 meaning that respondents did not undertake a great deal of

communication or exchange, and which suggests that these indicators should be a continued

priority for the Summit. Results were also more homogenous between countries and the wider

network (suggesting that once a project is aware of the other it is relatively easy to establish and

maintain communication wherever they may be). This is not surprising given technological

innovations in communications.

Figure 3.3 Percentage of respondents who rated their levels of knowledge and interaction across

various measures as “very high” or “high”

Particular emphasis at the Summit should be placed on facilitating collaboration and partnership

working between projects with ratings highly skewed towards the response of “little”

collaboration. Looking at this third measure overall, the average rating was 1.7 out of 5, which

is very low. Some reasons for this can also be found in Figure 3.3, where it is evident that there

are also few projects who carry out a great deal of joint organisation or participation in

24

fundraising or sporting events. Within country not a single respondent had high or very high

amounts of collaboration in joint fundraising. Respondents said that this was due to time and

financial constraints. Nevertheless results indicate that there is the need for greater

encouragement of collaboration and partnership working.

Overall the survey has shown there is relatively strong awareness of other projects. However,

encouraging more exchange, and focusing on collaborative workings, should be strongly

targeted for future Summits (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4 Distribution of existing project interactions with respect to the three measures of

interaction

From the qualitative evidence gathered shortly after the Summit, a few general themes relating

to future interaction arose. In general, the Summit seemed to have a positive effect on

representative’s desires to collaborate, with almost every respondent saying that their

organisation had something to offer which could help other projects. There was also a strong

desire by the majority of respondents for an increase in communication post-Summit. They

suggested that this could be facilitated by Laureus via an online network/forum to enable the

sharing of ideas, project collaboration, and knowledge exchange. Several project

representatives also showed enthusiasm for a coordinated international youth exchange

programme.

25

The key for Laureus is to ensure that this enthusiasm and willingness is transformed into

collaborative action. Suggestions such as an online network facilitated by Laureus could provide

an initial starting point post-Summit to achieve this.

3.2.2 Impact of the Summit on interaction and collaboration

There were 16 respondents to the follow-up survey who had also answered the original surveys,

and could therefore be used to estimate the impact of the Summit1. It should be noted that the

follow-up survey occurred three months after the Summit, and as such some respondents noted

that they had not had time to form partnerships or to contact potential partners. A sample size

of 16 is also relatively modest, and as such any inferences drawn should be treated as

illustrative of those organisations that responded.

Overall, respondents noted that their level of interaction with other projects 3-months on had

improved as a result of the Summit. The following graphs show a breakdown of the Summit’s

impact on the indicators of interaction. The results from the 16 project participant respondents

are compared with the baseline data from the same people. This first graph compares the

levels of interaction within country (if applicable), and the second graph compares results within

the context of the wider Laureus network. The comparable distributions of interaction level

ratings are provided in Appendix 1.

1 There were 20 respondents in total; however 4 of these were not comparable as they had not completed the original

two sub-surveys.

- “It’s good to meet up initially, [it allows you to] get to know each other and spot

potential collaboration”

- “In your country you have no-one to share your challenges and stories with, this

feels like a community…it motivates you and inspires you"

- “I really enjoyed participating! I got a lot out of it. I hope there's follow-up to extend

support, networking with forums for sharing ideas and curricula”

- “We could share the outcomes of collaboration to showcase the impact brought

by the Summit”

26

Figures 3.5 and 3.6 Percentage of respondents who rated their levels of knowledge and

interaction across various measures as “very high” or “high”

Within their own country (if applicable)

Within the wider Laureus Network

27

Awareness and knowledge

Significant improvement occurred due to the Summit in this area, particularly in knowledge of

other project activities in the context of the wider Laureus network. Within their own country, the

average rating of respondents rose from 3.2 to 3.9 out of 5, and the share of awareness and

knowledge rated either “high” or “very high” rose from 50% to 69%. This is reflected in the

distribution of results in Appendix 1 which is highly positively skewed. Within the wider Laureus

network the benefits from the Summit were just as positive with the average rating rising from

2.9 to 3.6 out of 5. The greatest impact was on the amount of respondents who rated their

knowledge as “high” or “very high”, increasing from 28% to 53%. These results represent

significant improvements in knowledge and awareness of other projects thanks to the Summit,

among these 16 organisations.

Communication and knowledge exchange

Somewhat surprisingly the graphs would seem to suggest that overall there was less

communication and knowledge exchange after the Summit with no change post-Summit within

the wider Laureus network, and an 8.5% drop within country. However, this is only for the

“high” or “very high” ratings. In both cases the mean rating rose from 2.7 to 3.2 out of 5 which

are reflected in the distribution of ratings in the Appendix, with lower ratings pre-Summit than

post-Summit.

In can be inferred from this is that the amount of communications and knowledge exchange is

tending to centre on the average. The Summit may be encouraging some on-going

communication but not a step change or there may be other factors at play such as timing and

time constraints. Several respondents noted that due to end of year planning and the beginning

of the year roll-out of projects they have been too busy to begin communications, and are

intending to do so soon.

Collaboration and partnership working

There was a marked improvement under the indicator partnership working and collaboration

after the Summit amongst the 16 organisations, with “high” or “very high” ratings almost

doubling both within country and the wider Laureus network. However, when considering all

three indicators of this measure, the results are less positive with a small overall increase of 5%

within country, and 7% within the wider Laureus Network. The lack of, or reduction in,

organising joint events and fundraising is an area for concern. It is most likely that projects

have not yet had sufficient time to realise their plans for partnership working, and so the full

impact of the Summit cannot be fully measured here. Respondents noted financial and time

constraints as reasons for a lack of partnership working, and although external to the Summit,

potential ideas and solutions to this could be considered by Laureus and the Summit

organisers.

Overall however, results are positive due to the doubling of collaboration and partnership, with

the average rating by respondents rising from 1.9 to 2.3 out of 5 within their country, and from 2

to 2.3 out of 5 within the wider Laureus network.

28

Project representatives were also asked to provide feedback from the Summit on what they

learnt, and how their organisation had benefited from interaction with other projects. A few of

their comments are given below.

3.3 Comparison with the Laureus Global Summit 2011

In 2011 the Laureus Global Summit was held in London. The Summit was widely considered a

great success, receiving much positive feedback and a high profile in the media, partly due to

the strong team of Academy members assembled. Ecorys UK carried out the evaluation for the

Summit, making direct comparisons between the Barcelona and London Summit possible1.

When considering the Summit as a whole, respondents were more positive about the 2012

Summit, with 100% of participants rating it “high” or “very high” compared to 96% in

2011. Looking at participants’ ratings from the workshops and sports sessions, the success of

this Summit is even clearer. Although in both categories more sessions were offered in 2011,

participants gave the sessions much higher ratings for 2012: 79% compared with 53% for

the workshops; and 94% compared with 70% for the sports sessions. It is clear that the

Summit has learnt from the evaluation of 2011, committed to continuous improvement, and

enhanced its quality dramatically, particularly in terms of the sessions it delivers. This was

reflected by project comments this year, with ten people stating how they could see that

Laureus had taken on board feedback from the previous year’s Summit.

1 Results from the 2011 Summit can be found in “Laureus Sport for Good Foundation Global Summit 2011 Impact

Report Final Report” Submitted by Ecorys UK

- “The exchanges provide above all, inspiration, and encouragement that we are all

doing good work but also face the same hurdles regarding constraints. The

capacity to consider things a bit differently, to learn from other groups as to how

they manage challenges [and] run their activities has been beneficial and shared

across staff and volunteers. In addition, the possibility to share news of the

meeting and of Laureus in general, has enabled us to enhance the reputation of

what we do and the work that we achieve. Finally, it enabled us to communicate

to a much wider international platform, which has enabled us to build our profile,

which of course assists to build our capacity”

- “We were able to get in touch with many organisations, big and small. Sharing

experiences and future plans together can be of mutual benefit if followed up

well”

- “Our board of directors is definitely more active than it was before. Our

communications has also improved, which has resulted in increased openings of

our monthly newsletter. On a personal level I came back re-energized. I cannot

express how grateful I am”

29

In terms of project interaction levels the baseline case was higher before the Barcelona Summit

2012 than for the London Summit 2011. This is interesting since it highlights not only the greater

challenge for the 2012 Summit in terms of driving further improvements, but also given the

positive results that success is likely to be cumulative; a trend of collaboration was set in train

by Laureus at the London Summit and amongst repeat participants, which the Barcelona

Summit helped to consolidate. The graphs below compare the average ratings of the indicators

for interaction and collaboration from both before and after the London and Barcelona Summits.

Figures 3.7 and 3.8 Average rating of interaction levels for London and Barcelona Summits

Within country (if applicable)

Within the wider Laureus Network

30

As Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show the interaction and collaboration levels both before and after the

Summits, it is possible to observe the relative difference, and therefore impact that each Summit

had. The follow-up survey carried out after the London Summit showed a marked improvement

in awareness and knowledge of other projects and information exchange (particularly within the

network), with a smaller improvement in collaborative working and partnerships. Compared with

this the Barcelona Summit delivered marginally less, but not dissimilar improvements in the

awareness and knowledge of other projects and in knowledge and communication exchange.

The findings from both Summits highlight again that fostering collaboration and partnerships are

a challenging area for development (and how they are to some extent out of the Summit’s

hands afterwards). Nonetheless, in the area of collaboration and partnerships, the Barcelona

Summit actually delivered a greater level of improvement than the London Summit the previous

year. This is a positive result, and reflects the emphasis placed upon encouraging this through

the design of the agenda and in particular the Speed Networking and Collaboration sessions

(not to mention the many opportunities for informal networking, programmed into the agenda in-

between).

At the same time, the slight decline in some indicators within the Laureus network between the

impact of London 2011 and the baseline for Barcelona 2012 suggests that Laureus could devise

additional mechanisms to help maintain “good” or “excellent” ratings across measures of

interaction. It clearly reiterates the point made earlier that Laureus may wish to explore

devoting more resources to fostering collaboration outside of the Summit environment, if it

wishes to achieve its objectives, for example through regional and thematic events, or through

online mechanisms.

In conclusion both Summits were well received, with the Barcelona Summit receiving more

positive ratings than the London Summit, particularly when considering the workshops and

sports sessions. Both Summits received high praise when looking at the feedback given. The

fact that levels were higher pre-Barcelona, highlights not only the success of the London

Summit but gives a more positive weighting to the Barcelona Summit’s impacts as one would

expect it to be more difficult to achieve higher average results again on already strong levels of

interaction1. The Barcelona Summit built well on the previous year’s Summit. Results also

confirm the on-going importance of encouraging greater collaboration and partnership working

amongst the Laureus network.

1 i.e. due to the laws of diminishing returns

31

4.0 Case Studies

4.1 Virreyes Hockey

Virreyes Hockey (http://www.sportanddev.org/en/connect/organisation.cfm?org=389)

is a hockey-based project near Buenos Aires that aims to provide girls and young

women a space for personal development and integration through sport. It offers an

education based sports curriculum to those aged between 5 and 22 from vulnerable

backgrounds. It teaches the values of hard work, tolerance, respect, responsibility

and honesty.

The project representative at the Summit came away saying that they had learnt a lot

from other countries’ practices. They utilised this new found knowledge upon

returning to Argentina by implementing new monitoring and evaluation systems

along with management tools: for example they ran feedback sessions with

members of the team to improve leadership.

Virreyes Hockey utilised the networking sessions that the Summit provided to go on

and work with several other projects. It has shared information with Instituto Fazer

Acontecer (IFA) in Brazil, gained further monitoring and evaluation tools from Passe

de Magica, and has planned to collaborate further with Sports Sans Frontieres.

Vierreyes Hockey was also already in contact with Peace Players International

before the Summit to organize methodology training, and they made use of the

Summit to build on this dialogue.

32

4.2 I Challenge Myself

I Challenge Myself (http://ichallengemyself.org/) aims to increase health awareness

and self-esteem among public high school students in the United States through

sport and community involvement. These challenges provide the students with

opportunities to develop healthy lifestyles, to learn and grow, and prepare them for

life ahead.

Thanks to the Summit, I Challenge Myself managed to greatly improve upon the way

it operates. Their board of directors is more active, thanks to the idea of shared

leadership discussed at the Summit. The project has become better known, with

increased readership of its newsletter thanks to a more strategic use of social media

tools and the provided ‘community checklist’. On a personal note the project

representative came back re-energized, humbled by what she had heard and could

not ‘express how grateful’ they were that they had attended the Summit.

Since the Summit, I Challenge Myself has sought guidance on leadership work from

Impact and liaised with Waves For Change on media suggestions and the formation

of a HIV/AIDS lesson plan. Due a joint frustration at the lack of sharing best practice

systems across programme sites, they also partnered with Peace Players

International (PPI), and have begun to use their online platform for sharing best

practices and provide feedback themselves. This is a step in the right direction and

hopefully one that PPI and I Challenge Myself will be able to spread throughout the

network.

33

4.3 Peace Players International

Peace Players International (http://www.peaceplayersintl.org/) follows the mantra that

‘children who play together can live together’. They work in four continents with young

people from divided communities, uniting and educating them through sport. With a

recent focus on local ownership and constant innovation PPI now employs mostly local

staff, runs a leadership development programme for youths that ‘qualify’ from the PPI

programme and they are developing a technical assistance and training programme to

share knowledge with other sports for developments projects. PPI can therefore be

considered as one of the most collaborative and international of the Laureus supported

projects.

At the Summit, project staff who had become used to giving ideas and lessons to other

projects went away with lessons themselves. It was noted that they increased their

institutional capacity by learning about how other projects are run and then applying

this to PPI’s case. They noted that there was a great deal of interest in collaborative

working, but that this is inhibited by funding issues, meaning projects have to become

more creative in their approach to funding and developing potential opportunities.

PPI nonetheless took away a lot of connections with other organisations, with six

collaborations in action or planned at the time of writing. These include: Special

Olympics Russia (training opportunities); Barclays (knowledge exchange); I Challenge

Myself (sharing best practice); Up2US (building on an existing relationship with potential

training opportunities); Scottish Sports Futures (resulting in a visit to learn and

exchange ideas), and Active Knowledge (providing advice for PPI on goal achievement

for its global retreat). This diverse set of interactions highlights how PPI is going from

strength to strength and becoming a key player in the sport for development world,

partly thanks to the Summit.

34

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Overall effectiveness of the Summit

Based on the evidence in this report, it

can be concluded that overall the Global

Summit 2012 was a great success.

Project participants from the Laureus

network and other sport for

development enthusiasts were given the

opportunity to come together for 3 days

in a fantastic environment to share

knowledge and learn from one another.

It was apparent from Ecorys’

observations and informal discussions

at the Summit that participants enjoyed themselves and took away much knowledge, contacts

and inspiration from the event; this is also reflected in the positive survey results and formal

consultation evidence. This is largely due to the diverse range of sessions and the strong

organisation of the event, as well as the many and broad representation of organisations

attending.

In particular, the following areas were deemed the most successful1: the sports sessions; the

workshops on unlocking innovation from youth, scaling up, and best practice in international

development (due no doubt to the wide relevance of the topics and the quality of the

speakers/facilitators); and the networking opportunities at the beginning and end of the Summit.

The Summit 2012 was a great success in terms of sharing knowledge and good practice, one of

the major themes of the event. Overall it increased the level of interactions between projects,

with some early collaborations being consolidated after the Summit which may not have

occurred otherwise. On top of this it is possible to see that the Summits in general appear to

generate longer-term impacts. This is shown by the higher level of interaction immediately prior

to the Summit 2012 when compared with the baseline before the London Summit, which bodes

well for continuous improvements.

Nonetheless, absolute levels of collaboration and partnership still remain relatively low. This

can be partly accounted for by the fact that many of these interactions and collaborations will

require more time to develop fully and the resource constraints that organisations face (as well

as the difficulty of securing a high response rate from the post-Summit survey). We consider

the implications of this in the following section. Lastly, the media impact of this Summit from the

evidence given here suggests that there is strong potential to be more active in this area to

1 In chronological order of the percentage of respondents who rated the events as either “good” or “excellent”

35

raise awareness. It should also be noted that the media analysis in this report could be looked

at in more depth in the future, to truly evaluate the Summit’s effectiveness in this area.

5.2 Key lessons

Laureus has gone a long way to improve the Global Summit for 2012 and to address previous

issues and weaknesses by taking on the advice available at the end of the previous Summit,

and its staff are to be commended. Laureus has improved upon delivery, with the extra

sessions around collaboration and networking being received particularly positively. The

structure of the Summit has also improved (although participants still felt that possibly too much

was trying to be achieved in such a short space of time; some workshops and networking

sessions could benefit from more time and reflection). This highlights the benefits of the

extensive planning and organisation phase which precedes each Summit, the careful choice of

location and venues, and monitoring and evaluation and the proactive approach to responding

to this and other feedback received.

On the issue of stimulating greater interaction and collaboration, it is also apparent that there is

a desire for greater facilitation of this post-Summit by Laureus, for example through informal

networks such as project forums. The projects must go some way to initiate this themselves but

Laureus should also consider what further role they can play in order to maximise the return on

the Summit. For example, although the Summit already runs several very successful

networking sessions, it might be of value to have a separate capacity building session for new-

comers to the network, such as on the evening before the main Summit starts, with advice and

tips around how to strategize effectively in the formation of partnerships. A lower-cost option,

financially and time wise, might be to provide extra guidance material for new-comers in the

welcome packs sent out before the Summit. Outside of the Summit, if finance presents one of

the main barriers to collaboration then Laureus should consider how it can build on the strong

services it already offers to incentivise projects and help them further to collaborate, through its

funding mechanisms, provision of financial information and other types of support. A particular

focus should be placed on new projects and those that have yet to establish partnerships.

Another common recommendation that arose from participant consultation was for

diversification of those who attend the Summit. The inclusion of beneficiaries and of more

organisations that are not Laureus supported projects (such as corporates and other NGOs)

would be of benefit to project representatives, and at the same time would help to raise the

profile of the Summit further.

There was such general enthusiasm for the Summit that several respondents recommended

that there should also be Regional Summits running alongside the Global Summit, and a few

people also suggested that the Summit should travel the globe more; such as heading over to

Asia next year. This also presents interesting potential solutions to widening the Laureus

network and deepening collaboration.

36

A final minor criticism of the Summit was that more coffee and beverages could have been on

offer (important when the agenda is as packed and intense as it is), although this is something

that presumably can be easily addressed for future Summits!

To summarise, the Global Summit 2012 has been a great success for those that participated.

The opportunities for Laureus projects to learn and share have been its greatest achievement.

Although there are some suggestions for improvement worth considering, these do not reflect

negatively upon the content of the Summit, nor how it was run. The Summit acts as a

springboard for potential partnerships and collaborations to form. The high demand for

information sharing and networking in a global world, which requires some element of face to

face contact in order to be truly effective, ensures that in its current state the Summit will always

be popular and well received if Laureus wishes it to continue.

A1

Annex One:

Table1: Possible future themes rated by respondents from 1 “low” to 5 “very high” and then

illustrated with each rating as a percentage of the total

A2

Figures 5.1-5.6 Distribution of project interactions with respect to the three measures of

interaction both after and before the Summit

Within their own country (if applicable)

Within the wider Laureus Network

A3

Table 2: General Feedback & Potential Offerings from participants

A4