sports development 2010l6
TRANSCRIPT
1
Sports PlanningLecture 2
Steven Osborne
Session Outcomes
• Identify organisations involved in sport• Identify structures and organisational landscape • Carter 2005 recommendations• Introduction o the single system or sport
Over the past 20 years one of the constant themes in sport policy discussions has been the fragmentation, fractiousness and perceived ineffectiveness of organizations within the sport policy area.
While much of government’s focus has been on the inadequacies of the national governing bodies of sport (NGBs) the main national agencies of government have also been subject to sustained criticism both by the major political parties and by NGBs
Houlihan & Green 2009
• Some NGBs are focussed primarily on participation, • others focus mainly on elite performance;• Some NGBs have few members and are grouped in
quite distinct• geographical areas of the UK• others are ubiquitous throughout the UK;• Some NGBs have a turnover of <£50,000 per annum• Some £10,000,000+ per annum;
External Factors:
• Initiative-led rather than strategy-led funding;• Over reliance on grant funding and limited reserves;• Too many organisations setting strategy and not enough delivery;• Limited performance measures; and• Fragmented delivery of funding.
Internal Factors:
• Reticence of NGBs to invest in themselves;• The struggle to recruit high quality staff;• Too much time spent on firefighting;• Difficulty in retaining and recruiting volunteers;• Limited focus on member services;• Ignoring basic business principles; and• Poor corporate governance and financial mismanagement.
• 1. Effective corporate governance;• 2. Sport & business administration;• 3. Financial management;• 4. Exploitation of commercial opportunities;• 5. Performance management;• 6. Talent ID/ development & elite performance;• 7. Coach education & development system;• 8. Services to members;• 9. Volunteer management;• 10. Event management;• 11. Partnerships with Local Authorities, Education and the commercial sector;• 12. Structure of Sport.
Sports Councils (Houlihan & Green 2009)
Critics have accused the sports councils of being:
• Unresponsive to the needs of their clients;• Overly bureaucratic and complex, • Especially in relation to the accessing of funds; • Incoherent due to overlapping responsibilities• The lack of strategic clarity and the generation of an
excess of, often short-term, initiatives
Sports Policy in the UK
• Wolfenden Report 1960• Sports Councils (Royal Charter)• New Labour (PAT 10) 1997• Welsh Assembly Government 2005• Cater Report 2005• Play to Win 2009
Sports Policy (Who is in charge?)
• We are responsible for Government policy on the arts, sport, the National Lottery, tourism, libraries, museums and galleries, broadcasting, creative industries including film and the music industry, press freedom and regulation, licensing, gambling and the historic environment. We are the Department responsible for 2012 Olympic Games & Paralympic Games.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/sport/default.aspx
• Established by Royal Charter in 1996, lead sport in the UK to world-class success.
• Works in partnership with the home country sports councils and other agencies
• Managing and distributing public investment and is a statutory distributor of funds
• Accountable to Parliament through the DCMS
• World Class Performance - world-class personnell
• Worldwide Impact - bid for and stage major events in this country.
• World Class Standards
• The Youth Sport Trust is a registered charity, established in 1994.
• Mission to build a brighter future for young people by enhancing the quality of their physical education (PE) and sporting opportunities.
• Increase young people’s participation and enjoyment of PE and school sport.
• Young people to have the chance to experience and enjoy different types of activity at whatever level is right for them.
• Receive the best teaching, coaching and resources possible and have the chance to progress if they show talent.
• Young people to live healthy and active lives and to be the best they can be.
http://www.youthsporttrust.org/page/pessyp-film/index.html
• Began as National Coaching Foundation in 1983 as a sub-committee of the then (GB) Sports Council. It was formed to establish a comprehensive coach-education programme throughout the United Kingdom.
• In 1989 the (GB) Sports Council agreed to a proposal to establish the Foundation as a Charity governed by the Charities and Companies Acts.
• The Foundation was not permitted to undertake trading activity but was allowed to establish a wholly owned trading subsidiary. Coachwise Ltd
• In 2001 the National Coaching Foundation was rebranded as sports coach UK.
• The Coaching Task Force report of 2002 need to 'professionalise' coaching:• Development of a UK Coaching Certificate • The creation of 3000 Community Sports coach posts • The establishment of a network of Coach Development Officers • Greater research into all aspects of coaching
Sports Policy NEW Labour
• New Labour’s policy on sport development and physical activity policy begins with “social inclusion” at its heart.
• This “social inclusion” agenda was not limited to sport. ‘Bringing Britain Together - a National strategy for neighbourhood renewal’ (Cabinet Office 1997) some 18 working groups, called Policy Action Teams, were established in 1998 to develop a range of strategies in a variety of social areas directed at tackling social exclusion in British society, combating social exclusion therefore was designed as a ‘crosscutting’ political agenda.
• Sport and the Arts’ potential contribution was detailed in a report from the Policy Action Team 10 (Ten), commonly known as PAT 10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRx4N4VeqYw
• The PAT 10 report made the claim that;
“because of its wide popularity and inherent properties, sport can contribute to neighbourhood renewal by improving communities performance on four key indicators;
• health, • crime, • employment and • education”
• In essence and since 1998, PAT 10 has become the glue that binds sport development together.
Sports Policy NEW Labour
Game Plan 2001
• Department for Culture Media and Sport - (DCMS) published an action plan in 2001 entitled called “The Government’s Plan for Sport”
• Reorganisation of the English Sports Council (Sport England) and a refocusing of its operation toward a strategic level
• Government required Sport England to become more strategic and to deliver government’s wider agenda of regional devolution.
• Regional Sports Boards
Wales Climbing Higher 2005
• 'Climbing higher' sets out a clear, radical and inclusive vision for the future of sport and active recreation in Wales for the next twenty years.
• The essence of this strategy is to maximise the contribution that sport and active recreation can make to well-being in Wales across its many dimensions.
• Because sport and active recreation can contribute across all these dimensions, this integrated strategy has multiple, complementary objectives which span the key areas of health, economy, culture, society, environment and Wales on the world stage. The background and context to these key areas are discussed in this strategy
Local Authorities
• LAs are major deliverers of sport and leisure in the local community but, amidst the rise in education and other social priorities, sport has found itself lower down the priority list
• Facilities suffering from chronic under-investment−
• Co-ordinating facilities at the local level is a challenge: in some areas, there is over-supply and in other areas under-supply
• Growing interest in sport over the last two decades has increased the visibility of those organisations responsible for its management and governance
• Delivering both business and sporting success within a transparent, complex and changing environment is a significant challenge for the administrators of sport in this country
• bureaucracy and multiplicity of sub-scale organisations can make the sector a ‘soft target’for media criticism, which then shapes public perception
• The flow of funds in sport appears complex −NGBs, key recipients of grant funding,
Carter 2005 Recommendations
• To improve the local delivery of sport and suggest the Government considers how it can support the co-ordination of public, private and voluntary sector
• Develop, communicate and embed a ‘single system’ for sport in the community from Government to grass-roots –by investing in clubs, coaches and volunteers, strengthening school-community links and integrating talent pathways for aspiring performers
• Consider ways that the Government can support the coordination of existing investment streams, both public and private; and whether or not there is a case for a National Infrastructure Fund in order to upgrade and extend the network of local and regional sports facilities
A single system for delivering sport in the community
Welsh Assembly /Sports Council for Wales
SCWRegional Boards
CAP
Community ActivityNetworks
Clubs Coaches Volunteers
Participants
Schools
National/Regional offices/ Boards:
Influence and advocacy – generating resourcesSupport, guidance and expertise Investing Lottery and Exchequer funding
National & Regional PlansNational & Regional PartnershipsInvestmentPerformance Management
Welsh Assembly /Sports Council for Wales
SCWRegional Boards
CAP
Community ActivityNetworks
Clubs Coaches Volunteers
Participants
Schools
The heart of a single delivery system-connect policy makers to local delivers -drive key resource investment -credible delivery plan & measurement-Link with Statutory Partnership structures
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts -
•The partnership should unite and coordinate•Work with major investors and deliverers •National Governing Body Work - Whole Sports Plans•Local Authority Provision
- Building strategic partnerships- Detailing a Local Authority wide plans- Leveraging investment
Welsh Assembly /Sports Council for Wales
SCWRegional Boards
CAP
Community ActivityNetworks
Clubs Coaches Volunteers
Participants
Schools
Strategic Planning local priorities based on local needs
Partnership – co-ordinated effort resource planning across sectors
Investment – A focus for partners investment Achieve a common goals
Implementation – •Education•Through clubs, •Community networks, •Public/ private facilities
•Increase participation •Unite key partners•Citizen centred approach to delivery•Hosted by local authorities •Local strategic planning•Shared vision
A single system for delivering sport in the community
Grassroots: •People delivering sporting opportunities locally to the local population•Innovation is key – right activities, delivered by the right people, in the right place to increase participation
CSNs: determination and delivery•Grouping of local ‘deliverers’•Identifying appropriate initiatives for that community•Accountable for all investment •Building capacity to increase participation•NOT another layer of bureaucracy, but a hub for action
CSPs:
•Partnership of county level decision-makers•Pivotal in delivering 1% per annum increase in participation and wider social benefits
a) Strategic co-ordination and planningb) Performance measurementc) Marketing and communications
RSBs/Regional offices:
•Influence and advocacy – generating resources•Support, guidance and expertise •Investing Lottery and Exchequer funding