LEGACY FIGURES BEGGAR BELIEF

I have visited the sorry tale of the absent Olympic sports participation legacy on numerous occasions over the last couple of years. Absent or bad strategy, undelivered promises and political finger crossing have been the key elements of the tale to date, to which we can now add barely believable data…..

Last week (December 6^th) Sport England released the latest set of ‘Active People’ statistics which, somewhat surprisingly, were reported by the media without question. Yet, to anyone taking even a passing glance the figures are barely credible. It would appear that having been unable to generate the increase in sporting participation promised by our politicians when winning the London Games bid, the solution has been to simply massage the data to match the promise.

Officially 750,000 more people over the age of 16 are taking part in sport at least once a week compared to 12 months ago. Surely this is good news? Well, yes, it would be if it were believable.

The headline figure offered by Sport England’s expensive Active People survey is 15.5 million over 16s regularly (once per week) taking part in sport.

Put that figure another way and it tells us that Sport England want us to believe that 1 in 3 over 16s in England regularly participate in sport. Seriously? Take a look around you – friends, work colleagues, family, neighbours – one in every three are playing sport regularly, that is what we are being asked to believe.

I can only speak for myself and, for me, that claim beggars belief. That the media accept it unquestioningly astonishes me. That the politicians who fund this expensive survey believe it continues to offer value for money (if it ever did) astounds me.

One in three. Take another look around you. Not one in three under 30s or under 40s, but 33% of all over 16s in England.

It appears the solution for successive governments poor sports development strategy has been introduced. Just make the figures up to fit the promise. And why not, it appears no one cares enough to check anyway.

We still lack a properly integrated national strategy for the development of sport. Young people are still missing out on learning physical literacy at the key age/stage of development and we are still missing any target by which success (or failure) of government policy can be judged. But take a look around you, 1 in 3 of your neighbours are playing sport regularly (ahem) so everything in the garden must be rosy.

 

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, December 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

2012 LEGACY PLAN ANNOUNCED BY THE BBC – YES, IT IS A REPEAT!

A couple of weeks ago the government announced its 2012 Legacy Plan. You might have blinked and missed it because, it seems, only the BBC thought it worthy of reporting. This is the plan that many experts, myself included, have been calling for. So why so little coverage, why so little interest?

Initiativeitis in place of integrated strategy?

Although it is to report the supposed arrival of something I have long called out for, this will not be one of my longer blogs and, depending on your view, neither will it be one of my most interesting.

On 18^th September the BBC reported; “London 2012 legacy plan published.” At last, I thought. Over seven years after our then government promised it to the world and over two years after Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson promised us that a national strategy for the development of sport existed (but could not produce it) we were finally going to have something to start seriously delivering on the promises and the sound-bites.

Only we weren’t. Reading below the headline, the ’10 point plan’ the government announced and the BBC reported on wasn’t new (or news) at all. It was a rehash of existing initiatives bundled together in an attempt to give the impression of a new plan.

Maybe I had it wrong. Surely the BBC hadn’t resorted to carrying repeats of old news as well as old TV programmes? But they had.

The reason the announcement was not considered newsworthy by most of the nation’s media is simple. It wasn’t newsworthy. All that the announcement contained was a list of existing initiatives repackaged to look like something new.

Initiativeitis continues apace. The long-promised strategy is still awaited. Nothing has changed.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, October 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

WHEN HEARING “IT’S NOT MY JOB” IS A GOOD THING

We have all been there, getting increasingly frustrated when confronted with that “it’s not my job” mentality. Sometimes it’s a call centre, other times it’s face to face but we have probably all encountered companies whose staff appear happy to avoid helping you, safe in the knowledge that it isn’t their job.

It reflects poorly on them and it reflects poorly on the organisations for who they work. And yet, every now and then hearing someone say; “it’s not my job,” far from being frustrating, is a breath of fresh air and a sure sign of a well-run business.

The 24 hours of Le Mans. More than a race it is a test of man (or woman) and machine, of speed and endurance, of engineering excellence and motoring reliability. In this environment, everything has to be planned to the n^th degree; the tiniest malfunction can finish you.

Add to that the pressure of being a team not only expected to secure overall victory but to do so using a new technology making its first outing at this classic event.

This was the position Audi found themselves in over the weekend. They had four cars entered; all diesels but two were also showcasing Audi’s E-Tron Quattro technology, a hybrid engine.

With less than three of the 24 hours to go the two E-Tron Quattro cars were vying for the lead when, out of the blue, a potentially race wrecking incident occurred. One of the Audi’s (car #2) was surprised when lapping a back-marker, expecting it to break one way and leave a space, it broke the other. Driver Allan McNish took avoiding action and in the blink of an eye was off the track and hitting the Armco barrier.

McNish carefully drove his heavily damaged number 2 Audi back to the pits and a seemingly huge repair job commenced.

Eurosport dispatched an interviewer to find out what the damage was and whether the car would even rejoin the race.

Visibly excited, the interviewer asked Audi’s Head of Motorsport, Dr Wolfgang Ullrich, “What is wrong? Can you repair it? What is happening in the garage?”

Calmly Dr Ullrich replied; “I don’t know. That is not my job.”

This was no passing the buck, frustrate and move on, ‘not my job’ comment. This was a comment born of supreme confidence. Confidence that every possible angle had been planned, confidence that everybody in the Audi team knew their job and, importantly, also knew what was not their job. It was confidence that he didn’t need to interfere, that if the car could be returned to race, it would be.

Less than three hours later the Audi’s crossed the line to complete the twenty-four hours of Le Mans in formation, taking a clean sweep of the podium with the E-Tron Quattros in first and second place. Incredibly the number 2 Audi had not only been repaired but had finished the race only one lap down on the number 1 Audi.

This was not only a feat of engineering and mechanical reliability, nor only of exceptional driving. This was a feat of planning, planning so specific, so detailed that every eventuality could be (and was) covered effectively, efficiently and economically.

I wonder how many Chief Executives, company Directors, business owners and middle managers have the assured confidence in their strategic planning and preparation that Dr Ullrich had in his?

Could you ever hear yourself saying; “I don’t know, that is not my job,” without worrying that you don’t?

Why not?

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, June 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

THE INVISIBLE AIM AND THE MISSING STRATEGY – BRITAIN’S OLYMPIC LEGACY

Photo: The Telegraph

Since I started writing this blog a little over two years ago, the theme I have returned to more often than any other is that of the paucity of quality strategy to service the participation legacy promised by the UK when awarded the London Olympics seven years ago.

It is a tale of poor strategy, of excuses and of blame. Most of all it is a tale of making big promises and then failing to plan for their delivery. 

For all the political spin and media hype over the Olympic Legacy, there was one key legacy promise made on the nation’s behalf which has not been delivered and all for the simple lack of quality planning, the absence of good strategy; that of a measurable increase in levels of participation in sport in this country.

I was therefore interested to hear of Hugh Robertson’s lunch with the Sports Journalists Association which took place last Thursday (7^th June) and to read comments the Minister for Sport made.

Mr Robertson is the Minister who coined the term ‘Inititiveitis’ shortly after the last election, a term he used, correctly, to describe the poor strategy displayed by the previous government when pursuing the participation legacy. In short, in place of quality strategy addressing the sports development continuum, the policy had been one of producing a seemingly endless number of initiatives in the hope they would somehow deliver on the promises made in Singapore on behalf of us all in 2005.

Unfortunately, since coining the term, the Minister has continued with more of the same, a stream of initiatives but still no clear, integrated strategy for the development of sport in the UK which services the full sports development continuum. In July 2010, after claiming to have such a strategy, he was challenged to produce it. We still wait.

You will understand my interest, nearly two years on, to hear what sort of update Mr Robertson would provide for the assembled journalists.

He is still scornful of the previous government’s efforts to service the legacy promise. He rightly points out that the target of one million more people being active by 2012 was “just idiotic.” Having an unattainable target gets in the way of quality planning as surely as having no target.

Over two years into his role as Minister for Sport and just under two years after promising he had a (still unseen) strategy for the development of sport in the UK, it was good to hear that he does at least have a clear aim.

“One of the things being in the Army taught me,” Mr Robertson said, “was always have a clear aim. It is our absolutely clear aim to deliver a successful Olympics, and part of that is having a successful team.”

This is good to hear. It is reassuring to know that he understands the need for a clear aim. However, knowing he understands makes the absence of any new target for the physical activity legacy baffling. He was right to get rid of the unachievable ‘one million’ target but what of its replacement? What is the new, realistic aim which will drive planning for this part of our nation’s legacy promise?

Sadly, we don’t know. Two years after getting rid of a bad target we still await news of its replacement. And, without that clear aim, quality strategy to achieve it cannot be put in place. Perhaps this is why we are still yet to see the strategy promised two years ago?

Two years (at least 40%) into this government, I do not believe it is unrealistic to have hoped for more from the Minister who recognised Initiativeitis for what it was and who professes to so clearly understand the value of a clear aim.

Two years into office, the lack of planning and any shortcomings within his own department and within its delivery agency (Sport England) cannot be blamed on the previous government. The buck must now stop at his own Ministerial door.

If the advice he receives is flawed, it is time to change the advisers. If the lack of clear, quality strategy is the responsibility of someone (or some agency) under his direction, it is time for a clear-out and for new, more capable strategists to come in. And if the lack of clear progress towards an undefined participation legacy target is frustrating him, he should try being in our shoes!

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, June 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

BLAME THE DATA AND REMOVE THE GOALPOSTS

HOW TO MASK NATIONAL OLYMPIC POLICY FAILINGS!

Guest Blog by Prof. Mike Weed.

I was contemplating a blog revisiting the scandalous lack of proper strategy from government aimed at delivering the physical activity legacy promised to the IOC in Singapore in 2005 when Mike Weed published an excellent new blog on that very topic. Therefore, instead of a new blog from me, with his consent, here is Mike’s blog on the subject; ‘Blame The Data and Move the Goalposts – How to Mask National Olympic Policy Failings!’ (Jim Cowan).

In Singapore in 2005, Lord Coe, the Chair of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, secured the 2012 Games for London with a bid presentation including a promise to inspire a new generation to choose sport.  Yet, as the popular press is fond of reminding us, no previous Games has raised national participation in sport and physical activity. Furthermore, a systematic review in the BMJ in 2010 concluded that “the available evidence is not sufficient to confirm or refute expectations about the health or socio-economic benefits for the host population of previous major multi-sport events”.

No Evidence for INHERENT legacies

However, this is not the full picture.  Whilst it is true that no previous Games has resulted in sustained increases in sport and physical activity participation in national populations, it is also true that no previous Games has attempted to raise population levels of sport and physical activity participation.  Participation data has merely been examined ex-poste to explore whether Olympic and Paralympic Games have affected participation levels.  Consequently, the BMJ review should be interpreted to mean that there is no evidence for an inherent sport and physical activity participation legacy effect, in which benefits occur automatically.

Reasonable Legacy Ambitions?

So what does this mean for London 2012?  Was it reasonable to suggest back in 2005 that a national sport and physical activity participation legacy could be delivered?  In short, yes!  The lack of evidence for national participation legacies following previous Games that had not attempted to deliver such legacies is not an indication that a national sport and physical activity participation legacy could not be leveraged from London 2012.  In fact, a worldwide systematic review of evidence, conducted by the Centre for Sport, Physical Education & Activity Research (SPEAR) at Canterbury Christ Church University for the Department of Health, provides evidence that mechanisms associated with Olympic and Paralympic Games have had a positive effect on sport participation where specific initiatives have been put in place to leverage such participation.  However, such initiatives have not been on a large enough scale to affect national levels of sport and physical activity participation, hence the lack of evidence for an inherent effect in the BMJ review.

National Policy Failures

So, armed with this evidence about how sport and physical legacies might be developed, surely good progress must be being made towards delivering a national sport and physical activity legacy from the London 2012 Games?  Well, unfortunately not!  Evidence from Sport England’s Active People Survey shows sport participation in England has increased by an average of only 38,000 a year over the last three years.  The problem is that although evidence suggests London 2012 could have boosted the nation’s sport and physical activity participation given the right strategic approach, national legacy policies have not incorporated this evidence into a coherent national legacy strategy.  Instead, the legacy aspirations of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, like those of Lord Coe, have been pinned on the hope that there will be an inherent inspiration effect from the Games, with England’s Mass Participation Legacy Plan, Places People Play, focusing almost solely on supply: of facilities, of fields, of leaders, and of opportunities.  However, this is not Field of Dreams – there is no evidence to suggest that if you build a sport supply infrastructure, people will come! People will not come because there is no strategy in place to simulate demand.  Consequently, the lack of progress towards a national sport and physical activity participation legacy from London 2012 is a policy failing, in which national legacy strategy has not been informed by the available evidence.

Blaming the Data

Unsurprisingly, a policy failing is not one of the explanations respectively offered by Lord Coe and Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary.  Lord Coe blames the data, believing that the Active People Survey fails to capture sport participation legacy outcomes, and suggesting that it should not be trusted because Sport England, which commissions the survey, has “singularly failed”.  As alternative evidence, Lord Coe suggests “if you speak to [the British Cycling performance director] Dave Brailsford he will tell you he’s got half a million more cyclists than pre-Beijing”.  However, Active People provides official National Statistics, and since 2005 has been conducted by two highly respected market research companies, IpsosMORI and TNS-BMRB. Each year its sample size exceeds 175,000, which provides accuracy to within 0.2%.  The same cannot be said of the anecdotal view of a national performance director, however genuinely-held it may be.

Removing the Goalposts

In contrast to Lord Coe, Jeremy Hunt does not suggest National Statistics are flawed.  Rather he claims an inappropriate legacy target was set by the previous government, which promised to get one million more adults participating in sport by 2012/13.  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has now dropped this target, because Mr Hunt believes a “more meaningful national measure” is required.  However, with less than 2012 hours to go to the Games, a more meaningful national measure has yet to be announced.  Consequently, and somewhat conveniently, by effectively removing the goalposts the DCMS has now ensured that there is no nationally endorsed target against which government policy can be judged to have failed to deliver a national sport and physical activity participation legacy.

© Prof. Mike Weed, May 2012.

Professor Mike Weed, a highly regarded academic, is a Professor of Sport in Society.  He is Director of the Centre for Sport, Physical Education & Activity Research (SPEAR) at Canterbury Christ Church University and is Editor of the Journal of Sport & Tourism. Mike’s personal blog can be read at http://profmikeweed.wordpress.com

Except where otherwise stated © Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, 2010-2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

BRITAIN’S COUNCIL TAX PAYERS SUBSIDISE TORCH RELAY

Poor Planning Adds to the Cost

Recent news stories* exposed how the true cost of hosting the Olympics is 2½ times (or more) higher than the oft quoted figure of £9.3 Billion, which itself is far higher than the original £2.4bn estimate. Not included in that figure is the full cost of staging the Olympic Torch Relay for which local council tax payers will be footing a sizeable chunk of the bill, in part, because of where they are forced to shop and, in part, due to bad planning which, in turn, is allowing LOCOG to generate income from local authority budgets.

The Olympic Torch Relay sets out on its journey around the UK on 19^th May taking in numerous local authority areas as it passes within reach of (the organisers claim) everyone in these islands. But what a lot of those people it passes within easy reach of don’t realise is that they are helping to pay for it from their council taxes. The Torch Relay is not being funded via the billions allocated to LOCOG for organising the Olympic Games; it is being funded in part by sponsors but also with a generous contribution from those local authorities hosting stages on the route.

How much of the bill is being picked up by council tax payers is not clear. Some local authorities have published figures, some haven’t. Where they have the figures varied widely and where they haven’t there is a feeling they are deliberately avoiding a potentially sore subject.

One local authority in response to a Freedom of Information request asking about costs and inconvenience to the public stated:
“Work is progressing to complete the planning associated with the Relay and the cost estimates requested may be available closer to the event. However even when this is completed the risks (and therefore costs) associated with the event are not readily quantifiable.

“We do not expect to receive any external funding to help with the costs of the Torch Relay. The Government and the GLA have made it clear they will not fund these costs and external sponsorship is not possible due to the restrictions placed upon the event by LOCOG to protect the Olympic Sponsors.”

In short, either they don’t know or they aren’t telling.

Where authorities have published figures they range from Bracknell’s £17,000 to Poole’s estimate of over £75,000 often without factoring in officer time, street cleaning and more. Add on top of that the cost of policing the relay (council tax payers contribute towards police costs) and the invisible cost of inconvenience to and interruption of business and the figure soon starts adding up. (Update 14 April: I have now been advised the true figures are actually much higher, for example at close to £160,000, Cornwall are spending more than double the figure stated by Poole).

What will infuriate council tax payers more is the inefficiency demonstrated in the planning which further squanders their money.

Being the Olympics, those places along the route will be expected to include Olympic and London 2012 branding in their street dressing. The only place they can buy the official flags, banners and bunting? You guessed it; LOCOG. Not only are LOCOG not paying for the Torch Relay, they are profiting from it.

But why does every single stop on the Torch’s route need its own Olympic branding paraphernalia? In most cases these will be use once and never again items. With a little planning couldn’t councils hosting on successive days have shared the cost and the banners? How many of those attending will notice if the local authorities concerned simply used local and national flags and banners? Surely the Torch procession will be well enough branded to ensure no one mistakes it for anything other than an Olympic event?

While some won’t mind; not every council tax payer will be happy to hear they are landing the costs of the Torch Relay. And the lack of clear, integrated strategic planning between host councils will most certainly add to the disquiet at the final bill to council tax payers – estimated at over £5m.

*Recent news stories include:

Olympic Bill Tops £12bn (Sky News, 26^th January)

Cost of the Olympics to Spiral to £24bn (Mail, 27^th January)

More Public Olympic Funds Trickling Over to Games Organisers (28^th February)

Alarm at Soaring Cost of the Olympics (Sky News, 9^th March)

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, April 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

THE BANK OF MUM & DAD AND THE FUNDING OF SPORT

Regular readers of this blog will know that I frequently return to the topic of strategy for the development of sport and the ineptitude of consecutive governments on the subject.

However, as with all aspects of life there are also a number of apparently non-sporting government decisions which will have a significant effect on grass-roots sport and its ability to grow – or even stand still. As any half-way competent strategist will tell you ‘cause and effect’ should always be considered as ‘big picture’ considerations where, unfortunately, government tends to only consider decisions in one area in isolation. In government initiative seemingly always trumps strategy.

In the rush to recognise the value that Lottery funding has brought to sport in this country we sometimes forget that, at the grass-roots, it is not even in the top three of biggest funders. By far the largest financial contributors to sport are the many unpaid volunteers who keep it running. Their contribution is not limited to the obvious travel and time but is often invisible such as the North London coach I spoke to who pays entry fees for the young athletes he looks after because without they would not be able to afford to compete.

Following the volunteers in terms of contribution is the ‘bank of mum and dad’ – a bank that pays those entry fees when it can afford them as well as being kit purchaser/washer, taxi service, funder, sponsor and more.

With VAT seemingly set to remain at 20% for the foreseeable future this is the first area of negative impact on sport. Equipment costs more, facility hire costs more, travel costs more; in fact everything costs more. At the grass-roots end of sport, not an essential item of spending for the vast majority of the population, as the financial pressure builds sport becomes an area where cut backs can be made.

Fuel is an essential commodity but has been far from exempt from not just a single tax but double taxation as the seemingly ever-rising fuel levy adds to the burden of VAT. This stealth tax on small business (which many small sports clubs are) is also taxation on both participation in and the watching of sport. As with VAT, as family budgets are stretched difficult choices have to be made and little Johnny’s badminton lesson will more often than not be seen as less essential than getting to work , paying the bills or putting food on the table. It should be remembered that tax on fuel is a tax on everything reliant on fuel for its production or delivery – pretty much everything else!

Public transport might be an option but buses and trains do not always run according to where sport needs them to run at the times it needs them to and besides, with many families ‘time-poor’ the added time public transport travel can take makes it less likely to be utilised, especially outside of cities like London where it is less plentiful. And for longer trips for sports fans and away team travel the train, already expensive is now having £3.6bn a year of subsidies removed by the government.

The third largest funder of sport in this country is local authorities who, as we all know, are facing significant cuts. Like it or not, those cuts will most likely fall in areas in which those authorities are not bound by statutory protection; other than playing fields that is all facilities, sports development, community clubs, sports inclusion projects…..need I list them all?

I am on record as supporting sports facilities, sports development and community sport as candidates for statutory protection (as they are for many of our European neighbours) and would suggest that any government serious about a lasting sports participation legacy would make this a key component of any integrated strategy for the development of sport in the UK – a strategy that no government has yet seen fit to produce.

Indeed, it is the lack of investment in good strategy which most undermines grass-roots sport in this country. In June last year a Sky Sports News special report on legacy highlighted the problem of local authorities being unable to fund sports facilities when using Finsbury Park athletics track as a back drop.

One of the programme’s expert panel, former NBA star John Amaechi made the point; “…what’s going to happen here at the Olympics could be worse even than just people not participating afterwards, it could be that you excite young people to play, they go out into their communities to look for where to play and they come here and they realise it’s grassed over, it is no longer a facility where they can get the right kind of coaching and the right kind of development. That would be a true tragedy.”

The local facility might be closed, mum and dad can’t afford to get them to the nearest one still open and if they can, the volunteers can’t afford to offer the level of support they once did and there is no proper strategy aimed at addressing these issues or the overall development of sport properly.

Some legacy.

(Blog first published at www.sportsthinktank.com on 2nd April 2012)

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, April 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

SUPPORT CEREBRAL PALSY SPORT AT THE GREAT NORTH SWIM

Cerebral Palsy Sport have places available for The Great North Swim, the UK’s largest outdoor swimming event. It is a one mile swim in beautiful Lake  Windermere, Cumbria on Saturday 23^th & Sunday 24^th June 2012.

The event provides the opportunity to experience the thrill of open-water swimming in a safe environment and knowing you are raising vital funds for children with cerebral palsy at the same time.

CP Sport is a national charity that is dedicated to providing opportunities for those with cerebral palsy to fulfil their potential through sport, and was the starting-point for a number of GB competitors who will be taking part in this year’s Paralympics.

To register your interest for this popular event, please get in touch by calling Marianne on 0115 925 2620 or emailing at mknight@cpsport.org.

To find out more about CP Sport and how you can support them please visit www.cpsport.org.

AT LAST, A STRATEGY FOR SPORT – BUT IS IT ANY GOOD?

Regular readers of this blog will know that in the past I have been particularly critical of the lack of good strategy coming from politicians in general and the lack of strategy for sport coming from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in particular. 

Last week, DCMS announced ‘Creating a sporting habit for life – a new youth sport strategy’ – a positive step which I applaud. But, as strategies go, is it any good?

The new strategy is not the much-needed, long-awaited national strategy for the development of sport nor does it pretend to be. The purpose of this strategy is to target young people, in its own words, ‘creating a sporting habit for life.’ Whether it will succeed or fail will be difficult to judge because from the outset, a vital component of strategy has not been defined.

While flawed and poorly researched, the previous government were clear and concise about what success looked like; one million more people taking part in sport. The success of any strategies (or the initiatives employed in strategy’s place) could be judged. When the current government removed this target without installing a new one, they deleted that clear picture of success. And while the talk is still of more people taking part in sport, judging success is impossible. Ten more people playing sport is ‘more people’ but is it success? Of course not, but what is the measure? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? We don’t know. Thus from the outset any new ‘strategy’ faces an uphill struggle in that what it sets out to achieve has not been clearly defined. It is a basic Strategy 101 lesson, the more specifically you can describe success, the more specifically you can plan for its achievement.

‘Creating a sporting habit for life’ is in reality a crafty rebadging of the previous methodology employed by this and the previous government, a policy of initiativeitis. What this document does is pull a few initiatives together in a document with the word strategy on its cover.

Is it really strategy? Yes, it is. In its purest definition strategy means ‘a plan or design for achieving one’s aims.’ The government has set out its aim, woolly though it is, and this document forms a part of their design for achieving it. However, the difference between strategy and good strategy is important and this document falls short on a number of counts.

Strategists will know the term ‘Insanity Planning.’ It refers to the practice of doing the same thing today and tomorrow that you did yesterday and expecting different results. Insanity planning plays a role in the new DCMS strategy.

Not only is the policy of initiativeitis continued (albeit thinly disguised), the strategy relies on the same experts who have informed previous government initiatives and, according to the DCMS own statistics, failed to deliver. The strategy talks of working with a range of groups, “the people who know sport and young people best”, the very same groups and people within those groups who have been employed/funded by government to deliver the development of sport previously.

While within those groups there are many who do know sport and young people well, the assumption that all do is naïve. Indeed, there should be no place for assumption in good strategy. A further assumption being that knowledge of sport and young people brings with it knowledge of sports development and of strategy.

Insanity planning; using the same processes, the same people and initiatives designed by the same people who designed what went before (some of which look remarkably similar despite the new names).

Developing sport properly requires an understanding of the sports development continuum, a continuum which takes the participant on a journey from foundation to participation and, assuming talent, interest and support onto performance and excellence. Laying the right foundations is of vital importance to what will come later and this area has largely been ignored by the new ‘strategy’ – it jumps straight in at participation without considering some basics:

1. People are more likely to pursue a lifetime of involvement in sport if they enjoy it.
2. They are more likely to enjoy it if they have been given the basic skills that facilitate enjoyment.

Thus largely overlooking primary schools (although they are mentioned in afterthought in a couple of places) is to undermine that pathway at the outset. Consider a child entering secondary school who has not learned to catch – what is the likelihood of that child enjoying any sport in which catching is a requirement? It matters not how many opportunities the child has to try those sports, the foundations were never laid to facilitate the enjoyment.

Yet, if the teaching of Physical Literacy was made a compulsory part of the primary school curriculum in the same way PE is (and will remain) in secondary schools, no child should move on to secondary school unable to catch (Physical Literacy is best taught between the ages of 8 and 11). Physical Literacy covers a range of movement skills (of which catching is just one) vital to the future enjoyment of and success in sport and yet our past, present and now future systems continue to overlook them. (For more on Physical Literacy see: How Government Policy Past and Present Undermines Ours Children’s Future).

Would it be a difficult new policy to introduce? No, it could be easily added to the woefully small amount of time primary teaching degrees give to PE with workshops for those already in teaching. Would this be expensive? No, certainly nowhere near as expensive as spending £millions on initiatives which assume skills not taught, which assume the laying of a foundation not planned for anywhere else. Given the focus of the new ‘strategy’ is on providing young people with a habit for life, it is surprising this effective and economical way of laying a sound foundation has been overlooked.

And yet, this ‘strategy’ is a step in the right direction. It acknowledges the need for strategy even if only by putting the word strategy on its cover. It tries hard to pull together various initiatives to create a strategy of sorts. But it is not, nor is it a part of, a functional, well designed national strategy for the development of sport and it is this that is required, it is this that would offer the best chance of our delivering on promises of increased participation made in Singapore seven years ago (and of sustaining that increase).

What we have instead is a continuation of the silo mentality I had hoped the proposed merger between UK Sport, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust would consign to history. There is certainly little sign of the vertical integration so key to properly effective, efficient, economical strategy.

The new ‘strategy’ is divided into five sections, the aspiration of each section is laudable but I am looking at this from a quality analysis perspective, not one of how warm the documents’ wish-list makes me feel.

The first aspiration is to build a lasting legacy of competitive sport in schools, something I am a supporter of. The focus, indeed the only offering is of the School Games. The document suggests that all children will be offered competitive opportunities through the School Games but I wonder, what of those with poorly developed physical literacy and how many life-long (or at least long-term) participants such an initiative will bring?

Aspiration number two is on improving links between schools and community sports clubs something that sounds like a rehash of New Labour’s ‘School-Club Links’ initiative only with fewer resources (same experts, same solutions – insanity planning). Credit where it is due though, at least this section lays out some clear targets by which to measure success. For example Football has pledged that 2000 of their clubs will be linked to schools by 2017. Whether that includes those already linked is not made clear however while 2000 sounds a large number if you break it down it is 8 clubs linking to schools per county per year. The ‘all-sport’ target is 6000, the equivalent of 24 clubs from all sports linking to schools per county per year. This is not what I call ambitious, representing only around half a club linking per county per year from each of the 46 sports Sport England currently fund.

Working with those sports governing bodies is aspiration number three. What is described in this section is not even an initiative; it is an outline structure which will require strategy from the individual sports to enable delivery of government policy via Whole Sport Plans. Whole Sport Plans is a grand sounding name for something started under the last government and which, far from being ‘whole sport’ are judged solely on government policy and funding targets. There is no additional requirement for each sport to provide evidence – or even have – any plans for the sport which provide development outside that decreed by government policy. In other words sport’s governing bodies are now positioned so as to be solely answerable to government rather than the sports in their care. Under New Labour many even restructured to ensure this. Government trusts governing bodies to deliver calling them “the experts”. These are the same experts deemed incapable of delivering previous policy, when they were also referred to as “the experts”. I repeat what I said above; being an expert in sport is not the same thing as being an expert in sports development which is not the same thing as being an expert in strategy.

The fourth aspiration is on investing in facilities an aspiration which must be welcomed by all involved in sport. That said, the ‘strategy’ announces nothing new, instead repeating the funding promises made in the ‘Places, People, Play’ initiative announcement. It is worth remembering Seb Coe’s warnings in Singapore in 2005 that no building has ever inspired anyone to take up sport; buildings must be a delivery tool for properly planned development.

Fifth and the final aspiration reported in the ‘strategy’ is that of opening up provision and investing in communities. Again, this is something all involved in sport will welcome however the document gives no clues as to the level of investment or how it will be targeted. The case study provided in this section offers no clarification, describing a badminton club which has “no joining fee, no membership fee and no need for a partner – creating a club that could sustain itself for the long-term.” How is not made clear and, as with all things strategy, ‘how’ is a vital question overlooked at the author’s peril.

So, we have a strategy of sorts which, despite my comments above, is a positive but small step in the right direction. Many of the aspirations are laudable but the absence of any meaningful description of what success looks like, sound sports development philosophy, vertically integrated thinking or, indeed, expertise suggests that while at last the government are trying they must raise their game if they are to improve further.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, January 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

VACANCY: FUND RAISING OFFICER WITH THE ASA EAST MIDLANDS

Fund Raising Officer – East Midland Region (1 Year Fixed Term, although subsequent extension may be possible)

Salary: £23,085

Hours: Full Time Post – 35 hours per week  

The ASA is the National Governing Body for Swimming and its associated disciplines in England with its headquarters situated in Loughborough.

Applications are invited for the post of Fund Raising Officer – East Midland Region.

East Midland ASA is seeking to recruit an experienced Fundraising Officer. To be considered for this position you should be able to identify future funding streams, demonstrate the ability to establish, maintain and support relationships with potential sponsors, and pro-actively generate income for the Region and its partners.

The person should, ideally, be educated to degree level or equivalent, have previous experience of raising income through grant applications and sponsorship, have experience within a charity or the third sector and possess excellent written and oral communication skills. An ability to develop relationships with partners within and outside the organisation is essential as you will be liaising with people at all levels. The successful candidate must be able to work on their own initiative and as part of a team.

An understanding of the structure of aquatics and the needs of teachers, coaches, volunteers and swimmers at all levels would be desirable.  Location for the postholder is flexible.

The ASA is committed to diversification of its work force and welcomes applications from all sections of the community.  The ASA is committed to being an equal opportunities employer. We currently hold the Foundation and Preliminary levels of the Equality Standard and are working towards the Intermediate Level.

The successful applicant will be subject to an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau Check and reference checks.

The closing date for applications is:  Monday, 16^th January 2012

Interviews to be held: Thursday, 26^th January 2012

For an informal discussion please contact Roger Glithero, Regional Director on 07887 526054.  To obtain further details about this post please email personnelservices@swimming.org  or write to The Personnel Department, ASA, SportPark, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3QF.

Visit the ASA East Midlands website.

Please do not contact Cowan Global about this vacancy, please contact the ASA as outlined above.