Written evidence submitted by the Institute
for Sport Parks and Leisure
1. As a national body representing professionals
in the sport and parks sector, the Institute for Sport, Parks
and Leisure (ISPAL) has an important role to play in driving forward
legacy work from the London 2012 Games.
1.1 ISPAL is an independent membership organisation
with charitable status charged with presenting the case to attract
high quality professionals into the industry. Further more, ISPAL
ensures that the skills and competencies of these professionals
working within sport, leisure or parks with sporting/leisure facilities
are maintained.
1.2 Another of our key roles is to further
develop these professionals to become the leaders of the future
by providing:
— Opportunities to meet and share good
practice at local and national events.
— Learning and development courses.
— Information that is relevant to our members.
1.3 Following a consultation with members,
ISPAL is delighted to make a contribution to the DCMS Select Committee's
study around legacy of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
We can, with speed and depth, reach into the industry. "Policy"
groups are in place to respond to studies such as this. Our membership
is diverse with representation at all levels—sports development
officers, managers to Chief Leisure officers—so we are well
positioned to offer commentary and recommendations.
2. IN SUMMARY
ISPAL is an advocate of the Games and we believe
that the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics will be beneficial
to the country. The system of measuring this will be a key legacy
and must go beyond the obvious tangible legacy of the facilities
and the regeneration around East of London. More focus is now
needed to ensure that all communities are made to feel part of
this. The challenge is demonstrating that any funding diverted
from facilities that are geographically away from London, which
has not been welcomed at a local level, can be a benefit to everyone.
The key themes centre around:
2. Co-ordinated approach.
2.1 The greatest legacy would be to witness
the adoption of a new, comprehensive approach to change that is
sustainable. This will require all agencies to work together.
Government should now set this example.
2.2 In the light of reduced LAs budgets,
restricted officers' time and disappearing LA sports development
teams, an improvement in government cross-departmental working
is highly recommended with an eye on post games strategies. To
achieve the increase in participation LAs will be the key to that
success. SE, CCPR, CSPs and the YST must also step together.
2.3 Government can provide an infrastructure
for increasing activity but should ensure messages into schools
address the need to change behaviour with strong references to
the sporting and cultural initiatives launched since securing
the Olympic bid.
2.4 Legacy is this a vain concept? Or should
we simply celebrate the Games as a spectacle that showcase sport,
provide much needed excitement to our lives and help promote Britain
as a world leader in sport? Should we accept this and the associated
costs for what they are?
RECOMMENDATIONS
— More proactive focus to reward behaviour
change (regulation and economic incentives have worked in the
past). — Improve the communication flow—from LOCOG
and the ODA to local communities.
— Communication flow (of plans to a much
wider audience)needs to improve and not be confined to the "inner
sanctum".
— Make more clear statements of what, how
and who can get involved Embed this external message in a robust
marketing strategy.
— Improve the Games Legacy profile within
the marketing strategy.
— Ensure any Legacy strategy clearly demonstrates
the connection for those NOT living in or near London.
— Invest more money in delivering the Legacy
strategy, with reference to sustainability and retention.
— Government policies to be more co-ordinated
demonstrating cross department working.
— Ensure that Sports facilities are put
to good use for the community and not just for elite activities.
— Protect the provision of sports services
within Local Government to ensure an overall sports legacy in
the UK.
— Invest more in sports coaching sports
leadership, clubs and local facilities across the whole of the
UK that has a clear link to the Olympic brand.
— Invest in new technology that would allow
coaches and leisure operators to electronically count participation
and download onto a central database.
3. ISPAL
In the current economic climate, and with talk
of a decade of austerity, will the operational cost of sports
facilities be an area which experiences significant reductions
as higher priorities for expenditure demand more of declining
budgets?
In the current economic climate, and with talk
of a decade of austerity, will the operational cost of sports
facilities be an area which experiences significant reductions
as higher priorities for expenditure demand more of declining
budgets?
3.1 The Games Strategy makes reference to
skill improvement which is one of the primary functions of ISPAL.
The institute could provide guaranteed, high quality services
to ensure "upskilling" for those involved in the games
between 2010 and 2012.
RECOMMENDATION 1
— ISPAL is placed at the heart of such
studies so that the DCMS Select Committee has the opportunity
to receive a wider response from the profession. — Dialogue
is opened with ISPAL investigating how best to use ISPAL as a
resource to assist the legacy.
"Ways of maximising the value of the Olympic
Legacy both within the host boroughs, London and across the UK"
4. COMMENTARY
There seems to be a lack of clarity over what
is meant by the term "sports legacy". Is it simply an
increase in sports participation? Or more than that? Could it
also refer to wider and better quality opportunities to take part
in sport, with better coaching and leadership, with greater emphasis
being placed on the development of talented performers, more spectators
attending and major events being attracted to the UK on the back
of the Games, an enhanced political awareness of the place of
sport in our society and the valuable contribution it makes to
the wider agendas of social cohesion, community safety, health
and education? Without this clarity, measuring the impact of the
London 2012 Games on sport will be impossible.
4.1 The major components of the sports structure
in the UK that deal with "delivery" could be said to
be:
— Education.
— Local government.
— Governing body/voluntary sector (including
governing bodies of sport, clubs, coaches, volunteers and leaders).
— Private sector services.
4.2 Any overall "master plan"
for sports legacy from the London 2012 Games should be based around
recommendations for action within these "sectors". It
is the ISPAL view that central government, Non-Departmental Public
Bodies and other national and regional agencies should consider
how they can best help these sectors to deliver on the ground.
4.3 ISPAL, working with Kent County Council,
has produced a draft Sports Legacy Agenda for Local Government,
which has received an initial welcome by sports and leisure professionals
and a growing number of national organisations.
4.4 The document:
— Provides a menu of options for local
government in sport.
— Effectively defines sports legacy.
— Enables local authorities to plan.
— Enables local authorities to recognise
their contribution to the UK plc achieving sports legacy from
the Games.
4.5 A combination of documents from those
governing bodies of sport and NDPB's who have either produced,
or are planning to produce, their own legacy plans, along with
bodies such as CCPR and YST should be integrated into the ISPAL/Kent
CC. This collaboration could then provide the main body of any
master plan that was to be produced.
4.6 There is evidence of some fantastic
work being achieved by both national governing bodies of sport
and local authorities. These successes are happening in isolation
and there seems to be little evidence of co-ordination and the
communication of these successes seems limited.
4.7 Local Authorities do have an essential
role to play if there is to be a lasting benefit across the UK
of London playing host to the 2012 Games. They can provide the
coordinating service; providing information, networking, enthusing
organisations to "get engaged" and providing the structure
at the local level that "makes things happen".
4.8 As a key professional Institute for
sport, ISPAL is performing an important role in spreading the
message about the benefits of local communities of their local
authorities being engaged in work around the London 2012 Games
and devoted the first day of the National Sports Development Seminar
in Sheffield on 17 November 2009 to this purpose. ISPAL would
like to contribute more.
4.9 However, one of the major challenges
to local authorities providing a major function in achieving 2012
sports legacy (and in fact the wider legacy of economic development,
increased tourism and cultural benefit) is the financial squeeze
being faced by local government. Local government is active in
sports facility provision, sports development and playing field
provision and maintenance and is the biggest single provider of
sports services in the UK. Many sports services in local government
will be under pressure for survival and it is the strong view
of this Institute that without strong local government sports
services, there will be no overall sports legacy in the UK.
4.10 There is a real fear that the Games
might in fact deliver the legacy of more people participating,
but that facilities will close, hours reduced and local authority
services will disappear leaving our newly inspired customers frustrated
with fewer places to take part.
4.11 The draft London 2012 Games Sports
Legacy Agenda for Local Government referred to earlier, provides
many inexpensive ideas for local government to get engaged in
2012. Also, it provides local government with a rationale as to
why they should be involved with the London 2012 Games.
4.12 There are five local authorities which
have been deemed to be "Beacons" in achieving overall
legacy (not just sport) from the London 2012 Olympic Games and
Paralympic Games.
— London Borough of Greenwich; and
— London Borough of Hackney
4.13 These Beacons could be used more widely
in national legacy planning. Within these authorities, there are
many examples of initiatives that are successfully getting people
involved in sport and physical activity, widening the opportunities
to participate, developing talented performers and attracting
major events on the back of the London 2012 Games.
RECOMMENDATION 2
— Clarify the term "sports legacy".—
Ensure that any master plan produced is based on the recommendations
of a combination of documents from those governing bodies of sport
and NDPB's who have either produced, or are planning to produce,
their own legacy plans, integrated into the ISPAL/Kent CC Legacy
Document 2012 including YST, and any future publication concerning
NGBs.
— Protect the provision of sports services
within Local Government to ensure an overall sports legacy in
the UK.
— Improve the communication strategy so
that the successes of the Beacons are more widely celebrated.
"Whether the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games will deliver a lasting legacy of social, physical and economic
regeneration"
5. COMMENTARY
The Olympics and Paralympics in 2012 will be
a tremendous event and a great party. They will be a great spectacle,
will showcase Britain's ability to organise and deliver and will
inspire many talented youngsters to aim for gold medals in the
Games thereafter. There has been genuine and true excitement of
sports professionals at the prospect of Great Britain hosting
the 2012 games in London.
5.1 It is seen as vital that London does not
simply provide a fantastic spectacle but without the legacy. The
2012 Team from Hertfordshire (Herts is Ready for Winners) has
already been inspired since visiting the planned Olympic facilities.
These games do have the potential to truly inspire all generations,
especially children, into changing lifestyles and becoming more
active—with a specific emphasis on sports participation.
There is continued doubt that a month of activity watched on TV
will not have a lasting impact on a predominantly sedentary population
to take up active pastimes and to maintain their participation.
In the wider context of the legacy for the country, where there
will be no bricks and mortar as reference points, increased participation
in sport and physical activity has been identified as one benefit.
Further benefits are being promoted through the Cultural Olympiad.
5.2 The use of any Olympic-related branding has
been almost completely prohibited and therefore trying to inspire
the public through local provision has been made that much more
difficult. At a grassroots level this has meant an inability to
utilize, for instance, the games' logo on any publicity of our
programmes. This has meant that it has been very difficult to
deliver under the "legacy" banner without any real,
core support to do so. Local provision will continue to be on
offer that is relevant, affordable and accessible to local residents
but without the necessary logos, wording and funding, the public
would never know it had an Olympic focus!
5.3 It is ISPAL's view that success should
not be measured by "bricks and mortar" alone but by
the legacy of the impact that holding the games has on the activity
of the nation and the inspiration to remain active. That being
the case, where is the matched investment of grassroot sports?
Is it across the whole of the UK or is too much London centric?
5.4 ISPAL shares the belief of the voluntary
sector that sport at grassroots is struggling to see any benefit
from London 2012. Very few of them will ever visit the new facilities,
and even fewer will use any of them. The voluntary sector sees
investment in London as detrimental to their aspirations for more
local developments, at a time when in reality costs for volunteers
are increasing. There is an opportunity to promote the activities
of the voluntary sports sector and to encourage increased membership
of clubs and other organisations, but the demands on those individuals
who run the organisations are increasing. The opportunity to look
at sports development improvements through the training and development
of coaches and sports leaders seems to be missing.
5.5 Further concerns have been expressed
about the diversion of monies from the lottery which means that
far less has been available to improve changing rooms, provide
equipment and train coaches than would otherwise have been the
case. This too could be a legacy but not one to celebrate!
5.6 There is little doubt that the regeneration
of the east end of London due to the impact of the Olympics and
Paralympics in 2012 will be considered to be a great success,
and that the facilities and the athletes village will be promoted
as a tangible legacy for the area. The longer term operation of
the facilities has yet to be clearly determined. Their long term
operational arrangements and utilisation needs to be secured in
advance of the main event. The use of the demountable facilities
and equipment used during the games needs to be determined. Relating
to these facilities for those not living close by is an issue.
If there had been an investment across the UK of facilities then
more people would more clearly have enjoyed a tangible legacy
at a local level.
5.7 If the athletes' village ultimately
provides housing for local people, or brings new people to the
area, then there will be a contribution to the regeneration of
the area. Clearly there will be an infrastructure to support the
Games and this will continue to be available post-2012, but will
all of the other services that communities need be in place? Has
this cost been identified? In the current economic climate, and
with talk of a decade of austerity, will the operational cost
of sports facilities be an area which experiences significant
reductions as higher priorities for expenditure demand more of
declining budgets?
5.8 Despite the existence of both regional
and sub-regional plans, the engagement of key individuals is "hit
and miss". There is also a piecemeal approach to engagement
with London 2012. A menu of opportunities for involvement and
engagement has not been clearly articulated. Individuals appear
to learn of things more by chance than pre-determination, eg the
Community Games element of the Cultural Olympiad. They have been
trumpeted as a real means of involvement for some time now, and
locally there has been interest in staging events.
5.9 However the promised "tool kit"
and opportunities to bid for resources have yet to be made available
and this is a cause of tensions between potential organisers of
events and officers who have endeavoured to communicate the information.
5.10 Using the 2010 Winter Olympic model
it should be noted that 70% of the economic benefit will be from
sports tourism and sports tourism needs to develop this unique
opportunity. Eg Wales has enjoyed the emergence of better relationships
(with YST, WAG and central government) following the UK School
Games and the number of trained volunteers has increased as the
legacy to that event.
RECOMMENDATION 3
— Reassess and clearly articulate the long
term operational arrangements for the sporting facilities being
developed for the Games especially in the light of the current
economic climate. — Identify post-2010 costs associated
with the provision for community services around the Olympic facilities.
— More marketing of the successes of the
Cultural Olympiad.
— Identify ways to reduce bureaucracy for
the clubs and their officials at grassroots in order for them
to deliver a lasting legacy.
— Identify local funding for sports development
improvements for the training and development of coaches and sports
leaders.
— Invest locally in a national network
of legacy facilities.
— Improve the external communication of
LOCOG and the ODA with other agencies.
— Improve the communication channels of
what is on offer.
— Deliver on promises of resources—clarity
is needed on who is responsible.
— Converge the funding cycles of NGBs,
CSPs, SSPs and LAs at the next spending review to ensure same
time scales and co-ordinated planning.
— Sports tourism to develop a strategy
to maximise the Olympic opportunity.
"Progress towards meeting targets to increase
grassroots participation in Sport"
6. COMMENTARY
It is the view of ISPAL that continually reviewing
and changing the infrastructure of sport and its delivery has
had a negative and detrimental effect on progress towards meeting
targets for increased participation. Finland and Canada have adopted
a 30 year strategy for sporting participation and witnessing a
steady rise in those engaging in sport. Could this be a better
strategy?
6.1 Currently it is the role of National Governing
Bodies of Sport via their volunteers in community clubs to delivery
an increase in participation. Their ability and capacity to do
so is in question and yet they have the responsibility for delivering
this legacy. If the communication of the funding implications
of Whole Sport Plans has not reached grassroots within each of
the funded sports (and some sports do not have local officers),
how successful can those sports be in meeting the increases under
discussion? Funding has been siphoned away towards elite performance
with less available for clubs (volunteers) at local level. Combine
this with the pressure on local government budgets, members and
senior management (of district councils) time restraints and priorities,
reduced sports development personnel and the future could be bleak.
6.2 It is ISPALs view that the DoH could take
a stronger lead in Change4Life programmes, influence the value
of the Free Swimming initiative and work more strategically with
other government offices and agencies so that these successful
programmes are part of not only the pre-game legacy but also the
post-game legacy.
6.3 It is accepted that holding the games
will stimulate interest in sport. The legacy will be the post
game participation programme, with retention as a key element.
RECOMMENDATION 4
— Put in place and maintain a longer term
structure and funding for sports delivery. — Consistently
improve the support of sport at a local level (Olympics or no
Olympic legacy).
— Develop a post games participation strategy
with a strong retention strand.
— Increase funding for community clubs
and local programmes to maximise sporting and cultural opportunities.
— Establish a forum for legacy discussion
to have a national perspective (not just around the Olympic Park).
— Develop a more flexible approach in the
use of the Olympic logo so that programmes and events have a clear
connection.
— Develop an inspirational Olympic marketing
CD for every school.
January 2010
| 
