1 / 21

Limitations on the volunteering legacy from the 2012 Olympic Games

Limitations on the volunteering legacy from the 2012 Olympic Games. Dr. Geoff Nichols: University of Sheffield Rita Ralston: Manchester Metropolitan University (retired). This session aims to show….

laith-welch
Download Presentation

Limitations on the volunteering legacy from the 2012 Olympic Games

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Limitations on the volunteering legacy from the 2012 Olympic Games Dr. Geoff Nichols: University of Sheffield Rita Ralston: Manchester Metropolitan University (retired)

  2. This session aims to show… • How the split between delivery and legacy at the 2012 Games restricted a volunteering legacy. • How this can be understood within the framework of ‘regulatory capitalism’. • How local government led 2012 Ambassador programmes were concerned with a legacy – but were constrained by resources. • Consideration of the implications for maximising the volunteering legacy. • The importance of developing volunteering to plug the gap in public service delivery.

  3. First, some provisos….. • We did not have access to LOCOG – so have had to put together information from different sources. • These ideas were first formulated in 2013 – so new developments are ongoing. • ‘Sport England’ and ‘Join In’ may have a different perspective.

  4. Our ideas are based on… • Our long term evaluation of Manchester Event Volunteers (2011) - the 2002 Commonwealth Games volunteering legacy. • Interviews with 53 Games Makers before the 2012 Games and 4 focus groups with them afterwards. • Interviews with 11 local 2012 Ambassador Programme managers – conducted in 2013.

  5. 2012 Delivery / Legacy split Delivery • London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) - private company limited by guarantee with responsibility for the delivery of all Games-time operations - Not anything else. Legacy • Regions and Nations group, DCMS established 2008 - disbanded 2010. • Previous administration’s legacy targets were dropped. • ‘In August 2010 there were no politically legitimate legacy plans in place’. (Weed, 2012)

  6. Regulatory Capitalism at the Games • LOCOG was set up as a private company – contracted to deliver the Games. • Any change would have to paid for. • LOCOG awarded over 75,000 (sub)contracts. • Deloitte seconded over 130 staff to LOCOG – including the Chief Financial Officer – and at the same time advised companies interested in tendering for Olympic contracts.i.e. – contract expertise has ‘a foot in both camps’. Braithwaite (2008) Regulatory Capitalism

  7. 2005/6 Volunteer Strategy • Three phases - pre-Games, Games and post-Games - to be connected if a legacy was to be achieved. • Abandoned by LOCOG in 2007 – mission is just to deliver Games. • Minimalist legacy mechanisms in Games Makers programme.

  8. 2005/6 Volunteer Strategy • Lessons from MEV and volunteer management. • Volunteers to be recruited regionally. • Develop comradery and expertise at local events – sense of local identity. • Return to same region. • Continue to express collective ‘buzz’ through supporting further local events. • But - complex – more costly – need to co-ordinate volunteer agencies.

  9. Games Maker Management • ‘Programme management’ dominated – due to complexity. • Reflects a ‘rational systems’ approach in which the organisation’s resources are allocated in the most rational way to achieve its objectives. • 250,000 applied for 70,000 places, so supply greater than demand - and LOCOG made sure volunteers knew it. “They {LOCOG} treat you like you are literally a herd of whatever and the biggest feeling I get is as soon as you say I am not very happy with that they will say you are one of 70,000 and there were 250,000 applied, if you don’t like it there is other people behind you.” (GM – experienced volunteer)

  10. Games Maker Management • The attraction of a once-in-a-lifetime event allowed LOGOC to treat volunteers in an unusual way – prioritising LOGOC’s interests: • no expenses; • no accommodation • very limited choice of role – take what’s offered • no role rotation; • very long shifts • all training in London and uniform issue • short notice of selection, training and shifts.

  11. Games Maker Management • Volunteer experience was overall positive and low drop out rates due to: • euphoria of once-in-lifetime event • media and public acclaim • positive reaction to opening ceremony • Team GB won lots of medals • good weather. • But not all GMs had a good experience and memory of pre-Games experience was not eliminated.

  12. Volunteer Database • No Games Makers / Sport Makers link [Sport England's volunteering legacy programme] until October 2012 – despite LOCOG holding 15,000 -20,000 reserve volunteers • Feb. 2013 - LOCOG’s data base – • 5.3m individuals – sold to • consortium of London & Partners/UK Sport / Sport England • So partly a tool for commercial advertising – and used as such.

  13. Ambassador Programmes • 11 programmes – run by local government • 13,000 Olympic Ambassadors - volunteers supporting visitors to London and ten other regional locations for Olympic events. • For Example: • London (8,000) • Weymouth and Portland (800) • Newcastle (400) • Glasgow (240)

  14. Ambassador Programmes • More ‘membership management’ approach recognising the interests of the volunteers. • Concerned to generate a pool of long term volunteers to support future events [unlike LOCOG ]. • But capacity to do this limited by financial constraint [like MEV]. • Enhanced by overlap of Ambassador management with on-going volunteer development work.

  15. Local Government v LOCOG • Local government will be in place before during and after the Games. • Has a direct interest in promoting local volunteering. • Can capitalize on local pride and identity. • Has links to local volunteering opportunities – such as through sports development. • But – has funding cuts.

  16. Did it have to be like this? • LOCOG was set up as a private company, delivering to a contract, it delivered a complex and politically important project on time. • With the assistance of sponsors money. • Separation of Games delivery and legacy responsibilities prevented a co-ordinated legacy strategy being developed and delivered.

  17. Is Glasgow like 2012 or 2002? • Glasgow Life and Scottish government want a local legacy. • Glasgow replicated LOCOG’s systems for ‘Clyde-siders’ and Ambassadors for local city hosts. • Capacity to link to local opportunities. • Can it fund it?

  18. Developing volunteering is important for sport and leisure • Public sector moving out of funding sports centres, libraries, museums, sports development – in response to funding cuts. • Leaving – provision by volunteers or by the private sector. • Can volunteer capacity be grown to meet the gap? But to do this well needs funds for development and support.

  19. References • Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2014) The legacy costs of delivering the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games through regulatory capitalism. Leisure Studies http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02614367.2014.923495. • Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2014) The 2012 Ambassadors: – second class Olympic volunteers or the best potential for developing a volunteering legacy from the Games? In K. Smith, et al. Event Volunteering, International Perspectives on the Event Volunteering Experience. Abingdon: Routledge. pp.167-181 • Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2014) Volunteering for the Games. In V. Girginov (ed.) Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Volume two: Celebrating the Games. London: Routledge. pp. 53 – 70. • Nichols, G. (2012) Volunteering for the Games. In V. Girginov (ed.) The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Volume one: Making the Games. London: Routledge. pp. 215 – 224. • Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2012) Lessons from the Volunteering Legacy of the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Urban Studies. Volume 49 Issue 1 January 2012 pp. 165 - 180. • Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2011) Social inclusion through volunteering – a potential legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games.Sociology. 45 (5) pp. 900-914. • Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2011) Manchester Event Volunteers: a legacy and a role model. University of Sheffield and  Manchester Metropolitan University. http://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.227269!/file/MEV_2012_with_cover.pdf

  20. References • Braithwaite, J. (2008) Regulatory Capitalism: how it works, ideas for making it work better. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. • Girginov, V. (2012) Governance of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, in: V. Girginov (Ed.), The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Volume one: Making the Games, pp. 130-144. London: Routledge. • Levi-Faur, D. (2005) The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 598, pp. 12 – 32. • Meijs, L., and Hoogstad, E. (2001). New ways of managing volunteers: Combining membership management and programme management. Voluntary Action3(3),pp. 41-61. • Raco, M. (2012) The privatization of urban development and the London Olympics 2012. City, 16(4), pp. 452-460. • Weed, M. (2012) London 2012 legacy strategy: Ambitions, promises and implementation plans, in: V. Girginov (Ed.) The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Volume One: Making the Games, pp. 87-98. London: Routledge.

  21. Thank you for listening Any questions? Dr. Geoff Nichols: University of Sheffield g.nichols@sheffield.ac.uk Rita Ralston: Manchester Metropolitan University (retired) rita.ralston@ntlworld.com

More Related