Mrs H. wrote:The Nottingham model is certainly one to envy - but i know it benefits greatly from its geographic centralisation on the city with some council support as well (and some very well informed and energetic members )
And that's the nub of the matter. However good an RDO, even if available full-time, successful development programmes depend on so much more. A development officer can only work to help set up supporting systems/structures and act as a catalyst.
Whilst there are a number of factors for success, what all models have shown (Nottinghamshire included) is that whether there is a development officer or not, no project will work without sustained volunteer input. Whilst that doesn't guarantee success, all successful projects have depended on that, and have only been successful whilst that's been available.
Unfortunately, the onus almost invariably falls on a few individuals, and if they give up, burn out or whatever, the project eventually dies. Hopefully it has, in the meantime, brought enough new blood in to the sport to make an impact. Some do become self-sustaining, but only if incorporated into the club/regional fabric.
Thus - NOC junior development will only continue as long as that input is there - it has relied very heavily on 2 or 3 very committed individuals; other development projects similarly so (I can think of several which were very successful but stopped as soon as one individual left); Ulverston Victoria High and other schools will continue to feed in to the sport as long as there is an individual adult prepared to do their stuff.
Personally, I feel that more money put in to taking the organisational pressure of big events off the volunteers so that we might get more grass roots work done would be a more effective way of ensuring club/schools development at this stage (although some orienteers would object because that's what they like to do - another discussion). But that is not what the sources of funding seem to think, and at the end of the day, that's all that BOF can go with.
And that's the crunch. One can rail against BOF being dictated to by money providers, but if the sport is to attract money to do any work, the needs of the providers have to be met (sponsorship deals are exactly the same). I would regard the RDOs as a bonus - unless we're very lucky, none of this Sports Council money is permanent. It's development work that wouldn't happen if the sources weren't paying for it, and better than nothing at all, which is the alternative - BOF simply doesn't generate the sort of money required (however steep you think membership/levy fees are). They certainly don't prevent clubs getting on with those things they want to do, and can help those clubs wanting to do school link work to actually do it.
