A revised BOF budget has been published on the BOF website http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/D ... Budget.pdf
I note that it still shows a forecast deficit of nearly £7,500.
New BOF Budget
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
On reading the AGM papers...
What follows is a brief look at BOF’s internal funding, that part of it provided directly by orienteers. I’d have liked to discuss it with Malcolm Duncan but Bob Roach tells me he’s out of the country just now. I’d also have liked to spend a little longer double-checking my facts and my logic; if/when you spot an arithmetic howler or a dodgy assumption, please let me know and I’ll fix it (thesis, antithesis, synthesis and all that).
Now, are we sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin…
Reading the AGM papers, I noticed the apparent discrepancy between Robin Field’s bullish comments on participation and Malcolm Duncan’s much grimmer account of the levy income position.
Not being one to pass such things by, I took a look at the participation and levy reports for the last 5 years. I’d happily go further back, but I think these figures, particularly those for the even-date years (no 6 Days, no F&M) are enough to work on.
And then I took a look at the 2004 Outcome, the 2005 Budget and the 2006 Forecast, as discussed in the AGM papers.
Participation:
My conclusions are given below; I can provide spreadsheet data to any fellow numbers junkie. I have looked at levy income only; major events are a quite different nightmare.
My first conclusion was that participation is indeed falling for both Seniors and Juniors in Levels 2, 3 and 4, the core of the sport as we have known it. The same is true of “Series” events. On the other hand, Training and Coaching and Level 1 events are up, except for Senior Training. The startling increases are in Junior Level 1 (up 25% in 4 years), Junior Coaching (up 48% in 4 years) and Junior Training (up 70% in 4 years). That’s good news for the sport, and good PR as well. However, overall, the Junior upsurge is not enough to reverse the decline caused by the ageing of the “O-Boomers”.
(And while I’m on this subject, does anyone out there know how NOC clocked up 7,902 Junior participations – 11.3% of the BOF total - in 2004?)
My second conclusion was that the levy position is indeed parlous. Events in Levels 2, 3 and 4 are responsible for the bulk (94.3%) of the levy income. If my figures are correct, falling entries, both Senior and Junior, in these events contribute to a fall in total levy income (17.0% over 4 years) that is almost double the fall in participation in these events (10.6%) and four times the overall fall in participation (4.9%). There are also major percentage falls in the other levy income categories, but the revenues are insignificant by comparison.
As a result of the decline in Levels 2, 3 & 4 participation we have a fall in levy income of £12,800 in four years (from £75,300 to £62,500), when allowing (say) 12.5% for inflation we should have secured a rise of £9,400. Add another 2.5% (£1,900) for inflation between 2004 and 2005 and Bingo! a £25,000 per annum deficit looms! In Malcolm’s place I’d be looking for £86,600 before any contribution from the Scottish 6 Days or the Major Events (BOC, BRC & JK). And that’s a 40% rise on 2004’s levels…
Fortunately Malcolm is far less hawkish than I am. He’s only asking for “Event Income” (ie all Levies plus Major Events income) of £81,000. Unless he’s looking for significantly increased Membership fees, that has to means cuts in expenditure…
Membership:
Membership is falling as well (I have data from 1990 onwards, if anyone’s interested). Demography, and the inexorable march of time, will cause – assuming that Orienteering’s popularity neither rises nor falls - a net attrition of about 2,000 members per annum.
There were 9,446 members in 2000; they paid fees of £65,918 in total, averaging £6.98 per head. In 2004 8,168 members paid £83,260 in total, averaging £10.19 per head. In 2005, Malcolm is asking (say) 8,000 of us to pay £80,000, which looks like a modest decrease to £10.00 a head (or may mean that he’s forecasting a smaller membership). Interestingly, if you apply 15% inflation to the 2000 figure, the equivalent figure for 2005 would be £75,800, £4,200 less than Malcolm’s actually looking for.
So, it looks as if (a) the burden of supporting the Federation is shifting from regular participants to occasional participants, and (b) the money provided by members and participants will, in real terms, be no greater than in 2000. But there will be 15% fewer of us to share the bill…
2006:
Did you see the reference to prospective 2006 fees in the statement supporting Proposal 3? If the Revised Membership Scheme (RMS) is not in place for the start of 2006 – and for various reasons I think it won’t be – then Levies are to rise by 10% and Senior and Family Membership fees by one third. (Remember, we’ll still pay the same total money even if the RMS does come in – it’ll just be differently apportioned.)
So total Event income might rise to £85,500 (that’s £81,000 x 110% (scale rise) x 96% (forecast participation fall)), still less than HawkMorris would want for Levy alone (gimme £88,800, please).
And Membership fee income might rise to £97,500 (that’s £80,000 x 133% (hang on, lets cut that to 125% to reflect the freeze in Junior and sundry fees) x 97.5% (to reflect a net loss of 2,000 members)), which compares to the HawkMorris figure of £77,700 (£75,800 (calculated above for 2005) x 102.5% (inflation increase)).
Now, if you’re still awake, you’ll notice that out of Malcolm’s required 2006 income, estimated to be £183,000 (that’s £85,500 + £97,500), the majority of £40,000 – let’s say £25,000 - is to be set aside for RDO scheme expansion. Which leaves £158,000 to fund our other membership-funded outgoings. Whereas HawkMorris would have asked you for £166,500 (that’s £88,800 + £77,700) plus Major Event income of (say) £28,500 (it was £25,100 in 2000, so that’s a decrease in real terms), making a total of £195,000.
So, if my figures are anywhere near the mark, Malcolm’s by no means over-egging his budgets!
Value for Money?
In 2006, Malcolm wants about £183,000 from us; HawkMorris would want £195,000 before RDO expansion. There will be about 7,800 BOF Members. Assume that no non-BOF orienteer contributes anything to Levy income. Assume further that £195,000 has to be found. Then the average Member’s fee plus levy contribution to BOF will be £25.00. Which is not a lot…
OK, there’s still the contribution to the RDO programme expansion, let’s say £3.00 per head, just maybe £4.00. But I’ve made cautious assumptions about levy (me, I’d screw – sorry, expect a proportionate contribution from - the non-BOF participants) and total funding requirements. Overall, we’re saying that the average BOF member is being asked to contribute about 50 pence per week to his/her NGB over and above the direct running costs of the events he/she attends.
It may be more than we’d like to pay but I think it’s a bargain.
So, notwithstanding my general reservations about BOF Central’s management style and my particular concerns about Ranald’s proposed inheritance tax scheme, I think the amount of money being asked for is not unreasonable, if it’s spent wisely and if the results of that spending are closely, and transparently, monitored.
That’s all I wanted to say, really…
Now, are we sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin…
Reading the AGM papers, I noticed the apparent discrepancy between Robin Field’s bullish comments on participation and Malcolm Duncan’s much grimmer account of the levy income position.
Not being one to pass such things by, I took a look at the participation and levy reports for the last 5 years. I’d happily go further back, but I think these figures, particularly those for the even-date years (no 6 Days, no F&M) are enough to work on.
And then I took a look at the 2004 Outcome, the 2005 Budget and the 2006 Forecast, as discussed in the AGM papers.
Participation:
My conclusions are given below; I can provide spreadsheet data to any fellow numbers junkie. I have looked at levy income only; major events are a quite different nightmare.
My first conclusion was that participation is indeed falling for both Seniors and Juniors in Levels 2, 3 and 4, the core of the sport as we have known it. The same is true of “Series” events. On the other hand, Training and Coaching and Level 1 events are up, except for Senior Training. The startling increases are in Junior Level 1 (up 25% in 4 years), Junior Coaching (up 48% in 4 years) and Junior Training (up 70% in 4 years). That’s good news for the sport, and good PR as well. However, overall, the Junior upsurge is not enough to reverse the decline caused by the ageing of the “O-Boomers”.
(And while I’m on this subject, does anyone out there know how NOC clocked up 7,902 Junior participations – 11.3% of the BOF total - in 2004?)
My second conclusion was that the levy position is indeed parlous. Events in Levels 2, 3 and 4 are responsible for the bulk (94.3%) of the levy income. If my figures are correct, falling entries, both Senior and Junior, in these events contribute to a fall in total levy income (17.0% over 4 years) that is almost double the fall in participation in these events (10.6%) and four times the overall fall in participation (4.9%). There are also major percentage falls in the other levy income categories, but the revenues are insignificant by comparison.
As a result of the decline in Levels 2, 3 & 4 participation we have a fall in levy income of £12,800 in four years (from £75,300 to £62,500), when allowing (say) 12.5% for inflation we should have secured a rise of £9,400. Add another 2.5% (£1,900) for inflation between 2004 and 2005 and Bingo! a £25,000 per annum deficit looms! In Malcolm’s place I’d be looking for £86,600 before any contribution from the Scottish 6 Days or the Major Events (BOC, BRC & JK). And that’s a 40% rise on 2004’s levels…
Fortunately Malcolm is far less hawkish than I am. He’s only asking for “Event Income” (ie all Levies plus Major Events income) of £81,000. Unless he’s looking for significantly increased Membership fees, that has to means cuts in expenditure…
Membership:
Membership is falling as well (I have data from 1990 onwards, if anyone’s interested). Demography, and the inexorable march of time, will cause – assuming that Orienteering’s popularity neither rises nor falls - a net attrition of about 2,000 members per annum.
There were 9,446 members in 2000; they paid fees of £65,918 in total, averaging £6.98 per head. In 2004 8,168 members paid £83,260 in total, averaging £10.19 per head. In 2005, Malcolm is asking (say) 8,000 of us to pay £80,000, which looks like a modest decrease to £10.00 a head (or may mean that he’s forecasting a smaller membership). Interestingly, if you apply 15% inflation to the 2000 figure, the equivalent figure for 2005 would be £75,800, £4,200 less than Malcolm’s actually looking for.
So, it looks as if (a) the burden of supporting the Federation is shifting from regular participants to occasional participants, and (b) the money provided by members and participants will, in real terms, be no greater than in 2000. But there will be 15% fewer of us to share the bill…
2006:
Did you see the reference to prospective 2006 fees in the statement supporting Proposal 3? If the Revised Membership Scheme (RMS) is not in place for the start of 2006 – and for various reasons I think it won’t be – then Levies are to rise by 10% and Senior and Family Membership fees by one third. (Remember, we’ll still pay the same total money even if the RMS does come in – it’ll just be differently apportioned.)
So total Event income might rise to £85,500 (that’s £81,000 x 110% (scale rise) x 96% (forecast participation fall)), still less than HawkMorris would want for Levy alone (gimme £88,800, please).
And Membership fee income might rise to £97,500 (that’s £80,000 x 133% (hang on, lets cut that to 125% to reflect the freeze in Junior and sundry fees) x 97.5% (to reflect a net loss of 2,000 members)), which compares to the HawkMorris figure of £77,700 (£75,800 (calculated above for 2005) x 102.5% (inflation increase)).
Now, if you’re still awake, you’ll notice that out of Malcolm’s required 2006 income, estimated to be £183,000 (that’s £85,500 + £97,500), the majority of £40,000 – let’s say £25,000 - is to be set aside for RDO scheme expansion. Which leaves £158,000 to fund our other membership-funded outgoings. Whereas HawkMorris would have asked you for £166,500 (that’s £88,800 + £77,700) plus Major Event income of (say) £28,500 (it was £25,100 in 2000, so that’s a decrease in real terms), making a total of £195,000.
So, if my figures are anywhere near the mark, Malcolm’s by no means over-egging his budgets!
Value for Money?
In 2006, Malcolm wants about £183,000 from us; HawkMorris would want £195,000 before RDO expansion. There will be about 7,800 BOF Members. Assume that no non-BOF orienteer contributes anything to Levy income. Assume further that £195,000 has to be found. Then the average Member’s fee plus levy contribution to BOF will be £25.00. Which is not a lot…
OK, there’s still the contribution to the RDO programme expansion, let’s say £3.00 per head, just maybe £4.00. But I’ve made cautious assumptions about levy (me, I’d screw – sorry, expect a proportionate contribution from - the non-BOF participants) and total funding requirements. Overall, we’re saying that the average BOF member is being asked to contribute about 50 pence per week to his/her NGB over and above the direct running costs of the events he/she attends.
It may be more than we’d like to pay but I think it’s a bargain.
So, notwithstanding my general reservations about BOF Central’s management style and my particular concerns about Ranald’s proposed inheritance tax scheme, I think the amount of money being asked for is not unreasonable, if it’s spent wisely and if the results of that spending are closely, and transparently, monitored.
That’s all I wanted to say, really…
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
Thanks for all of that John. I am very pleased to see your conclusions about it all being value for money... I have always felt that the pleasure derived from 'O' has been bought cheaply.
Your figures and notes about junior participation is also very welcome. I'm sure a lot of clubs are doing great work with schools etc, but it is a long term project. We must keep going..... in five years or so we will have serious numbers joining. But we need to invest a lot more time and energy in developing the junior end of the sport and providing a whole layer of informal events for them to progress and enter mainstream 'O'. If we, collectively, could only focus most of our intellectual energy into this project we could have a secure and flourishing future.
Your figures and notes about junior participation is also very welcome. I'm sure a lot of clubs are doing great work with schools etc, but it is a long term project. We must keep going..... in five years or so we will have serious numbers joining. But we need to invest a lot more time and energy in developing the junior end of the sport and providing a whole layer of informal events for them to progress and enter mainstream 'O'. If we, collectively, could only focus most of our intellectual energy into this project we could have a secure and flourishing future.
- RJ
Kudos to Hilary!
Met Hilary Palmer at Hambledon today. So I can answer my own question about NOC.
Of their 7,902 Junior participations, about 4,500 are "Schools Festivals" run by Hilary in 5 (or 6?) locations once a term and drawing in 200 to 300 participants on each occasion.
Respect, ma'am!
Of their 7,902 Junior participations, about 4,500 are "Schools Festivals" run by Hilary in 5 (or 6?) locations once a term and drawing in 200 to 300 participants on each occasion.
Respect, ma'am!
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
I think the amount of money being asked for is not unreasonable, if it’s spent wisely and if the results of that spending are closely, and transparently, monitored.
Can't argue with that - but they are awfully big ifs arn't they?
As for RJ's assertion that we will soon be facing a huge influx of members following the current schools initiatives - i have my doubts. PE teachers are only too happy to get outsiders in to do some orientering so they can tick that particular box - very few have any real interest in the sport and as we know - very few children can sustain the sport without huge amounts of parental help.
It's families that matter - they produce the young talent and the old helpers and spend huge amounts of money on the sport.
-
Mrs H. - nope godmother
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Middle England
Mrs H wrote:
Definitely an uphill task.... but not only will it work... but it has to if we are going to orienteer in ten years time.
A way forward is to have very local, small areas that the clubs invite these school children to have a go at, either as part of a school activity/league or as small informal events. When the children come along to these easily accessible areas they will bring their parents... and then it is up to the club to influence those parents!!!
Yes... it can work and does work. But it is a long term investment. We have been working with schools for four years now, and finally it is paying off. Once the system is set up teachers take it all for granted and start to automatically include your orienteering into their activities. You control the orienteering on offer and the areas that are used.
The teachers are only the vehicle to influence the kids and to get them to partake. Once the children use electronic punching on an out of school area they are hooked! Now offer something in addition, another event on a similar area close by, in the evening, or on Saturday morning.
NOC's huge participation numbers will produce new orienteers... without a doubt. Our participation numbers are very similar. But it won't happen tomorrow!! But it will happen!!!
As for RJ's assertion that we will soon be facing a huge influx of members following the current schools initiatives - i have my doubts. PE teachers are only too happy to get outsiders in to do some orientering so they can tick that particular box - very few have any real interest in the sport and as we know - very few children can sustain the sport without huge amounts of parental help.
Definitely an uphill task.... but not only will it work... but it has to if we are going to orienteer in ten years time.
A way forward is to have very local, small areas that the clubs invite these school children to have a go at, either as part of a school activity/league or as small informal events. When the children come along to these easily accessible areas they will bring their parents... and then it is up to the club to influence those parents!!!
Yes... it can work and does work. But it is a long term investment. We have been working with schools for four years now, and finally it is paying off. Once the system is set up teachers take it all for granted and start to automatically include your orienteering into their activities. You control the orienteering on offer and the areas that are used.
The teachers are only the vehicle to influence the kids and to get them to partake. Once the children use electronic punching on an out of school area they are hooked! Now offer something in addition, another event on a similar area close by, in the evening, or on Saturday morning.
NOC's huge participation numbers will produce new orienteers... without a doubt. Our participation numbers are very similar. But it won't happen tomorrow!! But it will happen!!!
- RJ
Gordon, I assume NGB stands for National Governing Body. As long as Orienteering events are registered properly through the usual channels then the event is covered by the BOF Civil Liability Insurance. Certainly our schools' events are, and teachers/schools etc were quite happy with those arrangements.
- RJ
Awfully big IFs...
Mrs H,
I said:-
"I think the amount of money being asked for is not unreasonable, if it’s spent wisely and if the results of that spending are closely, and transparently, monitored."
And you said:-
"Can't argue with that - but they are awfully big ifs aren't they?"
And, yes, they are awfully big IFs. And I think the stakeholders can, and should, insist that both IFs are taken very seriously.
Responsibility for the the first IF rests primarily (imho) with the Officers (our Executive Directors?) guided by the AGM and, hopefully, by the sort of debate hosted here and in CompassSport. And to lend coherence to that debate, each funded programme should have not only a budget but also a set of quantified success criteria.
Responsibility for the second IF rests (imho) primarily with the Councillors (our non-Executive Directors?) using formal and informal contacts and the information available in BOF's database, with the reasonable expectation that BOF Central will devote some time to setting up appropriate performance reports.
You go on to say:-
"As for RJ's assertion that we will soon be facing a huge influx of members following the current schools initiatives - I have my doubts (...) - very few children can sustain the sport without huge amounts of parental help.
"It's families that matter - they produce the young talent and the old helpers and spend huge amounts of money on the sport."
I'm inclined to agree with you on these points (I'll pass on the PE teacher issue ) but things may be changing, as RJ suggests. If they are, a relatively simple trawl through BOF's membership database will identify the independent Junior members and allow us to follow their orienteering lifecycles in recent years.
Equally, it won't be difficult to identify the "young talent" and study their routes into the sport.
It will be interesting to see whether the two areas of focus (in-school participation and competitive excellence) show any connectivity. (They may, of course, both be independently valuable...)
The proposed expansion of the RDO programme, budgeted at £40,000 in 2006 alone and to be funded "largely" using membership funding, might be a good point at which to start taking a tighter grip on major initiatives, using designed-in feedback and control mechanisms. As a first step, we should examine the results so far of each existing RDO initiative, using verbal case studies and numerical results. Those results will justify (or not) the expansion programme. Continuing monitoring will allow us to decide whether to reinforce or to withdraw in future years.
OK, it's a little more work for the programme managers, but that's what I want from anyone who offers to "invest" MY money.
So, summing up, yes, it's a problem, but it's also an opportunity that we should grasp - firmly.
I said:-
"I think the amount of money being asked for is not unreasonable, if it’s spent wisely and if the results of that spending are closely, and transparently, monitored."
And you said:-
"Can't argue with that - but they are awfully big ifs aren't they?"
And, yes, they are awfully big IFs. And I think the stakeholders can, and should, insist that both IFs are taken very seriously.
Responsibility for the the first IF rests primarily (imho) with the Officers (our Executive Directors?) guided by the AGM and, hopefully, by the sort of debate hosted here and in CompassSport. And to lend coherence to that debate, each funded programme should have not only a budget but also a set of quantified success criteria.
Responsibility for the second IF rests (imho) primarily with the Councillors (our non-Executive Directors?) using formal and informal contacts and the information available in BOF's database, with the reasonable expectation that BOF Central will devote some time to setting up appropriate performance reports.
You go on to say:-
"As for RJ's assertion that we will soon be facing a huge influx of members following the current schools initiatives - I have my doubts (...) - very few children can sustain the sport without huge amounts of parental help.
"It's families that matter - they produce the young talent and the old helpers and spend huge amounts of money on the sport."
I'm inclined to agree with you on these points (I'll pass on the PE teacher issue ) but things may be changing, as RJ suggests. If they are, a relatively simple trawl through BOF's membership database will identify the independent Junior members and allow us to follow their orienteering lifecycles in recent years.
Equally, it won't be difficult to identify the "young talent" and study their routes into the sport.
It will be interesting to see whether the two areas of focus (in-school participation and competitive excellence) show any connectivity. (They may, of course, both be independently valuable...)
The proposed expansion of the RDO programme, budgeted at £40,000 in 2006 alone and to be funded "largely" using membership funding, might be a good point at which to start taking a tighter grip on major initiatives, using designed-in feedback and control mechanisms. As a first step, we should examine the results so far of each existing RDO initiative, using verbal case studies and numerical results. Those results will justify (or not) the expansion programme. Continuing monitoring will allow us to decide whether to reinforce or to withdraw in future years.
OK, it's a little more work for the programme managers, but that's what I want from anyone who offers to "invest" MY money.
So, summing up, yes, it's a problem, but it's also an opportunity that we should grasp - firmly.
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
<i>OK, it's a little more work for the programme managers, but that's what I want from anyone who offers to "invest" Wink MY money. </i>
Hmmm. That has to be one of the great understatements. A little more work....? How about a full time job? This is exactly how the Sports Council justify the fact that the vast majority of their budget is spent on bureaucracy rather than on getting sport developed.
It might sound and look right, but I have to say that the more sports development I did, the more I felt that whilst you obviously need some methods of assessing and obtaining feedback, the simple judgement "this worked, this didn't" was as effective as any more formal assessment.
Hmmm. That has to be one of the great understatements. A little more work....? How about a full time job? This is exactly how the Sports Council justify the fact that the vast majority of their budget is spent on bureaucracy rather than on getting sport developed.
It might sound and look right, but I have to say that the more sports development I did, the more I felt that whilst you obviously need some methods of assessing and obtaining feedback, the simple judgement "this worked, this didn't" was as effective as any more formal assessment.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
KISS - Keep it simple, stupid!
Awk, you say:-
It might sound and look right, but I have to say that the more sports development I did, the more I felt that whilst you obviously need some methods of assessing and obtaining feedback, the simple judgement "this worked, this didn't" was as effective as any more formal assessment.
For me, the key work here is simple.
That's what we need. But it also needs to be "fit for purpose". And, in some circumstances that may mean actually measuring something using more than the expert practitioner's inner eye.
Particularly when the membership are being asked to dig into their pockets for something new and apparently inessential. Yes, I know, but I did say "apparently".
In such circumstances, it is helpful, not least to the programme managers, to be able to say: (a) "We are proposing this programme, costing £X to achieve general objective Y"; (b) "We will measure progress towards Y by, amongst other things, monitoring easily available statistic Z"; (c) "Our progress thus far, as measured by Z and by other, qualitative, evidence is this much and has cost that much"; (d) "On the basis of this evidence, having reviewed X, Y and Z, our future proposals are such and such".
As an enthusiast, you may find it an irritant, but it does help to persuade the paying punters...
Simple measures? Well, there are participation figures, recruitment figures, age/sex/club membership figures, levy income, membership fees, major event surpluses, sundry income figures, expenditure budgets and actuals... All of these are already collected by BOF Central and kept in good order, and can be tapped into at a level appropriate to the venture that you have in mind.
(And in a sport like orienteering we have plenty of suitable volunteers, people with nimble minds trapped in slowing bodies, who can handle any necessary conversion or post-processing of the data... )
Is there something here we can agree on?
It might sound and look right, but I have to say that the more sports development I did, the more I felt that whilst you obviously need some methods of assessing and obtaining feedback, the simple judgement "this worked, this didn't" was as effective as any more formal assessment.
For me, the key work here is simple.
That's what we need. But it also needs to be "fit for purpose". And, in some circumstances that may mean actually measuring something using more than the expert practitioner's inner eye.
Particularly when the membership are being asked to dig into their pockets for something new and apparently inessential. Yes, I know, but I did say "apparently".
In such circumstances, it is helpful, not least to the programme managers, to be able to say: (a) "We are proposing this programme, costing £X to achieve general objective Y"; (b) "We will measure progress towards Y by, amongst other things, monitoring easily available statistic Z"; (c) "Our progress thus far, as measured by Z and by other, qualitative, evidence is this much and has cost that much"; (d) "On the basis of this evidence, having reviewed X, Y and Z, our future proposals are such and such".
As an enthusiast, you may find it an irritant, but it does help to persuade the paying punters...
Simple measures? Well, there are participation figures, recruitment figures, age/sex/club membership figures, levy income, membership fees, major event surpluses, sundry income figures, expenditure budgets and actuals... All of these are already collected by BOF Central and kept in good order, and can be tapped into at a level appropriate to the venture that you have in mind.
(And in a sport like orienteering we have plenty of suitable volunteers, people with nimble minds trapped in slowing bodies, who can handle any necessary conversion or post-processing of the data... )
Is there something here we can agree on?
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
There's nothing new with this John, as I'm sure you know. Sports development has always been measured using these 'simple' measures. Most of them, even participation, don't actually tell us very much without some very detailed and time consuming analysis.
However, they don't work anyway for the very simple reason that, in order to measure development, you need to be looking at the long term figures, and by the time you do, it's virtually impossible to pinpoint specific reasons for them, mainly because there are far too many developmental variables involved.
In fact, these measures have probably done as much to inhibit sports development as any other factor, because far too much regard and time has been given to them, especially in the short term. It's easy to boost things like participation, membership etc. in the short term, far harder in the long term.
I accept (and this is where we agree I'm sure) that members will probably want to see measures, and therefore they will be used That's the sort of game one has to learn to play, all the while accepting that it actually reduces the chances of making a real impact. Short-termism rules in all sorts of fields, especially democratic ones. Personally, the more experience I got, the less and less time I had for them for anything other than feeding to the funders. To me, if it looked like a duck, walked like a duck and quacked like a duck, that was usually a pretty reliable indicator that it was a duck, and certainly more reliable than spending time trying to find and gauge measurements to justify the conclusion.
However, they don't work anyway for the very simple reason that, in order to measure development, you need to be looking at the long term figures, and by the time you do, it's virtually impossible to pinpoint specific reasons for them, mainly because there are far too many developmental variables involved.
In fact, these measures have probably done as much to inhibit sports development as any other factor, because far too much regard and time has been given to them, especially in the short term. It's easy to boost things like participation, membership etc. in the short term, far harder in the long term.
I accept (and this is where we agree I'm sure) that members will probably want to see measures, and therefore they will be used That's the sort of game one has to learn to play, all the while accepting that it actually reduces the chances of making a real impact. Short-termism rules in all sorts of fields, especially democratic ones. Personally, the more experience I got, the less and less time I had for them for anything other than feeding to the funders. To me, if it looked like a duck, walked like a duck and quacked like a duck, that was usually a pretty reliable indicator that it was a duck, and certainly more reliable than spending time trying to find and gauge measurements to justify the conclusion.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 197 guests