British Orienteering Governance Review

[EddieH]

Problem is that Happy Valley Countyr Park is probably as near to Wharncliffe as Culbin is to Frog and the vast majority of the Scottish population.

[awk]

- Awk's viewpoint seems to be that we would have been better off not taking the money and doing our own thing.

Not quite that, but I can see why what I said led to you thinking that. My viewpoint is that only take the money if it fits what you want to do - don't let the money provider dictate what you do do.

All this talk of visions and committee restructuring doesn't seem so important, club's need practical help on the ground so their development initiatives are successful and to help motivation. I can't see how rejecting the club night money would have helped unless we were prepared to pay for an alternative scheme/schemes.

Totally agree, but make sure that the initiatives fit the clubs/associations, not the clubs/associations fit the initiatives.

A related comment was made at our committee meeting last night: it doesn't really matter what goes on at BOF level, we'll still get on with our orienteering, and maybe that's what I need to focus on more (so back to planning for Sunday's event and running on Monday - much more fun!).

[SeanC]

Yes, let's go orienteering. Even in Happy Valley.*

*Sunday July 24th. It's not Culbin but it's very pretty.

[Paul Frost]

There's a development committee meeting next week. AWK/Paul I suggest you contact your regional rep if you have problems with the existing program

I have expressed my concerns over the focus on club/participation nights to both Mike Hamilton and Ed Nicholas directly.

Development committee reps have been asked for "Good News" stories. Paul and AWK - I know your clubs are very successful so why not pass on this as good news so we can see alternative development options?

EckO's success is relatively unique I suspect.
We had a former member who moved to a small village and then came back into the club, and then started encouraging friends to come along to an event. A few more came and they brought a few more and before long there was a regular core. The key part is that it is whole families not just individuals.
At the same time we were very successful at tapping into many of the funding sources aimed at rural development. Having at least two people who were involved in submitting applications for grants in their work meant they knew how and where to ask.
The funds that we got enabled us to pay for professional mapping and buy electronic kit, all of which enhanced the experience for people that came along, so they came along again.
We also have a very strong core of people with a range of specialist skills who are prepared to volunteer them for the club's benefit.

So it's not a matter of another club just rolling out what was successful for us. it's all about timing, people and luck.

An article on how we got here is on the EckO website It's already out of date as we now have six level 1 coaches instead of the one we had then.

[distracted]

This thread appears to be highlighting the multi-faceted and difficult role that "BOF central" and the board actually has, especially when external funding bodies are involved. You could broadly divide it into three functions:

1. Run Sport England Development Programme - take Sport England money and deliver increased participation.
2. Run UK Sport Elite Programme - take UK Sport money and deliver improved elite results.
3. Govern UK Orienteering and provide for the membership.

And, ideally, everything done within these 3 areas has the best interest of the sport at heart.

Obviously the extent of (1) and (2) would be much smaller and narrower without external funding. I guess some people will question how much input the membership should have into the first two aspects, and how the Board should be dividing their time between all of the above. Someone has to decide how to balance it. Should that be left in the laps of the membership?


Further on the first aspect - we could debate how best to run the Sport England Development Programme for years. But Paul says something quite revealing:

It requires a bit more commitment to go orienteering as we know it

and this is why the club/participation night is intentionally different. And I expect the average/established orienteer to view it with some scepticism as it is different.

We also need to accept that "orienteering as we know it" is changing even without bringing in these new initiatives, as can be seen by the shifting of participation levels at events. Providing for this shift to low key, local events *might* be all that the sport needs. But what is the correct/best approach is very difficult to judge, and I'm not sure that the body of evidence exists to be able to define which is best.

To outright dismiss any new concept without having experienced it, or with a very narrow view as to what it entails (as some seem to have) appears quite short-sighted. But if this is the consensus view on the clubnight/participation idea, would people/clubs be happy for the "Development Team" to try this out independently - to spend their money on external volunteers, without any club involvement into the project? Club members are then left to do what they want to do/feel is best for their club and everyone is happy?

[SeanC]

Interesting stuff.

Paul/ECKO - I think it might be good if ECKO rejigged that article for Compass Sport as even though the case is unique there are things the rest of us can learn eg:

- how ECKO encouraged people to get keen and travel. Particularly relevant to distracted's point about more local/clubnight orienteering and how growth in this area can benefit "traditional" orienteering.

- how you used the expertise of individuals to raise money through grants. My thought is that if clubs/regions without people with these skills employed such people - they might generate more money than they cost.

And it would be a good excuse to show some pictures/maps of the Oban area before the Scottish 6 days.

[ChristineV]

- I looked on the BOF website and there isn't a participation manager for Scotland. Is this because the funding doesn't cover Scotland? I can see why the Scots feel they need to shout loud to point out their different circumstances when this sort of thing happens. But I'd swap these problems if you would swap Happy Valley Country Park for Culbin.

As I understand it, this is SportEngland money - so not Scotland or Wales (probably not NI either).

[graeme]

EckO's success is relatively unique I suspect.

From what I've seen, all the success stories are "unique". Anyone want to own up to a big success from copying what another club did?

[Paul Frost]

But Paul says something quite revealing:

It requires a bit more commitment to go orienteering as we know it

and this is why the club/participation night is intentionally different. And I expect the average/established orienteer to view it with some scepticism as it is different.

It's not scepticism, I recognise that it is different, it's usually not orienteering as orienteers know it, it's a fun and games run around fitness training kind of thing. Which if you are going to be based in the same place every week with your showers and changing facilities etc. is all that is possible.

If we had a suitable location and we weren't so dispersed I suspect EckO would have a weekly session, but it wouldn't include orienteering. It would be aimed at existing members, to provide a social get together fitness training evening.

If your club has the volunteers to organise events that don't appeal to existing members and is unlikely to convert many newcomers to what we think of as "proper orienteering", then go ahead. But don't force others to follow a model that doesn't suit their location or existing members.

But if this is the consensus view on the clubnight/participation idea, would people/clubs be happy for the "Development Team" to try this out independently - to spend their money on external volunteers, without any club involvement into the project? Club members are then left to do what they want to do/feel is best for their club and everyone is happy?

Not quite sure how you "spend money on external volunteers", or is this how we see the paid participation managers?

[awk]

But what is the correct/best approach is very difficult to judge, and I'm not sure that the body of evidence exists to be able to define which is best.

I doubt whether that will ever be achieved, as circumstances are so varied. What suits one situation won't suit another. What I would be interested in is any stories of such development where the club night model becomes self-sufficient, i.e. those new people coming in become sufficiently experienced that they don't continue to depend on others providing, but can take on the roles themselves, or of people feeding into competitive orienteering.

[distracted]

it's usually not orienteering as orienteers know it, it's a fun and games run around fitness training kind of thing. Which if you are going to be based in the same place every week with your showers and changing facilities etc. is all that is possible.

If that's what you want to make of it, then yes. You can do something more like the Scandinavian model where the "central location" is used as a meeting point - e.g. to ferry people off to a nearby area for training, especially in the summer. If you're a youngster in a population centre without transport that can be really useful. The idea is to do something orienteering-related as a club, meeting at the same place and time each week, much as most other sports clubs do.

Not quite sure how you "spend money on external volunteers", or is this how we see the paid participation managers?

The participation managers are there to facilitate the community orienteering programme - find a suitable venue, coaches to run it, equipment etc - not to run the clubs themselves. So they could pay a non-orienteer (who has done a relevant course) as coach for these sessions, reducing/removing the volunteer load on the local club who don't want to commit the necessary resources.

What I would be interested in is any stories of such development where the club night model becomes self-sufficient, i.e. those new people coming in become sufficiently experienced that they don't continue to depend on others providing, but can take on the roles themselves

I think this has happened at one of the Nottinghamshire "satellite" clubs - which of course then frees up the club's expertise to be used in other roles. You can't expect this to happen overnight though!

[SeanC]

Paul - I don't think anyone is forcing this on anyone, but perhaps because there's been a few articles promoting the concept in Focus recently perhaps it might seem like the only way of club development, or some kind of panecea? Perhaps it's up to us to talk about other aspects (well illustrated by the article on the ECKO website)?

Someone might find the following useful: This is what Richard Barratt and myself were exploring for the Croydon area.

Richard was approached by a private school at the outdoors show to ask for their grounds mapped. The thought was that private schools often provide facilities at a cheap rate or free to local sports clubs to help support their charitable status. The particular private school had 4 small orienteering areas within jogging distance of varying technical difficulty - one park, one small steep typical South East type wood, one area with some intricate contours and the school grounds itself. With the possibility of some street orienteering that gives plenty of possibilities for "real" orienteering to suit beginners and improving orienteers, or experienced orienteers that want training.

The option was either midweek or weekend (Saturday morning). To me weekend seemed best as then new orienteers and juniors looking for lots of coaching could then travel to these morning and move their skills forward much quicker than at present where they must learn at events themselves or do occasional coaching at events. The problem then is how to move these local Croydon orienteers to events. I hope Richard doesn't mind me saying this publically, but he thought that on days where DFOK had a local event (about 15 a year) we would not hold a club morning at the school, but instead make it a meeting point to share cars and go to the DFOK local event. It's stretching the concept of the scheme but he thought this would be OK.

Some other positives I can see. Because the meeting is same place/time every week, publicity is much easier (because we don't have to wait for the event to be confirmed), and if we could get an agreement to use the various orienteering areas for training in small groups then the overhead of risk assessment/land use liason would be reduced. For beginners and juniors, going to the same few places does seem to make sense (as well as some real events).

It didn't happen because we need a qualified coach(es) who lives close enough and willing to run the sessions. Also the club has recently become much more active, putting on many more local events and having some success attracting newcomers and a few new members. We're probably too small to expand on both fronts without volunteer burn out and personally I think these club nights need a reasonable number of local events for people to move on to.

The requirement for it to be run by qualified coaches seems to be a difficulty re:sustainability. If you can get 6+ people interested in doing the coaching course then you can do the course locally and maybe share the load?

I think if we could find someone to pay to do something like this or somewhere else in our area, then we would be interested, though the pay wouldn't be much.

Hope this helps people thinking of doing a club night.

[awk]

You can't expect this to happen overnight though!

Absolutely. That may also not be the success criteria for the project - it's just the area that I'm interested in.

[Paul Frost]

...So they could pay a non-orienteer (who has done a relevant course) as coach for these sessions...

Apologies for the delay in responding, but I was intrigued by the suggestion that they could pay a non-orienteer.

Why are we happy to pay a non-orienteer to teach orienteering when we have plenty of orienteers qualified to teach orienteering but expect them to do it for free?

I fully understand the ramifications of introducing payment for jobs that are normally done by volunteers, but do we think that by paying thirds parties we are avoiding setting any precedents?

Do we really need any more non-orienteers shaping and developing the future of our sport?

[SeanC]

I can't see a problem with paying a non-orienteer for giving up many evenings a year. We pay non-orienteers all the time for all kinds of things.

Bringing in non-orienteers to do some orienteering activities could work. Maybe not for classic forest orienteering in TD4/5 terrain, but if the orienteering was TD3/running type stuff. I'm thinking who would do a better job at running one of these evenings, me, with 20 years experience, or my wife who's just done a light green course. If the club nights are aimed at juniors, the answer is probably my wife as she is a PE teacher and spends her life teaching. And probably for adults too as her enthusiasm and communication skills are better than mine. All these coaches will have to do the UKCC level 1 course.

I think there could be a big market, at least in urban areas, for this type of easy orienteering (though you might not call it orienteering). And from my club's viewpoint, if someone from outside the club has got a group of people doing easy TD3 type orienteering activities then it should be an easy sell to persuade some of them to come to a "real" event if it's not too far away (or put on a real event from their base one evening/morning). Certainly easier than persuading some of our local papers to print stories about orienteering.

I think one issue might be how to promote these club nights as the coach might not be skilled in this area or might need paying for this too. There might be a danger that clubs might be asked to help with this aspect with the demise of the Schools Sports Partnerships. Promotion is certainly key in London.

But overall I can't see the problem if club's aren't forced into it, someone else is doing the work with someone elses money and clubs have an open goal recruitment opportunity.