Limitations on the volunteering legacy from the 2012 Olympic Games

Dr. Geoff Nichols: University of SheffieldRita Ralston: Manchester Metropolitan University (retired)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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 Action 3(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.

Thank you for listeningAny questions?

Dr. Geoff Nichols: University of Sheffield g.nichols@sheffield.ac.uk

Rita Ralston: Manchester Metropolitan University (retired)

rita.ralston@ntlworld.com