Review of ORS Grant Programs - Office for Recreation and Sport ...

Review of ORS Grant ProgramsA review of grant programs administered by the Office for Recreation and SportDecember 2011

Table of ContentsAppendices .............................................................................................................................................. 3Glossary .................................................................................................................................................... 41. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 52. Executive Summary & Recommendations............................................................................ 63. Background to the Review ...................................................................................................... 123.1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 124. Overall Grants Strategy ............................................................................................................ 174.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 174.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORT FOR SPORT AND ACTIVE RECREATION ....................................... 184.3 GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR SPORT & ACTIVE RECREATION ...................................................... 194.4 BENCHMARKING ............................................................................................................................ 204.5 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK .............................................................................................................. 214.6 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 245. Grants for Local Clubs (ACP) .................................................................................................. 265.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 265.2 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT FUNDING ................................................................... 265.3 BENCHMARKING ............................................................................................................................ 295.4 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK .............................................................................................................. 305.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 336. Funding for Facility Development ........................................................................................ 366.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 366.2 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT FUNDING ................................................................... 376.3 BENCHMARKING ............................................................................................................................ 396.4 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK .............................................................................................................. 416.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 437. Grants for State Organisations and Industry Development ........................................ 467.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 467.2 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT FUNDING ................................................................... 477.3 BENCHMARKING ............................................................................................................................ 487.4 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK .............................................................................................................. 507.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 538. Grants for Targeted Initiatives .............................................................................................. 578.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 578.2 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT FUNDING ................................................................... 588.3 BENCHMARKING ............................................................................................................................ 608.4 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK .............................................................................................................. 618.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 629. Grant Processes .......................................................................................................................... 649.1 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 6410. Funding Allocation ................................................................................................................. 65Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 2 of 65

AppendicesAppendix 1: Terms of ReferenceAppendix 2: Trends in Recreation and Sport ParticipationAppendix 3: ORS Funding 2011/12Appendix 4: Stakeholder Engagement ReportAppendix 5: Government ResponsesAppendix 6: Survey QuestionnairesNOTE: These appendices can be accessed from the ORS web site on:http://www.recsport.sa.gov.au/funding-scholarships/grants-review.htmlReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 3 of 65

GlossaryGrant Programs:ACPCRSFPIRISMove ItStEPSRDIPSRSPRSYTIPActive Club ProgramCommunity Recreation and Sport Facilities ProgramInclusive Recreation, Inclusive Sport ProgramMove It! Making Communities Active ProgramStatewide Enhancement ProgramSport and Recreation Development and Inclusion ProgramSport and Recreation Sustainability ProgramRecreation and Sport Youth Traineeship Incentive ProgramIndustry Players:Local club*IRB*SRO*SSOa not-for-profit active recreation or sport club or communityorganisation whose purpose is the delivery of active recreationor sport programs and services in South AustraliaIndustry Representative Bodies – recognised as the peak bodyin South Australia responsible for the delivery ofservices/programs to a specific industry sectorState Recreation Organisation – recognised as the peakorganisation in South Australia for delivery of active recreationactivityState Sport Organisation – affiliated with a national sportingorganisation and recognised as the peak organisation in SouthAustralia for delivery of that sportCommunity organisation – a not-for-profit club or community organisation whose mainpurpose is not the delivery of active recreation or sportprograms and services in South Australia.*Note: Throughout the report “state organisation” has been used as a generic term toinclude SSOs, SROs and IRBs.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 4 of 65

1. IntroductionThe grant programs of the Office for Recreation and Sport (ORS) were last reviewed in2002.Since that time, the sport and recreation industry has continued to evolve and furtherdiversify, placing increased demand on ORS funding programs, particularly in the areaof facility development.The terms of reference for the current review of ORS grants programs were approvedby the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing (MRSR) in February 2011. The termsof reference for the review sought to explore if the purpose, criteria and delivery modelfor the ORS portfolio of grant programs remain appropriate, and to identify strategies tobest meet the needs of the sport and active recreation industry.The review considered ORS priorities and key objectives to enhance industry growthand sustainability, the nature and distribution of current grant programs, the trends inparticipation in sport and active recreation and the approach adopted by otherAustralian State and Territory agencies responsible for the delivery of recreation andsport grant programs.Programs in the scope of this review were as follows:Active Club Program (ACP)Statewide Enhancement Program (StEP)Move It! Making Communities Active Program (Move It)Inclusive Recreation Inclusive Sport Program (IRIS)Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program (CRSFP)Central to the development of this report was the stakeholder feedback receivedthrough the consultation process. The sport and active recreation industry, localgovernment and members of parliament were offered various opportunities to providefeedback. All expressed strong support for the ORS grant programs and, in general, ahigh degree of satisfaction. The feedback from these stakeholders is outlined in thereport and, along with ORS objectives, is reflected in the review recommendations.It is anticipated that the changes to ORS grants programs implemented as a result ofthis review will ultimately result in better quality and more accessible sport and activerecreation programs, facilities and services.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 5 of 65

2. Executive Summary & RecommendationsThe review found that the current portfolio of ORS grant programs were, to a large degree,meeting the needs of the sport and active recreation industry and were considered animportant resource to support organisations to deliver industry outcomes; in particular, moreor better quality participation opportunities.The role of the ORS in the funding process was highly regarded; notwithstanding that, theannual requests for funding far exceed the grant budget and less than half of allapplications are successful.Overall, industry stakeholders expressed a need for additional financial resources. Inparticular, the consultation and the analysis of applications for ORS grant programsindicated there is significant unmet demand for facility development. The reviewrecommends a realignment of the ORS grant programs to focus funding on facilitydevelopment and improvement, grassroots sport and active recreation, and industrysustainability and capacity building.The outcome of these recommendations is that the Move It and IRIS funding programs arediscontinued in their current form and included in a new Sport and Recreation Developmentand Inclusion Program (SRDIP). This is consistent with feedback received through theconsultation.With respect to facility funding, the review found that the current maximum of $500,000precludes the development of significant sporting infrastructure and that other jurisdictionsinvested up to 80 per cent of grant funds in facility projects. The review recommendsprioritising facility projects through the ACP, increasing the funding available through thefacilities program, working in closer collaboration with councils and state organisations, andestablishing a category within the facilities program to address major sporting infrastructureprojects.Another strong theme to emerge from the consultation was the expectations on local clubsin particular. Clubs are responsible for the operations of significant community assets andare the face of sport and active recreation in communities. The review recommends thatfunding should be available to support organisations to be well managed so they can fulfilthese roles in a sustainable manner.The Statewide Enhancement Program (StEP) was of particular interest to stateorganisations and peak bodies. There was an expressed desire for clarity around fundingfor sustainability outcomes as opposed to funding for sport and active recreation growthoutcomes. Of concern was the funding differential between organisations. The reviewrecommends that StEP be discontinued in its current form and a Sport and RecreationSustainability Program (SRSP) be established to support organisations‟ capacity to providesystem leadership. In addition, it is recommended that indexation of the funds allocated tothe SRSP is sought through the appropriate budgetary process. It is also recommendedthat the eligibility criteria for SRSP be reviewed to exclude organisations with a turnover inexcess of $10 million per annum.The review recommends that a Sport and Recreation Development and Inclusion Program(SRDIP) be established to support project-based initiatives that have the potential to deliverReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 6 of 65

sport and recreation outcomes of shared strategic importance between ORS and industrystakeholders.The sport and active recreation sector was strongly of the view that the available fundingshould be directed to sport and active recreation outcomes. The review recommendsdiscontinuing Move It and IRIS in their current form and that inclusion projects thatdemonstrate sustainable participation opportunities for targeted populations be eligible forsupport from the SRDIP.The recommendations put forward are principally about the realignment of ORS funding tomaximise government policy priorities and the outcomes that can be achieved through thesport and active recreation sector.RECOMMENDATIONSIn relation to grant programs generally:1. ORS grant programs should continue to achieve outcomes that provide all SouthAustralians with access to ongoing, quality sport and active recreation opportunities.2. ORS grant funding should continue to support the delivery of sport and activerecreation outcomes by the not-for-profit sector.3. ORS grant funding should only be provided to non-sport and active recreationorganisations when the project outcomes deliver significant benefit for sport andactive recreation organisations or when the project benefits targeted populations anddoes not duplicate a program delivered by sport and active recreation organisations.4. Approved recommendations from this report should be implemented for fundingdistributed in the 2012/13 financial year.In relation to the ACP:5. The ACP objectives and structure should remain focussed on club-based,grassroots sport and active recreation.6. The eligibility criteria for the program should be limited to not-for-profit, communitysport and active recreation organisations that do not have a gaming machineslicence.7. The ACP should maintain a total budget of $2.35 million and the notional allocationof $50,000 for each of the 47 state electorates be maintained.8. Funds received from Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act 2011should be available for application under the ACP in 2014/15 for allocation in2015/16.9. Projects funded should align with the principles of the STARCLUB DevelopmentProgram.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 7 of 65

10. The two application periods available each year should have different financialallocations based on the following:Round One should allocate a maximum of $40,000 per electorate and shouldaccept applications for facility projects, programs and equipmentRound Two should allocate a minimum of $10,000 per electorate (includingany unallocated funds from round one) for programs and equipment onlyorganisations are eligible to apply for funding in both Rounds One and Two.11. Round One ACP Facility Projects:should have a maximum funding request of $20,000 per applicationshould require applicants to demonstrate at least a matched contributionif unsuccessful after electorate-based assessment, applications should berolled into the CRSFP and assessed accordingly.12. Round One and Two ACP Program and Equipment Projects:should have a simplified pro forma application process that allows applicantsto apply under set categories for specific levels of fundingshould have a maximum funding request of $5000 per application.13. Any funds remaining after Round One in an electorate’s notation allocation of$40,000 should be available to that electorate in Round Two. Any funds remainingafter Round Two should be reallocated using a set formula to other oversubscribedelectorates.In relation to the CRSFP:14. The budget for CRSFP in 2012/13 should be $7,695,000 and be made availableacross four categories:Category 1: Facility Planning ProjectsCategory 2: Facility Development Projects (funding requests between $0k -$200,000)Category 3: Facility Development Projects (funding requests between$200,001 - $500,000)Category 4: Community Sports Hub and Major Projects (up to $2.5 million perannum) - see recommendation 15.15. A Community Sports Hub and Major Project category should be established tosupport the development of significant infrastructure projects in line with the sportand active recreation priorities of the government. The South Australian StrategicInfrastructure Plan, The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and the Community HubsStrategic Directions should provide the framework for such funding decisions.16. Eligible organisations for the program should include not-for-profit community sportand active recreation organisations, councils and educational institutions that do nothave a gaming machines licence.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 8 of 65

17. Unsuccessful ACP facility applications should be considered under Category 2 of theCRSFP.18. ORS should align the timing of CRSFP with Round One of the ACP.19. Applicants should be eligible to apply for one project per category.20. ORS should develop and implement an expression of interest (EOI) process forCategory 3 and 4 projects.21. Applications for the CRSFP should require endorsement by the state sport orrecreation organisation and the local council; they should also demonstratelandowner consent for the project. ORS should develop a template to facilitate thisprocess.22. Applicants for Categories 2 and 3 must demonstrate at least a matched fundingcommitment. Contributions required for Category 1 and 4 projects should benegotiable.In relation to StEP:23. StEP ($6,673,000) should be discontinued in its current form and be replaced with:Sport and Recreation Sustainability Program (SRSP)Sport and Recreation Development and Inclusion Program (SRDIP)24. The SRSP should be established to support state sport and active recreationorganisations and sport and active recreation industry representative bodies toprovide leadership, programs and services in South Australia.25. An allocation of $3 million per annum should be made available for the SRSP.26. The assessment of SRSP funding should recognise the additional costs toorganisations providing sport or active recreation opportunities for people with adisability.27. The assessment of SRSP funding should recognise the additional costs toorganisations providing elite sporting pathways that are aligned with a recognisedSASI program.28. The funds for the SRSP should be notionally allocated for up to three years on atriennial basis.29. The maximum funding amount for organisations should be capped at $100,000(excluding CPI increases); organisations with turnover in excess of $10,000,000 perannum should be ineligible.30. Indexation should be sought for the $3 million allocation to the SRSP through theappropriate budgetary process and be applied from 2013/14.31. The SRDIP should be established to support projects that deliver sport andrecreation outcomes of shared strategic importance between ORS and industrystakeholders. Projects should:Have a statewide or regional focus, orPromote inclusive recreation or inclusive sport opportunities, orReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 9 of 65

Deliver significant community benefit, orAddress unforseen emergency situations.32. An allocation of $3.673 million per annum should be available for the SRDIP.33. Funding should be allocated on a rolling basis for up to three years.34. Eligibility for the SRDIP should be restricted to not-for-profit organisations whosecore purpose is the provision of sport or active recreation with the followingexceptions:i. Other not-for-profit community organisations should be eligible to applyfor projects that promote Inclusive Recreation or Inclusive Sport wherethey can demonstrate sustainable participation outcomes.ii. Councils should be eligible to apply for projects that build capacity oforganisations in their area or for projects that promote InclusiveRecreation or Inclusive Sport where they can demonstrate sustainableparticipation outcomes.iii. Individuals should be eligible to apply for scholarships.iv. In relation to youth traineeships (RSYTIP), Ministerial exemption shouldbe sought to provide funding to for-profit organisations on a case-by-casebasis.35. Specific reporting obligations should be detailed in an individual funding agreementbetween ORS and the grant recipient.36. A notional allocation of $50,000 should be reserved for emergency funding to assistactive recreation and sport organisations facing unforseen and extraordinarycircumstances. Applications for emergency funding should be assessed as required.In relation to IRIS & Move It Programs:37. The IRIS and Move It programs should be discontinued in their current form.38. Projects targeting specific populations or addressing barriers to Inclusive Recreationor Inclusive Sport should be eligible for the SRDIP where they can demonstratesustainable participation outcomes.In relation to grant processes:39. ORS should investigate an on-line system that simplifies the application process andstreamlines the assessment, acquittal and reporting of grants.40. ORS should review the timing of SRSP and SRDIP to ensure funding agreementsare established in advance of the commencement of the financial year for which theyapply.41. ORS should develop an evaluation framework that streamlines the collection andreporting of key indicators relevant to each program.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 10 of 65

42. ORS should implement an education strategy to communicate changes to grantprograms to clients for the 2012/13 financial year.In relation to funding allocation:43. In 2012/13, the ORS grant funds should be allocated as follows:Active Club Program (ACP)Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program (CRSFP)Sport and Recreation Sustainability Program (SRSP)Sport and Recreation Development and Inclusion Program (SRDIP)$2,350,000$7,695,000$3,000,000$3,673,000TOTAL $16,718,00044. The $3.5 million funding allocated from the Sport and Recreation Fund be used tosupport:Active Club Program (ACP)State Facilities FundSport and Recreation Development and Inclusion Program$2,350,000$500,000 1$650,000TOTAL $3,500,0001 The State Facilities Fund is an existing program that is not administered by ORS Funding Services and wasoutside the scope of this review.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 11 of 65

3. Background to the ReviewAll South Australians should be able to enjoy lives enriched through participation in activerecreation and sport. The ORS works to support and strengthen the capacity of the activerecreation and sport industry to provide opportunities to facilitate this. Grant programsprovide valuable resources to the industry to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.In 2002 an extensive review was conducted of all ORS grant programs. This reviewconsulted broadly with the sport and active recreation industry and resulted in theestablishment of StEP and the introduction, where relevant, of three-year funding cycles.Since this review there have been three significant changes to the portfolio of ORS grants:Move It ($500,000) was introduced in 2003/04 to support the whole-of-governmentbe active initiative, specifically to enhance opportunities for inactive people toparticipate in ongoing sport and active recreation opportunities.IRIS ($500,000) commenced in 2006/07 to assist organisations to increase and/orenhance opportunities for people with a disability to be involved in sport and activerecreation.In 2010, Cabinet approved the allocation of an additional $5 million (indexed) for theCRSFP, bringing the total for disbursement through ORS grant programs to $16.516million in 2010/11. 2In February 2011, the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing (MRSR) approved the finalterms of reference for a review of the ORS grant programs. The purpose of the review wasto prepare a report for the MRSR that outlined the current ORS grants, information fromother jurisdictions, sport and active recreation trend data, stakeholder feedback andrecommendations regarding grant programs.The intention of the review and subsequent report was to ensure that ORS grant programsmeet the needs of the industry more effectively and deliver better outcomes for the ORS.It was intended that the review would be undertaken and the findings implemented as partof the 2012/13 rounds. The Terms of Reference (TOR) are attached as Appendix 1.3.1 METHODOLOGYAn Internal Working Group (IWG) and an External Advisory Committee (EAC) wereestablished to support the review.The IWG provided advice on the approach and methodology for the project plan and wasinvolved in developing options and recommendations for examination by the EAC. IWGmembers were:ORS Director, Venues, Infrastructure, Planning and Policy (Chair)ORS A/Director, Industry Development and ParticipationORS Director, South Australian Sports Institute2 This represents the grant funds managed by ORS Funding Services. A sum of $500,000 is allocated annually to theState Facilities Fund, which is outside the scope of this review.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 12 of 65

ORS General Manager, Finance and Business ServicesORS Manager, Industry Support and TrainingORS Principal Funding ConsultantORS Grants Review Project ManagerAttorney Generals Department, Executive Director, Building CommunitiesDepartment of Families and Communities, Director, Procurement and Grants.The EAC reviewed the work of the IWG and assisted in developing the methodology andcommunicating the review process through its networks. It also provided comment on thefindings of the benchmarking studies and industry consultation and was involved indeveloping options and recommendations. Organisations represented on the EAC were:ORS - Executive Director (Chair)Sport SARecreation SALocal Government AssociationPhysical Activity CouncilORS Director, Venues, Infrastructure, Planning and Policy (as chair of IWG).The project included consultation with ORS staff and was supported by the advice andexpertise of the Funding Services branch throughout the term of the project.The review was implemented in the five phases outlined below:Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4Phase 5Analysis ofparticipationtrends andsummary ofcurrent ORS grantprogramsincluding extent towhich theyachieve their aimsand objectivesIdentification andanalysis ofindustry practicesfor the allocationof grant fundingfor the sport andactive recreationsectorConsultation withindustry, localgovernment andelectedparliamentariansto determine theextent that existinggrants help themto achieve theirobjectives and toidentify new orunmet needsEvaluation ofalternative modelsof funding andprogram deliveryfor the sport andactive recreationsectorRecommend anychanges to ORSgrant programsand proposedallocation offunding acrossprograms3.1.1 Phase 1 - BackgroundThe sport and active recreation participation trends up to 2010 were analysed tounderstand the needs of the South Australian community in relation to sport and activerecreation. Information on facility usage, the administration of sport and active recreationand the differences between metro and non-metro regions was also considered.Past ORS grant allocations were also analysed to quantify the funding between differentsectors of the industry and the demand for different types of projects. Two summary paperswere developed: Trends in Recreation and Sport (Appendix 2) and Summary of GrantPrograms 2010/11 (Appendix 3). Both papers were made available to stakeholders whoprovided feedback for the review.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 13 of 65

3.1.2 Phase 2 - BenchmarkingResearch was undertaken to understand the range of funding opportunities for sport andactive recreation offered in other jurisdictions, including funds available, high-level policies,objectives, eligibility criteria and the organisational structure employed to deliver the grantprograms.The information collected as part of the benchmarking study was sourced from web-basedresearch and by interviews with key personnel in other state departments responsible forsport and active recreation. The information was collected in the first half of 2011 and wasaccurate at that time.A series of papers detailing the approach taken by other jurisdictions were developed andconsidered by both the IWG and the EAC. Topics included funding for local clubs, fundingfor state organisations, funding for facilities, funding for people with a disability and fundingfor other outcomes.It became evident that the state government agencies primarily responsible for sport andactive recreation were often not the sole source of grant funding for the sector. Grantsfunds were variously available from the health, justice, community and tourism portfoliosand major infrastructure projects were typically funded direct from the Department ofTreasury and Finance.3.1.3 Phase 3 – ConsultationAn extensive consultation process was undertaken to determine current and future needsof key industry stakeholders, how the current programs meet these needs, identification ofunmet needs, the experiences of customers in relation to current grant programs, thedelivery mechanisms and the support provided by ORS.An independent consultant, PKF Organisational Development, was retained to manage theexternal consultation process. Feedback was collected using four methods: electronicsurveys, individual interviews, focus groups and written submissions. Feedback wasobtained from metropolitan and regional stakeholders and successful and unsuccessfulapplicants.To promote the review and the opportunities to provide feedback, the Minister forRecreation, Sport and Racing provided a briefing pack to all MPs, issued a media releaseand granted a range of media interviews. The ORS Executive Director wrote to all statesport and active recreation organisations and industry representative bodies to inviteparticipation in the review; 1300 organisations and individuals were invited to participate inthe survey via direct-email and a feature article was circulated in the ORS online newsletter.In addition, Sport SA, Recreation SA and the Local Government Recreation Forumcirculated information promoting the review and opportunities to contribute through theirnetworks. The surveys and written submission pro forma were made available on the homepage of the ORS website to ensure that any other interested stakeholder could providefeedback.Three separate surveys were developed: for MPs, local government, and sport and activerecreation stakeholders respectively. A total of 13 focus groups were convened in areasReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 14 of 65

across the state; written submissions were invited and a small number of individualinterviews were conducted.A total of 739 submissions were received. The full consultation report is attached asAppendix 4 and the key findings are highlighted throughout this document. A summary ofthe feedback received for the review is tabled in Figure 1, 2 and 3.Figure 1: Submissions to the Review by Type of OrganisationIndividualSurveyInterviewsFocus GroupsWrittenSubmissionMP 6 10 0 0Local Government 35 0 41 3SSO 93 1 24 4Local Sport Club 324 0 27 0Recreation 65 0 13 2Other 72 0 18 1Total 595 11 123 10Figure 2: Focus Group Respondents by LocationFigure 3: Survey Respondents by LocationMetro'nFocus GroupsRegionalFocus GroupsSSO 24 n/aLocal Government 20 21Local Sport Club 8 19Recreation 7 6Other 11 7Total 66 53Outside of the consultation process managed by PKF, each government department wasbriefed on the review and invited to provide feedback. This feedback has been consideredthroughout the report. A summary of the submissions is tabled in Appendix 5.3.1.4 Phase 4 - EvaluationAlternative approaches to the delivery of grant funding programs were evaluated.3.1.5 Phase 5 - RecommendationsBased upon the findings and issues identified in the preceding stages, therecommendations included in this report were developed.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 15 of 65

The report that follows addresses overall grants strategy; grants for peak industry bodies,state sport or active recreation organisations; local clubs; facility development and sectorgrowth and development.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 16 of 65

4. Overall Grants Strategy4.1 BACKGROUNDThe ORS provides grant funding to support organisations to provide high quality activerecreation and sport facilities, programs and activities. In addition, some funding is allocatedto support individual scholarships for administrators, coaches, officials and athletes.All government agencies strive to achieve targets established in the South AustralianStrategic Plan (SASP). Of particular relevance to ORS is the SASP Target 83; to increasethe proportion of South Australians participating in sport or physical recreation at least onceper week to 50% by 2020. Grants are a significant proportion of the overall ORS budgetand thus must contribute to achieving Target 83.Since the last review there have been three significant changes to the portfolio of ORSgrants, including the introduction of Move It and IRIS and an additional $5 million (indexed)for facilities through the CRSFP. The significant increase to the CRSFP (from $1.49 millionto $6.49 million) was available to the industry for the first time in 2010/11 and brought thetotal grant funds disbursed through Funding Services to $16.516 million.Figure 5 summarises the grant programs administered by ORS in 2010/11.Figure 5: Grant Programs in 2010/112010/11 BudgetStatewide Enhancement Program (StEP) $6,673,000Active Club Program (ACP) $2,350,000Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program (CRSFP) $6,493,000Move It! Making Communities Active Program (Move It) $500,000Inclusive Recreation, Inclusive Sport (IRIS) $500,000Total Grant Funds Administered by ORS Funding Services: $16,516,000Each of the five grant programs has its own purpose, objectives, eligibility and assessmentcriteria. For projects involving the development of new or existing facilities (ACP andCRSFP), applicants must provide at least matching funding. This is an effective mechanismfor balancing state government investment with community input.ORS manages significant demand for all grant programs. In 2010/11, the ORS received1717 applications requesting $59.9 million. During that period, 835 grants were allocated atotal of $16.5 million. Figure 6 shows the funding requests and approvals by type of project.The graph shows the demand for all the project types exceeds the supply and, in particular,highlights the demand for facility projects to support the development of new and existingcommunity sport and active recreation infrastructure.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 17 of 65

Figure 6: Total Funding Requests and Approvals by Project Type 2010/114.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORT FOR SPORT AND ACTIVERECREATION4.2.1 The value of sport and active recreationSport and active recreation is part of the fabric of Australian life.The importance of an active healthy lifestyle for the wellbeing of all members of thecommunity is well recognised. In addition to this, the preventative health aspects presentthe potential to alleviate the significant cost pressures being placed on health services in allAustralian States and Territories.As a community, the social outcomes that are achieved through participation in clubs andactivities create inclusive communities with a sense of purpose and belonging.From an economic perspective, sport and active recreation is a major economic driver,accounting for approximately 2 per cent of Australia‟s gross domestic product and yieldingmultiplier effects in the many millions of dollars.4.2.2 Participation OverviewResearch shows that overall more South Australians are participating in sport and activerecreation activities. In particular, there has been significant growth in regular participation;that is, people who consistently incorporate three or more sessions of activity into theirweek. While the impact on facilities and infrastructure are discussed later, the impact onhuman resources is dependent on the degree of „organisation‟ underpinning the activity.Figure 7 shows that organised participation, usually through a local sport club or fitnesscentre, has grown moderately to a point where an estimated 538,000 South Australianadults participate in this way. In considering clubs, an estimated 349,000 adults wereassociated with a sport club and this was particularly prevalent in regional areas where onein three adults indicated they were part of a club structure. Participation via fitness centresvaries from 5 per cent in some regional areas to 20 per cent in Southern and WesternAdelaide.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 18 of 65

Number of Participants (000's)During the past 10 years there has been significant growth in the uptake of non-organisedactivities, where across Australia participation has grown by 30 per cent. In particular,walking and cycling has experienced strong growth.Figure 7: Participation trend in SA 2001 - 2010Number of Participants in South Australia1,2501,000750636.3500250386.702001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010All Participants 886 928.3 993.2 970.3 1006.7 985.6 990.9 1052.7 1060 1079.1Regular Participants 386.7 441.7 546.1 517.2 497.2 476.5 515 631.1 588.5 636.3Organised Participants 476.3 469.1 523.3 478.7 514.3 481.3 470.3 511.2 507.3 538.34.3 GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR SPORT & ACTIVERECREATIONThe new South Australian Strategic Plan (SASP) target 3 recognises the importance ofregular participation in sport or physical recreation. This reinforces the commitment by theORS to support and strengthen the capacity of the active recreation and sport industry toprovide ongoing quality participation opportunities.Given its reach and contribution, it is not surprising that multiple government departmentsintersect with the sport and active recreation sector including planning for open space andconnectivity (DPLG), delivering major infrastructure projects (DETI), supporting majorevents (SATC), developing water policy (SA Water) and managing community facilities andtrails (DECS and DENR). Other departments use sport and active recreation as a vehicle todeliver community development (DFC), social inclusion (DPC) or justice (AGD) outcomes.SA Health is also a significant stakeholder in the sport and active recreation sector due toits ability to contribute to primary health outcomes.In submissions from state government departments, many acknowledged using sport andactive recreation as a means to achieve their objectives. Departments offered grantprograms that provide funds for sport or recreation organisations for non-sport relatedoutcomes or funded sport or recreation projects delivered by non-sport or recreationorganisations. As an example, the use of elite sporting role models to deliver curriculumoutcomes has been successful. Figure 8 summarises the responses in relation to keyinteractions between the South Australian Government and the sport and active recreationsector.3 SASP Target 83: Increase the proportion of South Australians participating in sport or physical recreation at least onceper week to 50% by 2020.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 19 of 65

Figure 8: Summary of SA Government SubmissionsProvidedFeedbackUses S&Rto achieveobjectivesFunds S&Rprojects ororganisationsthroughgrantsManages S&RinfrastructureDepartment of Justice Yes Yes Yes NoDepartment for Environment and Natural Resources Yes Yes No YesDepartment for Families and Communities Yes Yes Yes NoDepartment for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure Yes Yes No NoDepartment of Education and Children's Services Yes Yes No YesDepartment of Health Yes Yes Yes NoDepartment of the Premier & Cabinet Yes No No NoDepartment of Further Education, Employment,Science and TechnologyYes Yes Yes NoDepartment of Water Yes No No No4.4 BENCHMARKINGThe investment in grants for community sport and active recreation in other state andterritory jurisdictions ranged from $2.2 million to $52 million, with an average of $20 million.When comparing the $16.5 million contribution made by the SA Government, SouthAustralia fared reasonably well, with an above average spend per capita. Figure 9illustrates grant funds for sport and active recreation, relative to population.Figure 9: Grant Funds Relative to PopulationAverage: $8.55 per capita4.4.1 Funding PrioritiesFigure 10 illustrates the funding priorities in other jurisdictions and shows that facilities are asignificant priority, with 80 per cent of all grant funds going to facility development inVictoria. Western Australia, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory allocateapproximately half of their annual grant funds to facilities whereas the Northern Territoryallocates only 12 per cent to facilities. It should be noted that as is the case in SouthAustralia, major state and national level infrastructure projects are generally funded throughReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 20 of 65

Budget bids outside of general appropriations. Projects of this sort that are not typicallyfunded through grant programs were considered outside the scope of the review.With the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, otherjurisdictions invest between 10 and 20 per cent of grant funds to support stateorganisations. In Victoria, Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, thesegrants are augmented by dedicated consultants who provide customised support for theorganisations they service.Local clubs are strongly supported in Tasmania and the Northern Territory, withapproximately one-quarter of funds directed to supporting grassroots activities. All otherstates allocated less than 10 per cent for non-facility related projects in local clubs.Figure 10: Funding Priorities in other JurisdictionsStateOrganisationsFacilities Local Clubs OtherVIC 7% 80% na naNSW 15% 47% 3% 35%TAS* 25% 46% 27% 3%WA 18% 56% 0% 25%QLD 17% 39% 7% 37%NT 56% 12% 23% 10%ACT 56% 25% 5% 13%SA 25% 39% 14% 22%*Analysis excludes $7.3m managed through the grants process to honour election commitments in TAS.4.5 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACKBoth the discussions and survey responses acknowledged that existing ORS grantprograms contribute resources that help sport and active recreation organisations achievetheir goals and, in doing so, contribute to the provision of better quality participationopportunities and to the sustainability of organisations. Figure 11 illustrates the surveyresponses.Figure 11: Extent that ORS Grants Achieve ObjectivesWhere 1 = not at all, 2 = to a small extent, 3 = to a moderate extent, 4 = to a large extent, 5 = to a very large extentReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 21 of 65

4.5.1 Overall ResourcingWhile this acknowledgement was pleasing, MPs, councils and state sport organisations(SSOs) raised the need for more resourcing for this volunteer-driven sector during theinterviews and focus groups. With the exception of the recent injection for CRSFP, it wasreported that ORS grants had not kept pace with increasing costs facing the industryincluding water, power, regulatory compliance and employment. These sentiments werereinforced by the EAC.4.5.2 Current Funding StrategyThe findings relating to the current grant strategy are shown in Figure 12. The results showthat there was strong support for an increase in funding for local clubs and facilities.Overall, the majority view was that 6 per cent share of funding for targeted populations was„about right‟. However, opinion was divided when it came to assessing the fundingallocation for statewide initiatives. After weighting the responses to ensure equalrepresentation of each group, 20 per cent wanted more funding, 30% wanted less fundingand 45 percent thought funding was about right for statewide initiatives.Figure 12: Appropriateness of Current Grants Strategy4.5.3 Targeted PopulationsOnly 20 per cent of stakeholders chose to provide feedback on targeted populations. Thismay be an indication of the priority or complexity for many sport and active recreationorganisations to service targeted populations. However, there was widespreadacknowledgement of the merit in providing accessible opportunities linked to sustainableparticipation and recognition of the importance of disability participation and pathwayopportunities.4.5.4 Local GovernmentLocal government has a significant role in facilitating sport and active recreation and it hasa direct relationship with many sport and active recreation organisations with various formsof tenancy arrangements to access the community recreation spaces under theirstewardship. Feedback called for continued investment in facilities but in greaterpartnership with councils and state sport and active recreation organisations. Councils werealso a strong advocate for investment in developing organisational capacity of communitysport organisations to ensure maximum utility of these facilities for the local community.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 22 of 65

4.5.5 Regional PrioritiesA strong theme to emerge during the consultation was an acknowledgement of the valuablerole played by sport and active recreation in regional communities across South Australia.The discussions pointed to strong demand for facility renewal projects and a willingness toapproach the development with flexibility both in the scope or staging of projects.There was strong support for the work of the be active Field Officers stationed in regionalSouth Australia. Helping local clubs understand the responsibilities of club managementand make connections with relevant authorities was a valued resource. The accessibility oftraining programs was a common barrier for regional clubs and associations. Courses wereinfrequently offered outside of Adelaide, which affected the time and cost of achievingrelevant accreditation.4.5.6 Funding PrioritiesThe vast majority of stakeholders indicated that funding to support existing participationshould take priority, although SSOs indicated they had a leadership role to play in attractingnew participants to their sport or activity. The majority of stakeholders suggested that asmall portion of funding should be dedicated to targeted population groups.In terms of dividing the funds between different types of projects, facilities, participationprograms, equipment, development of coaches and officials and administrative support (inparticular by SSOs) all ranked highly. Figure 13 summarises the feedback fromstakeholders in relation to the priority areas for funding during the next 10 years.Figure 13: Key areas that ORS grant programs should address during the next 5-10 years?What are three things that ORS grant programs should address during the next 5-10 years?Priority Area 1 Priority Area 2 Priority Area 3MP Grassroots clubs Regional communitiesFacilities andequipment(new and maintenance)LocalGovernmentFacilities andequipmentVolunteers:Support anddevelopmentIncreasing participationSSOFacilities andequipmentParticipationAdministrative costs(including paid staff)Local SportClubFacilities andequipmentParticipationRegional communitiesCoach and officialdevelopmentRecreationFacilities andequipmentIncrease funding(or maintain current)Grassroots clubsOtherFacilities andequipmentDisadvantaged and/orminority groupsRegional communitiesReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 23 of 65

4.6 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONSThe new SASP target for sport and active recreation recognises the importance of regularparticipation and there is a strong commitment to ensure the principles underpinning ORSgrant programs align and support the achievement of the SASP target.The review considered the merits of allowing the for-profit sector to access ORS grants. Itwas acknowledged that these providers can contribute to the availability of qualityparticipation opportunities where it is profitable to do so. However, the excessive demandfrom not-for-profit organisations was a key consideration in the recommendation of both theIWG and the EAC to exclude the for-profit sector from ORS grant programs.This recommendation did not recognise the important contribution of the Recreation andSport Youth Traineeship Incentive Program (RSYTIP). The RSYTIP responds to the futurehuman resource needs of the industry by supporting recreation, sport and fitnessorganisations to employ a young person as a trainee. Currently the RSYTIP provides$5,000 to approximately 25 organisations including a small number of for-profitorganisations for this purpose. For-profit organisations working in the fitness and outdoorsector have been actively encouraged to seek support under this program as both sectorshave been identified as facing significant skills shortage both by the ORS and Service SkillsAustralia. Further, ORS experience suggests that for-profit organisations have a greatercapacity to provide on-going employment following the traineeship period and as suchcontribute significantly to the outcomes the program seeks to achieve. Against thisbackground, it was decided to seek Ministerial exemption for for-profit organisations on acase-by-case basis in relation to the RSYTIP only.The review also considered the merits of allowing non-sport-and-active-recreationorganisations to access ORS grants.Councils have been proactive in applying directly for grant funds or project managing theimplementation of a facility or capacity building project on behalf of clubs in their area. ORSexperience indicates that these projects are well managed through to completion, reducethe burden on community volunteers and, in many cases, funding is matched by thecouncil.The ORS has also developed effective relationships with non-sport and active recreationcommunity organisations that provide structured participation opportunities for targetedpopulations. Often these opportunities are delivered by community organisations becausethe sport and active recreation sector does not have the capacity, expertise or interest indelivering these programs.The review concluded that a limitation on the eligibility of councils and communityorganisations would exclude stakeholders that provide programs and services for thesector. Where these programs offer sustainable participation opportunities with clearrecreation and sport outcomes, and/or do not duplicate the provision of services by sportand active recreation organisations, they should be eligible for support through ORS grants.The review also recognised the value scholarships deliver individuals in affording them thefreedom to pursue excellence as athletes, coaches, officials and administrators andrecommended that individuals remain eligible for ORS grant program scholarship awards.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 24 of 65

RECOMMENDATIONS1. ORS grant programs should continue to achieve outcomes that provide all SouthAustralians with access to ongoing, quality sport and active recreationopportunities.2. ORS grant funding should continue to support the delivery of sport and activerecreation outcomes by the not-for-profit sector.3. ORS grant funding should only be provided to non-sport and active recreationorganisations when the project outcomes deliver significant benefit for sport andactive recreation organisations or when the project benefits targeted populationsand does not duplicate a program delivered by sport and active recreationorganisations.The review commenced early in 2011 and extensive consultation was conducted in Mayand June. Grants for the 2011/12 financial year were administered under existingarrangements and several are currently open for application. The earliest theserecommendations could be implemented would be for funding distributed in the 2012/13financial year.RECOMMENDATION4. Approved recommendations from this report should be implemented for fundingdistributed in the 2012/13 financial year.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 25 of 65

5. Grants for Local Clubs (ACP)5.1 BACKGROUNDCommunity sports clubs and associations are not-for-profit organisations that exist toprovide sport and active recreation opportunities for their local communities. Most of theseorganisations are administered on a volunteer basis 4 . In fact, the sport and active recreationsector is the biggest beneficiary of volunteer labour, with one-third of all volunteer effortsgoing to the sector, involving 367,000 South Australians who contribute approximately 48million hours per annum. Typical sport volunteer roles include coaches, officials, medicalstaff/trainers, scorers/time keepers, and administration staff.Compared to other sectors, volunteers in the sport and active recreation field take onsignificant responsibilities, with 72 per cent committing their efforts to an organisation withno paid staff. The practical implication of this structure is that volunteers must assumeresponsibility for sound governance including increasing regulations around insurance andrisk management, financial accountability, occupational health and safety and childprotection. Most volunteers in other sectors are supported by a paid workforce thatmanages these responsibilities on behalf of the volunteers.The ACP was established to increase community access to quality recreation and sportactivities and facilities by providing financial assistance to community-based recreation orsport organisations to develop and expand the services they provide.The ACP is funded by revenue sourced from the Gaming Machines Act (1992). As a result,organisations that have a gaming machine licence are ineligible to access ACP grants.Funding allocated under ACP is based on the principle that it should be distributed equallyacross the 47 electorates in South Australia. This ensures that all community-based sportand active recreation across the state have the potential to receive funding.5.2 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT FUNDINGThe ACP provides crucial funding to a large number of local sport and active recreationorganisations for a diverse range of projects and facilities.In the period 2007/08 to 2010/11 there were 3121 applications requesting $24 million.During that period, more than $9.2 million was distributed to local sport and activerecreation organisations through the ACP. This was achieved through the allocation of1554 grants with an average value of $5926.5.2.1 Types of Projects Funded under ACPApplications for programs and equipment, facilities and youth at risk are eligible under theACP. Figure 14 highlights the most common types of projects funded by ACP in the period2007/08 to 2010/11. The figures show that with the exception of facility-related projects, theaverage cost of other projects commonly funded under ACP was less than $5000. The dataalso shows that there was little demand for youth at risk and event projects.4 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) Volunteers in Sport. Catalogue No. 4440 .0.55.001Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 26 of 65

Figure 14: Active Club: by Project - 2007/08 to 2010/11Type of ProjectNumber ofGrantsTotal Grant ValueAverage Grant ValueEquipment 843 $3,927,927 $4659Facility 482 $4,147,225 $8604Program Delivery 158 $791,435 $5009Organisational Development 61 $280,559 $4599YAR 6 $43,889 $7315Event 4 $18,000 $4500Total 1554 $9,209,035 $59265.2.2 Types of Activities Funded under ACPFigure 15 highlights the most common types of activities funded under the ACP in theperiod 2007/08 to 2010/11. The grants provided per activity are a reflection of the demand,the number of clubs and the number of participants.Figure 15: Active Club: Top Activities - 2007/08 to 2010/11Type of ProjectNumber ofGrantsTotal Grant ValueAverage Grant ValueMulti Type 117 $863,155 $7377Tennis 104 $798,746 $7680Cricket 122 $746,548 $6119Football 110 $741,984 $6745Australian Football 109 $672,721 $6172Netball 94 $665,634 $7081Bowls 104 $568,271 $5464Outdoor Recreation/Camping 77 $394,632 $5125Miscellaneous 61 $276,959 $4540Athletics 53 $270,008 $5094Golf 32 $174,168 $5443Swimming 37 $173,054 $4677Equestrian 37 $165,839 $4482Sailing/Yachting 23 $157,370 $6842Baseball 24 $154,812 $6451Calisthenics 27 $151,424 $5608Gymnastics 24 $146,261 $6094Basketball 26 $139,413 $5362Hockey 23 $118,650 $5159Table Tennis 20 $115,903 $5795Surf Life Saving 20 $113,538 $56775.2.3 Funding by ElectorateTwo rounds of ACP grants are notionally allocated evenly across the 47 state electorates. Atotal of $25,000 per round (or $50,000 per annum) is allocated to each electorate.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 27 of 65

The number of applications per electorate varies greatly. Where electorates areundersubscribed, ORS organises information sessions and offers one-on-one assistance toencourage more applications. MPs are also updated regularly on funding available withintheir electorate.However, in some years, due to a lack of applications in some electorates, it is not possibleto allocate the full notional entitlement. In these instances, the undersubscribed funds aredistributed across other electorates relative to the number of applications each electoratereceives. This allows for the electorates with the highest demand to receive additionalfunding.Figure 16 illustrates the ACP grants allocated across the 47 state electorates in the period2007/08 to 2010/11. During this time the notional allocation was $200,000 per electorate;20 electorates (42 per cent) were undersubscribed. This would suggest there is not aconsistent demand for additional funding for ACP by all electorates.Figure 16: Active Club by Electorate - 2007/08 to 2010/11ElectorateNumber ofGrantsTotal Grant ValueAverage Grant ValueCroydon 34 $209,455 $6160Stuart 40 $208,076 $5202Frome 28 $ 208,027 $7430Mackillop 28 $207,026 $7394Hammond 26 $206,908 $7958Flinders 26 $206,627 $7947Goyder 32 $206,486 $6453Mount Gambier 32 $205,697 $6428Lee 44 $205,648 $4674Giles 40 $205,469 $5137Heysen 33 $205,467 $6226Adelaide 31 $205,156 $6618Kavel 30 $205,047 $6835Chaffey 44 $204,558 $4649Finniss 31 $204,397 $6593Elder 41 $203,839 $4972Port Adelaide 36 $203,828 $5662West Torrens 36 $203,538 $5654Morphett 28 $202,889 $7246Hartley 26 $202,639 $7794Little Para 38 $202,349 $5325Davenport 34 $202,009 $5941Taylor 31 $201,973 $6515Ashford 37 $201,434 $5444Norwood 37 $200,696 $5424Kaurna 31 $200,233 $6459Bright 37 $200,227 $5412Schubert 32 $199,807 $6244Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 28 of 65

ElectorateNumber ofGrantsTotal Grant ValueAverage Grant ValueMawson 48 $199,788 $4162Playford 30 $198,222 $6607Cheltenham 36 $197,939 $5498Wright 34 $197,303 $5803Colton 35 $196,298 $5609Torrens 31 $195,079 $6293Morialta 33 $193,689 $5869Waite 33 $193,523 $5864Light 39 $190,662 $4889Enfield 34 $187,969 $5529Ramsay 33 $187,554 $5683Mitchell 32 $186,324 $5823Napier 32 $183,418 $5732Newland 32 $182,232 $5695Unley 28 $173,781 $6206Fisher 26 $172,679 $6642Reynell 32 $165,962 $5186Bragg 24 $149,470 $6228Florey 19 $137,638 $7244Feedback on the notional allocation of grants evenly across electorates was specificallysought during the consultation phase. These findings are discussed in the followingsections.5.3 BENCHMARKINGThe investment in grants for community level sport and active recreation projects in otherstate and territory jurisdictions ranged from $121,000 to $3.4 million with an average of $1.3million. When comparing the $2.35 million contribution made by the SA Government, localclubs in South Australia fared very well, with an above average spend per capita. Figure 17illustrates grant funds for sport and active recreation clubs, relative to population.Figure 17: Local Club Grant Funds Relative to PopulationAverage: $0.52 per capitaReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 29 of 65

An analysis of the practices around the country found most jurisdictions channelled supportfor community clubs through facility programs.5.3.1 Overview of Grant Programs for Local ClubsPrograms in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and the Australian CapitalTerritory were mostly targeted for inclusion initiatives or organisational developmentprojects. Through direct negotiation with Local Government Shires, the Northern Territoryinvested significant grant monies to deliver sport and active recreation activities in remotecommunities. Victoria offered several small, targeted programs for uniforms,emergency/disaster relief and two with a regional focus. Tasmania offered a major andminor stream of funding for various projects including facilities and equipment. Thebreakdown is reported in Figure 18.Figure 18: Focus of Local Club Grant FundsStateMax perGrantFocusVIC $5000 Country$2000 Emergency/disaster$1000 UniformsNSW $10,000 Remove barriers, build capacityTAS $10,000 Minor facilities/equipment$80,000 Minor facilities/equipmentWA $5000 InclusionQLD $5000 Inclusion$10,000 Emergency/disasterNT $3,000 Programs, promotion, traveln.a.Remote communitiesACT $1000 Inclusion, capacity, equipment5.4 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACKAll groups acknowledged the significant contribution local clubs make to communitiesaround the state in terms of providing participation opportunities, nurturing talent andcreating social hubs. The ACP is seen as a valuable source of funding and, amongorganisations, it is perceived that the funding is shared across clubs so that every couple ofyears a club may receive funding for some new training equipment, a shade structure orstorage shed or funds for coach accreditation, first aid or child protection courses.The survey responses show that the facility and program and equipment grants contributeresources that help sport and active recreation organisations achieve their goals and, indoing so, contribute to the provision of more or better quality participation opportunities.The survey responses indicated the Youth at Risk category is not well aligned with thegoals of stakeholders. Figure 19 illustrates the survey responses.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 30 of 65

Relative PriorityFacilities orplaying surfacesEquipmentParticipationprogramsDevelopment ofcoaches andofficialsOrganisationadmin supportanddevelopmentEventsIndividuals/scholarshipsDevelopmentof elite athletesFigure 19: Extent that ACP Grants Achieve ObjectivesYouthat RiskFacilitiesPrograms &Equipment5.4.1 ACP Priority ProjectsThese responses were reflected in the more detailed project priorities presented in Figure20. Facilities, equipment, programs and coach education all ranked highly in the surveysand were strongly endorsed in the focus groups and interviews. In particular, minor facilityprojects such as storage sheds, shade structures, OH&S projects and energy efficiencyprojects were high on the priority list for clubs. Organisational development projects,(strategic planning, financial planning, constitutional reform, risk management, etc.) werehighly ranked by SSOs and other organisations. This was again reflected in focus groupdiscussions where these respondents, as well as local government and local clubs, agreedthat, as the primary interface with the majority of participants and custodians of significantcommunity assets, support for well-run clubs was important.Figure 20: Priority Projects for ACP Grants6.05.0ACP Priority Projects4.03.02.0Local ClubsSSOsRecreationOther1.00.0Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 31 of 65

5.4.2 EligibilityIt was agreed that ACP funding remains targeted for local sport and active recreation clubs.5.4.3 Electoral AllocationIt was recognised that electoral-based allocation is not always aligned with greatest need.MPs acknowledged the imperfections in the system, but strongly defended the bipartisanprinciple in interviews and survey responses. Overall, other stakeholders expressed a clearpreference for a merit-based system. Some SSO and club respondents suggestedallocations by sport or activity and some councils expressed support for allocation by localgovernment boundaries. Interestingly, local clubs were the group most supportive of theelectoral allocation (after MPs), with 15 per cent agreeing it was the best criteria.5.4.4 Application ProcessA consistent theme to emerge from the MP interviews was the need to keep the applicationprocess as simple as possible, noting that those most in need were often the least able toarticulate their needs and sometimes experienced difficulty in negotiating governmentprocesses. This theme was supported in the focus groups, where it was a widely held viewthat superior writing skills were a definite advantage in securing a grant.5.4.5 AssessmentThe survey responses indicated a preference for assessment to prioritise participationoutcomes and address areas of need. The needs of remote communities were highlightedby numerous stakeholders during face-to-face consultation. In particular, MPs and councilswere acutely aware of the role clubs play in regional and remote communities.5.4.6 Satisfaction with ACPSatisfaction levels for the ACP were high. The purpose of the program, the informationavailable to applicants and the support offered by ORS staff rated very highly. The timingand availability of two rounds per annum also rated very positively. Given the high volumeof applications processed through the ACP and given that only approximately one-third ofapplications are successful, this feedback endorsed the level of consultation provided bythe ORS through the application process. The survey responses for satisfaction with ACPare shown in Figure 21.Figure 21: Satisfaction with ACPReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 32 of 65

5.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONSThe feedback from industry stakeholders was strongly in favour of providing support directto club-based, grassroots sport and active recreation organisations.This target group is consistent with the Gaming Machines Act (1992), which states thatfunds derived from the Sport and Recreation Fund must benefit sport and active recreationorganisations. The Act also provides that financial assistance should not be given to anorganisation that is the holder of a gaming machine licence.RECOMMENDATIONS5. The ACP objectives and structure should remain focussed on club-based,grassroots sport and active recreation.6. The eligibility criteria for the program should be limited to not-for-profit,community sport and active recreation organisations that do not have a gamingmachines licence.The benchmarking showed that in the main, other jurisdictions allocated minimal non-facilitygrants to local clubs. However, the ACP was widely appreciated by stakeholders and waseffective in meeting the needs of the industry and supporting the ORS objective ofcontributing to more or better quality participation opportunities.The electoral allocation system, which underpins ACP, is a source of tension in theindustry. While the industry stakeholders had a strong preference for a merit-basedallocation system, MPs were unanimous in their preference to maintain the electoralallocation.Overall, the ORS recognises the electoral system is a useful mechanism for involving MPsin their local clubs and underpins the bi-partisan support enjoyed by the sport and activerecreation sector.Discussion was held in relation to the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act(2011). The special annual sub-lease fee to be paid by the Stadium Management Authorityinto the Sport and Recreation Fund for the purposes of distribution through the ACP wasunanimously appreciated. The timeline for inclusion in ACP gave rise to recommendation 8.RECOMMENDATIONS7. The ACP should maintain a total budget of $2.35 million and that the notionalallocation of $50,000 for each of the 47 state electorates be maintained.8. Funds received from Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act 2011should be available for application under the ACP in 2014/15 for allocation in2015/16.Careful consideration was given to the purpose of the ACP. It was clear through theconsultation that the concern at club level was about „getting the team on the park‟. Thiswas reflected in the survey responses where, in addition to facilities, there was need forequipment, participation programs and coach and official education.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 33 of 65

However, clubs carry a responsibility to operate community assets and are effectively theface of sport and active recreation to many South Australians; this was reflected in counciland state organisation feedback where there was strong support for grant funding tosupport „well-run clubs‟.The STARCLUB program is an initiative of the ORS that provides a simple onlineframework for clubs to address five key organisational areas to ensure their club is well run;it aims to have quality coaches and officials working alongside valued volunteers in a safeand welcoming environment.RECOMMENDATION9. Projects funded should align with the principles of the STARCLUB DevelopmentProgram.The consultation reinforced the need for simplicity when dealing with local level clubs. Itwas reported that the time and effort spent negotiating the grant system was not alwaysproductive, especially given the fact that less than half of all applications are successful.The consultation and the analysis of the demand for ORS grant programs were consistentwith ORS intelligence that facility development is a key area of need throughout theindustry. Against this background, the review recommends changing the way facilityapplications are dealt with under ACP to ensure they are assessed as a priority in the firstround only. The review further recommends that the first round of ACP be aligned with theCRSFP so that facility applications that exceed the electoral allocation under ACP can berolled into the CRSFP for consideration on a statewide basis (refer section 6).While careful consideration was given to the impact of limiting ACP facility applications toonce per annum, the benefit of having a second shot in the facility program offers manyadvantages to applicants. Importantly, it removes any confusion regarding which programto apply to and negates the need to apply to multiple programs for the same project. Mostsignificantly, it gives organisations in electorates with high demand an opportunity to accesssupport for minor facility development projects that could previously only be funded underthe ACP. From an ORS perspective, having all the facility programs aligned offers strategicopportunities and operational efficiencies.Continuing with the simplicity theme, it is recommended that applications for programs andequipment under the ACP remain available twice per year using a simplified style ofapplication form.It was noted that, excluding facilities, the average ACP grant was less than $5,000. In anattempt to ensure that ACP funds for programs and equipment are widely disbursed withinelectorates, applications for this purpose should be accepted for a maximum of $5,000 perround and a cap for each type of initiative should be established.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 34 of 65

RECOMMENDATIONS10. The two application periods available each year should have different financialallocations based on the following:Round One should allocate a maximum of $40,000 per electorate andshould accept applications for facility projects and programs andequipment.Round Two should allocate a minimum of $10,000 per electorate(including any unallocated funds from Round One) for programs andequipment only.organisations should be eligible to apply for funding in both RoundsOne and Two.11. Round One ACP Facility Projects:should have a maximum funding request of $20,000 per applicationshould require applicants to demonstrate at least a matchedcontributionif unsuccessful after electorate-based assessment, applications shouldbe rolled into the CRSFP and assessed accordingly.12. Round One and Two ACP Program and Equipment Projects:should have a simplified pro forma application process that allowsapplicants to apply under set categories for specific levels of fundingshould have a maximum funding request of $5000 per application.13. Any funds remaining after Round One in an electorate’s notation allocation of$40,000 should be available to that electorate in Round Two. Any funds remainingafter Round Two should be reallocated using a set formula to otheroversubscribed electorates.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 35 of 65

% of Population that use facility6. Funding for Facility Development6.1 BACKGROUNDSince 2001, the number of South Australian adults (15 years and older) that participate inphysical activities for exercise, recreation or sport has grown significantly to 1,080,000. Thisincludes more than 500,000 „organised‟ participants, which by their nature command agreater share of physical infrastructure and human resources.However, it is when we examine the growth in „regular‟ participants that we start toappreciate the strain on the sporting infrastructure. Since 2001, there are an additional250,000 „regular‟ participants. Conservative estimates suggest this means our infrastructurehas to facilitate 375,000 extra participation occasions per week or almost 20 million extraparticipation occasions per annum compared to 10 years ago.ABS results 5 showed that almost 60 per cent of the population used public infrastructuresuch as beaches, walking trails or footpaths to recreate, 50 per cent used built facilitiessuch as a gym, pool or court and one-quarter used a sports ground or oval (see Figure 22).Figure 22: Sport Facilities Used in South Australia (2009/10)70Places and Spaces6050403020100HomeSport Facility Built Facility Public Infrastructure(oval, sports ground) (gym, pool, court) (trail, path, beach)OtherThe 2010 South Australian Household survey found on average 90 per cent of participantswere satisfied with the accessibility of sport and active recreation facilities. 6 Not surprisingly,the findings show that South Australians living in the fast-growing urban fringe areas(Barossa, Adelaide Hills and Fleurieu) were the least satisfied with accessibility of facilities(between 75 and 80 per cent).6.1.1 Community Sporting HubsA Community Sports Hubs policy is being developed by ORS in response to the demand fornew and improved infrastructure to support sport and active recreation participation. Inaddition, there is increasing pressure on open space due to an ever-increasing demand forhousing supply close to activity centres. As a result there is a need to strategically plan forsport, recreation and community facilities to enable provision of these services at the righttime and in the right location.5 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009/10) Participation in Sport and Physical Recreation. Catalogue No. 4177.06 Department of Premier and Cabinet (2009) South Australian Strategic Plan Household Survey (Unpublished data)Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 36 of 65

The intention of the policy is to focus resources on the planning and development ofsustainable recreation and sport facilities through multi-use facilities that are integrated withother community infrastructure to take advantage of the synergies and economies of scalethis provides.The Community Sports Hubs policy will complement the recommendations made in thisgrants review report. The policy will be considered in late 2011 with recommendationspredicated in part by the final determinations arising from the grants review.6.2 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT FUNDINGIn the SA State Budget 2010, funding for the CRSFP was increased from $1.493 million to$6.493 million per annum and the additional $5 million was indexed.The purpose of the CRSFP is to support capacity building for the sector through thedevelopment of new or existing sustainable facilities. Organisations are eligible to apply forone project in each of the following categories:Category 1 Projects ($20k – 200k)Category 2 Projects ($201k – 500k)Feasibility study/master plan.The 2010/11 round of CRSFP was the first round to include the additional allocation. In the2010/11 round there were 243 applications for $27.8 million. The full $6.49 million wasallocated to organisations through 69 grants with an average value of $94,100. In the threeyears preceding the $5 million injection, an average of 23 grants were awarded with anaverage value of $60,600.Unlike the ACP, funding under CRSFP is not notionally allocated by electorate or any othersystem such as geography, activity or project type. Each application is assessed on thecriteria below:Participation: Extent to which the project increases participation levels or improvesthe participation experience or performanceNeed: Extent to which there is a demonstrated need for the projectQuality: Extent to which the project improves the quality or safety of the program orfacilityCapacity: Extent to which the applicant demonstrates the capacity to deliver theproject.Clubs, state organisations, councils and schools are eligible to apply for CRSFP.6.2.1 Types of projects funded under CRSFPFigure 23 highlights the most common types of projects funded through the CRSFPbetween 2007/08 and 2010/11. It shows that outdoor playing surfaces (51) and lighting (28)were the most common project and multi-purpose developments ($122,000) and clubrooms ($117,000) were the highest average cost projects.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 37 of 65

Figure 23: CRSFP: Top 10 Projects - 2007/08 to 2010/11Type of ProjectNumber ofGrantsTotal GrantValueAverage GrantValuePlaying field/courts (upgrade) 51 $3,853,230 $75,554Multi-purpose (new/upgrades) 16 $1,952,000 $122,000Lighting 28 $1,864,000 $66,571Playing field/courts (new) 14 $1,292,000 $92,286Club rooms 8 $939,000 $117,375Irrigation 9 $392,000 $43,556Toilets/change rooms 3 $202,000 $67,333Master plan/feasibility 4 $100,000 $25,000Facility fixtures 4 $87,000 $21,750Skate park 2 $40,000 $20,000Playgrounds 1 $28,000 $28,000Total 140 $10,749,230 $76,7806.2.2 Types of Activities Funded under CRSFPFigure 24 highlights the most common types of activities funded under the CRSFP in theperiod 2007/08 to 2010/11. A broad range of sport and active recreation activities havebeen supported through CRSFP funding. Multi-type facilities are those that are used bymore than one organisation or that support multiple activities.Figure 24: CRSFP: Top 15 Types of Activities - 2007/08 to 2010/11Type of ActivityNumber ofGrantsTotal GrantValueAverage GrantValueMulti-type 44 $3,805,294 $86,484Australian football 14 $1,093,000 $78,071Netball 14 $742,000 $53,000Swimming 4 $709,000 $177,250Hockey 4 $700,000 $175,000Bowls 8 $681,000 $85,125Football 8 $612,000 $76,500Tennis 12 $587,000 $48,917Cricket 4 $379,000 $94,750Basketball 3 $322,000 $107,333Gymnastics 2 $151,000 $75,500Skate park 4 $140,000 $35,000Baseball 2 $133,936 $66,968Disabled - equestrian 2 $132,000 $66,000Trails 3 $110,000 $36,667Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 38 of 65

6.2.3 Types of Organisations Funded under CRSFPFigure 25 illustrates the types of organisations funded under CRSFP and shows thatcommunity clubs were allocated the majority of grants for facility projects. Councils wereonly allocated 22 grants, but they were on average a high dollar value. This reflects theircapacity to manage larger projects and supports the experience of ORS that many clubsthat are successful in CRSFP work closely with their council to deliver a project. State levelorganisations did access CRSFP for capital projects, although with a cap of $500,000 theability to support the development of state level facilities is limited. Education organisationsare eligible to apply under CRSFP when the project benefits community sport or activerecreation. The data shows that CRSFP has funded four education projects since 2007/08.Figure 25: CRSFP- by Type of Organisation for 2007/08 to 2010/11Type of OrganisationNumber ofGrantsTotal GrantValueAverage GrantValueCommunity-based club/organisation 97 $6,295,936 $64,907Council 22 $2,666,294 $121,195State/regional association or supportorganisationIndependent education and trainingorganisation18 $1,249,000 $69,3894 $560,000 $140,0006.3 BENCHMARKINGThe investment in community sport and active recreation facilities (via grants) in other stateand territory jurisdictions ranged from $770,000 to $28.8 million, with an average of $8.8million. When comparing the $6.49 million contribution made by the SA Government, SouthAustralia had a below average spend per capita. Victoria, Queensland and WesternAustralia all invested significantly in facility development, with Victoria directing 80 per centof all grant monies to facility projects. Figure 26 illustrates grant funds for sport and activerecreation facilities, relative to population in 2010/11.Figure 26: Facility Grant Funds Relative to PopulationAverage $4.38 per capitaReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 39 of 65

Other points of interest in the approach to facility development related to assessment,matched funding, streams, expression of interest (EOI), leveraging, rolling priorities andloan subsidies.6.3.1 AssessmentIn several jurisdictions councils and/or SSOs (and MPs in New South Wales) are activelyinvolved in the assessment process. In Victoria, all organisations must apply to localgovernment via an EOI process in the first instance. Each council is then eligible to apply tothe department (Sport and Recreation Victoria (SRV)) for one planning, one major andthree minor projects per annum. Agreements are established between SRV and councilwho carry responsibility for implementation of the project. SRV advocate that this approachhas improved the quality of projects and been effective in managing demand from the16,000 clubs based in Victoria. In Western Australia, projects are assessed by councils andthen by state organisations to provide advice as to the statewide priorities relevant for theiractivity.6.3.2 Matched FundingA consistent theme to emerge from the benchmarking study was the requirement for theapplicant to contribute funding for facility projects. It was most common to require matchedfunding, although in some jurisdictions this requirement was varied for disadvantagedcommunities or for fringe and regional locations.6.3.3 StreamsWhile some jurisdictions offered a single-stream, single-facility fund, most offered a multistreamfacility fund to cater for the range and scale of projects. Different timing, eligibilityand allocation principles exist between streams. New South Wales has one stream viaelectorate and another stream via merit; Western Australia has a stream for local clubsoffered twice per year, with various options up to a three-year stream to accommodatemajor projects.6.3.4 Expression of InterestSome jurisdictions utilise an EOI process. For example, Tasmania invests $1.8 million inthe Trails and Bikeways Program to co-fund projects that are consistent with the TrailsTasmania Strategy and that support the implementation of City Bike Plans. The EOIprocess allows the fund manager to work closely with the trail developers during the projectscoping stage. This approach has generated good outcomes for the trail developer, sportand active recreation organisations and the tourism sector.6.3.5 LeveragingSome jurisdictions had agreements with national and state sport organisations for facilityprograms. In Victoria, the Australian Football League, Victorian Football League andNetball Victoria all contribute to country football and netball programs. In Queensland,Tennis Australia contributed to a flood recovery program.6.3.6 Rolling PrioritiesSome jurisdictions nominate annual priorities for funding rounds. For example, in a recentround Queensland nominated camping, lighting and new spaces as their top priorities.Some jurisdictions nominated ongoing priorities; for example, Western Australiaconsistently prioritises facility sharing and rationalisation.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 40 of 65

6.3.7 Loan SubsidyThe Australian Capital Territory offers a Sport Loan Interest Subsidy Scheme to supportorganisations to invest in facilities in excess of $1 million. Under this scheme, the AustralianCapital Territory will pay loan interest for up to 10 years at 9 per cent.6.4 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACKThe survey responses show that for all facility grants, including CRSFP and ACP, theimprovement in the participation experience is the outcome most valued. The detailed dataalso showed that local clubs perceived the low-value ACP grants most favourably andcouncils the high-value Category 2 ($200,000 – $500,000) grants most favourably. With thelong-term timeframe of a feasibility study, it was not surprising that this category of CRSFPwas perceived to contribute the least to the achievement of organisational goals or to theparticipation experience. Figure 27 illustrates the overall survey responses.Figure 27: Extent that CRSFP and ACP facility grants achieve objectives6.4.1 Facilities themeLocal sports clubs and associations are not-for-profit organisations that exist to providesport and active recreation opportunities for their local communities. Most of theseorganisations are administered on a volunteer basis and the focus of their efforts is onservice delivery. Volunteers and sport participants at a local level have an expectation thatthey will be supported to develop facilities to a reasonable quality and maintain them fit forpurpose. Therefore, it was not surprising that facilities were a consistent theme for locallevel clubs and councils during the focus groups.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 41 of 65

6.4.2 Assessment StrategySurvey respondents ranked the improvement in accessibility and need as the mostimportant assessment criteria. This was reinforced in the focus groups where suggestionswere also made to consider other facilities/activities in nearby locations during assessment.While the focus groups did not question the validity of the assessment of individual projects,the participants were keen to explore a strategic overlay. Some of the ideas suggestedincluded councils and SSOs providing advice on their relative priorities; establishingparticular priorities each round; and creating an extended EOI phase that allowed forprojects to be considered up to four to five years in advance.6.4.3 Multi-Purpose PolicyMany stakeholders wanted clarity around ORS intentions regarding multi-purpose facilityhubs and how that might affect funding assessments. There was general agreement in themerit of co-locating facilities; however, several respondents noted the need for suitablelocal facilities in regional townships and some highlighted that co-location was not possiblefor some activities (e.g., baseball uses a pitching mound, which makes it difficult to colocatewith another field-based activity).6.4.4 FinancesSome respondents to both the survey and focus groups suggested that the requirement tomatch funding was a barrier to the grant application process; related to this issue was astrong call from council representatives to better align the timing of facility grants withcouncils‟ budgeting cycle.6.4.5 SatisfactionSatisfaction for the CRSFP was again very positive, in particular the purpose of theprogram, the support offered by ORS staff and the information available to applicants ratedvery highly. Although still positive, the assessment process was lowest ranked forsatisfaction. The survey responses for satisfaction with CRSFP are shown below in Figure28.Figure 28: Satisfaction with CRSFPReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 42 of 65

6.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONSThe need for increased investment in facility development and upgrades is well recognised.The State Government acknowledged this demand in 2010 by providing an additional $5million for the CRSFP in the state budget. Despite this additional investment, it was still arecurring and central theme during the consultation. The demand is evidenced by thenumber of grant applications received for the program in 2010/11.When considering population and the sport and active participation trends discussed earlierin this report, it is reasonable to assume the demands on infrastructure throughout thecoming years will only increase. Infrastructure is considered a wise investment for futuregenerations and the benchmarking would indicate that this view is shared in otherjurisdictions.Therefore, this review recommends a realignment of grant program funding to redirect afurther $1 million in support of infrastructure development and renewal.RECOMMENDATION14. The budget for CRSFP in 2012/13 should be $7,695,000 and be made availableacross four categories:Category 1: Facility Planning ProjectsCategory 2: Facility Development Projects (funding requests between$0k - $200,000)Category 3: Facility Development Projects (funding requests between$200,001 - $500,000)Category 4: Community Sports Hub and Major Projects (up to $2.5million per annum) - see recommendation 15.The development of a community sports hub or other major facilities is likely to require theinvestment of many millions of dollars. A ceiling to Category 3 level funding of $500,000,matched, is not adequate for the level of investment required. The creation of a fourthcategory (Community Sporting Hub and Major Projects), which does not require matchedfunding, was unanimously supported by the IWG and the EAC.RECOMMENDATION15. A Community Sports Hub and Major Project category should be established tosupport the development of significant infrastructure projects in line with thesport and active recreation priorities of the government. The South AustralianStrategic Infrastructure Plan, The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and theCommunity Hubs Strategic Directions should provide the framework for suchfunding decisions.The review considered the eligibility of non-sport and active recreation organisations forCRSFP.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 43 of 65

Funding other government portfolios was one area considered by the review. The fundinghistory suggests this isn‟t a common arrangement under CRSFP; however, the vast holdingof public open space by DECS, the recent federal investment in sport facilities in many localprimary schools and the in-principle agreement to progress access between ORS andDECS make it a question the review sought to address. While there are valid argumentsagainst the practice, the ORS decided to consider applications from education or otherportfolios where development will directly address access and capacity issues forcommunity sport and active recreation. Importantly, community access must be the primarydriver.Funding local government for facility development was another important area to clarifythrough the review. In many cases, councils hold the title to community sport and activerecreation spaces and they are often financial partners in proposed projects. ORSexperience suggests that councils currently manage many small to medium facility projectson behalf of or in conjunction with club applicants. In most cases, this approach iswelcomed by club personnel, as councils bring technical expertise and economies of scaleto the project, while reducing the workload of volunteers.The outlook of councils mean they are well placed to consider the broader recreation needsof communities and the participation data suggested this was an area with significantgrowth. Without a formal competition structure, many recreation activities do not have anorganisational presence in local communities and thus the needs of recreation groups canbe overlooked in the face of strong demand from an organised sport sector.It is the view of ORS that in relation to the provision of sport and active recreationinfrastructure that the nature of the funded organisation, whilst important, was not critical inachieving the desired outcomes of facility projects, that is improved access and capacity forcommunity participation.RECOMMENDATION16. Eligible organisations for the program should include not-for-profit communitysport and active recreation organisations, councils and educational institutionsthat do not have a gaming machines licence.The face-to-face consultation revealed that while the ORS programs were well regarded,simplification of the process for the applications would be welcomed. The benefits ofaligning the timing of the ACP facility round with that of the call for CRSFP applications wasdiscussed earlier in this report and will offer significant benefits to applicants.An EOI approach was discussed by several stakeholders as a means to develop facilityprojects around flexible parameters including design and budget flexibility. Thebenchmarking study suggests that where this is in place in other jurisdictions, the expertiseand involvement of sport and active recreation planners have resulted in good outcomesbeing achieved.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 44 of 65

RECOMMENDATION17. Unsuccessful ACP facility applications should be considered under Category 2 ofthe CRSFP.18. ORS should align the timing of CRSFP with Round One of the ACP.19. Applicants should be eligible to apply for one project per category.20. ORS should develop and implement an expression of interest (EOI) process forCategory 3 and 4 projects.A consistent theme from the consultation, among state organisations and council delegatesin particular, was the strategic overlay for assessment of facility applications. While therewere some interesting suggestions and other jurisdictions had established protocols withcouncil and state organisations around assessment, there was no consensus as to thedegree of involvement that would be appropriate for these stakeholders. Councils werekeen to have their need to account for facility development projects in their budget processrecorded as part of the review.The allocation of CRSFP funds has an obligation to reflect community priorities and theability of local communities to demonstrate support through a financial contribution is animportant indicator of this. ORS experience suggests that applicants employ a variety ofstrategies to accumulate the funds; drawing on consolidated revenue, fundraising,sponsorship and in-kind contributions are effective in meeting these costs. In some cases,council provides the applicant with matching funds through its budget process.For major projects it is expected that significant funding partners may be involved includingthe national association, council and federal partners. However, it is not therecommendation to require a matched contribution for this category as it is recognised thatthe government must provide leadership for the development of state level facilities and theimplementation of the Community Sports Hubs strategy.RECOMMENDATION21. Applications for the CRSFP should require endorsement by the state sport orrecreation organisation and the local council; they should also demonstratelandowner consent for the project. ORS should develop a template to facilitatethis process.22. Applicants for Categories 2 and 3 must demonstrate at least a matched fundingcommitment. Contributions required for Category 1 and 4 projects should benegotiable.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 45 of 65

7. Grants for State Organisations andIndustry Development7.1 BACKGROUNDIn Australia, the formal system of sport and active recreation is organised and hierarchicalin nature. The recognised national body is defined by its links to the international system.National organisations provide system leadership to state sport and active recreationorganisations that, in turn, provide leadership and support for regional associations andcommunity clubs. Most national and state organisations have professional paid staff andwill often assume responsibility for sound governance, participation planning, highperformance pathways, education and training activities and facility planning. However,ORS experience suggests that the services that are offered to local clubs are highlyvariable depending on the focus of the national and state organisation, the capability of itsmanagement and volunteers and the relationships underpinning the expected collaborationand the capabilities of the community level volunteers.The formal sport and active recreation system is further supported by IndustryRepresentative Bodies (IRB). These groups have been established to represent a sectionof the industry as the peak industry professional association. IRBs aim to provide industryadvocacy, training and professional support to their members and affiliated bodies.Outside of the formal sport and active recreation system described above, there are manyother organisations providing sport and active recreation services that are not aligned to thestate/national international system.Both the formal and informal systems provide valuable sport and active recreationopportunities for the community.StEP was introduced in 2003 as a recommendation of the previous grant review. In2010/11, $6,673,000 was distributed via this program across four funding streams.Provided triennially, StEP (Stream 1) recognised the role of the formal sport and activerecreation system. This funding for state sport and active recreation organisations and IRBswas intended to provide funding essential to support their existence and for the delivery ofcore programs and services. Organisations are assessed at the commencement of eachtriennial period and categorised into bands where organisations with similar characteristicsreceive similar funding.Assessment is currently based on the following criteria:participationfinancial viabilitystaffingcapacity to deliverregional coverageelite pathways (sport) or profile of the activity (recreation).Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 46 of 65

StEP Stream 2 and 3 were made available for a broader range of organisations to deliverprograms and services on a statewide or regional basis and to support individuals to pursueexcellence in their field through the provision of scholarships for athletes, coaches, officialsand administrators. Stream 2 projects have been considered under an application process,while Steam 3 projects have been negotiated with appropriate providers where ORSidentifies gaps in project and program service delivery.StEP Stream 4 was established as an emergency fund in recognition of the need to havediscretionary funds available to assist sporting communities facing extraordinary andunforseen circumstances.To gain a greater understanding of the profile of the formal sport and active recreationindustry, ORS conducted an Industry Census in 2008. Data was collected from allorganisations receiving StEP Stream 1 funding including information regardingmembership, staffing and volunteer resources, coach and official accreditation, riskmanagement, policy implementation, finance and governance practices. This industryprofile provided valuable information for ORS in the formation of capacity-building programsand services.Analysis of the financial information was conducted. While it is important to highlight thatthe figures are averages and there was diversity within each category, there were somenoteworthy findings. The analysis (Figure 29) shows that on average IRBs sourced morethan 50 per cent of their funding from government. Category 4 organisations (the largerhigh-profile sports) were the least reliant on government funding to sustain their operations.Most of these were also able to demonstrate an inflow of funds from their nationalorganisation and/or significant sponsorship revenues.Figure 29: Sources of Funding for State OrganisationsSource of Income by Step Funding Category100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4IndustryRepBodiesIncome: Other $73,342 $117,258 $1,353,558 $6,267,536 $115,441Income: Members $13,551 $95,260 $176,402 $199,968 $8,394Income: NSO/Peak Body $2,088 $23,136 $14,615 $1,374,514 $0Income: Other Government $1,720 $15,911 $78,822 $83,333 $80,877Income: ORS $18,484 $41,294 $98,392 $317,029 $81,5367.2 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT FUNDINGThere is no fixed amount set aside for Streams 1, 2 or 3. Stream 4 (emergency) has abudget of $50,000 per annum and is set aside before assessment of the other streamscommences. Stream 1 is assessed and allocated first, followed by Stream 2, and finallyStream 3.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 47 of 65

In 2010/11, more than 60 per cent of StEP funds were allocated to Stream 1. Each of the74 eligible organisations received one grant ranging from $6,000 to $300,000. Stream 2accounted for 15 per cent of StEP, a total of 170 applications were funded, with an averagevalue of $28,000. Stream 3 accounted for 25 per cent of StEP funds.Figure 30: Step Funding by Stream 2010/11Number ofGrantsTotal GrantValueAverage GrantValueStream 1 – ‘Core’ business 77 $3,894,000 $50,571Stream 2 - Projects 49 $989,800 $20,200Stream 3 - Targeted Initiatives 316 $1,819,865 $5759Stream 4 - Emergency 8 $54,400 $6800StEP Total 450 $6,758,065 $15,018Figure 31 shows that the majority of StEP Stream 2 and 3 funds went to sport or activerecreation organisations and while the number of individual scholarship holders appears tobe high relative to other categories, the average individual grant value was the smallest.Figure 31: Step Funding by Organisation Type 2010/11(Stream 2 and 3 only)Type of Organisation - Step Stream 2 & 3NumberofGrantsTotal GrantValueAverageGrant ValueShare of$Community club or organisation 12 $308,000 $25,667 11%Council/council body 11 $303,000 $75,300 11%Individual 269 $257,107 $956 9%Major event or competition 2 $23,000 $11,500 1%National association or equivalent 3 $90,000 $30,000 3%Other government entity 3 $135,000 $45,000 5%Sport/recreation support organisation 11 $129,700 $14,338 4%State association or equivalent 54 $1,563,858 $28,960 56%Total 365 $2,809,665 $7,698 100%7.3 BENCHMARKINGAll jurisdictions offered grant programs for eligible state sport and active recreationorganisations and industry representative bodies. The concept of core business was acentral pillar to them all. These grant programs in other jurisdictions ranged from $1 millionto $9 million, with an average of $3.9 million. South Australia‟s fund of $3.9 million in2010/11 was significant with only Queensland and Western Australia investing more.When comparing the proportion of total grant monies invested in state organisations,Victoria invested only 7 per cent and most other jurisdictions between 15 and 20 per cent.The data would suggest that the states with a smaller population base tended to investmore in this area; the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory invested morethan half of all grant resources in these programs. In South Australia, one-quarter of allgrant monies was channelled through StEP Stream 1. These findings are illustrated inFigure 32.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 48 of 65

Figure 32: Proportion of Grant Funds for State Organisations* TAS calculation does not include $7.3 million managed through grants to honour election commitments.7.3.1 CategorisationAll jurisdictions used criteria to categorise organisations into groups with similarcharacteristics or capacity as the basis for determining the allocation of funding. Mostjurisdictions used one or more objective criteria such as membership, financial turnover,reliance on government funds and staff resourcing to categorise organisations. WesternAustralia included subjective criteria such as influence on community, organisationalperformance/stability and extent of statewide delivery to supplement the assessmentprocess.7.3.2 Cap or TradeThe principles underlying the allocation of funding under these programs fell into twodistinct camps; following assessments the funding amount was either capped at a fixedamount, or negotiated within a band.In New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory each categoryhad a nominated value and once organisations were assessed the grant amount was fixed.In these jurisdictions the funding amounts ranged from $5,000 for the lowest category to$60,000 for an organisation assessed in the top category.In Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory, organisations were assessedinto a category with a set funding band. The exact funding per organisation was thendetermined within the band via negotiation. Under this system the grant amounts at the „topend‟ tended to be much higher (up to $400,000) and organisations were supported withassigned consultants and performance was monitored with customised contractualagreements.7.3.3 Number of OrganisationsWhile Tasmania only funded 25 organisations, most jurisdictions funded between 70 and80 state sport or active recreation organisations and industry representative bodies. NewSouth Wales provided core funding to 93 organisations.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 49 of 65

7.3.4 Term of FundingAll jurisdictions offered three years of funding. At the time of the interview, Tasmania hadrecently reviewed this arrangement and now only extends this option to the six largest stateorganisations. All other organisations are funded on an annual basis.7.3.5 Other ‘Non-Core’ Grants Available for State OrganisationsThree jurisdictions offered supplementary grant programs for state organisations.Western Australia offers a Coach in Residence Program to support SSOs to bring coach orofficial educators to Western Australia and two discrete programs to support SSOs to bringnational and international events to the state, one specifically targeted for staging events inregional locations.New South Wales offers a grant program to support high-performance development,inclusion, capacity building and innovation for SSOs.Tasmania offers a grant program to support SSOs with the staging of national orinternational events.7.4 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACKThe survey responses showed differences in the views of state organisations and othersurvey respondents with respect to StEP meeting the needs of the industry and contributingto participation outcomes. Given the statewide objective of StEP, it was not surprising thatstate organisations perceived that Stream 1 and 2 contributed to the achievement of theirgoals to a large extent. Generally, other organisations rated the streams as having lessrelevance and less participation impact. Interestingly, the exception was that „other‟respondents valued the participation outcomes achieved from Stream 3 more than stateorganisations and, in fact, rated the participation outcomes equally across all three streamsof StEP.Figure 33 summarises the overall survey responses and shows SSO responses separatelyto all other responses.Figure 33: Extent that StEP Achieves ObjectivesStream 3Stream 2Stream 1Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 50 of 65

7.4.1 Demonstrated NeedThere was significant concern raised about the degree of funding disparity between thelarger well-established state organisations and the smaller organisations that are facinggreatest sustainability issues.Respondents pointed to the ability of larger state organisations to attract revenue throughcommercial arrangements, sponsorship, television rights and through their national body.The capacity of these organisations means they do not need, nor rely on, the funding fromthe government to do their business. Conversely, other organisations with less capacity toattract this type of income may not be sustainable if government funding was not availableto support their operations.7.4.2 StEP Project PrioritiesState organisation respondents nominated participation programs, administration anddevelopment of coaches and officials as the priority projects under StEP. These prioritieswere endorsed by all other groups.7.4.3 Core BusinessIt was a widely held view that Stream 1 was to support „core business‟ and Stream 2 was tosupport significant projects with a statewide or regional impact. The consultation revealedthat there was some confusion regarding what constitutes the „core business‟ of a statesport or active recreation organisation, peak body or industry representative body. Inparticular, the relationship between core business and project funding was variouslyinterpreted.In the focus groups, SSOs indicated that their „core business‟ was providing support forcommunity clubs including the development of membership initiatives. The SSO was alsotypically responsible for the development of athletes and, in particular, the provision of highperformanceprograms.State organisations also discussed the term „sustainability‟ during the focus groups. Theydefined sustainability in the context of being self-sufficient, financially stable and not relianton external funding. The group was clear that sustainability did not necessarily includegrowth or development although it was suggested that a good reputation, a strong brandand stable participation (no decrease) were attributes of sustainability.7.4.4 Club DevelopmentClub development was a consistent theme during the focus groups and state organisationsand council respondents were particularly vocal in their support for initiatives that supportclub development. There was widespread recognition of the role of state organisations tocontinually work with clubs to ensure they maintain relevance in their local communities inan environment that included a high turnover of volunteer administrators, coaches andofficials.7.4.5 Assessment Criteria„Proven capacity to deliver‟ was clearly rated by respondents as the most importantassessment criteria. Regional service delivery and participation base were also highly ratedcriteria. The financial indicators, profile of activity and elite development were not seen aspriority criteria for assessment.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 51 of 65

7.4.6 Relationship ManagementIn the survey, 60 per cent of SSO respondents agreed they would benefit to a very large orlarge extent from having access to an ORS representative to provide customised support toassist in the delivery of the projects/activities being funded. Similar views were expressed inthe focus groups, where many state organisations were advocating for a closer relationshipwith the ORS.7.4.7 Eligibility for Stream 2 and 3Analysis of the survey responses regarding eligibility suggests that organisations tended toanswer this question with a healthy dose of self-interest. Respondents were more likely toagree that their own organisation type should be eligible for StEP Stream 2 and 3 whencompared to the responses from other groups. However, there was a degree of consensusthat state organisations should be eligible and strong support for the eligibility ofassociations and local clubs. While councils‟ responses indicate they believe they shouldbe eligible, other respondents did not share this view, with only 20 per cent supportingcouncil eligibility. Schools, private providers and non-sport or active recreationorganisations received little support for eligibility, although inline with the self-interesttheme, 30 per cent of „other‟ organisations agreed that non-sport or active recreationorganisations should be eligible for Stream 2 and 3.7.4.8 Increasing CostsA consistent theme in the discussions with state organisations was the rising costs facingthe sport sector. Administration and overhead costs including water, power andemployment were rising and compounded by the regulatory environment, which requireshuman resources to manage compliance with various legislation including that dealing withchild protection, occupational health and safety, equal opportunity and incorporation.7.4.9 SatisfactionSatisfaction for the StEP was very positive; in particular, the purpose of the program, thesupport offered by ORS staff and the information available to applicants rated very highly.Although still positive, the assessment process and notification of outcomes was lowestranked for satisfaction. The survey responses for satisfaction with StEP are shown inFigure 34.Figure 34: State Organisation Satisfaction with StEPReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 52 of 65

7.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONSIt is clear from the consultation that it is important to provide funding to state sport andactive recreation organisations and IRBs to sustain the leadership role that they play withinthe overall formal system.It is also clear that there needs to be an avenue to support organisations to deliver strategicprojects to assist in the growth and development of people working in the sector (paid andvolunteer); and for the development of activities on a statewide basis.RECOMMENDATION23. StEP ($6,673,000) should be discontinued in its current form and be replacedwith:Sport and Recreation Sustainability Program (SRSP)Sport and Recreation Development and Inclusion Program (SRDIP)The definition of „core business‟ or „core services‟ was a consistent theme raised throughoutthe consultation. The consultation indicated that uncertainty exists in relation to what isincluded as core business and therefore funded from Stream 1, and what is „outside‟ ofcore and therefore able to be considered through an application under Stream 2 of StEP orthrough the IRIS or Move It programs.While the term „core business‟ is widely used in other jurisdictions, it has caused someconfusion in determining the outcomes that ORS is seeking from state associations.ORS recommends that funding under StEP be realigned to differentiate betweensustainability and development outcomes. Sustainability funding should be provided tosupport a state organisations‟ capacity to provide leadership on behalf of their sport oractive recreation affiliates.Funding for projects or activities that deliver sport and recreation outcomes of sharedstrategic importance between ORS and industry organisations should be available tosupplement sustainability support.As discussed previously, it was evident that there is a varying level of financial supportrequired by state sport and active recreation organisations. Respondents pointed to theability of larger state organisations to attract revenue through commercial arrangements,sponsorship, television rights and though their national body. The review considered thisfeedback in light of a general view expressed by respondents that the StEP Stream 1program allocation could be realigned to increase support for project funding.The review also considered the approach to core business taken in other jurisdictions. Itwas noted that Queensland and Western Australia favoured negotiating with stateorganisations on an individual basis and that this approach resulted in the allocation of$400,000 for some organisations. However this must be interpreted with the understandingthat both these states invested significantly more in all grants for the sport and recreationsector compared to most other states. Other states indicated a preference for capping the„core business‟ allocation and directing a greater proportion of grant funds to facilitiesReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 53 of 65

and/or projects. In these states the maximum funding allocation for state organisationsassessed in the top category was $60,000 and the minimum allocation was $5,000.Information from the then Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) wassought to understand broader government policy on considerations applied to anorganisation‟s financial capacity in relation to its eligibility for government grants. DTEDadminister some grant programs where organisations with an annual turnover in excess of$10 million are deemed ineligible to apply.In 2010/11 organisations were awarded up to $300,000 under StEP Stream 1 to assist withthe delivery of core programs and services. The review recognised that the larger grantswere paid to organisations that were most capable of delivering these services within theirown resources. By committing a significant proportion of funds to the better resourcedorganisations, the ORS has limited flexibility to support projects that assist smallerorganisations to achieve greater sustainability.The following recommendations are predicated on the above observations and areconsistent with a number of views expressed during the course of the review.RECOMMENDATION:24. The SRSP should be established to support state sport and active recreationorganisations and sport and active recreation industry representative bodies toprovide leadership, programs and services in South Australia.25. An allocation of $3 million per annum should be made available for the SRSP.26. The assessment of SRSP funding should recognise the additional costs toorganisations providing sport or active recreation opportunities for people with adisability.27. The assessment of SRSP funding should recognise the additional costs toorganisations providing elite sporting pathways that are aligned with arecognised SASI program.28. The funds for the SRSP should be notionally allocated for up to three years on atriennial basis.29. The maximum funding amount for organisations should be capped at $100,000(excluding CPI increases); organisations with turnover in excess of $10,000,000per annum should be ineligible.The review highlighted the need for additional funding to recreation and sport. It was notedthat with the exception of the new funding secured since 2006/07, ORS grants have notkept pace with the increasing costs facing organisations in the delivery of services.The consultation confirmed the need for indexation, with this issue receiving considerableattention in particular from state organisations that were clearly concerned thatsustainability is jeopardised if the real value of funds provided diminished over time.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 54 of 65

RECOMMENDATION30. Indexation should be sought for the $3 million allocation to the SRSP through theappropriate budgetary process and should be applied from 2013/14.With the SRSP positioned to support the sustainability of state organisations, there is arange of other initiatives and project-based outcomes that are important for the ORS andthe on-going development of the industry. The review findings suggest that there should bemore funding available for such initiatives on a project basis and that projects with amultiple year timeframe should be accommodated.While the formal sport and active recreation system is a valuable and significant provider ofservices for the community, there are many other organisations that facilitate programs andservices that the formal system does not have the capacity or the desire to provide. This isparticularly relevant in relation to club development initiatives in regional areas and inprograms and services aimed at engaging people with a disability, children under theguardianship of the Minister or other targeted population groups. Non-sport organisationsshould be eligible to apply for support through ORS grant programs for these types ofprojects where they are not duplicating those delivered by sport and recreationorganisations. The area of targeted population groups is discussed in more detail in sectioneight of this report.The review also recognised that in some instances the ORS will identify new opportunitiesor gaps in existing services where projects that have the potential to deliver significantbenefit to the community have not been initiated by industry. In these instances it would beappropriate for ORS to propose projects and invite relevant industry organisations topartner in their delivery. A good example of this approach is the State Sport Dispute Centre.In this instance the need for an independent body to arbitrate on sport was identified byORS, however, the program and governance structures are managed by Sport SA.The review also recognised the value scholarships and traineeships deliver to individuals,the organisations they are affiliated with and to the community more broadly. While theseprograms are managed by ORS, industry organisations are involved in assessingapplications and, in the case of traineeships, industry organisations provide direct oversightand deliver the relevant training.In consideration of the outcomes being achieved by these projects the review recommendsthat SRDIP include provision for ORS to identify community initiatives, includingscholarships for individuals, for funding through ORS grant programs where they address agap in current services.As discussed earlier in this report the RSYTIP responds to the future human resourceneeds of the industry by supporting recreation, sport and fitness organisations to employ ayoung person as a trainee. For-profit organisations working in the fitness and outdoorsector have been actively encouraged to seek support under this program as both sectorshave been identified as facing significant skills shortages both by the ORS and ServiceSkills Australia. Currently two for-profit organisations receive support through the RSYTIPfor this purpose. ORS experience suggests that for-profit organisations have a greatercapacity to provide on-going employment following the traineeship period and as suchcontribute significantly to the outcomes the program seeks to achieve. Against thisReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 55 of 65

ackground, it was decided to seek Ministerial exemption for for-profit organisations on acase-by-case basis in relation to the RSYTIP only.The review also acknowledged that organisations will, from time to time, encounterunforseen emergency situations that require support outside of a normal grant allocationprocess. The continuation of the Emergency Funding Program is recommended to supportthis requirement.RECOMMENDATIONS31. The SRDIP should be established to support projects that deliver sport andrecreation outcomes of shared strategic importance between ORS and industrystakeholders. Projects should:Have a statewide or, regional focus, orPromote inclusive recreation or inclusive sport opportunities, orDeliver significant community benefit, orAddress unforseen emergency situations.32. An allocation of $3.673 million per annum should be available for the SRDIP.33. Funding should be allocated on a rolling basis for up to three years.34. Eligibility for the SRDIP should be restricted to not-for-profit organisations whosecore purpose is the provision of sport or active recreation with the followingexceptions:i. Other not-for-profit community organisations should be eligible toapply for projects that promote Inclusive Recreation or InclusiveSport where they can demonstrate sustainable participationoutcomes.ii.iii.iv.Councils should be eligible to apply for projects that build capacityof organisations in their area or for projects that promote InclusiveRecreation or Inclusive Sport where they can demonstratesustainable participation outcomes.Individuals should be eligible to apply for scholarships.In relation to the RSYTIP, Ministerial exemption should be sought toprovide funding to for-profit organisations on a case-by-case basis.35. Specific reporting obligations should be detailed in an individual fundingagreement between ORS and the grant recipient.36. A notional allocation of $50,000 should be reserved for emergency funding toassist active recreation and sport organisations facing unforseen andextraordinary circumstances. Applications for emergency funding should beassessed as required.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 56 of 65

8. Grants for Targeted Initiatives8.1 BACKGROUNDAll South Australians should have access to quality, ongoing sport and active recreationopportunities. Although the review highlighted the need to focus on mainstream sport andactive recreation outcomes, governments play a role in partnership with industry to facilitateparticipation opportunities that are accessible to all South Australians.It is important therefore, that some grants are available for initiatives that are specificallydesigned to target participants that are least likely to engage in sport and active recreation.It is also recognised that sport and active recreation as a product, and therefore, sport andactive recreation providers, are often used to deliver non-sport and active recreationoutcomes.Inclusive Recreation and Inclusive Sport OpportunitiesParticipation data relating to some specific population groups is below the average for thestate. ABS statistics show that people with a disability have low levels of participationdepending on the extent of the disability, but on average only 40 per cent of all people witha disability reported participation in active recreation or sport. Similarly, ABS reports lowlevels of participation by culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, inparticular women. Other research confirms that socio economic status (SES) influencesparticipation in sport and active recreation, with low SES linked to lower levels ofparticipation.There are a range of reasons why some people are less likely to engage in sport and activerecreation. The barriers or areas of disadvantage vary from personal, organisational,cultural and physical infrastructure.Currently there are gaps in sport and active recreation opportunities for several targetedpopulations including people with a disability, people from CALD backgrounds, Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islanders and for some of our most disadvantaged communities. This isan indication that many sport and active recreation organisations do not have the desire orability to deliver programs in these areas.Many of the barriers facing these targeted populations are shared and well documented.They include:limited access to existing programscost of participation – membership, equipment, uniforms, etc., when on fixedincomesaccess to venues and pitches at appropriate timescultural awareness - two ways: for communities accessing sport and activerecreation and for sport and active recreation to be ready to include people with adisability and other targeted populationstransporto fewer participants = fewer programs = further to travelReview of ORS Grant Programs Page 57 of 65

o lack of accessible transport, especially in off-peak times when sport andactive recreation activities typically occur, particularly in regional and remoteareascommunication barriersaccess to equipment (modified and regular)access to appropriate coach and official education to increase the capacity of therelevant community and to increase opportunities through sport and activerecreation organisations.On the supply side, the costs of providing services for these groups are often higher. Someof the considerations include:economies of scale - lower numbers of participants = higher costaccessible facilitiescost of taking the participation opportunity to the groupprogram modification to suit various abilitiesmodified equipment (sport wheelchairs, access dingy for sailing)providing introductory programs that lead to ongoing participation opportunitiesproviding specific sport opportunities that have elite pathways for people with adisability (goalball, boccia, wheelchair sports, cerebral palsy soccer).In the past, the ORS has administered Move It and IRIS to support organisations to provideaccessible opportunities for disadvantaged populations and other populations with lowlevels of participation.8.2 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT FUNDINGMove It commenced in 2003/04 as a $500,000 grant program to support the whole-ofgovernmentbe active initiative. The purpose of Move It is to enhance opportunities forinactive people to participate in sport and active recreation on an ongoing basis byproviding financial assistance to organisations to deliver targeted programs. Under Move It,not-for-profit sport and active recreation organisations are eligible to apply for a maximumof $50,000 per annum for up to three years.IRIS commenced in 2006/07 as a $500,000 grant program. The purpose of IRIS is to assistorganisations to increase and/or enhance opportunities for people with a disability to beinvolved in sport and active recreation. IRIS offers three streams of funding. Not-for-profitcommunity organisations are eligible to apply for Stream 2 and 3, while Stream 1 isreserved for state sport organisations for people with a disability (SSODs).Stream 1: Provides „top-up‟ funds to SSODs to support the higher cost of delivery ofcore programs and servicesStream 2: Minor Projects – a maximum of $5,000 pa for up to three yearsStream 3: Major Projects – a maximum of $50,000 pa for up to three years.8.2.1 Move ItIn the period 2007/08 to 2010/11, there were 265 requests for funding under the Move ItProgram. In that period, more than $1.8 million was distributed to community organisationsthrough the allocation of 105 grants with an average value of $17,194.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 58 of 65

8.2.2 IRISIn the period 2007/08 to 2010/11 there were 221 requests for funding under the IRISProgram. In that period, $2.2 million was distributed to community organisations through theallocation of 132 grants with an average value of $16,652.8.2.3 Types of Projects Funded under Move It and IRISWhen these programs were first introduced, it was necessary to educate industryorganisations on the objectives of these programs and the determining factors of successfulprojects. In recent years, the ORS has worked in close partnership with organisations toassist in the development and implementation of Move It and IRIS projects.Figures 35 and 36 show that the majority of grants through Move It and IRIS were forprogram delivery and facility modification. Organisations that specifically focus on the needsof people with a disability and provide pathways to national and international competitionsreceive „top up‟ support from IRIS (Stream 1) in recognition of the increased costs toprovide services in this area.Figure 35: Project Types Funded under IRIS 2010/11% of IRISGrantValueStream 1 - Organisational development 21% $100,000Stream 2 - Equipment 0% $2116Stream 2 - Facility 0% $2200Stream 2 - Program delivery 8% $37,984Stream 3 - Facility 14% $68,662Stream 3 - Organisational development 4% $18,670Stream 3 - Program delivery 53% $256,230100% $485,862Figure 36: Projects Funded under MOVE IT 2010/11% ofMove ItGrantValueMove It - facility 17% $96,000Move It - program delivery 83% $454,0008.2.4 Types of Organisations Funded under MOVE IT and IRISFigures 37 and 38 show that state organisations, including SSODs and community-basedorganisations were successful under Move It and IRIS. ORS experience suggests thatcommunity organisations with established links to these targeted population groups are wellplaced to deliver quality participation opportunities.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 59 of 65

Figure 37: Organisations Funded under IRIS 2010/11Type of OrganisationIRIS - Stream 1, 2 and 3Numberof Grants Total $sAverage GrantValueCommunity-based club or organisation 18 $205,337 $11,407.61Public education and training organisation 2 $22,495 $11,247.50State association or equivalent 14 $258,030 $18,430.71Total 34 $1,315,286 $36,835Figure 38: Organisations Funded under MOVE IT 2010/11Type of OrganisationMove IT 2010/11Numberof Grants Total $sAverage GrantValueCommunity-based Club or organisation 21 $351,625 $16,744.05State Association or equivalent 12 $198,375 $16,531.25Total 33 $550,000 $16,6678.3 BENCHMARKINGThe investment in inclusion initiatives varied between jurisdictions; however, it was anoticeable trend to use grant funds to influence organisations to embed inclusion principleswithin their culture rather than to treat it as an added extra. In many cases, the benefits tothe sport or activity and to local organisation outweighed the costs, and case studies arestarting to emerge to support this approach.8.3.1 Targeted Inclusion ProgramsThe Victorian Access All Abilities Program funds a staff member in each council to linkpeople with disabilities with opportunities and offer training and support to sportorganisations on inclusive practices. This is supported by a fund for these organisations toaccess program dollars (up to $80,000 for up to two years).New South Wales offers $100,000 for community not-for-profit organisations to provideopportunities for people with a disability.Queensland allocates $3.6 million to the Active Inclusion Program to support participationby underrepresented groups including those with a disability. Not-for-profit communityorganisations, councils, schools, religious groups and only SSOs approved by the MRSRare eligible for this program.Victoria offers an indigenous sport program to increase awareness within the sport andactive recreation industry to be more inclusive of indigenous people.Queensland launched the Sport and Recreation Jobs Plan with $38 million throughout threeyears to assist a cluster of local community organisations and councils to build the capacityof organisations through the employment of a local sport and recreation coordinator.Development of sound inclusion policies was one of the objectives of this program.The only grant program for local clubs in Western Australia had at its core an objective tobuild inclusive practices.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 60 of 65

8.4 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACKOnly 20 per cent of stakeholders chose to provide feedback on targeted populations. Thismay be an indication of the priority, capacity or complexity for many sport and activerecreation organisations to service targeted populations.. However, there was widespreadacknowledgement of the merit in providing accessible opportunities linked to sustainableparticipation and recognition of the importance of disability participation and pathwayopportunities.Compared to other ORS grants, the survey responses show that these grants were leasteffective in helping organisations to achieve their goals. (Figure 39). It should be noted that„Other‟ organisations (whose core business was not the provision of sport or activerecreation) were more supportive of these grants helping to achieve their objectives.Figure 39: Extent that Move It and IRIS Grants Achieve Objectives8.4.1 Program PrioritiesOrganisations that provide participation opportunities for targeted population groupsindicated that funds for participation programs and equipment were priorities under Move Itand IRIS.8.4.2 AssessmentIn assessing applications, stakeholders expressed a view that for IRIS the most importantconsideration was to address areas of need; while for Move It the extent that the programprovides ongoing opportunities was rated as most important.8.4.3 SatisfactionThe satisfaction for Move It and IRIS differed slightly to other ORS grant programs. ForMove It and IRIS, the overall purpose of the programs was rated lower than for otherprograms and was not the highest ranked feature of the program. The support offered byORS staff was the highest rated feature of these programs, reflecting the intensivepartnership approach of ORS staff in assisting organisations to develop and implementprojects.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 61 of 65

Figure 40: Satisfaction with Move It and IRIS8.5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONSThe Move It and IRIS programs were both introduced after the last review of ORS GrantsPrograms in 2002, with Move It introduced in 2002/03 and IRIS in 2006/07. While theadditional funding of $500,000 for each program was welcomed and extremely valuable, itis acknowledged that these were introduced as stand-alone programs rather thanconsidered in the context of the pre-existing initiatives.In considering other project-based funding programs administered by ORS, it is apparentthat there are many quality projects that are assessed very highly in relation to achievingthe objectives of the respective program. However, due to the limit on available funds,many of these high-quality projects are unsuccessful.Comparing this scenario with IRIS and Move It, ORS has had to devote significantresources to work in close partnership with organisations to assist in the development andimplementation of Move It and IRIS projects. Despite the best of intentions on the part ofthe applicant, it is apparent that there is a wide disparity between the quality of projectsassessed under these programs. Thus, some projects with limited ability to meet theobjectives of Move It or IRIS may be successful in receiving funding, simply due to theobligation to support these targeted populations.This would suggest that the current allocation of funding is not meeting the needs ofindustry or helping organisations to achieve their goals and the review should address thisdisparity.Move It was introduced to support the role of the ORS as the lead government agency forphysical activity in South Australia. Under Move It, to gain funding sport and activerecreation organisations were often required to venture outside of their core business todeliver alternative methods of getting inactive people active. There is no doubt that in somecases securing funding under this program distracted organisations from their purpose andwhile the programs offered benefits for the individual participants, they often failed to deliverany ongoing benefits to the organisation in terms of new members.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 62 of 65

The consultation feedback indicates that where programs are aimed at engaging targetedpopulations, they should only be supported where there are ongoing sport and activerecreation outcomes. The sport and active recreation organisations were also concernedthat resources should not be directed away from the organisation if there is no direct benefitto the organisation.IRIS was introduced, in part, to recognise the increased cost of providing services forpeople with disabilities. In particular, the $100,000 set aside under IRIS Steam 1 wasconsidered „top up‟ to the StEP Stream 1 funding for State Disability Organisations. It wasrecognised that the categorisation model for StEP did not allow for this to be considered.The proposed SRSP discussed earlier in this report will consider the increased cost ofservice for disability sport and active recreation organisations when determining a level offunding under this program. This eliminates the need for IRIS Stream 1; thereby, makingthe system easier for clients to understand.Under the old suite of funding programs it was possible for clients to apply under StEPStream 2, IRIS and Move It for exactly the same project. This often created confusionamong clients about what program they should apply to for a given project, and often led tothem completing and submitting three separate applications for each funding program forthe same project. The review established that this must be simplified.As discussed under a previous section, $6.673 million was dedicated to StEP. Based on2010/11 figures, $3.9 million was allocated to Streams 1 and 4, leaving $2.7 millionavailable for projects. Including the IRIS project funding ($400,000) and Move It budget($500,000) this equated to a budget of 3.6 million for projects.To eliminate confusion and unnecessary work for clients, this review proposes that theSRDIP, as discussed earlier in the report, be the avenue for all project-based funding,including those programs addressing the needs of targeted populations. The budgetallocated to the SRDIP is $3.6 million, which is equivalent to what was previously availablefor projects throughout the three programs.RECOMMENDATIONS37. The IRIS and Move It programs should be discontinued in their current form.38. Projects targeting specific populations or addressing barriers to InclusiveRecreation or Inclusive Sport should be eligible for the SRDIP where they candemonstrate sustainable participation outcomes.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 63 of 65

9. Grant Processes9.1 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONSDespite the high number of unsuccessful applications, the feedback received throughsurvey responses and the face-to-face consultation in regards to the grant system was verypositive. This feedback was indicative of the support provided by ORS through theapplication process.The ORS was keen to investigate the readiness of the industry to adapt to an onlineapplication process. The review confirmed that for the majority of stakeholders this wouldbe a welcome innovation. Councils did highlight that for some organisations this may be abarrier to the application process; therefore, investigations of appropriate online softwareshould include a parallel system where paper-based applications can be incorporated intothe system.The survey responses showed widespread satisfaction with the timing of all the grantprograms; however, during the face-to-face consultation state organisations expressed adesire to finalise funding arrangements ahead of the financial year in which they apply toallow for proper planning and budgeting.Evaluating the outcomes achieved through the ORS grants is difficult to assess beyond thenumber and type of projects and facilities supported. This problem was found to bewidespread among other jurisdictions where there is an acute awareness of the balancebetween developing a robust evidence base and the burden on the largely volunteerorganisations to provide the information. The reason it is important to evaluate theoutcomes achieved through ORS grants is to protect existing resources and advocate formore resources on behalf of the sport and active recreation sector.The willing participation of so many industry stakeholders is evidence of the interest in ORSgrant programs. To ensure the changes are communicated and well understood, it will benecessary to develop an education strategy to ensure all stakeholders are aware of thechanges to funding programs from 2012/13. The education strategy should includeinformation sessions for industry to explain the rationale underpinning the changes and toensure a sound understanding of the funding opportunities available under the newportfolio.RECOMMENDATIONS39. ORS should investigate an online system that simplifies the application processand streamlines the assessment, acquittal and reporting of grants.40. ORS should review the timing of SRSP and SRDIP to ensure funding agreementsare established in advance of the commencement of the financial year for whichthey apply.41. ORS should develop an evaluation framework that streamlines the collection andreporting of key indicators relevant to each program.42. ORS should implement an education strategy to communicate grant programschanges to clients for the 2012/13 financial year.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 64 of 65

10. Funding AllocationIn consideration of the preceding information and discussion, the recommended allocationof funding for ORS Grant Programs for 2012/13 is as follows:RECOMMENDATION43. In 2012/13 the ORS grant funds should be allocated as follows:Active Club Program (ACP)Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program (CRSFP)Sport and Recreation Sustainability Program (SRSP)Sport and Recreation Development and Inclusion Program(SRDIP)$2,350,000$7,695,000$3,000,000$3,673,000TOTAL $16,718,000The Sport and Recreation Fund was established under the Gaming Machines Act (1992) toprovide funding for sport and active recreation organisations. Currently, ORS receives $3.5million per annum through this mechanism and it has a responsibility to report to parliamentthrough the Economic and Finance Committee on the expenditure of these funds. As someof these funds are used for ORS grant programs, this review recommends the ACP, StateFacilities Fund and SRDIP be included in the report. The ORS will specifically identify$650,000 from the SRDIP (Community Initiatives) annually for reporting to the Economicand Finance Committee.RECOMMENDATION44. The $3.5 million funding allocated from the Sport and Recreation Fund should beused to support:Active Club Program (ACP)State Facilities FundSport and Recreation Development and Inclusion Program$2,350,000$500,000 7$650,000TOTAL $3,500,0007 The State Facilities Fund is an existing program that is not administered by ORS Funding Services and wasoutside the scope of this review.Review of ORS Grant Programs Page 65 of 65