Evaluating the volunteer infrastructure legacy of the Olympic Games: London 2012 and Sydney 2000 (2016)

01/03/2017

Lockstone-Binney, L., Holmes, K., Shipway, R. and Smith, K. (2016).

The report can be accessed here: https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/165803/evaluating-the-volunteering-infrastructure-legacy-of-the-olympic-games-sydney-2000-and-london-2012-l

This project examines how Olympic volunteer programmes can lead to post-Games volunteer legacies for host cities through engagement with the established volunteer infrastructure in host cities before, during and after the events. This volunteering infrastructure being the organisations and programmes in place to promote, support and manage volunteering; including volunteering peak bodies, volunteer resource centres, national governing bodies of sport, community organisations and local government. Two Summer Olympic Games were used as case studies for this purpose: the recent case of London 2012 and the longer-term case of Sydney 2000.

Two research phases were conducted. Stage 1 involved a comprehensive review of secondary data on the Sydney and London Olympic and Paralympic Games, and Stage 2 involved 27 interviews with key informants in each host city. The findings reveal limitations with legacy planning for each OCOG. While SOCOG had no specific remit for legacy planning, the voluntary sector led legacy efforts in Australia. In London there was Government-led legacy planning but the failure to engage with the voluntary sector hampered implementation. Recommendations are provided for host cities and the IOC to enable future Olympic Games host cities and countries to leverage from the Games volunteer programmes to generate wider benefits for their communities.

Key findings

  • The profile of volunteering was raised as a result of the publicity generated during both Olympic Games.
  • In Sydney, Games volunteering broadened the scope of volunteering in people’s minds, encouraging them to participate in episodic and event volunteering.
  • In contrast, in London, volunteering during Games time led to uneven profiling of select forms of volunteering. Sports and events were the primary beneficiaries of any legacy.
  • At London, there was the perception that voluntary organisations were left largely unengaged.
  • Sydney data points to a deeper level of engagement facilitated between the volunteer sector and SOCOG.
  • Games volunteering was used both as a recruitment tool to encourage new volunteers to get involved and as a reward for people who had been long-time volunteers.
  • There was an assumption at both Games that the feel-good effects of volunteering would lead to continued volunteer involvement through the self-directed initiative of the volunteers.
  • However, there was a lack of mechanisms available to deliver enthusiastic Sydney and London Games volunteers to suitable roles.
  • Both the London and Sydney interviewees emphasised the importance of identifying funding sources to resource legacy initiatives.
  • Quantifying the value of Olympic volunteer programmes would help to convince governments to provide legacy funding.
  • The temporary nature of OCOGs restricts their capacity to delivery legacies. It is also not the responsibility of OCOGs to deliver event legacies.
  • The two key alternatives suggested for managing volunteer legacies were government and a separate, independent organisation set up specifically to manage volunteer legacy, working in tandem with the OCOG.
  • For both London and Sydney, the earlier the volunteer legacy was factored into the planning process, the more benefits could be realised. It was suggested that bid cities need to think about their volunteer legacy prior to bidding, and incorporate the volunteer legacy within the bid document.
  • The official mechanisms for knowledge transfer, whilst initiated by Sydney and in place for London, were not clear and transparent.
  • Knowledge transfer was seen as important not just for the next Olympic Games, but also in terms of cities’ bidding for future major sporting events.

Recommendations were made for both host cities and the IOC Recommendations for host cities included:

  1. Provide dedicated budgets for volunteer leg efforts. Sources could include ring-fenced funding from the OCOG budget, sale of assets, and sponsorship.
  2. Any funding needs to be ongoing to support longer-term legacy projects.
  3. Value and renumerate the expertise of voluntary sector contributions to Games planning processes as having similar importance to that of commercial consultants.
  4. Educate OCOG staff on good practice in volunteer management and how to effectively engage with volunteers and the volunteering sector.
  5. Ensure that effective structures (new or existing) are in place from the pre-planning stage of the Games to ensure that a volunteer legacy is delivered.
  6. Establish a mechanism for legacy planning input from the existing volunteer sector.
  7. Ensure that legacy plans will involve Games time volunteers and those inspired to volunteer after the Games, and are not solely focused on the sport and event sectors.
  8. Establish ownership and post-event use of the volunteer database, including ensuring the Games volunteer database has been appropriately compiled with necessary permissions from individual volunteers for use by legacy bodies.
  9. Develop a vision of the post-Games volunteer legacy and embed this within the bid document.
  10. Establish a body with specific responsibility for legacy planning and delivery, to work alongside the OCOG.
  11. Establish processes for volunteering knowledge transfer between OCOGs, other major event organising committees from the host city and country, and the wider volunteering sector.