Australia, as a nation, has a history of "punching above its weight" in many fields of endeavour, including sport. Australia finished fourth on the outright medal tally at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and has regularly finished in the top handful of nations at these events. We can claim successes across a wide range of sports on a sustained basis. This is achieved despite Australia`s relatively small population and disadvantage of location. For as long as sport has been a part of Australian culture, athletics has been a significant part of sport. Athletics features prominently in school sports. It contributes to the development of base motor skills in children. It complements athletic development for successful participation in other sports requiring strength, stamina or speed. Australians revere their successful elite athletes. Most children naturally tend towards activities involving running, jumping and throwing. They enjoy this with friends and, in many instances, this informal involvement will influence their choice of organised sporting activities to pursue. Parents also have a significant influence on their children, keen to see them involved in pursuits that will benefit their health and development. Athletics must therefore compete with more popular sports and those with which parents have a personal connection. Running, jumping and throwing activities may be popular secondary choices of parents who are drawn towards more team-orientated sports that help develop hand-eye coordination and provide a strong social involvement. Historically athletics in Australia has relied on a club system of delivery that primarily targets athletes from secondary school ages upwards. However, as a sport, athletics is splintered, and faces a number of substantial challenges. The national governing body, Athletics Australia (AA), is not responsible or accountable for many areas of the sport. Primary-age school children are supported in their development through Australian Little Athletics (ALA) and its network of local centres. There are separate organisations for walks clubs, mountain running, schools sports and coaches. AA`s club structure is in decline. Athlete pathways are uncertain, and while there are exceptions, there is a history of distrust and lack of cooperation between many of the peak bodies involved in athletics. It is difficult to perceive athletics strengthening itself nationally unless all of the organisations claiming an involvement in the sport work together. This has been said before in many previous reviews and reports. It is common sense, and yet it has not been achieved. Why is this? A July 1998 report on athletics in Australia prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers attempted to give direction to the sport by recommending changes in governance and structure. Some of its recommendations were adopted and have led to positive outcomes for the sport. In 2002 the ASC commissioned Dench McLean Carlson (DMC) to conduct a case study of the impact of these changes. DMC concluded that "[t]he most significant of these changes was that in early 1999 Athletics Australia adopted a `corporate Board`, in which the Directors are independent of the member associations and are predominantly from a business background." DMC identified some very significant improvements to Australian athletics which had been driven by the new Board, including: • development of a new constitution and by-laws • transfer of the lead sponsorship to Telstra • significant increases in revenue and scope of activities • development of the Commitment Deed between AA and the MAs • integration of disabled athletics into AA. The Commitment Deeds evolved into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with each Member Association (MA). Through these MOUs, AA has substantially increased its cash and in-kind support to MAs since 1999. A key element of the revised constitution devised by the new Board, and of the MOUs which followed, has been the introduction of an organisational focus by AA and MAs on national program priorities. As a result of this increased national focus over the past five years, the AA Board, its staff and the MAs have put in place a structure that should be more capable of successfully implementing the recommendations from this report than might otherwise have been possible. DMC also made the observation that while the new Board had strong commercial skills, it was seen as not adequately empathising with its `athletics` stakeholders. It concluded with the statement that the new board "now needs to give consideration to how it can forge improved linkages with the sport's grass roots." This has been a continuing challenge for the new Board as the athletics fraternity has expectations of the Board which are quite different from the expectations of a Board of Directors in the corporate world. Events leading up to the 2004 review of athletics indicated that there were concerns about a lack of inclusiveness within the sport. AA was perceived to communicate and interact with members and volunteers inadequately. A major concern was the failure of AA to attract membership of ALA into the AAF. This umbrella organisation was established to provide a collective vision and direction for the sport, but has failed to play a meaningful role. Aside from structure and governance, the sport (as opposed to individuals in the sport) projects an image of elitism that undermines its ability to attract significant numbers of grass roots participants to its ranks. While the little athletics movement claims a national membership of over 95,0001, AA`s national registration throughout the 1990s and today hovers around approximately 16,000, while its highest ever membership in the late 1970s approached 25,000. In recent years the sport has been unable to showcase its high performing athletes on a regular basis throughout the domestic season, and the domestic event series has suffered a significant decline in profile and quality. Despite revenue almost doubling since 1998, the loss by AA of $1.3 million in the 2002/2003 financial year brought the Board and management under close scrutiny from members, stakeholders and other interested parties. The areas of concern identified above, together with poorer than expected financial results, led AA`s Board and management to seek assistance from the ASC. In March 2004 the ASC and AA announced the terms of a wide-ranging review into the governance, high performance and development of the sport. It is recognised that in the past 20 years there have been at least five reviews into athletics in Australia. Many of the key findings and themes identified in those reviews continue to be relevant to the current review, and are considered as part of this Review`s deliberations. This Report addresses identified key issues in governance and management, high performance and development of the sport. It endeavours to build on previous reports which reinforce what the Steering Committee believes needs to change for the sport`s betterment. There is probably little in this report that has not been addressed and recommended in these earlier reports. The Steering Committee was given the following Terms of Reference: "1. To assess the effectiveness and capacity of existing pathways, including international performance, and to provide recommendations to enhance the education and development pathways for athletes and coaches at all levels. This includes taking into account the role of stakeholders, including particularly Australian Little Athletics, the Australian Track and Field Coaches Association, Athletes` Commission, state Member Organisations and departments responsible for sport, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) and the network of state and territory Institutes and Academies (SIS/SAS). Liaison will also occur with the international athletics body. 2. These recommendations may include adjustments to existing governance and management systems, including financial management, communication networks, and/or integration of activities and operations." The Steering Committee appointed three working groups to assist it in the areas of high performance, development and governance and management. Their Terms of Reference appear in full at Appendix A. Details of membership of the Steering Committee and working groups are shown at Appendix B. The Steering Committee commenced its work on 7 April, with its final report to the boards of AA and the ASC required by 31 July. All members of the Steering Committee and working groups provided their services in a voluntary capacity, without fee. The review received 133 written submissions (see Appendix C) and held 76 face-to-face meetings with interested parties throughout Australia. Meetings were held in Launceston and all mainland capital cities except Darwin. Input was provided by clubs, athletes, professional and volunteer coaches, officials and parents, current and former Board members, staff of little athletics and senior athletics associations at State and national levels, the AIS and staff of State institutes and departments of sport and recreation. This report makes 128 recommendations for improvement. It does not provide a fully costed model for the future. The responsibility for detailed planning and budgeting rests with the Board of AA, which can only be formulated following meaningful consultations with MAs and other athletics bodies and stakeholders. Resources need to be allocated on the basis of the extent to which they contribute to the achievement of the sport`s key objectives and priorities. Listed below are the priorities which the Steering Committee believes best reflect solutions to the current challenges facing athletics, and which will have the greatest impact in positioning athletics well for the future. AA has advised that some of these recommendations are either in place or are in the process of implementation. 1. Financial stability: AA needs to pay urgent attention to developing and implementing a sound financial strategy that underpins the future success of the sport. 2. Coaching: AA must accept responsibility for and be accountable for coaching. It must develop a vibrant coaching system which, with the support and guidance of ATFCA, will produce coaches at all levels who provide inspiration and establish an environment where athletes learn and improve their performances. This is particularly critical at club level. 3. Club restructure: AA needs to restructure its club system. Effective from 1st April 2005, AA should implement a model club policy developed with its MAs that requires all clubs based in metropolitan areas and in major regional centres with populations greater than 20,000 to meet threshold criteria. To facilitate this change, AA needs to provide immediate and ongoing support and advice at State and local level, through workshops, ongoing access to expert advice and web and email support. 4. Hubs network: In order for AA and MAs to provide a local focus for athletics, be it competitions, training or access to resources for clubs, coaches and officials, AA and MAs need to develop regional athletics Hubs. The Hubs would be based around athletics facilities, and receive support from MAs and, subject to negotiation, the relevant SIS/SAS, State sports departments and local councils. The Hubs network aims to consolidate resources needed by recreational, development and high performance athletes, coaches and officials at central locations. 5. High Performance: AA needs to review its high performance structure to effect a change in culture, including the appointment of a NPD to replace the position of head coach to lead delivery of the High Performance Plan and Program. The NPD should be supported by a network of State Performance Managers, full time National Event Group Coordinators and a National Youth Performance Manager. Implementation strategy AA needs to prepare, in consultation with MAs and other stakeholders, a new strategic/business plan that considers the recommendations in this report and overlays strategies with financial realities and priorities. AA needs to ensure the successful implementation of this Report`s recommendatio Is through an appropriate process of communication, garnering support and securing buy-in from stakeholders to re-create a culture. This will require the appointment of key people, including a member or members of the AA Board and AA`s CEO, prepared to be responsible and accountable for working inclusively with stakeholders on implementing the recommendations.
© Copyright 2004 All rights reserved.