Limitations on the
volunteering legacy
from the 2012 Olympic
Games
Dr. Geoff Nichols: University of Sheffield
Rita Ralston: Manchester Metropolitan University (retired)
This session aims to show…
• How the split between delivery and legacy at the 2012
Games restricted a volunteering legacy.
• How this can be understood within the framework of
‘regulatory capitalism’.
• How local government led 2012 Ambassador programmes
were concerned with a legacy – but were constrained by
resources.
• Consideration of the implications for maximising the
volunteering legacy.
• The importance of developing volunteering to plug the gap
in public service delivery.
First, some provisos…..
• We did not have access to LOCOG –
so have had to put together
information from different sources.
• These ideas were first formulated in
2013 – so new developments are
ongoing.
• ‘Sport England’ and ‘Join In’ may have
a different perspective.
Our ideas are based on…
• Our long term evaluation of Manchester
Event Volunteers (2011) - the 2002
Commonwealth Games volunteering legacy.
• Interviews with 53 Games Makers before the
2012 Games and 4 focus groups with them
afterwards.
• Interviews with 11 local 2012 Ambassador
Programme managers – conducted in 2013.
2012 Delivery / Legacy split
Delivery
• London Organising
Committee of the Olympic
Games (LOCOG) - private
company limited by
guarantee with
responsibility for the
delivery of all Games-time
operations - Not
anything else.
Legacy
• Regions and Nations group,
DCMS established 2008 disbanded 2010.
• Previous administration’s
legacy targets were
dropped.
• ‘In August 2010 there were
no politically legitimate
legacy plans in place’.
(Weed, 2012)
Regulatory Capitalism
at the Games
• LOCOG was set up as a private company –
contracted to deliver the Games.
• Any change would have to paid for.
• LOCOG awarded over 75,000
(sub)contracts.
• Deloitte seconded over 130 staff to LOCOG
– including the Chief Financial Officer – and
at the same time advised companies
interested in tendering for Olympic
contracts. i.e. – contract expertise has ‘a
foot in both camps’.
Braithwaite (2008)
Regulatory Capitalism
2005/6 Volunteer Strategy
• Three phases - pre-Games, Games and post-Games - to
be connected if a legacy was to be achieved.
• Abandoned by LOCOG in 2007 –
mission is just to deliver Games.
• Minimalist legacy mechanisms
in Games Makers programme.
2005/6 Volunteer Strategy
• Lessons from MEV and volunteer
management.
• Volunteers to be recruited regionally.
• Develop comradery and expertise at
local events – sense of local identity.
• Return to same region.
• Continue to express collective ‘buzz’
through supporting further local
events.
• But - complex – more costly – need to
co-ordinate volunteer agencies.
Games Maker Management
• ‘Programme management’ dominated – due
to complexity.
• Reflects a ‘rational systems’ approach in which
the organisation’s resources are allocated in
the most rational way to achieve its objectives.
• 250,000 applied for 70,000 places, so supply
greater than demand - and LOCOG made sure
volunteers knew it.
“They {LOCOG} treat you like you are literally a
herd of whatever and the biggest feeling I get is
as soon as you say I am not very happy with that
they will say you are one of 70,000 and there
were 250,000 applied, if you don’t like it there is
other people behind you.” (GM – experienced
volunteer)
Games Maker Management
• The attraction of a once-in-a-lifetime event
allowed LOGOC to treat volunteers in an
unusual way – prioritising LOGOC’s interests:
– no expenses;
– no accommodation
– very limited choice of role – take what’s
offered
– no role rotation;
– very long shifts
– all training in London and uniform issue
– short notice of selection, training and
shifts.
Games Maker Management
• Volunteer experience was overall positive
and low drop out rates due to:
–
–
–
–
–
euphoria of once-in-lifetime event
media and public acclaim
positive reaction to opening ceremony
Team GB won lots of medals
good weather.
• But not all GMs had a good experience
and memory of pre-Games experience
was not eliminated.
Volunteer Database
• No Games Makers / Sport Makers link
[Sport England's volunteering legacy
programme] until October 2012 – despite
LOCOG holding 15,000 -20,000 reserve
volunteers
• Feb. 2013 - LOCOG’s data base –
– 5.3m individuals – sold to
– consortium of London & Partners/UK Sport /
Sport England
• So partly a tool for commercial advertising
– and used as such.
Ambassador Programmes
• 11 programmes – run by local government
• 13,000 Olympic Ambassadors - volunteers
supporting visitors to London and ten
other regional locations for Olympic
events.
• For Example:
–
–
–
–
London (8,000)
Weymouth and Portland (800)
Newcastle (400)
Glasgow (240)
Ambassador Programmes
• More ‘membership management’
approach recognising the interests of the
volunteers.
• Concerned to generate a pool of long term
volunteers to support future events [unlike
LOCOG ].
• But capacity to do this limited by financial
constraint [like MEV].
• Enhanced by overlap of Ambassador
management with on-going volunteer
development work.
Local Government v LOCOG
• Local government will be in place before
during and after the Games.
• Has a direct interest in promoting local
volunteering.
• Can capitalize on local pride and identity.
• Has links to local volunteering
opportunities – such as through sports
development.
• But – has funding cuts.
Did it have to be like this?
• LOCOG was set up as a private
company, delivering to a contract, it
delivered a complex and politically
important project on time.
• With the assistance of sponsors
money.
• Separation of Games delivery and
legacy responsibilities prevented a coordinated legacy strategy being
developed and delivered.
Is Glasgow like 2012 or 2002?
• Glasgow Life and Scottish government
want a local legacy.
• Glasgow replicated LOCOG’s systems
for ‘Clyde-siders’ and Ambassadors
for local city hosts.
• Capacity to link to local opportunities.
• Can it fund it?
Developing volunteering is
important for sport and leisure
• Public sector moving out of funding
sports centres, libraries, museums,
sports development – in response to
funding cuts.
• Leaving – provision by volunteers or
by the private sector.
• Can volunteer capacity be grown to
meet the gap? But to do this well
needs funds for development and
support.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2014) The legacy costs of delivering the 2012 Olympic and
Paralympic Games through regulatory capitalism. Leisure Studies
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02614367.2014.923495.
Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2014) The 2012 Ambassadors: – second class Olympic
volunteers or the best potential for developing a volunteering legacy from the Games?
In K. Smith, et al. Event Volunteering, International Perspectives on the Event
Volunteering Experience. Abingdon: Routledge. pp.167-181
Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2014) Volunteering for the Games. In V. Girginov (ed.)
Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Volume two:
Celebrating the Games. London: Routledge. pp. 53 – 70.
Nichols, G. (2012) Volunteering for the Games. In V. Girginov (ed.) The London 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games. Volume one: Making the Games. London: Routledge.
pp. 215 – 224.
Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2012) Lessons from the Volunteering Legacy of the 2002
Commonwealth Games. Urban Studies. Volume 49 Issue 1 January 2012 pp. 165 - 180.
Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2011) Social inclusion through volunteering – a potential
legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games. Sociology. 45 (5) pp. 900-914.
Nichols, G and Ralston, R (2011) Manchester Event Volunteers: a legacy and a role
model. University of Sheffield and Manchester Metropolitan University.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.227269!/file/MEV_2012_with_cover.pdf
References
• Braithwaite, J. (2008) Regulatory Capitalism: how it works, ideas for making
it work better. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Girginov, V. (2012) Governance of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games, in: V. Girginov (Ed.), The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games. Volume one: Making the Games, pp. 130-144. London: Routledge.
• Levi-Faur, D. (2005) The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism, Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 598, pp. 12 – 32.
• Meijs, L., and Hoogstad, E. (2001). New ways of managing volunteers:
Combining membership management and programme management. Voluntary
Action 3(3),pp. 41-61.
• Raco, M. (2012) The privatization of urban development and the London
Olympics 2012. City, 16(4), pp. 452-460.
• Weed, M. (2012) London 2012 legacy strategy: Ambitions, promises and
implementation plans, in: V. Girginov (Ed.) The London 2012 Olympic and
Paralympic Games, Volume One: Making the Games, pp. 87-98. London:
Routledge.
Thank you for listening
Any questions?
Dr. Geoff Nichols: University of Sheffield
g.nichols@sheffield.ac.uk
Rita Ralston: Manchester Metropolitan University (retired)
rita.ralston@ntlworld.com