Review of Active Remote Communities Investment Program
April 2014
Understand, Inspire, Create
Page left intentionally blank
Contents Introduction Current Sport and Recreation Funding Program Linkages Challenges to the Program Appendix 1: Overview of Funded Organisation Appendix 2: Overview of ARC Funding Acquittals Appendix 3: Active Remote Communities Investment Program
1 4 6 9 12 17 20
Page left intentionally blank
Introduction The Active Remote Communities Investment Program review occurred from January 2014 to April 2014. The review involved meeting with representatives of each of the below organisations, who are currently funded by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing (DSRR). A DSRR representative was involved in each of the meetings.
Regional Councils Tiwi Islands Regional Council West Arnhem Regional Council East Arnhem Regional Council Victoria Daly Regional Council Roper Gulf Regional Council Barkly Regional Council Central Desert Regional Council MacDonnell Regional Council
Other Organisations Belyuen Community Government Council Wagait Shire Council Coomalie Community Government Council Anyingini Health Aboriginal Corporation Tangentyere Council Additionally, the reviewer met separately with the following organisations who currently operate in remote communities: AFL NT Basketball NT Football Federation NT Netball NT RecLink Good Sports NT Central Australian Youth Link-Up Service School Sport NT Each organisation was provided with an introduction to the review and a series of structured questions was asked to gain an understanding of organisational structure, how DSRR funding is utilised and general views on the grant processes.
1
Current Grant Program Aims On 20th August 2007 the Northern Territory Government announced the “Closing the Gap of Indigenous Advantage – A Generational Plan of Action” aimed at narrowing the imbalance between the socio-economic well-being for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Government committed $4.5m over five years to sport and recreation infrastructure upgrades and program development, predominately through the employment of Community Sport and Recreation Officers (CSRO). In 2008-09 Sport and Recreation reviewed the Local Governing Bodies Grant Program and increased available funding by adding the Closing the Gap Funding. The new program was renamed to the Active Remote Communities (ARC) grant program with a total funding pool of $2.236M. CSROs continued to be funded to plan, promote and deliver sport and physical activities in remote indigenous communities through the newly created Shire Councils. The role of the CSRO was to prepare and deliver a local annual sport and physical activity plan for the community that aligned to the regional strategy, developed by the Shire Council. The funding of the CSRO positions was based around a standard job description and on the following funding model variables: • Average salary rate based on Level 1 step 4 of the Municipal Officers (NT) Award 2002; • Salary on costs at 15.2% based on superannuation of 9% and payroll tax of 6.2%; • Equipment allocation; • Eventuality factor at 90% to cover the possibility of carry forwards (unspent funds from the previous financial year) and vacant CSRO positions. Outputs were stipulated for the roles as below: • Employment of a CSRO in the identified Indigenous community, preferably an Indigenous person; • Prepare an annual sport and physical activity plan; • Conduct sport and physical activity events for members of the community; • Improve capacity for local Indigenous communities to run and organise structured sports activities; • Increase participation of Indigenous people in sport and physical activity; • Training plan for each CSRO. Key performance indicators were also set for the grant as below: • Number, title and dates of sport and physical activities and events conducted; • Breakdown of participant numbers for each activity, by gender (% of male and female), by age group (18 years or less and adult) and by Indigenous and non Indigenous participation; • Number of community members involved in organising sport and physical activity events; • Employment of (number) of CSRO positions in (identified communities) with (dates) of employment and whether (Indigenous or non-Indigenous); • Annual sport and physical activity plan completed and approved; • Number and title of training development events for each CSRO.
2
In 2009, the ARC Grant Program funded 51 Indigenous CSROs across eight Local Government shires, and DSRR has continued to provide funding to shires and Local Government Organisations. It is the responsibility of the shires to determine which towns/communities receive funding to support the employment of CSROs. The CSROs employed by the shires are mainly Indigenous and support employment in those communities selected. Each shire develops an Action Plan that details the sport and recreation programs they will be undertaking each year. In 2010, the ARC funding program expanded to include Coomalie Community Government Council, Cox Peninsular, Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation, Belyuen Community Government Council, Mt Theo – Yuendumu Substance Misuse Aboriginal Corporation, Tangentyere Council Inc and Wurli Wurlinjang Aboriginal Corporation (Binjari). In 2012-13, the Northern Territory Government allocated an additional $1 million per annum ongoing to the Active Remote Communities (ARC) Grant Program to ensure it continued to provide employment of CSROs. This was a result of the Federal Government’s “Closing the Gap” funding ceasing. Total allocation of ARC funding distributed across all NT Shires, Non-Government Organisations and Sporting Organisations for 2013-14 is $2.3m.
3
Current Sport and Recreation Funding Sport and active recreation is funded through the Federal Government (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet) and NT Government (Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing). Appendix 1, Table 1 provides an overview of all of the organisations funded in the NT to provide sport and active recreation outcomes. Appendix 2, Table 1 provides a breakdown of the ARC Grant funding to further cost elements. Below is an overview of the funding programs and broad use of the funding.
Federal Government Indigenous Sport and Active Recreation Program (ISARP) Funding “Closing the Gap” is a commitment by all Australian governments, through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people. The Federal Government’s commitment to achieving sport and active recreation based outcomes, in relation to “Closing the Gap” is partly through the Indigenous Sport and Active Recreation Program (ISARP). ISARP primarily contributes to health (by encouraging a healthier lifestyle that includes physical activity), economic participation (through employment opportunities for both Indigenous and nonIndigenous people such as sport and recreation officers), safe communities (by providing an alternative to anti-social behaviour) and governance and leadership (by funding initiatives to build capacity of Indigenous communities to deliver sport and recreation activities independently). The ISARP supports community participation in sport and active recreation activities that help to improve the health and physical wellbeing of Indigenous Australians and those that contribute to broader social benefits for participants and their communities, while providing entry level employment opportunities for Indigenous (and non-Indigenous) people in sport and recreational activities. Any organisation with an ABN can apply for ISARP funding. The objectives of the ISARP are: • To increase the active participation of able and disabled Indigenous Australians in sport and active recreation activities; • To encourage and increase community ownership and management of sport and active recreation activities, including through skills development, and • To provide employment opportunities for people to support and/or assist in the provision of sport and active recreation activities and specifically for entry level positions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for positions available more broadly in the sport and active recreation industry. The ISARP is broken down into four categories of funding as follows Annual Funding Round: This currently provides funding to the Regional Councils for the employment of CSROs. In financial year 2013/14, 14 NT based organisations were provided total funding of $2.4M to deliver sport and active recreation programs across NT remote communities. These organisations were a mix of Regional Councils, Aboriginal Corporations and other not-for-profit entities.
4
In addition to the above, five NT based Peak Sporting Bodies were provided a total of $538K to deliver programs to Indigenous participants across the NT and five National Sporting Organisations were provided a total of $521K to deliver programs to Indigenous participants across Australia, including the NT. Jobs Creation Program: This provides funding to the Regional Councils to employ part time Indigenous sport and recreation officers. Currently 90 positions are funded across the NT at a total of $1.9M. Indigenous Sport Development Officers: Funding is provided to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing to employ six staff across Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs in the Indigenous Sport Unit. Six hundred thousand dollars is provided for the salaries and salary on costs for these positions on an annual basis. Elite Indigenous Travel and Accommodation Assistance Program: This provides travel and accommodation assistance to individual athletes who are representing their state/territory to compete at national championships or in an official Australian team to compete at an international event. Youth in Communities Grant Funding While this funding is not specifically tied to sport and active recreation outcomes, the target demographic is often the same as that of the sport and recreation programs. Additionally, sport and active recreation is frequently used as the driver to engage youth in the communities by the organisations funded through this grant. A total of $20.1M was provided to 20 NT organisations in financial year 2013/14. Many of the same organisations funded under the ISARP Program also get significant funding through this grant program.
NT Government Active Remote Communities (ARC) Grant Program In financial year 2013/14, 15 organisations were funded a total of $2M to deliver programs across NT remote communities. All Regional Councils were provided funding to support the employment of Community Sport and Recreation Officers within the communities. Other organisations were provided funding to support sport and active recreation outcomes.
5
Program Linkages Links throughout Government The establishment of a community led sport and recreation pathway in remote communities that helps to produce a healthy and active community is a long-term investment. The aim must be to run a cost neutral (to the funded body) program that has well trained staff and a strong work ethic. The youth and wider community must be engaged through a number of sport and active recreation activities as part of the program. Pathways must be provided through intra and inter community events, with further opportunities to progress along the sport pathway to provide additional experience and competition while building and strengthening community connectedness. While the Federal and Territory Governments have sound policy objectives, there is often a disjointed approach to program delivery with ad-hoc links into sport pathways. Often, there is a lack of coordination between Federal and Territory Government and across Territory Government Departments, which results in a disjointed delivery of services to Remote Communities. Additionally, the Regional Councils have to meet a range of KPIs across a number of grants, often with limited flexibility. This affects the delivery of the programs and the ability to meet the true needs of the community. This is often the case when there is a disconnect between the grant providers and the service deliverers. A holistic approach needs to be taken to the health and wellbeing of the communities with the leadership of the community driving the decisions. This requires the coordination of all agencies and service providers who operate within the community to achieve this outcome. The failure to have a holistic, community driven approach will mean that these small communities will continue to be torn between service providers and not feel empowered to make their own decisions. The programs will continue to fail to provide the outcomes the funding provider expects and the communities are promised by the Government of the day. There needs to be a greater level of communication from the Regional Councils to the DSRR Indigenous Sport Unit around reasonable outcomes and resources required. The DSRR can then work with the Federal Government and NT Government Departments to appropriately align the grant programs of Federal and NT Government to support a well-designed sport pathway, which is suitably resourced, with a degree of flexibility to achieve outcomes. The NT Government’s ‘Framing the Future’ policy statement has a number of key objectives that align to the delivery of a sport pathway in remote communities. The areas of alignment are highlighted below. • Strong Society -- A strong society that engages and encourages participation through well-designed services focused on outcomes and improves the capacity of Territorians to contribute to society and the economy. -- A strong society that is capable of making a difference: through integrated, responsive and accessible services, a focus on early intervention and prevention; and by strong collaboration in the design and delivery of services to the most vulnerable that lead to long- term outcomes and self-sustainability. -- A strong society that is safe, connected and encourages participation.
6
• Confident Culture -- A confident culture that recognises our people and our communities are significant contributors to our prosperity. -- A confident culture that makes the most of living in the Territory. -- Enhance our sporting lifestyle: expand the range and reach of sporting events across the Territory and enhance the capacity of regional and remote communities to deliver regular and organised sporting competitions.
Links with Existing Service Providers There are eight Regional Councils and three Community Councils funded under the current ARC Grant Program. This represents around 63 communities and a population of approximately 54,000 in remote communities in the NT. In addition to the councils who are funded through both Federal and NT Government sport and active recreation grant programs, there are over 30 other organisations delivering sport and/or active recreation programs in these same communities. Of these more than 30 organisations, there are limited links or collaboration across the groups to align the needs of the community and the deliverables of the service provider. In order to implement a sound sport pathway in the communities and to ensure that a strong society and confident culture is built in the ‘bush’ then collaboration between service providers is essential. The DSRR must initiate the collaboration across Government Departments, both NT and Federal, to gain agreement on sport and active recreation outcomes and pathway models to be funded. Additionally, DSRR should look to establish a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with other key sport providers such as School Sport NT and Active After School Care to ensure that Government funding is used effectively and efficiently to deliver sporting outcomes. Further support to Peak Sporting Bodies, through the employment of Remote Development Officers, similar to the AFL NT Model should also be investigated. This would be to deliver training and programs to remote communities, with the individuals located either in communities or in municipal areas, but servicing the remote sport model. The peak sporting bodies are seen as the logical choice to employ sport development officers as they have the charter to develop their sport pathway and access to the development resources at a National Sporting Organisation (NSO) level. Appendix 3 provides a recommended framework for the structure of the program and provides commentary on the vision and objectives for the program. Physical Literacy – The ability to demonstrate proficiency in a range of fundamental movement skills.
7
Recommendations 1. The Federal Government funding through ISARP and the NT Government funding through the ARC Program is aligned so the following areas are funded against the proposed budget: a. The ISARP funding through the Annual Funding Round and Jobs Creation Program is used to fund the employment of Sport and Recreation staff, including salary on-costs of the Regional Council sport and recreation staff. b. The ARC funding is used to fund the delivery of the four outcomes of the Remote Sport Participation Program, as outlined in Appendix 2. All funding is to be directed to achieving the deliverables. 2. Regional Councils identify all the funding coming into the communities that is targeted for sport, active recreation and youth engagement and ensure a synchronised and collaborative approach to program delivery is achieved. 3. Further discussions are held with School Sport NT and AASC to develop roles and responsibilities under a remote sport pathway, with a view to establish MOUs in the future. 4. Application for funding through the ISARP is considered for the employment of additional sport development officers, in conjunction with Peak Sporting Bodies and National Sporting Bodies, to deliver services to remote communities.
8
Challenges to the Program There are a number of challenges to the program in remote communities directly affecting the level of service delivery and associated outcomes to the community. It must be noted that many of the issues discussed below are intertwined throughout the remote communities, with a range of sociocultural issues having an impact. The recommendations of this report will not solve those larger and predominant issues. Rather, it needs to be a whole of government and community approach to working towards solving these broader issues. The recommendations provided are just a small part of the larger issue and should be considered as part of the larger picture. In order to see results then a long term investment and commitment to establishing the sport pathway must be made. To develop physical literacy and provide sport education is a generational change. This will not occur over one funding cycle of the program. The issues are summarised below.
Sport and Recreation Athlete Participation Pathways – There are limited athlete participation pathways in remote communities. Sport and active recreation is often run in an ad-hoc manner, with limited involvement of the Peak Sporting Body for the sport in the NT. Formal inter and intra community competitions are often run only for men, usually in AFL, with limited structured competitions for females and youth. Infrastructure – There are varying levels of infrastructure across the communities. While Federal and Territory Governments have made significant investment, often the Regional Councils struggle to operate and maintain the facilities with existing funding. Facilities usually consist of a football oval, a basketball court and in some communities a recreation hall and pool. Some communities have good relationships with the community school and can access their facilities. Sport Vouchers – The administration of the Sport Vouchers through the schools in the remote model, means that the alignment of the sport programs to any community efforts to run sport is often reliant on the relationships between the school and CSROs.
Recommendations 5. A sustainable sport and active recreation pathway is created for remote communities, which provides a foundation base of physical literacy for all children and similar opportunities for talented athletes within an urban setting. 6. The sport pathway is supported with coaching and official development to ensure the sport skills are taught to the required level and the competitions are run effectively. 7. A spoke and hub approach is taken to the establishment of appropriate sport infrastructure requirements for each community and Regional Council area. A minimum infrastructure requirement to support the ‘Foundation’ area of the proposed model should be established for each community. Whereas larger communities should have facilities to support the ‘Talent’ areas of the proposed model. 8. Sport Vouchers should continue to be administered through the remote schools and they should be used to support the community plan for meeting the ‘Foundation’ activities within the sport program. A greater level of communication and program development is required between the community, schools and Regional Councils to meet the fundamental movement skill development required within the Long Term Athlete Development Model; ultimately ensuring children are physically literate.
9
Other Stakeholders Service Providers – There many service providers in communities from different sectors wanting to achieve the same basic outcome of building a healthier community. At times, there is a lack of consultation between service providers to see how the outcomes could be achieved with a coordinated approach. This lack of coordination can frustrate and divide the community, resulting in reduced outcomes for both the community and service providers. Health and Education – The health and education of the communities has a large impact on their involvement in sport and active recreation. Often the health and education sectors do not communicate with the CSROs, which results in a disjointed effort to servicing the community. Community Schools – The relationship between the CSROs and community school officials is largely one that is dependent on personalities. Often the schools have the best sport facilities in the community, however access is often limited to the community outside of school hours. This has an impact on the ability to run programs for the benefit of the whole community. Housing – A lack of available housing in most communities limits the employment of outside staff. Where a person from outside of the community is required to be employed and there be no accommodation available, they cannot commence work in the community. Additionally, some councils provide housing to staff who are locals, to get them out of crowded housing situations in an effort to increase their productivity and general health and wellbeing.
Recommendations 9. The DSRR work with other NT Government Departments, in particular health and education, to gain a common understanding of how the sport pathway can be used to address a number of health and education outcomes in the communities. 10. There is an increase in coordination across government agencies grant programs to align service provider outcomes and ensure closer collaboration between service providers. The ultimate result is an increase in government efficiency and better outcomes for the communities. 11. That DSRR work with the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to provide a synchronised approach to the delivery of Federal and Territory Government sport and recreation funding initiatives into remote communities, inline with the proposed model.
Regional Councils On Costs / Program Costs – There were varying methods and percentages used throughout the Regional Councils to calculate on costs. These on costs were those used to subsidise corporate services such as HR/Finance services, building depreciation or hire, office space and administration costs etc. These varied across all councils as seen in Appendix 2, Table 1. Staff Turnover and Training – Most of the Regional Councils commented on the high level of turnover of Indigenous staff for a variety of cultural and other reasons. The accepted position was that Indigenous positions in the sport and recreation environment were best filled as part time positions as there was difficulty in filling them as full time positions. Adequate mentors are required within the sport and recreation program to mentor the unskilled Indigenous staff. This was seen as a contributing factor to reducing staff turnover. Most Regional Councils had some level of formal and informal training for their staff, which was modified to meet the learning styles of the staff.
10
Regional Council reliance on Grant Funding – All of the Regional Councils rely heavily on grant funding to operate. Over 90% of their funding comes from Federal, NT Government and other grant funding or tendered services sources. The remaining amount is generated from rates and fees. In order to be financially sustainable, municipal councils aim for more than 40% of their revenue to be gathered from rates and fees. This discretionary income gives municipal councils flexibility in provision of services. Given the reliance on grant funding, the Regional Councils claim to be struggling to maintain financially viable and sustainable programs needs to be further discussed with the Department of Local Government and Regions.
Recommendations 12. The DSRR work with the Department of Local Government and Regions to establish a fair and equitable stance on the charging of on costs for grant programs which is then communicated to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 13. The DSRR, in conjunction with Regional Councils, develops a clear training pathway that is aligned to the proposed participant pathway model for all employees and volunteers within the sport and recreation sector in remote communities. This training plan should allow for all CSROs and Sport and Recreation Managers to come together in a DSRR organised workshop once a year.
Remote Communities Community Festivals – There are a number of community festivals run throughout the NT. These range from well-run, multi-day sports and culture festivals such as the Barunga and Merripen festivals, to smaller community based festivals. Support from the Regional Councils ranges from no support through to integration of the sports pathway into the festival program. Comment was made by some Regional Councils that a lack of organisation of some festivals means they run longer than anticipated and affect school attendance and cause a drain on community resources such as water, sewage and other key services. Lack of cultural and individual responsibility – Some Regional Councils commented on a lack of cultural and individual responsibility in some communities. This affects the ability to create real change and the establishment of a sports program difficult. Often there is an expectation that the sport and recreation activities should be run for the community by the Regional Councils, with no input or volunteerism from the community itself.
Recommendations 14. Only the community festivals that meet the requirements of forming part of the proposed pathway model are provided funding from this grant program. 15. Community leadership must be involved in the process of establishing the activities to be conducted within the pathway. The community must provide support (both volunteerism and monetary contribution) to assist the running of the sport and recreation program. Failure to get community support must result in the reduction of financial support to parts of the program.
11
Appendix 1: Overview of Funded Organisations A summary of Federal and NT Government funding provided to all NT based organisations, through the Youth in Communities, ISARP and ARC funding is provided below in Table 1. Some demographic data is also provided for comparison.
12
13
$28,700
$93,275
$160,299
$66,651 $0
$163,806
$163,806
$0
$163,791
$0
$0
JCP Funding
$93,275
$188,999
$66,651
$611,138
$643,266
$39,000
$572,894
$218,501
$650,000
Total SRC Funding *
Continues overleaf
$2,340,000
$4,500,000
$910,000
$290,000
$3,460,000
$667,000
$143,228
$300,000
Youth In Communities Funding ^
/ Denotes that the organisations operate in that Regional Councils geographical area. There is no management link between the organisation and the Regional Council though.
achieve their outcomes.
^ Youth In Communities Funding is separate Federal Government Funding, but often the Regional Councils combine this funding with their Sport and Recreation Funding to
* Total Sport and Recreation Funding is the sum of ARC, ISARP and JCP Funding.
Key
/ NPY Womens Council
/ RecLink
MacDonnell Regional Council / Tjuwanpa Outstation Resource Centre Aboriginal Corporation / Tangentyere Council
/ Laynhapuy Homelands Association Inc
/ Anindilyakwa Land Council
$141,332
$272,000
East Arnhem Regional Council
$306,000
$207,460
$39,000
/ Warlpiri Youth Development Aboriginal Corporation
$0
$205,103
Central Desert Regional Council
$204,000
/ Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation
/ CatholicCare NT
$179,501
Barkly Regional Council $39,000
$446,000
$204,000
Organisation
/ Anyingini Health Aboriginal Corporation
ISARP Funding
ARC Funding
Table 1: Sport and active recreation funding breakdown for NT organisations operating in remote communities
14 $208,000
West Arnhem Regional Council / Malabam Health Board Aboriginal Corporation / Anglicare NT
$193,557
$210,795
$150,880
$163,806
$491,417
$190,077
$573,320
JCP Funding
$565,363
$940,212
$442,957
$34,603
$100,000
$74,676
$1,010,529
Total SRC Funding *
Continues overleaf
$560,074 $760,000 $300,000
$550,000 $450,000
$450,000
$750,000
$1,960,000
Youth In Communities Funding ^
/ Denotes that the organisations operate in that Regional Councils geographical area. There is no management link between the organisation and the Regional Council though.
achieve their outcomes.
^ Youth In Communities Funding is separate Federal Government Funding, but often the Regional Councils combine this funding with their Sport and Recreation Funding to
* Total Sport and Recreation Funding is the sum of ARC, ISARP and JCP Funding.
Key
$238,000
Victoria Daly Regional Council / Thamarrurr Development Corporation / Australian Red Cross
/ Australian Red Cross
$102,000
Tiwi Islands Regional Council
/ YMCA of Katherine
$34,603
$100,000
/ John Moriaty Football Project
/ Binjari Business Centre
$74,676
$199,209
$238,000
Roper Gulf Regional Council
/ Mungoorbada Aboriginal Corporation
ISARP Funding
ARC Funding
Organisation
Table 1: Sport and active recreation funding breakdown for NT organisations operating in remote communities. (continued)
15
$1,910,023
$0
$0
$0
JCP Funding
$6,875,202
$116,338 $246,000 $24,000 $39,432 $112,750
$30,594
$20,178
$33,846
Total SRC Funding *
$20,140,302
$500,000 $300,000 $240,000
$710,000
Youth In Communities Funding ^
/ Denotes that the organisations operate in that Regional Councils geographical area. There is no management link between the organisation and the Regional Council though.
achieve their outcomes.
^ Youth In Communities Funding is separate Federal Government Funding, but often the Regional Councils combine this funding with their Sport and Recreation Funding to
* Total Sport and Recreation Funding is the sum of ARC, ISARP and JCP Funding.
Key
$2,967,258
$1,997,921
$0
TOTAL
$30,594
Coomalie Community Government Council
$0
$116,338 $246,000 $24,000 $39,432 $112,750
$20,178
Wagait Shire Council
$0
ISARP Funding
Swimming NT RLSSA (NT) Surf Life Saving NT Touch Football AFLNT - Wadeye and Galiwin’ku TEAMHealth Relationships Australia - NT
$33,846
Belyuen Community Government Council / YMCA of the Top End
Organisation
ARC Funding
Table 1: Sport and active recreation funding breakdown for NT organisations operating in remote communities. (continued)
Table 2: Sport and Recreation staff numbers across NT Regional Council jurisdictions
No. of Communities
Population
Barkly Regional Council
6
Central Desert Regional Council
Organisation
No. of Sport and Rec Staff # Full-time
Part-time
8077
8
12
8
4743
6
11
9
9120
19
15
MacDonnell Regional Council
9
7142
13
22
Roper Gulf Regional Council
9
6905
4
35
3
2525
5
4
8
6868
9
20
5
6800
5
8
1
205
0
1
East Arnhem Regional Council
Tiwi Islands Regional Council
Victoria Daly Regional Council West Arnhem Regional Council
Belyuen Community Government Council Wagait Shire Council
332
0
1
1
1295
0
1
TOTAL
60
54 012
69
130
Coomalie Community Government Council
1
Key # The total Sport and Recreation staff may also include staff employed as Youth Workers, funded through the Youth in Communities Funding.
16
Appendix 2: Overview of ARC Funding Acquittals A breakdown of the ARC Grant funding for each Council for financial year 2012/13 is provided in Table 1. This breaks the total grant down into salary, salary on-costs, administration overheads and operating costs. The percentage of the grant being used for administration and on costs is seen as an issue that requires resolving as per recommendation 12 of the report. Some councils did not have a full breakdown of costs in their financial acquittals to allow the table to be completed.
17
18 $204,000
$204,000
$272,000
$306,000
$238,000
$102,000
Central Desert Regional Council
East Arnhem Regional Council
MacDonnell Regional Council
Roper Gulf Regional Council
Tiwi Islands Regional Council
Total Grant
Barkly Regional Council
ORGANISATION
Table 1: ARC Grant funding funding breakdown for councils.
$7,557 7%
38%
11%
42% $38,483
$25,740
9%
78% $99,000
$26,845
27%
45% $239,242
$72,794
6%
44% $123,485
$12,973
19%
59% $89,529
$37,807
Salary On Costs
$121,000
Salary
16%
$16,024
15%
$36,618
13%
$39,913
20%
$55,000
15%
$30,600
10%
$20,400
Admin Overheads
20%
$20,025
19%
$46,148
0%
$0
8%
$20,721
14%
$28,173
16%
$33,321
Operating Costs
FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 / 2013 ACQUITTALS
Project Management Fees
Mt Theo Contract
Remarks
Continues overleaf
15%
22%
Other
19
Coomalie Community Government Council $30,594
$30,594
$0
$0
Funding carried over in 2012/13. No data available
Wagait Shire Council
$212,247 Funding carried over in 2012/13. No data available
$237,607
West Arnhem Regional Council
$0
27%
Operating Costs
104%
Admin Overheads
$64,370
Salary On Costs
$246,474
Salary
FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 / 2013 ACQUITTALS
Belyuen Community Government Council
$238,000
Total Grant
Victoria Daly Regional Council
ORGANISATION
Table 1: ARC Grant funding funding breakdown for councils. (continued)
$0
Other
No breakdown of costs
Limited breakdown of costs against actual funding. Costs include the council contribution.
Remarks
Appendix 3: Active Remote Communities Investment Program A summary of the recommended structure of the Active Remote Communities Investment Program, as a result of the review, is provided below.
Vision and Objectives Vision: That remote communities deliver regular and organised sporting
competitions that are locally run and provide pathways to the Peak Sporting Body’s athlete development programs.
Objective 1: To deliver a variety of programs, which provide Primary School
aged children with physical literacy to allow for a lifelong appreciation of sport and an active lifestyle.
Objective 2: To support sustainable and well-run intra-community sporting
activities and competitions that help to create happy, healthy and connected communities.
Objective 3: To support well run and well-organised inter-community sports competitions that provide opportunities for talented athletes to progress and to build community connections. Objective 4: To provide support to talented athletes to further represent their communities, region and the NT at representative sporting competitions.
The community sport pathway (Figure 1) is modelled on the Australian Sports Commissions FTEM Model. The foundation skills are taught in communities through participation and intracommunity competition, with talent being recognised as the individual progresses through the pathway. An individual may enter into the active for life stage at any point of the model and continue to participate in community sport. Community sport encompasses the whole model as there will be participants operating at various levels in the competitions. For example, ex-AFL players may come back to communities and participate in community football alongside other adults who have never left the community or alongside emerging young athletes, all in the same team.
20
Figure 1: Community Sport Pathway
The primary areas where the sport pathway will be delivered is outlined in Figure 2. Foundation sport skills will be taught at the primary school level, which will allow the individual with the basic skills to participate in community sport through adulthood. Talent will be identified through high school, with involvement from PSBs. Elite and mastery levels will be managed by the NSOs and PSBs. Community sport underpins all of these levels.
Figure 2: Community Sport Progression
21
Funding Methodology Objective 1: Participation There must be a base of programs built around the ‘Foundation’ area of the community sport pathway, to allow effective progression onto the next level. The majority of investment needs to be put into this portion of the pathway to contribute to community sport and active recreation programs. It is within these programs that healthy individuals and a healthy community who value an active lifestyle are going to be created. This level of the Program will be delivered in conjunction with the community primary school and key sport providers, coordinated by the CSROs. Key Performance Indicators • Delivery of a program that provides for the development of ‘foundation’ skills to provide the individual with physical literacy. • Integration of the program with the Primary School sport program and physical education curriculum, in conjunction with School Sport NT and Active After School Care. • Ongoing development of local community members in Level 0 sport coaching and officiating courses. Key Providers • • • •
Community Sport and Recreation Officers School Sport NT Active After School Care Peak Sporting Bodies
Key Funding Areas • Equipment • Program delivery costs • Coaching and officiating professional development opportunities
Objective 2: Intra-community Competitions Once a base of participation has been built within the community then the next layer of participation and competition can be implemented. This would then require an additional level of support, attracting additional funding based on the number and level of intra-community sporting competitions. A contribution by participants at this level, as with the urban sports model, to participate in these competitions is required. This contribution should be through volunteerism and possibly monetary, in order to increase the level of community ownership of the sporting pathway. Key Performance Indicators • Delivery of a program that provides for further development of ‘foundation’ skills and the ability to demonstrate potential (Talent). As well as the involvement of the community to encourage an active lifestyle that involves sport. • Integration of the program with the primary school and high school sport program and physical education curriculum, in conjunction with School Sport NT. • Ongoing development of local community members in Level 0 and Level 1 sport coaching and officiating courses.
22
Key Providers • Community Sport and Recreation Officers • School Sport NT • Peak Sporting Bodies Key Funding Areas • Equipment • Competition delivery costs • Coaching and officiating professional development opportunities
Objective 3: Inter-community Competitions Intra-community sport competitions will be built on the success of Outcome 2. This requires the capacity of officials to be built within the communities to be able to deliver larger competitions. Support from the DSRR and Peak Sporting Bodies is likely for competition management, training and resources. These competitions would be based around the sporting hubs and would require funding assistance for teams travel and accommodation. A contribution by participants at this level, as with the urban sports model, to participate in these competitions is required. This contribution should be both monetary and volunteerism in order to increase the level of community ownership of the sporting pathway. Key Performance Indicators • Delivery of a program that provides for athletes to further demonstrates their Talent while involving the community to encourage an active lifestyle that involves sport. • Integration of the program with the high school sport program and physical education curriculum, in conjunction with School Sport NT. • Ongoing development of local community members in Level 0 and Level 1 sport coaching and officiating courses. Key Providers • Community Sport and Recreation Officers • School Sport NT • Peak Sporting Bodies Key Funding Areas • • • •
Equipment Competition delivery costs Coaching and officiating professional development opportunities Travel Assistance
23
Objective 4: Representation The final layer of the pathway is exclusively managed by the Peak Sporting Bodies and National Sporting Organisations. No level of funding support is provided to the Regional Councils at this level; however, funding to support athletes participation in these level of events is required. This would most likely be through travel and accommodation assistance. Key Performance Indicators • Demonstrated pathways for athletes to achieve on their chosen sports High Performance Pathway. Key Providers • School Sport NT • Peak Sporting Bodies Key Funding Areas • Travel Assistance
Delivery The delivery of the model will be achieved in the following steps; The Community, through the Local Authorities and in conjunction with the Regional Councils, must develop a Community Action Plan, which details the following: • Identify all the funding coming into the Community for Youth, Sport and Active Recreation; • Develop a plan for the delivery of programs to meet the needs of the community around sport and active recreation ensuring that the four outcomes of the Active Remote Communities Investment Program are addressed as required; • Identify the support required from the CSROs and other service providers to deliver the plan; • Identify members of the community to assist in the delivery of the plan, with clear roles and responsibilities; • Develop the program budget for each community. As part of the Program the following professional development and training opportunities must be factored into the budget and form part of the overall Community Action Plan. • Level 0 and Level 1 Coaching and officiating courses in communities as required to develop the capacity of the communities to run sport. • Ongoing training and professional development for the Community Sport and Recreation Officers. • Attendance of the CSROs at an annual DSRR led CSRO workshop. • Attendance of the Regional Council Sport and Recreation Managers at an annual DSRR led Sport and Recreation Managers workshop.
24