REPORT OF REVIEW GROUP
DECEMBER 1998
Dept of Tourism, Sport & Recreation South Frederick St., Dublin 2
1
1
Page 2
3
2
Contents
Page
1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 4
2. Executive Summary .................................................................................... 8
3. Approach adopted in Review ................ .................................................... 19
4. Sports Capital Programme (1988 -1998) ................................................... 21
5. Grant Allocation Criteria ............................................................................ 31
6. Role of other Departments and Agencies ................................................... 39
7. Role of the National Governing Bodies of Sport ....................................... 47
8. Encouraging Private Sector Investment ..................................................... 50
9. Objectives and Parameters for a new Sports Capital Programme .............. 52
2
2
Page 3
4
3
Appendices
A Local Centres developed under the Sport Capital Programme ................... 65
B Detailed Terms and Conditions for the existing Sports Capital Programme................
66
C Detailed Terms and conditions for new Sports Capital Programme ............... 70
D List of recognised National Governing Bodies of Sport............................... 75
E Background Note on the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund ......... 78
3
3
Page 4
5
4
1 Introduction
1.1 In pursuit of the policy objective of promoting a more strategic approach
to the use of available resources for sport and recreation in Ireland, by a
sector driven mainly by voluntary effort, Dr. James McDaid T. D. Minister for
Tourism, Sport and Recreation, established a Review Group in July 1998 with
the following terms of reference :
To review :
1. 2 The Review Group was composed of :
4 Page 5 6
5
Name Representative of
Susan McGrath (Chairperson) D/ Tourism, Sport & Recreation
Kathleen Stack D/ Tourism, Sport & Recreation
Eddie Arthurs D/ Tourism, Sport & Recreation
Peter Smyth D/ Tourism, Sport & Recreation
Martin Heffernan D/ Education & Science (alternate Eamon Greville)
Eugene Barry D/ Finance
Bertí O hAinmhire D/ Arts, Culture, Gaeltacht & the Islands
Michael McKenna D/ Environment & Local Government
Michael Killian City & County Managers Association
Vera Branigan City & County Managers Association
John Treacy Irish Sports Council
Paddy McGrath Dublin Corporation Secretary
Michael Kennedy D/ Tourism, Sport & Recreation
1.3 For the purposes of the review, the Group also had particular regard to
the sports policy objective of trying to assist with the creation of opportunities
for all to participate in sport and recreation through access to facilities
and activities, especially for young people in disadvantaged areas.
1.4 The Sports Capital Programme was first introduced in the early 1970s and
up to 1987, average annual spending was of the order of £1.5 million, contributing
to cumulative grant expenditure of approximately £15m over that period.
1.5 The introduction of the National Lottery in 1987 saw a major increase
in the funding for the Programme. The actual decision to establish a National
Lottery arose from a commitment in the Government Programme Building on Reality
(1985-87), which stated that despite the difficult financial situation of
the time, the Government were anxious that additional funding
5 Page 6 7
6
should be provided for sport. Sport and recreation were among the initial beneficiaries
of Lottery funding which also included national culture (including the Irish
language), the arts and the health of the community. Further categories (i.
e. youth, welfare, national heritage and amenities) were added later.
1.6 Two separate schemes were introduced under the Programme -the Recreational
Facilities and the Major Facilities Schemes -which have continued to operate
since 1988. The Recreational Facilities Scheme assists voluntary
and community organisations in providing, improving and equipping recreational,
leisure and community facilities. The Scheme provides essential support to clubs
and community groups for the continuing development of their facilities. The
maximum grant is limited to £50,000. The Major Facilities Scheme is
a multi-annual sports capital programme which assists with the provision of
major sports facilities at a national, regional and local level. This developed
from a scheme originally designed to assist in the provision of Regional and
Local sports centres at designated locations throughout the country.
1.7 Since 1988, approx. £67m has been allocated for facility provision under
the Programme -£48m approx. under the Major Facilities Scheme and £19m approx.
under the Recreational Facilities Scheme, bringing total expenditure since its
inception to over £80m.
1.8 There was a significant increase in funding provision for the Programme
in 1998 -up 50% on previous years -to £9m -£6m (Major Facilities) and £3m (Recreational
Facilities). Provision for the Programme in 1999 will be up a further 64% to
£14.75m and will reach £18.25m in 2000.
1.9 Administration of the Programme transferred from the Department of Education
& Science to the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation in September
1997.
1.10 In February this year, the Programme was advertised for the last time
and all applications received up to the closing date were examined. Arising
from this examination, grants totalling £5.95m in respect of almost 250 projects
were allocated. At the time it was announced that no further applications were
being invited until the Review was completed and new Schemes were announced.
6 Page 7 8
7
1.11 The Review Group was subsequently established and has met six times. A
sub-group was set up with representatives of the Department of Tourism, Sport
and Recreation and the Irish Sports Council and consultations were also held
with the Northern Ireland and Scottish Sports Councils on the operation of their
respective Sports Capital Programmes.
7 Page 8 9
8
2 Executive Summary
Sports Capital Programme
2.1 The National Lottery funded Sports Capital Programme currently consists
of two separate schemes -the Recreational Facilities and the Major Facilities
Schemes. Up to September, 1997 the Programme was administered by the Department
of Education and Science at which time it transferred to the Department of Tourism,
Sport and Recreation. In the context of the 1998 round of grant allocations,
the Minister for Tourism Sport and Recreation announced that he was initiating
a comprehensive review of the Sports Capital Programme which would be completed
before the end of 1998.
Review
2.2 A review Group was subsequently established which comprised representatives
from the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, a number of other Departments
and State Agencies actively involved in the provision of sport and recreation
facilities and the Irish Sports Council. The brief of the Group was to review
the distribution of funding under the Programme; the eligibility and evaluation
criteria; the decision making process; the role of other Departments and Agencies
in relation to future facility provision. The Group was also asked to examine
the potential for more joint provision of national facilities.
2.3 In implementing its brief the Review Group was asked to have regard to
current stated sports policy objectives:
1. to promote a more strategic approach to the use of available resources for
sport and recreation in Ireland; and
2. to assist with the creation of opportunities for all to participate in sport
and recreation through access to facilities and activities especially for young
people in disadvantaged areas.
2.4 With a view to defining a strategic approach to the provision of sports
and recreation facilities, the Review Group concentrated it's focus on the achievement
of a workable
8 Page 9 10
9
programme. This would serve to further stated sports policy objectives and ensure
a planned approach for sports facility provision keeping overlap and duplication
to a minimum, thereby giving the best value for State funding of sport facilities.
Distribution of Funding under the Programme to date
2.5 The distribution of funding under the Programme over the past ten years
was examined under three headings -activities funded, organisations funded and
the geographical spread of funding.
2.6 Forty nine per cent of grants were allocated to community sports and recreation.
Of the remaining 51%, gaelic games received 25%, soccer 7.5% and athletics 6.5%
with the balance going to individual sports. In practice the division into two
Schemes proved somewhat artificial as the same type of projects tended to be
funded under both Schemes with a significant degree of overlap between the two
in terms of criteria used and how they were administered.
2.7 The Review Group noted that in terms of the geographical spread of funding
the only indicator applied in the operation of the Programme was population
levels on a county by county basis. No reference was made to other factors such
as the level of facilities in each county, where they were located and whether
they were appropriate. On the basis of population levels there was a reasonably
equitable spread of funding. Westmeath, Longford, Sligo, Kilkenny and Cork fared
best. However, the figures for Sligo and Westmeath are distorted by major allocations
for the development of regional centres. Meath, Louth and Wicklow received the
lowest per capita allocations of funding.
Selection Criteria and Decision Making Process under the Programme
2.8 The Review Group found that the selection criteria used, while having merit
in their own right, were general in nature and the aims and objectives of the
Programme were not specifically defined. This coupled with a lack of adequate
information, both in terms of that supplied on the application form and the
absence of an up to date data base on existing facilities, made it very difficult
to effectively prioritise applications.
2.9 Decisions on allocations under the Programme were made by the Minister
on the basis
9 Page 10 11
10
of recommendations from Sports Capital Unit of the Department. However, the
information available and the absence of clear aims and objectives with associated
evaluation criteria, did not allow for a thorough examination of the merits
of individual applications over one another. In these circumstances and given
that demand always far exceeded the available funding, decisions between equally
eligible applications were often driven by a desire to allocate small amounts
of grant aid to a large number of projects rather than meaningful amounts to
a smaller number. The Review Group noted, in particular, that the decision making
process did not take account of the activities of other Departments and Agencies
involved in the provision of sport and recreation facilities who had no input.
Neither was there any involvement by the National Governing Bodies of Sport.
2.10 The Review Group found that while a large number of high quality facilities
were funded and the Programme provided essential support, in many cases, to
clubs and organisations, funding was not allocated in a planned or co-ordinated
manner resulting in duplication and overlap.
2.11 The Review Group identified the need to set clear aims and objectives
for the new Programme taking account of stated sports and recreational policy
objectives and to ensure that sufficient information is available to allow applications
to be effectively prioritised. The Group recommended that in order to achieve
a strategic approach in the future and to get the best value for money, an effective
decision making mechanism must be put in place that will allow for the co-ordination
and integration of all state resources in the provision of sports and recreational
facilities.
2.12 Review Group Recommendations
Focus of New Programme
. In line with the recommendations of the 1997 Report of the National Lottery
Review Group, funding allocated under the Sports Capital Programme should be
concentrated on community and voluntary organisations (Chapter 9)
. In order to achieve a planned, effective and more transparent approach to
the operation of the Sports Capital Programme, the following steps should be
taken :
10
Page 11
12
11
. Clear aims and objectives should be set out for the Programme in the light
of stated policy objectives;
. Detailed assessment criteria should be put in place;
. Only projects in respect of which a fully completed application form has been
received should be considered;
. A decision making process should be put in place which should have regard
to the activities of other Departments and agencies involved in the provision
of facilities and have sufficient information to allow for consideration of
applications in an informed and co-ordinated way.(Chapter 5)
. The main aims and objectives of a new Programme should be :
. to develop an integrated and planned approach to the development of sport
and recreational sport facilities;
. to assist voluntary and community organisations with the development of
appropriate facilities in appropriate locations that will maximise use in terms
of participation. The facilities should be high quality, safe, well designed
and sustainable to both the user and the provider;
. to prioritise the needs of disadvantaged areas in the provision of facilities;
and
. to encourage and prioritise the multi purpose use of facilities at national,
regional and community level by clubs, community organisations and NGBs.
(Chapter 9)
. The Programme should consist of one Scheme which would cover sport and recreational
sport facilities with specific provisions in relation to funding facilities
in disadvantaged areas (Chapter 9)
. Allocations should continue to be based on the assessment of individual
applications under any new Programme, but with a particular focus on the needs
of disadvantaged areas (Chapter 4)
Applications
11
Page 12
13
12
. Eligibility should cover sport and recreational sport, as defined in the Sports
Council legislation (Chapter 5)
. All applications should be invited from, or on behalf of, voluntary and
community organisations inclusive of sports clubs, voluntary and community groups
and, in certain circumstances, schools and colleges (Chapter 9)
. Schools and colleges should only be eligible for consideration for funding
where applications are made jointly with local sports clubs/ community groups
and where they :
. provide for significant levels of usage by the local community during periods
when the facilities are not being used by the school itself (at least 30
hours per week throughout the year); and
. demonstrate that the facilities concerned will meet an identified deficiency
in that locality, as agreed with other local groups and/ or the local authority.
(Chapter 6)
. Under the new Programme, applicants in Gaeltacht areas who wish to develop
sport/ recreational sport facilities should initially contact the Department
of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands regarding funding (Chapter 6)
. Where applications are received directly from Gaeltacht areas under the
Sports Capital Programme, they should be referred to the Department of Arts,
Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands for their views . In the event of that Department
not being in a position to grant aid particular projects, this Department would
then consider them in the context of the new Sports Capital Programme (Chapter
6)
. To be considered for funding, clubs and organisations should be obliged,
as a minimum, to provide detailed information on the following :
. the extent to which the project, in terms of growth targets, will increase
the levels of active participation in sport/ recreational sport and/ or result
in improved
standards of sporting performance and how such increases can be measured;
. the extent to which the project, in terms of growth targets, will serve to
increase
12
Page 13
14
13
participation in disadvantaged areas;
. the technical merits of the project i. e. does the project comply with standard
technical specifications from the relevant governing body and statutory authorities;
. the financial and operational viability of the project i. e. has the club/
organisation sufficient funds or firm commitments for funding to complete the
project within a
realistic timeframe and will the project generate enough income to maintain
itself for the future;
. the extent to which applicants have consulted with other clubs, community
groups, schools in their areas and the local authority in developing their proposals
and the
outcome of those consultations;
. in the case of projects aimed at attracting people from disadvantaged areas,
the strategies to be used to attract them. (Chapter 5)
. Clubs developing projects at national and regional levels should first ensure
that their proposals are consistent with the priorities of their NGBs and that
the necessary personnel, infrastructure and training are in place to ensure
the viability of the proposed facility. Such proposals should be presented for
approval to their NGB who should in turn assess them based on their identified
priorities for facility development (Chapter 7)
. In cases where two or more regional projects are seeking funding, NGBs should
be asked to prioritise the projects based on their facility plans and needs
(Chapter 7)
. Applicants will have to show that their rules and actions do not discriminate
on the grounds of sex, religion, ethnic origin etc. All groups funded under
the Sports Capital Programme will be required to ensure that their projects
are accessible to people with disabilities. It will be a condition of funding
that groups will be required to show evidence of how they meet the accessibility
requirements (Chapter 9)
Assessment of Applications
. Applications should be assessed in terms of the community benefit of the
project in a sport/ recreational sport context i. e. will the project :
13 Page 14 15
14
. increase active participation in sport/ recreational sport and, if so, by
how much; and/ or
. result in improved standards of sporting performance. (Chapter 9)
. In terms of assessing and selecting projects for funding, there should
be a focus on :
. the extent to which the project, in terms of growth targets, will increase
the levels of active participation in sport/ recreational sport and/ or result
in improved standards of sporting performance and how such increases can be
measured;
. the extent to which the project, in terms of growth targets, will serve
to increase participation in disadvantaged areas;
. the technical merits of the project i. e. does the project comply with standard
technical specifications from the relevant governing body and statutory authorities;
. the financial viability of the project i. e. in addition to Lottery funding,
has the club/ organisation sufficient funds or firm commitments for funding
to complete the project within a realistic timeframe;
. given realistic projections of income from the project, the extent to which
the applicant will be able to maintain the project after completion;
. the level of socio-economic disadvantage in the area, as defined by ADM
Ltd's indicators, and the current and planned levels of sport and/ or recreational
sport facilities in the area;
. the need to achieve an equitable geographical spread of funds, having regard
to the range of existing facilities in each county;
. the extent to which applicants have consulted with other clubs, community
groups, schools and the local authority in developing their proposals and the
outcome of these consultations;
. in the case of projects aimed at attracting people from disadvantaged areas,
the strategies to be used to attract them;
. the need to achieve an equitable spread of funds among different sports
and community groups;
. the priority of proposed improvements/ facility in relation to the club/
organisation's existing facilities; and
. the priorities for their individual sports, as identified by the NGB (Chapter
9)
14
Page 15
16
15
. While all applications will be treated on their merits, the highest priority
will be afforded to projects in disadvantaged areas aimed at increasing participation,
particularly for young people. Those projects where the main purpose is to provide
a facility which enables people to take part in sport/ recreational sport or
raise the standards of performance will also be accorded high priority. Such
projects will include, for example, playing facilities, changing accommodation,
essential sport and maintenance equipment and training facilities (including
floodlighting). Lower priority projects will include those which are not essential
or integral to sports participation or performance e. g. landscaping of grounds,
boundary fences, equipment stores etc. (Chapter 9)
. To assess applications from a sports development, technical and financial/
operational viability perspective, application assessment teams should have
access to specialist expertise (Chapter 9)
. As part of the assessment process, applications should be considered by
a Committee comprising of representatives of the Department of Tourism, Sport
and Recreation, the Sports Council and other relevant Departments and Agencies
involved in facility provision (such as those represented on the Review Group)
(Chapter 5)
. For the 1999 round of grant allocations, this Committee should
consider applications based on specified criteria and make recommendations to
the Minister as to the projects to be grant-aided (Chapter 5)
. The Sports Council, following the enactment of the Irish Sports Council
Bill, should be the primary decision making authority on the allocation of funding
under the new Programme and any funding earmarked for the Programme should be
assigned to it. (Chapter 5)
. The Sports Council should put the appropriate mechanisms in place to undertake
this function (Chapter 5)
. A national sports inventory should be commissioned immediately. The inventory
should cover a range of issues such as the type, size, location, age and condition
of existing
15 Page 16 17
16
facilities and equipment, whether they are indoor or outdoor, ownership, management
structure, frequency of usage, range of activities and sports available, catchment
population etc. (Chapter 9)
Level of funding
. Applicants must contribute a proportion of the project cost from their
own resources. In some cases, applicants may be in a position to access other
State/ EU sources of funding to make up the balance of the overall cost of the
project. In exceptional cases such as these, a minimum local contribution of
10% of the overall cost will be required (Chapter 9)
. Where the facilities proposed are located in disadvantaged areas, the
maximum percentage of grant-aid available should be increased to 80% in exceptional
cases. Where it is possible for clubs and community organisations in such areas
to access other sources of State/ EU funding to make up the balance of the overall
cost of the project, the minimum local contribution may be reduced to 5%, if
deemed appropriate, in the context of projects contributing to overall policy
priorities (Chapter 9)
. Information and indicators used by ADM Ltd in the context of designating
areas of disadvantage under the Operational Programme for Local, Urban and Rural
Development, should be used to define 'disadvantage' (Chapter 9)
. Future applications for Lottery funding should be categorised in terms of
local, regional and national facilities. Each case should be considered
on its individual merits and in exceptional cases, grants up to the following
maximum levels will be payable :
Applicant Status Maximum Funding
Local facilities 70%
Regional Facilities 50%
National Facilities As considered appropriate given the scale of the
proposed development
16 Page 17 18
17
Disadvantaged Areas 80%
(Chapter 9)
. The amount of grant aid provided should have regard to the level of matching
funds available given the overall cost of completing the project and should,
as far as possible, give the project developers a realistic chance of getting
the development off the ground (Chapter 9)
Other Recommendations
. From 1999 onwards, all applicants should be informed as to the reason(
s) why they are not being allocated grant-aid under the Programme (Chapter 5)
. Detailed terms and conditions recommended for attachment to the issue of
grants payments under the new Programme are set out in Appendix C of
the Report (Chapter 5)
. In the case of some of the terms and conditions (e. g. evidence of title,
evidence of local contribution), the relevant documentation should be submitted
with the application form (Chapter 5)
. The present arrangement whereby cases involving grants in excess of £39,000
are required to execute a Deed of Trust should be continued (Chapter 5)
. Grant allocations should be made twice a year -preferably spring and autumn
(Chapter 9)
. A closing date for draw-down of funds should be put on all grants allocated.
Clubs and community organisations should be given one year in which to
commence their building programme (Chapter 9)
. Where projects have failed to secure priority for funding and/ or have had
an allocation of
17
Page 18
19
18
funding withdrawn due to their inability to proceed with a project, they should
be ineligible to re-apply for a two year period (unless the proposals are radically
altered by the applicant) (Chapter 9)
. For new projects costing over £250,000, the club/ organisation should be
required to undertake a Feasibility Study in advance of applying for grant-aid
to show the need for the development (Chapter 9)
Local authorities should consult with the Department of Tourism, Sport and
Recreation and/ or the Sports Council when drawing up their City/ County Development
Plans, as envisaged in the recent Task Force Report on the Integration of Local
Development/ Local Government (Chapter 6)
. The extension of Section 16 of the 1997 Finance Act or the introduction
of a similar type of provision should be examined in the context of attracting
private sector investment to the provision of major sports facilities. The Department
of Finance representative on the Group did not support this recomendation (Chapter
8)
18 Page 19 20
19
3 Approach adopted in Review
Policy considerations
3.1 The Group considered the review of the existing Sports Capital Programme
against the background of a range of activities being undertaken in the sports
area aimed at meeting the objectives of the Government's Programme for the Millennium.
The Action Programme for the Millennium sets out certain key priorities which
have been reflected in the Strategy Statement, published in May 1998, by the
Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation. The overall goal of the Department
of Tourism, Sport & Recreation in relation to sport, as set out in the Strategy
Statement, is to formulate and oversee the implementation of policies for the
promotion and development of sport and to encourage increased participation
in sport and recreation, by disadvantaged communities.
3.2 To achieve this overall objective, the Department is committed to developing
a number of strategies. These include :
. Establishing a statutory Sports Council (in the first half of 1999). The
Bill currently before the Oireachtas will give the Sports Council a primary
role in promoting and developing sport;
. Putting in place a range of supports for High Performance Athletes (already
in place);
. Piloting special sport and recreation initiatives in disadvantaged areas (proposals
under consideration);
. Developing a national policy on recreation during 1999; and
. Developing appropriate sport and recreation strategies for disadvantaged areas,
including the targeting of funding for facilities in areas of greatest need,
by end 2000.
3.3 In addition, the Department chairs the Assessment Committee charged with
facilitating the operation of the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund.
This Fund will provide funding to develop youth facilities, including sport
and recreational facilities, and services in
19
Page 20
21
20
disadvantaged areas. Monies under the Fund, which were provided by the Government
in early 1998, are currently held in the Dept of Education & Science and
should start coming on stream early next year.
3.4 Against this background, the Review Group undertook the task of reviewing
the existing Programme and identifying how a sports capital programme should
operate to achieve overall policy objectives in the most effective way, giving
the best value for money.
3.5 The Group was at all times mindful that the Sports Capital Programme cannot
be viewed in isolation from other Programmes operated by various Departments
and State Agencies. These include (i) the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht
and the Islands which provides grants towards providing/ improving recreational
facilities in Gaeltacht areas; (ii) the Department of Education & Science
which provides PE halls and various other facilities in
schools and colleges, and (iii) Corporations and local authorities around the
country who are involved in facility provision in the areas of swimming pools,
football pitches, tennis courts etc. The Group also had regard to the expanding
role of local authorities in the context of the integration of local government
and local development which will bring about a much closer involvement by local
authorities in community and social development.
3.6 The Review Group, in light of the foregoing, started from the premise
that a fully integrated approach to the development of sports facilities must
take account of and try, at a minimum level, to co-ordinate the relevant activities
of all such bodies. At the optimum level, all funding for sport and recreational
sport facilities should be channelled through/ co-ordinated by one body which
would be charged with implementing a global sports policy. Recognising that
such an approach would involve major structural changes which would not be possible
to achieve in the short to medium term, the Group concentrated it's focus on
the achievement of a workable programme that would serve to further stated sports
policy objectives and ensure a planned approach for sports facility provision
keeping overlap and
duplication to a minimum, thereby giving the best value for State funding of
sport facilities by achieving economies of scale.
20 Page 21 22
21
4
Sports Capital Programme (1988 -1998)
Introduction
4.1 The Sports Capital Programme is made up of two Schemes -the Major Facilities
and the Recreational Facilities Schemes. Since 1988, over £67m has been allocated
to facility provision under the two Schemes. Grants allocated under the Recreational
Facilities Scheme were aimed at assisting voluntary and community organisations
to provide, improve and equip recreational, leisure and community facilities.
Typically grants are allocated towards the cost of improvements to existing
sports pitches, dressing rooms and other facilities and towards the cost of
equipment for sports and athletic clubs and community centres.
4.2 The Major Facilities Scheme is a capital programme for major facilities
at national, regional and local level. Over the past ten years, grants allocated
under this Scheme have been aimed at assisting with the construction of regional
sports centres and the construction and refurbishment of community centres,
multi-purpose halls, athletic stadia, gaelic, soccer and rugby pitches, swimming
pools, and sports and community centres in various parts of the country.
4.3 In practice, the division of the Programme into two schemes was artificial
and somewhat misleading. The way the two schemes operated on the ground was
very similar and in many cases they overlapped in that similar types of projects
were being assisted under both Schemes. Similarly, the maximum grant payable
under either Scheme was 70% of the overall cost of the development (80% in
exceptional circumstances). The only distinction between them was the level
of grant provided -while grants of less than £50,000 were allocated under both
Schemes, all projects which received grants of more than £50,000 were considered
to be 'major' facilities. However, this monetary distinction has had little
practical effect in terms of administering the Programme.
21 Page 22 23
22
Distribution under the Programme by Activity and Geographical Spread
4.4 The Major Facilities Scheme was set up to provide major
sports facilities at national, regional and local level. Originally, the
two main aims of the Scheme were to develop a National Outdoor Stadium and a
National Indoor Arena. Although monies were earmarked for these projects, for
a variety of reasons neither of them were developed.
4.5 Since then, the GAA received £5 million under the Scheme for the first
phase of its Croke Park development in 1994/ 95. In addition, four other National
Governing Bodies were allocated grants for the development/ upgrading of their
national centres. These were -
Athletics (Morton Stadium -£1.7m), Basketball (National Arena -£ 1.8m), Hockey
(UCD Pitch -£0.7m) and Boxing (National Stadium -£0.26m).
4.6 In the early years of the Scheme, it was decided to develop regional
centres at Athlone, Cork, Galway, Sligo and Waterford. All of these centres,
with the exception of Athlone, which has not yet commenced, have been completed.
The projects developed cost nearly £12m and constituted over one quarter of
spending under the Scheme in the period since 1988. A grant of £2.5m has been
allocated to Athlone. Before their development, a number of studies were carried
out on the proposed regional complexes at Cork, Sligo, Athlone, Galway and Waterford
to estimate their future viability. This resulted in sports complexes with swimming
pools as their major focus being built in Cork and Sligo whereas a running track
formed a major part of the Waterford complex. The Galway Centre, as first envisaged,
was not considered viable. As a result, the funding was split to provide £0.95m
for track and pitch developments at UCG while a further £1m was spent on the
re-development of Leisureland in conjunction with Galway Corporation and Bord
Fáilte.
4.7 Funding has also been provided for the development of a National Coaching
and Training Centre at Limerick. This involved the upgrading of the track at
Thomond College and the purchase of sports science equipment for use at what
is now the University of Limerick.
4.8 Funding totalling £400,000 was provided for the development of an International
Youth Sailing Centre at Schull, Co. Cork.
22 Page 23 24
23
4.9 Centres at local level were developed under the Scheme at 16 centres throughout
the country and the average funding for these was of the order of £300,000 each
(a list of these is attached as Appendix A).
4.10 Other projects funded under the Major Facilities Scheme included GAA
county grounds, League of Ireland soccer grounds, All Ireland League Rugby grounds
and Outdoor Education Centres operated by the Vocational Education Committees.
4.11 The balance of the funding was allocated to sport clubs and for sports/
recreational facilities.
4.12 Apart from the larger grants indicated above, other grants allocated
under the Scheme tended to range from £50,000 to £100,000.
4.13 The Recreational Facilities Scheme was established to assist
voluntary and community organisations to provide, improve and equip recreational,
leisure and community facilities. The maximum grant payable under the Scheme
was £50,000 -however, grants allocated tended to range from £5,000 to £10,000.
4.14 Grants allocated under this Scheme can be broken down between :
. community recreation (30% approx. of funding);
. community sports (10% approx. of funding); and
. individual sports (60% approx. of funding).
4.15 In terms of community recreation projects, while many different
types of projects are assisted in this category, it is worth noting that there
are three substantive sub-groups that can be identified. These are :
1. Community Projects -these range from the provision/ refurbishment
of community halls to individual projects assisting specific target groups e.
g. the elderly. In the period 1994 -97, these projects accounted for 21% of
the overall funding under the Scheme;
2. Scouts and Guide Groups -grants were mainly sought for the provision/
refurbishment of dens/ halls. In the period 1994 -97, these projects accounted
for 5% of the overall funding under the Scheme; and
23 Page 24 25
24
3. Music Groups -grants were allocated to marching bands to purchase
instruments and uniforms. In the period 1994 -97, these projects accounted for
3% of the overall funding under the Scheme.
4.16 In terms of community sports facilities, the type of projects assisted
varied from developing community pitches and clubhouses to the purchase of sports
equipment. In terms of individual sports, a range of activities have been funded
from GAA and soccer, to tennis rugby, athletics, boxing, sailing, rowing, pitch
& putt, hockey etc. In the case of individual sports, the grant-aid was
primarily used for pitch and/ or clubhouse developments and there was also an
element of equipment grant provision.
Range of Organisations Funded under Sports Capital Programme
4.17 An examination of all the grants allocated under the Programme
in the period 1988 -1998 showed that funding was distributed in the following
way :
TYPE % of Overall Grants Allocated
GAELIC GAMES 25%
SOCCER 7.5%
ATHLETICS 6.5%
INDIVIDUAL SPORTS 12% [This category includes most other sports but predominantly tennis, rugby, boxing, pitch & putt, rowing,
sailing, hockey, basketball]
COMMUNITY SPORT & RECREATION 49% [This category relates to sports/
community centres where a number of different sports/ recreational activities
can be accommodated e. g. indoor soccer, basketball, badminton etc.]
24 Page 25 26
25
4.18 In overall terms, as can be seen from the above, funding under the Programme
has been allocated to a wide variety of sports and recreational activities.
There was an element of strategic development in the initial 1988-1993 period
and the projects funded were primarily at national and regional level, as well
as a number of large community based developments at the local level. Since
1994, the focus has been less strategic and more demand driven with local projects,
geared more towards individual sports, predominating.
4.19 While gaelic games would appear to have received a high percentage of
overall grants, it should be borne in mind that the largest number of grant
applications are received from GAA clubs and the level of funding allocated
reflects this. It is noted, however, that the applications were received from
individual clubs and that the GAA, as a National Governing Body (NGB), had little
or no input into the proposals in terms of their overall objectives and priorities.
The situation was similar in relation to other NGBs where local club developments
were concerned.
4.20 A number of similar type facilities were funded under both Schemes, re-enforcing
the fact that at a practical level, there is very little difference between
the two elements of the Programme. Under the Recreational Facilities Scheme,
a small percentage of grants were allocated to activities such as scout/ guide
groups and bands. While the percentage in overall terms is relatively small,
it is, nevertheless, noteworthy and raises issues about the type of projects
that should be funded under a new sports capital programme. This is discussed
on more detail in Chapter 5.
Geographical Distribution under the Programme
4.21 In administering the Programme, population levels were used to
allocate funding on a county by county basis with a view to achieving an equitable
geographical spread. However, this does not, of course, reflect the level of
applications received from individual counties which ultimately also has an
impact especially given the demand driven nature of the Scheme in recent years.
Tables 1 -4 below set out the geographical spread of grant aid under the Programme
over the period 1988 -1998.
4.22 Table 1 sets out the provincial spread of the grant aid allocated under
the Recreational
25 Page 26 27
26
Facilities Scheme, with the final column indicating the degree to which distribution
related to population levels (100% = grant aid level equivalent to the level
of population).
Table 1 : Distribution under the Recreational Facilities Scheme % Pop 1991
Amount Allocated £ m % of Overall Grant
% GRANT/ % POP.
Connacht/ Ulster 18.6% 3.96 20.3% 109 %
Dublin 29.1% 3.27 16.7% 57 %
Rest of Leinster 23.7% 5.40 27.7% 117 %
Munster 28.6% 6.88 35.3% 123 %
Total 100% 19.51 100 %
4.23 As the table clearly illustrates, Dublin received 43% less than it would
have been entitled to if grant aid had been strictly according to population
levels under the Scheme. The other three provinces received disproportionately
higher levels of grant aid than was warranted by their levels of population,
with Munster being the most successful area.
4.24 Table 2 sets out the distribution under the Major Facilities Scheme,
excluding allocations to a national centre (Croke Park £5m) and to National
Associations for distribution to their affiliates around the country (£ 0.48m).
26 Page 27 28
27
Table 2 : Distribution under the Major Facilities Scheme % Pop 1991
Amount allocated £m % of Overall Grant % GRANT/ % POP.
Connacht/ Ulster 18.6% 8.65 20.3 % 109 %
Dublin 29.1% 11.02 25.9 % 89 %
Rest of Leinster 23.7% 9.35 22.0 % 93 %
Munster 28.6% 13.52 31.8 % 111%
Total 100% 42.54 100 %
4.25 As can be seen from the above, Dublin and the rest of Leinster got levels
of grant aid out of line with their respective populations levels, although
the spread was more even than under the Recreational Facilities Scheme.
4.26 The overall provincial distribution of grant-aid under the Programme
as a whole is set out in Table 3.
Table 3 : Distribution under the Sports Capital Programme % Pop
1991 Amount allocated £m % of Overall Grant % GRANT/ % POP.
Connacht/ Ulster 18.6% 12.61 20.3 % 109 %
Dublin 29.1% 14.29 23.0 % 79 %
Rest of Leinster 23.7% 14.75 23.8 % 100 %
Munster 28.6% 20.40 32.9 % 115 %
Total 100% 62.05 100 %
4.27 Table 3 illustrates that Munster and Connacht/ Ulster were the clear winners
in terms of overall amounts of funding. However, when one looks at the distribution
by county, wider fluctuations can be seen.
27 Page 28 29
28
4.28 Table 4 gives a breakdown of grants allocated at the local level per county
and excludes grant aid allocated on a national and regional basis. It sets out
the level of grant aid allocated under both Schemes in the Programme against
that warranted on the basis of population (using 1991 Census figures), omitting
capital spending of £5.48m under the Major Facilities Scheme as already indicated
above.
4.29 Table 4 clearly shows that there was a widespread variation of grant
aid to counties. Longford, Westmeath and Sligo were clearly the major beneficiaries
in terms of grant allocations as they received a significantly higher rate of
grant aid than was warranted by their populations. However, both Sligo and Westmeath's
figures are distorted by the allocations of £1.5m and £2.5m respectively for
the development of Regional Centres. Cork and Kilkenny received the next highest
level of allocations. Meath, Louth and Wicklow received the lowest allocations
of grant aid in the period under review.
28 Page 29 30
29
Table 4 : Grants Allocated under both Schemes by County 1988 to 1997
County % Pop 1991 Recreational Facilities Scheme £ m % Grant/ Pop.
Major Facilities Scheme £ m % Grant/ Pop. Total % Grant/ Pop.
Clare 2.58% 0.43 85% 0.93 84% 1.35 84%
Cork 11.64% 3.26 144% 6.66 134% 9.92 137%
Kerry 3.46% 0.81 120% 1.58 108% 2.40 112%
Limerick 4.59% 0.94 105% 1.85 95% 2.79 98%
Tipperary 3.77% 0.84 114% 1.14 71% 1.98 85%
Waterford 2.60% 0.59 116% 1.35 122% 1.94 120%
Carlow 1.16% 0.29 128% 0.25 51% 0.54 75%
Dublin 29.08% 3.27 57% 11.02 89% 14.29 79%
Kildare 3.48% 0.69 101% 1.15 78% 1.84 85%
Kilkenny 2.09% 0.58 142% 1.20 135% 1.78 137%
Laois 1.48% 0.52 178% 0.40 63% 0.92 99%
Longford 0.86% 0.48 285% 0.61 167% 1.09 204%
Louth 2.57% 0.38 76% 0.50 46% 0.88 55%
Meath 2.99% 0.63 109% 0.60 47% 1.23 66%
Offaly 1.66% 0.36 110% 0.44 62% 0.79 77%
Westm'th 1.76% 0.60 175% 2.90 388% 3.50 321%
Wexford 2.89% 0.50 89% 0.86 70% 1.36 76%
Wicklow 2.76% 0.39 73% 0.45 38% 0.84 49%
Galway 5.12% 1.19 119% 2.69 124% 3.88 122%
Leitrim 0.72% 0.20 143% 0.30 98% 0.50 112%
Mayo 3.14% 0.66 107% 1.18 88% 1.84 94%
Roscommon 1.47% 0.39 137% 0.26 41% 0.65 72%
Sligo 1.55% 0.38 125% 1.65 250% 2.03 210%
Cavan 1.50% 0.26 88% 0.39 61% 0.65 100%
Donegal 3.63% 0.67 94% 1.60 103% 2.26 100%
Monaghan 1.45% 0.21 74% 0.69 111% 0.90 93%
Total 100% 19.51 42.57 62.05
29 Page 30 31
30
4.30 The Review Group considers that in any future Programme, in addition to
taking account of population distribution, the determination of geographical
spread should also take account of (i) the range of existing facilities in each
county; (ii) whether the projects funded were the 'appropriate' ones in the
'appropriate' parts ofeach county and (iii) whether sufficient funding was given
to the grant-aided projects to get them up and running.
4.31 In terms of how the overall Programme operated, the Review Group notes
that decisions on grant aid were made on the basis of applications received.
While such an approach may have certain advantages, in that there is a very
high probability that facilities developed will be well used, there are also
certain drawbacks in that certain sports and geographical areas may not apply
for funding and there could be a tendency to develop what individual sports
regard as 'priority' rather than what might best suit local communities.
4.32 The Review Group considers that situations may arise in the future, in
the context of operating a fully integrated capital programme based on a planned
approach, where the option of focusing on particular areas, would need to be
pursued. Such areas would be identified as needing particular types and/ or
ranges of facilities and they would be focused on with a view to generating
appropriate development proposals to meet these needs. This might arise particularly
in the case of disadvantaged areas.
4.33 For the moment, however, in the absence of a fully integrated Programme,
the Review Group recommends that allocations under a new Programme should be
based on the assessment of individual applications, but with a particular focus
on the needs of disadvantaged areas.
4.34 While the above illustrates that there were shortcomings in the way the
existing Programme operated, the Review Group would like to highlight the fact
that a large number of well designed and high quality facilities all over the
country have been constructed, refurbished, improved and equipped with funding
from the Programme. The existing Programme provided essential support to clubs
and organisations and in the majority of these cases, the developments would
not have taken place were it not for the grant-aid being made available under
the Programme.
30 Page 31 32
31
5 Grant Allocation Criteria
Introduction
5.1 Under the existing Sports Capital Programme, applications are assessed
in the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation in accordance with the criteria
laid down in the terms and conditions for the Programme. In general, the same
terms and conditions apply to both the Major Facilities and the Recreational
Facilities Schemes.
Eligibility under current Programme
5.2 The existing criteria for the Programme do not specify in any detail, nor
do they prioritise, what projects and/ or equipment are eligible/ ineligible
for funding. As already stated, grants allocated under the Recreational
Facilities Scheme assisted voluntary and community organisations in
providing, improving and equipping recreational, leisure and community facilities
while grants under the Major Facilities Scheme assisted with the
provision of major sports facilities at a national, regional and local level.
As a result, a broad spectrum of activities were funded in the past. These ranged
from club and pitch developments to grants for community centres, sports halls
and sports equipment. As mentioned in Chapter 4, a number of other activities
were also grant-aided which were only very loosely related to a Sports Capital
Programme. While in overall terms, these accounted for only a small percentage
of the total grants allocated, they are, nevertheless, noteworthy and included
funding for such activities as bands and scout/ guide organisations
Selection Criteria
5.3 The existing criteria for the selection of projects for assistance
under both Schemes are :
. the priority of the proposed improvements/ facility in relation to the organisation's
existing facilities;
. the amount of local funds available;
. the ability of an organisation to undertake a project;
. the availability of other facilities in the area;
31 Page 32 33
32
. the need to achieve an equitable geographical spread of funds; and
. the need to achieve an equitable spread of funds among different sports and
community groups.
5.4 The Review Group considers that the above general selection criteria are
sufficient, in themselves, to cover the broad objectives of a sports capital
programme but that they need to be qualified to take account of specific policy
priorities in any new Programme.
5.5 The Review Group considers that the primary objective of a Sports Capital
Programme should be to promote the development of sustainable sport and
recreational sport facilities. The development of a quality infrastructure
is crucial to the development of sport over the coming years and grants allocated
under a Capital Programme should be used to develop and equip quality indoor
and outdoor facilities, that cater for the needs of communities, particularly
in disadvantaged areas, as well as competitive/ training requirements.
5.6 While the Review Group recognises that activities involving, for example,
bands and scout/ guide organisations play an important role in many communities,
they consider that it is inappropriate that such activities should be funded
under a Sports Capital Programme. In the circumstances, the Review Group
recommends that under a new Sports Capital Programme, the type of developments
eligible for funding should cover sport and recreational sport only, as defined
in the Sports Council legislation. The Review Group considers that adopting
a less specific definition of what the Programme should cover would give rise
to difficulties in administering the Programme in a strategic manner. It would
also undermine one of the objectives of the Review which is to promote a more
strategic approach to the use of available resources.
5.7 Given their importance, particularly in disadvantaged communities, the
Review Group considers that the question of alternative sources of funding for
groups such as bands and scout/ guide organisations, should be examined in the
context of defining and drawing up a recreational policy during 1999.
5.8 The Review Group also considers that clear objectives should be set and
detailed relevant information sought on the application form.
32 Page 33 34
33
Application Form
5.9 Under the existing Programme, clubs and organisations are required
to complete a five page application form. This asks for, inter alia, details
of the proposed development, funding available to the club/ organisation and
the range of other sports facilities in the catchment area. However, the information
sought and supplied on the form is quite basic and general in nature and in
the majority of cases, is not verifiable. The result is that the information
supplied does not inform the decision-making process sufficiently to allow for
applications to be effectively prioritised.
5.10 To comprehensively examine and assess the merits of applications for
funding and bearing in mind the policy objectives of the Department, the Review
Group considers that a detailed application form should be drawn up.
In order to be considered for funding, clubs and organisations should be obliged,
as a minimum, to provide detailed information on the following :
. the extent to which the project, in terms of growth targets, will increase
the levels of active participation in sport/ recreational sport and/ or result
in improved standards of sporting performance and how such increases can be
measured;
. the extent to which the project, in terms of growth targets, will serve to
increase participation in disadvantaged areas;
. the technical merits of the project i. e. does it comply with standard technical
specifications from the relevant governing body and statutory authorities;
. the financial and operational viability of the project i. e. has the club/
organisation sufficient funds, or firm commitments for funding, to complete
the project within a
realistic timeframe and will the project generate enough income to maintain
itself for the future;
. the extent to which applicants have consulted with other clubs, community
groups, schools in their areas and the local authority in developing their proposals
and the
outcome of these consultations; and
. in the case of projects aimed at attracting people from disadvantaged areas,
applicants should show how they propose to attract them.
5.11 In assessing applications, the Department should have regard to the level
of disadvantage in the area i. e. the level of socio-economic disadvantage cross-referenced
with the existing level of sport and/ or recreational sport facilities.
33 Page 34 35
34
Data-base of facilities
5.12 In order to allow for applications to be fully evaluated and in
terms of future facility planning and provision, the Review Group considers
that there is a real and urgent need to carry out an inventory of the current
supply of facilities around the country. It is difficult to be strategic about
future facility provision in the absence of qualitative and quantitative data
on existing facilities. The question of an inventory is discussed in more detail
in Chapter 9.
Decision Making Process
5.13 Under the existing Programme, applications are initially made to
the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation after advertisements inviting
applications had been placed in the national newspapers. Applications are received
in a number of ways, directly from the groups themselves, through public representatives,
or through the Minister's Office. On request, the Minister and/ or departmental
officials may agree to meet with promoters or representatives of promoters,
to hear oral presentations of their cases and/ or to seek clarifications of
points arising from the details submitted. Prior to 1998, the Schemes were last
advertised in 1994. Each time new allocations were being made (at least once,
sometimes twice a year), all applications on hands under the Programme were
assessed.
5.14 In February this year, the Programme was advertised for the last time
and all applications received up to the closing date (approx. 1,400) were examined.
At that time, it was announced that no further applications were being invited
until the Review was completed and new Schemes are advertised.
5.15 Recommendations are made by Sports Capital Unit of the Department to
the Minister who makes the final decision on projects to be grant-aided. Generally,
decisions on the allocation of grant-aid are made following discussions between
the Minister and officials from Sports Capital Unit on the merits of the individual
cases. However, while every effort is made by all involved to allocate funding
having regard to the merits of each case, the Review Group found that the decision
making process was not altogether satisfactory for a number of reasons.
34 Page 35 36
35
5.16 Decisions in the past were made on the basis of the information supplied
on the application form. As outlined above, the information supplied by clubs
and community organisations was generally quite basic and sketchy and did not
lend itself to a thorough examination of the merits of one individual application
over another. The assessment criteria, while having merits in their own right,
were not sufficiently specific and there was no input from other Departments,
Agencies and National Governing Bodies involved in the provision of sport and
recreation facilities. In particular, there was an absence of comprehensive
up to date data on existing facilities around the country which made it difficult
to identify the areas of greatest need or where there was an overlap or duplication
of facilities. In these circumstances, and given that demand always far exceeded
the available funding, decisions between equally eligible applications were
often driven by a desire to
allocate small amounts of grant-aid to a large number of projects, rather than
meaningful amounts to a smaller number. This created problems, both for clubs
and organisations in terms of raising the additional funding to complete the
projects and also for the Department in terms of administering the Programme
where grants were not drawn down within a realistic timeframe due, in many cases,
to insufficient funding to complete the projects.
5.17 These shortcomings in the decision making process has led to duplication
and over-provision in some areas and serious under-provision in others. The
results can be seen in many towns and villages throughout the country where
there is a dearth of facilities in some areas while in others, different elements
of a leisure or sports complex are in place but situated at different sites,
often in close proximity to each other and usually in different ownership.
5.18 The Review Group considers that this approach to facility provision is
inefficient and ineffective and is not achieving best value for State funding
as it is encouraging overlap and duplication. It highlights the need to develop
a planned approach to facility provision in the future, with clear aims, objectives
and assessment criteria.
5.19 The Group is of the view that the existing decision making process, in
the absence of clear aims and objectives for the Programme with associated specific
detailed assessment criteria, an effective input from other Departments and
Agencies involved in the provision of facilities and a comprehensive up to date
data-base
35 Page 36 37
36
on existing facilities, has resulted in a certain opaqueness in decisions. This
lack of transparency and the need for greater openness and visibility in how
monies are allocated were among the issues highlighted in the Report of the
Review Group on the National Lottery, published in 1997.
5.20 The Group recommends that in order to achieve a planned, effective and
more transparent approach to the operation of the Sports Capital Programme,
the following steps need to be taken :
. Clear aims and objectives should be set out for the Programme in the light
of stated policy objectives;
. Detailed assessment criteria should be put in place;
. Only projects in respect of which a fully completed application form has been
received should be considered;
. A decision making process should be put in place which should have regard
to the activities of other Departments and Agencies involved in the provision
of facilities and have sufficient information to allow for consideration of
applications in an informed and co-ordinated way.
5.21 As part of the assessment process, the Review Group recommends that applications
should be considered by a Committee comprising of representatives of the Department
of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, the Sports Council and other relevant Departments
and agencies involved in facility provision (such as those represented on the
Review Group).
5.22 For the 1999 round of grant allocations, the Review Group
recommends that this Committee should consider applications based on specified
criteria and make recommendations to the Minister as to the projects to be grant-aided.
5.23 The Group is strongly of the view that the Sports Council, when it is
established on a statutory footing, with its dedicated role in promoting and
developing sport, its strategic focus and its various co-ordinating functions,
is the body best able to deliver a more planned approach to facility development
as required from any new Capital Programme. It is, therefore, recommended that
the Sports Council, following the enactment of the Irish Sports Council Bill,
should be the primary
36 Page 37 38
37
decisionmaking authority on the allocation of funding under the new Programme
and that any funding earmarked for the Programme be assigned to it.
5.24 The Review Group also recommends that the Sports Council should put the
appropriate mechanisms in place to undertake this function.
Notification of Decisions
5.25 After decisions on grant aid are made, the successful clubs and
organisations are notified that a grant has been allocated to them subject to
certain terms and conditions being complied with. Prior to this year, unsuccessful
applicants were not given a blanket refusal but were informed that their applications
would be re-considered if additional monies became available later in the year.
This year, however, all unsuccessful applicants were informed that they were
not among the clubs/ organisations approved for grant aid in 1998 and that it
would be open to them to re-apply when the new Schemes are advertised.
5. 26 Up to now, it has not been the practice to advise applicants as to why
they were unsuccessful in obtaining funding. The Review Group recommends that
from 1999 onwards, all applicants should be informed as to the reason( s) why
they are not being allocated grant-aid under the Programme.
37 Page 38 39
38
Terms and Conditions of Grants
5.27 The detailed terms and conditions applied to the existing Programme
are attached at Appendix B to this Report. The Group consider that a number
of the existing terms and conditions have merit, are in line with agreed Government
procedures and should be incorporated into a new Capital Programme. In the case
of some of the others (e. g. evidence of title, evidence of local contribution),
the Review Group recommends that the relevant documentation should be submitted
with the application form. Requirements regarding Plans, Drawings, Tenders
etc. are being examined at present by the Department's technical advisors,
the Office of Public Works, to ensure that they are in accordance with current
statutory provisions relating to building and health and safety. A copy of the
revised terms
and conditions, recommended for attachment to the issue of grant payments under
the new Programme, are attached as Appendix C.
Deeds of Trust
5.28 One of the terms and conditions of the existing Programme is the
requirement to execute a Deed of Trust. This safeguards the State's investment
and provides for the repayment of the grant in the event that the project ceases
to be used for the purposes for which the grant was made.
5.29 The preparation of a Deed of Trust can be a lengthy procedure involving
the Department, the Chief State Solicitor's Office and the solicitors acting
on behalf of the grantee organisation. However, given the importance of protecting
public monies as far as possible, the Review Group recommends that the present
arrangement whereby cases involving grants in excess of £39,000 are required
to execute a Deed of Trust should be continued.
38
Page 39
40
39
6
Role of Other Departments and Agencies
Introduction
6.1 There is a number of other Departments and Agencies involved in
the provision of sport and recreational facilities around the country. This
Chapter looks at the role these Departments and agencies currently play and
their potential future role in delivering a sports capital programme and contributing
to national sports policy objectives and priorities.
Dept of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands
6.2 This Department may, depending on demand, allocate grants not exceeding
80% of total cost to assist local committees in providing or improving recreational
facilities (playing fields, changing rooms, handball alleys, tennis courts etc.,)
in the Gaeltacht. Decisions on applications are based on the circumstances of
eachindividual case which include the following:
. necessity for the work/ facility;
. strength of the Irish language in the area;
. the achievements to date of the Committee itself and of the area in general,
as well as their future plans, to strengthen and sustain the Irish language
in the area;
. other facilities available in the area;
. population of the area;
. capability of the Committee overseeing the project;
. funds available to the Department for the scheme, and
. recommendations of the field staff of the Department.
6.3 Applications are examined in consultation with the Department's outdoor
staff and a recommendation to approve or reject a grant is submitted to the
Minister of State.
39 Page 40 41
40
6.4 Grants are usually allocated at rates ranging from 40% to 80% of admissible
cost to Committees who, in each case, must provide a site and documentation
certifying the Committee's ownership of the site to the Department and that
planning permission, if required, has been obtained for the works proposed on
the site. They are also obliged to nominate trustees to enter into an agreement
with the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.
6.5 Grants under this scheme are normally provided subject to the following
conditions that :
. all work is carried out to the satisfaction of the Department;
. the committee undertakes responsibility, in writing, for the maintenance of
the works;
. other committees in the area may be permitted to use the facility at suitable
times;
. appropriate certification for the building provided by the Fire Officer is
submitted, and
. appropriate arrangements are made to ensure that insurance cover is in place
for public use of the building.
6.6 Finally, the Department may also provide grant assistance to Committees
in the Gaeltacht to assist with the purchase of certain equipment which might
include sports equipment. The main criteria for receiving such assistance is
that it should benefit the Irish language as well as the cultural and social
life of the Gaeltacht area in question. The level of funding varies from year
to year depending on the amount of money available and the demand.
Issues Emerging for Dept of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands
6.7 It is clear from the above that the Department of Arts, Heritage,
Gaeltacht and the Islands is funding activities very similar to those grant-aided
under the Sports Capital Programme e. g. developments at playing fields, changing
rooms, tennis/ basketball courts, etc. That Department is very anxious to avoid
duplication with regard to State assistance of projects in Gaeltacht areas and
has suggested that where applications from Gaeltacht areas are received, they
should in the first instance, be referred to that Department for consideration
under their Scheme.
40 Page 41 42
41
6.8 The Review Group, bearing in mind that the need to avoid overlap and duplication
is one of the main objectives of the Review, recommends that :
. under the new Programme, applicants in Gaeltacht areas who wish to develop
sport/ recreational sport facilities should initially contact the Department
of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands regarding funding;
. where applications are received directly from Gaeltacht areas under the Sports
Capital Programme, they should be referred to the Department of Arts, Heritage,
Gaeltacht and the Islands for their views. In the event of that Department not
being in a position to grant aid particular projects, this Department would
then consider them in the context of the Sports Capital Programme.
Department of Education & Science
6.9 This Department provides various facilities at primary, post-primary,
tertiary and special levels.
6.10 In the case of the primary sector, General Purpose halls are provided
in schools with a minimum of 3 classrooms. Up to now, halls varied in size from
approx. 83.6m2 to 111.5m2 with an additional area for a Servery and PE Store.
The size of the hall was based on the size of the school. These sizes are now
considered insufficient and the entire planning data for the Primary Sector
are currently under review.
6.11 In the case of Post Primary Schools, PE halls are provided for Secondary,
Vocational and Community Schools and Colleges. The maximum size in this instance
is 393m2, with an additional 104m2 for PE Ancillary. This is also under review
by the Department to cater for the emphasis on PE/ Sport in the new curriculum.
It is important to note that at Primary and Post Primary levels, while designs
will in future, cater for indoor sports, the emphasis will be on Physical Education
and not competitive sports.
6.12 The tertiary sector is somewhat different, in that each Institute of
Technology and University has a comprehensive sports facility as part of its
campus development plan. Facilities in this case are currently capable of adequately
catering for Physical Education and
competitive sports. Facilities at all levels enjoy a measure of hard and soft
landscaped play areas for outdoor sports e. g. football, basketball, volleyball,
athletics etc.
41 Page 42 43
42
6.13 The level of funding available varies greatly from level to level. At primary
level, funding represents 85%-95% of construction and equipment costs. This
level is also available at post-primary although it is not uncommon for a Board
of Management to fund extra large halls partially themselves. Gealscoileanna
are generally 100% funded. The tertiary sector is funded on a project by project
basis and often combines public, private and institutional funding.
6.14 The Department is actively developing a points-based priority system,
hoping to identify those schools and institutions most in need. There are various
factors which determine the level of funding, but it would be fair to say that
the degree of disadvantage experienced by the school determines the percentage
grant. In some areas, where social exclusion and disadvantage reign, it would
be almost impossible for a Board of Management to raise a local contribution.
6.15 Planning data are being renewed at both Primary and Secondary level and
new design criteria should be available during the coming months. The tertiary
sector will continue to develop its sport and recreational facilities as part
of its various component master plans.
6.16 The Department is currently examining OECD proposals for the integration
of a range of community services on school sites, including adult education
and other social and welfare services. These proposals are contained in the
OECD PEB Papers titled "Under One Roof -The Integration of Schools and Community
Services in OECD Countries". The provision of integrated services has been identified
as having the potential to play a significant role in helping achieve "lifelong
learning" , an objective which was identified by the 1996 OECD conference at
Ministerial level as a nodel point of the OECD's work on education. These proposals
emphasise the necessity to optimise the use of buildings and facilities and
making schools better integrated by promoting synergies not only with local
communities but also with other services. It is likely that sport and recreation
will be considered under the same study, which will have implications for the
years ahead.
6.17 In addition, the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund will
provide funding to develop youth facilities, including sport and recreational
facilities, and services in
42 Page 43 44
43
disadvantaged areas. Monies under this Fund (which are currently held in the
Dept of Education & Science) should start coming on stream early next year.
Issues emerging for Department of Education & Science
6.18 As can be seen from the above, the Department of Education &
Science fund school halls to a certain size and specification. In the past,
schools, usually in conjunction with local clubs/ community groups, have applied
for funding under the existing Sports Capital Programme to build bigger size
halls which would be able to accommodate multi-purpose sports use e. g. indoor
soccer, basketball, badminton etc.
6.19 In considering the question of funding for school/ college sports building
projects under a new Sports Capital Programme, the Review Group agreed that
where they were only providing for the delivery of curricular sports activities,
they should not be eligible for funding. The Review Group recommends that schools
and colleges should be eligible for consideration for funding under the Sports
Capital Programme only where they provide for significant levels of usage by
the local community during periods when the facilities are not being used by
the schools themselves. It was felt that at least 30 hours use per week should
be provided in this regard. It was also felt that to be considered for funding,
schools and colleges must be able to demonstrate that the facilities proposed
are meeting an identified deficiency in that locality, as agreed with other
local groups and/ or the local authority. In keeping with the recommendations
of the 1997 Review Group on the National Lottery, applications from schools
and colleges will only be considered eligible for funding where they are submitted
jointly with a local club/ community group.
Local authorities
6.20 The Local Government Act, 1994 (Section 31) enables local authorities to
provide sports facilities, which can include playing fields, athletic tracks,
swimming pools and other bathing places, sports centres, gymnasia and other
facilities.
6.21 While local authorities have been major providers for many years of facilities
for sports, games and recreation, the Local Government Act 1994 updated and
endorsed this role by including specific modern legislative power in this regard.
43 Page 44 45
44
6.22 In the context of the ongoing major programme of local government renewal,
which aims to strengthen the role of local authorities and enhance the range
of services they provide, authorities are being encouraged to expand their community
development role and to develop partnerships with local people and other organisations
in supporting community activities. Continued involvement by local authorities
in the sports and recreation area fits readily with this wider role.
6.23 There will be a significant increase in the funds available to local
authorities as a result of buoyancy in motor tax and the new funding system
which comes into operation in 1999. The key elements of this new funding system
are the establishment of a statutory Local Government Fund and the financing
of non-national road improvements from national motor tax receipts. The statutory
Local Government Fund will comprise Exchequer Funding (a sum of £270m has been
provided in the Department's vote in 1999) and the proceeds of motor taxation.
This system will provide nearly £600m directly into the local authorities for
non-national roads and for the general purpose requirements of local authorities.
The Fund will be ring-fenced in legislation and used solely for local government
purposes. The Fund, which will be index-linked for future years, will take account
of the additional expenditure needs of local authorities.
Issues emerging for Local Authorities
6.24 As regards sport/ recreation/ amenity related projects, it is accepted
that local authorities have a key role to play in relation to each development.
Despite the increased funding available however, the Department of Environment
and Local Government is concerned that the involvement of local authorities
with such projectsmay have serious long-term financial implications. As a general
rule, authorities believe they should not become involved in projects where
potential liabilitiesor ongoing operational costs could be such as to seriously
impact on their financial position. Where authorities guarantee loans/ overdrafts
or underwrite anylosses, they would wish to ensure that arrangements are in
place to enable them to have control over the project.
6.25 The Review Group considers that it is vital that local authorities are
part of the planning and development of sport and recreational sport facilities
in the future, if a strategic and planned approach is to be put in place. In
the longer term, the Group would envisage a
44 Page 45 46
45
situation where applications for funding for facility development would go through
local authorities in the first instance. The proposed strategy for Economic,
Social and Cultural Development, to be drawn up by the County/ City Development
Boards by 2002, as set out in the recent Task Force Report on the Integration
of Local Development/ Local Government, offers an appropriate forum for consideration
of strategic plans for sport and recreational sport facilities in each local
authority area. The Review Group, therefore, recommends that local authorities
should consult with the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation and/ or
the Sports Council when drawing up their Development Plans. In the shorter term,
some consultative process should be put in place between the body making decisions
on grants and the individual local authorities.
Sports Council
6.26 The current non-statutory Sports Council, set up in June 1996 by
the then Minister for Sport, Bernard Allen TD, acts as an advisory body to the
Minister on all matters relating to sport. With the enactment of the Irish Sports
Council Bill, 1998, the current body will be replaced by a statutory Sports
Council for the first time in the history of the State. The Bill provides for
a new body which will be exclusively dedicated to the promotion and development
of sport. It also provides for a major broadening of the Council's role beyond
that of advising to include executive functions, including a number currently
carried out by the Department of Tourism,Sport and Recreation.
6.27 The Review Group considers that the change in status and role of the
Sports Council has particular significance in relation to the administration
of any new Sports Capital Programme. The Group notes that :
. the State will have a statutory Council for the first time ever;
. the new body will be exclusively dedicated to the promotion and development
of sport;
. the Bill requires the Council to encourage the promotion, development and
co-ordination of competitive sport and the achievement of excellence therein
and to develop strategies for increasing participation in recreational sport
and to co-ordinate their implementation through all bodies involved in promoting
recreational sport and in developing recreational facilities. They also empower
the Council to co-operate with, advise and provide assistance (including financial
assistance) to bodies in relation to the performance of its functions.
45 Page 46 47
46
Need for Co-ordination and Integration
6.28 In light of the number of Departments and Agencies involved in
facility provision, the Review Group considers that there is a clear need for
co-ordination and integration of spending on sports facilities. Inter-departmental
and inter-agency co-ordination in the planning and funding of facilities is
essential if a planned approach to facility provision is to be put in place
and duplication and overlap is to be avoided. At both local and national levels,
this co-operation and exchange of information is necessary for informed choices
to be made as to the best use of resources, bearing in mind current sport policy
objectives and priorities. The Group feels strongly that this co-ordination
and integration should be linked to an effective and transparent decision making
process.
6.29 Given the dedicated role provided for the Sports Council in the Irish
Sports Council Bill, in relation to the development of sport and recreation,
including its co-ordinating functions, the Review Group is strongly of the view
that the Council will be best placed to ensure the co-ordination and integration
of the Sports Capital Programme in the future with the activities of the other
Departments and Agencies involved in the provision of sport and recreational
sport facilities.
46
Page 47
48
47
7 Role of the National Governing Bodies of Sport
Introduction
7.1 National Governing Bodies play a pivotal role in the development
and delivery of sport in Ireland. Through their national network of members
and clubs, an infrastructure is put in place that is responsible for the development
of participation at all levels, coaching, competitive structures, administration
and facility development. NGBs also play a key role in terms of the development
of high performance and are the vehicle through which our top sports people
compete at international level.
7.2 This Chapter looks at the role of NGBs in terms of facility provision
in Ireland. Currently, seventy five NGBs are recognised by the Irish Sports
Council as eligible for funding by the State. A list of these is attached as
Appendix D.
Existing Role in terms of facility provision
7.3 Of the 75 NGBs, only three -the GAA, the FAI and the IRFU -have
developed a substantial number of facilities at local, regional and national
level. These facilities are owned and managed by their clubs, with the exception
of national facilities such as Croke Park and Lansdowne Road which are owned
by the NGBs. Clubs have benefited enormously since the introduction of lottery
funding. The grant aid provided has also encouraged local sport administrators
to develop training and competitive facilities.
7.4 Apart from these bodies, four other NGBs were allocated grants for developing/
upgrading their national facilities. These are Athletics (Morton Stadium £1.7m),
Basketball (National Arena £1.8m), Hockey (UCD pitch £0.7m) and Boxing (National
Stadium (£ 0.26m). The majority of NGBs, however, do not own facilities but
rely on community facilities to meet their training and competition needs.
47 Page 48 49
48
Existing role for NGBs in facility planning
7.5 The current decision making process for grant allocations under
the existing Sports Capital Programme does not provide a role for the NGBs.
As a result, clubs have developed projects in isolation and without consultation
with their individual governing body. The lack of a clearly defined role for
the NGBs had meant that clubs have developed facilities in an ad hoc manner
and without regard to the overall plan and priorities of their sport.
7.6 Minority NGBs who developed plans to meet the training and competitive
needs of their sport have been at a disadvantage in the current decision making
process as local requirements have often outweighed their needs. It has also
been the case that locally developed projects have been considered in isolation
of the requirements in terms of administration, coaching, leadership and youth
development programmes which are an essential element for the successful and
long-term viability of facilities.
Role of NGBs in the future
7.7 The Review Group recommends that the NGBs should have a specific
role in the future assessment of projects at national and county levels. Under
the proposed new assessment criteria, the sport development aspect of projects
will be an integral part of the decision making process.
7.8 The Review Group considers that such proposals should be considered in
the context of :
. NGB's strategy plan identifying its priorities and needs in terms of training
and competitive requirements and facility requirements within the framework
of a coaching structure for player/ athlete development;
. the current participation level within the sport and the targets and strategies
to increase participation;
. the current performance standard of their athletes in terms of high performance;
. the potential of the project to meet the identified facility needs of the sport;
. the agreement to multi-sport use; and
48
Page 49
50
49
. the links between the facility aspirations of the sport and existing facilities
at local, regional and national level.
7. 9 The Review Group also recommends that :
. clubs developing projects at national and regional levels should first ensure
that their proposals are consistent with the priorities of their NGBs and that
the necessary management personnel, infrastructure and training are in place
to ensure the viability of the proposed facility. Such proposals should be presented
for approval to their governing body who should, in turn, assess them based
on their identified priorities for facility development; and
. in cases where two or more regional projects are seeking funding, the NGB
should be asked to prioritise the projects based on their facility plans and
needs.
49 Page 50 51
50
8 Encouraging Private Sector Investment
Introduction
8.1 Among the key priorities identified in "An Action Programme for
the Millennium" for Sport and Leisure is the question of more joint venture
provision of national regional sports and recreational facilities, including
tax incentives, to encourage private sector involvement. The Review Group were
asked to review the potential for more joint provision of national sports and
recreational facilities, including the availability of tax incentives to encourage
private sector involvement.
8.2 As pointed out earlier in the Report, it is essential for the development
of sport in Ireland that we develop quality indoor and outdoor facilities, capable
of meeting the needs of communities, as well as training and competitive requirements.
However, the provision of such facilities, particularly at a national level,
should not be seen to be the exclusive responsibility of the State. The cost
involved for the State in providing major facilities at a national and regional
level is likely to be significant. The result of the State taking exclusive
responsibility for their provision is likely to be that such facilities will
only be provided within an extended timescale.
8.3. Given the recognition by the Government of the benefits of increased
participation in sport and recreation and its policy objectives in this regard,
the majority view of the Group was that there was a case to be made for encouraging
private sector involvement. The increased interest in sport and recreational
sport has the effect that, in certain areas, the provision of facilities could
be seen as profitable ventures as well as being advantageous social developments.
Nevertheless, in the absence of incentives to invest, the likelihood would be
that other more profitable investment options would be more attractive.
8.4 This Chapter looks at some of the options as to how co-operation between
the State and private enterprise on the provision of facilities at national
level might be encouraged.
50 Page 51 52
51
Trusts
8.5 The Review Group considered a recent report prepared for the Scottish
Sports Council by Drew Mackie Associates on Sport and Leisure Trusts in Scotland.
The Report, while recognising that setting up a Trust might have a short-term
gain, cautioned about the complexity of such an approach and the uncertainties
of its long term benefits. While all the relevant legal requirements in relation
to trusts may not be similar in Ireland, the Group considered that, in view
of the complexities associated with this approach and given the timescale to
complete the review, they could not explore it further in the context of this
Report. However, there may be some scope, in the context of the Community Trust
established recently by the Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs,
to access private sector funding for sport and recreational facilities in disadvantaged
areas.
Section 16 of the 1997 Finance Act
8.6 The Group considered that the best means of attracting private sector
investment to the provision of major sports facilities would be the availability
of tax incentives. One option which should be examined is the extension of Section
16 of the 1997 Finance Act or the introduction of a similar type of provision.
Section 16 introduced a new tax relief for gifts of money made to defined third
level institutions which are used for the purposes of projects approved by the
Minister for Education.
8.7 The representative of the Department of Finance did not support this recommendation
on the basis that the current policy is to cut back on tax reliefs and allowances
as business reliefs.
51 Page 52 53
52
9 Objectives and Parameters for a New Sports Capital Programme
Policy Framework
9.1 As outlined in Chapter 3, the Group reviewed the existing Programme
against the background of activities being undertaken in the sports area aimed
at meeting the objectives of the Government's Programme for the Millennium.
The key priorities set out in the Action Programme for the Millennium have been
reflected in the Department's Strategy Statement which was published in May
1998. The overall goal in relation to sport, as set out in the Strategy Statement,
is to formulate and oversee the implementation of policies for the promotion
and development of sport and to encourage increased participation in sport and
recreation, by disadvantaged communities.
9.2 To achieve this overall objective, the Department is committed to developing
a number of strategies. These include :
. Establishing a statutory Sports Council (in the first half of 1999);
. Putting in place a range of supports for High Performance Athletes (already
in place);
. Piloting special sport and recreation initiatives in disadvantaged areas (proposals
under consideration);
. Developing a national policy on recreation during 1999; and
. Developing appropriate sport and recreation strategies for disadvantaged areas,
including the targeting of funding for facilities in areas of greatest need,
by end 2000.
9.3 In addition, it is also important to bear in mind that the Sports Capital
Programme cannot be viewed in isolation from other Programmes operated by various
Departments and State Agencies. These include (i) the Department of Arts, Culture,
Gaeltacht and the Islands which provides grants towards providing/ improving
recreational facilities in Gaeltacht areas; (ii) the Department of Education
& Science provide PE halls and various other facilities in schools and colleges,
and
52 Page 53 54
53
(iii) Corporations and local authorities around the country are involved in
facility provision in the areas of swimming pools, football pitches, tennis
courts etc.
Structure of a new Programme
9.4 Having regard to the policy framework set out above and on the basis
of the findings of this review, the Review Group recommends that the main aims
and objectives of a new Capital Programme should be :
. to develop an integrated and planned approach to the development of sport
and recreational sport facilities;
. to assist voluntary and community organisations with the development of appropriate
facilities in appropriate locations that will maximise use in terms of participation.
The facilities should be high quality, safe, well designed and sustainable to
both the user and the provider;
. to prioritise the needs of disadvantaged areas in the provision of facilities;
and
. to encourage and prioritise the multi purpose use of facilities at national,
regional and community level by clubs, community organisations and NGBs.
9.5 In considering the most appropriate structure for a new Programme, the
Review Group examined three options :
Option 1 : Two Schemes similar to what the Department has been operating
for the past few years. The distinction between sports and recreational facilities
would continue but with a clear definition of each and a particular focus on
disadvantaged areas.
This approach would essentially be a continuation of what we have at present
under the current Programme but based on a clear distinction between sport and
recreation and a particular focus on disadvantaged areas in line with the commitments
in the Department's Strategy Statement. The real difficulty here would be in
drawing up separate workable definitions of sport and recreational facilities.
Trying to operate the two schemes, each with a focus on disadvantaged areas,
would compound the problem and would be cumbersome to administer and manage.
The possibility of overlap and duplication in terms of funding similar types
of facilities,
53 Page 54 55
54
as happens at present under the existing Programme, would remain strong. The
Review Group considers that this approach would not be the most strategic in
terms of facility planning for the future and could lead to a fragmentation.
Option 2 : A specific Scheme for sports and recreational facilities
in disadvantaged areas and a general Scheme for sports and recreational facilities.
This option would mean ring-fencing a certain percentage of capital funding
for disadvantaged areas which makes it attractive, given the Department's overall
policy
objective. However, it would require a high degree of co-ordination between
the two Schemes, if a strategic approach is to be guaranteed in terms of future
facility provision and overlap and duplication are to be minimised. As with
Option 1, it could lead to a lack of co-ordination in terms of facility development
in the years ahead and could be cumbersome administratively depending on where
responsibility for each Scheme was assigned. In the circumstances, the Review
Group considers that it would not result in the best use of available resources.
Option 3 : One Scheme which would cover sport and recreational facilities
with specific provisions in relation to funding facilities in disadvantaged
areas
This option has obvious benefits in that one Programme would be easier to
operate and manage in a co-ordinated way. It would ensure that all available
resources are in the one fund; would allow for effective prioritisation of funding
in line with stated sports policy objectives; would allow strategic decisions
to be made as to how monies should be allocated and would ensure an integrated
holistic approach to facility provision. It should also result in duplication
and overlap being kept to a minimum and would assist in achieving economies
of scale.
9.6 The Review Group considers that this is the best option for putting in
place a workable and strategic approach to planning and funding facilities in
the future.
Main elements of a new Programme
54 Page 55 56
55
9.7 In drawing up the main elements of a new Sports Capital Programme, the Review
Group considered the issues emerging in the earlier Chapters and also reviewed
the selection procedures and terms and conditions applied by the Sports Councils
for Northern Ireland and Scotland in allocating Lottery funding under their
Capital Programmes. The Group recommends that the following main elements should
be included in a new Sports Capital Programme :
Who should be funded
9.8 In line with the recommendations in the 1997 Report of the National
Lottery Review Group, applications should only be invited from, or on behalf
of, voluntary and community organisations inclusive of sports clubs, community
and voluntary groups and, in certain circumstances, schools and colleges.
Needs of Disadvantaged Areas
9.9 Sport and leisure is seen to play an important role in the mental,
as well as the physical well-being of individuals, especially in disadvantaged
communities. As well as being socio-economic blackspots and suffering multiple
levels of deprivation, many of these areas would appear to have little in the
way of sport and recreational facilities available in their communities.
9.10 This is borne out by research recently carried out by local Development
Groups in the context of preparing plans under the Young People's Facilities
and Services Fund. The purpose of this Fund is to develop youth facilities,
including sport and recreational facilities, and services in disadvantaged areas
where a significant drug problem exists or has the potential to develop, with
a view to attracting young people in those areas, at risk of becoming involved
in drugs, into more healthy and productive pursuits. The bulk of the Fund is
focused on thirteen areas -twelve in Dublin and one in the north of Cork city.
A background note on the Fund is attached as Appendix E.
9.11 The research points to a severe shortage of sport and recreation facilities
in many of the areas in which the Fund is operating. The provision of facilities
does not, in itself, however, ensure increased participation by the local communities
from disadvantaged areas. Experience to date would suggest that clubs and community
groups need to employ a range of strategies to (i) ensure that they have access
to available facilities, (ii) encourage local people to make use
55 Page 56 57
56
of them and (iii) ensure that they are attracted by what is on offer in the
facilities.
9.12 In planning future facility development for disadvantaged areas, it will,
therefore, be necessary to cross-reference areas of high economic and social
disadvantage with areas where there is an under-supply of facilities at present.
Strategies will also have to be developed to attract local people, particularly
young people, into the facilities. In this regard, the Group were conscious
of the various other measures being put in place over the coming months. These
include piloting special sport and recreation initiatives in disadvantaged areas
(proposals are under consideration) and the drawing up of a recreation policy
during 1999.
9.13 In terms of developing facilities, a persistent problem in disadvantaged
areas is the difficulty many clubs and local groups have in raising local funding.
To help overcome this issue, the Review Group recommends that that where the
facilities proposed are located in disadvantaged areas, the maximum percentage
of grant-aid available should be increased to 80% (as opposed to 70% in non-disadvantaged
areas). Where it is possible for clubs and community organisations in such areas
to access other sources of State/ EU funding to make up the balance of the overall
cost of the project, they will only be required to raise 5% of funding locally
(as opposed to 10% in non-disadvantaged areas), if deemed appropriate in the
context of projects contributing to overall policy priorities.
9.14 This is in line with recommendations in the Report of the Review Group
on the National Lottery which state that (i) all lottery funding should be concentrated
on supporting voluntary and community sector activities in the future and (ii)
the needs of the most disadvantaged groups within the voluntary and community
sector should be prioritised in the allocation of lottery funds within individual
programmes. The Review Group strongly supports this view and recommends that
the sport and recreation facility needs of disadvantaged areas should be clearly
prioritised in the allocation of funding under any new Sports Capital Programme.
9.15 The Review Group considered how areas of 'disadvantage' might be defined.
It is recommended that, in the short term, information and indicators used by
56 Page 57 58
57
Area Development Management Ltd to designate disadvantaged areas under the Operational
Programme for Local, Urban and Rural Development, should be used. ADM Ltd are
currently updating this information. In the longer term, when detailed information
on existing facilities throughout the country is available, this should also
be used to give a fuller picture of 'disadvantage'.
Assessment Criteria
9.16 The Review Group considers that all applications should be assessed in
terms of the community benefit of the project in a sporting/ recreational sport
context i.e. will the project :
. increase active participation in the sport/ recreational sport and, if so,
by how much; and/ or
. result in improved standards of sporting performance.
9.17 In terms of assessing and selecting projects for funding, there should
be a focus on :
. the extent to which the project, in terms of growth targets, will increase
the levels of active participation in sport/ recreational sport and/ or result
in improved standards of sporting performance and how such increases can be
measured;
. the extent to which the project, in terms of growth targets, will serve to
increase participation in disadvantaged areas;
. the technical merits of the project i. e. does the project comply with standard
technical specifications from the relevant governing body and statutory authorities;
. the financial viability of the project i. e. in addition to Lottery funding,
has the applicant the finance to start the project and complete it within a
realistic timeframe;
. given realistic projections of income from the project, will it generate enough
income to maintain itself for the future;
. the level of socio-economic disadvantage in the area, as defined by ADM Ltd's
indicators, and the current and planned levels of sport and/ or recreational
sport facilities in the area;
. the need to achieve an equitable geographical spread of funds, having regard
to the range of existing facilities in each county;
. the extent to which applicants have consulted with other clubs, community
groups, schools and the local authority in developing their proposals and the
outcome of these consultations;
57 Page 58 59
58
. in the case of projects aimed at attracting people from disadvantaged areas,
the strategies to be used to attract them;
. the need to achieve an equitable spread of funds among different sports and
community groups;
. the priority of proposed improvements/ facility in relation to the club/ organisation's
existing facilities; and
. the priorities for their individual sports, as identified by the NGBs.
Levels of funding
9.18 Applicants must contribute a proportion of the project cost from
their own resources. This provides assurance that the applicant can generate
funds and will be able to maintain and manage the completed facility. In addition,
an organisation is more likely to maintain and get the most from a facility
to which it has contributed financially rather than having it all paid for by
others. In some cases, applicants may be in a position to access other State/
EU sources of funding to make up the balance of the overall cost of the project.
Where this happens, applicants must still contribute a minimum of 10% of
their own funds, except in disadvantaged areas where it may be reduced to 5%,
if deemed appropriate, in the context of projects contributing to overall
policy priorities.
9.19 The Review Group recommends that future applications for Lottery funding
should be categorised in terms of local, regional and national facilities.
Applications for local facilities will primarily come from local sports clubs
and community/ voluntary organisations. Regional applications would cover such
facilities as county football/ rugby/ soccer grounds and regional sports centres
while national facilities would relate to stadia such as Lansdowne Road, Croke
Park, Morton Stadium etc. In general, it is expected that the bulk of applications
will relate to local facility development.
9.20 Each case should be considered on its own merits and in exceptional cases,
grants up to the following maximum levels will be payable :
Applicant Status Maximum Funding
Local facilities 70%
58
Page 59
60
59
Regional Facilities 50%
National Facilities As considered appropriate given the scale of the proposed
development
Disadvantaged Areas 80%
Phased Developments
9.21 Under the existing Programme, the phased development of facilities is
quite common given the level of grant aid provided in some cases, relative to
the overall cost. The Review Group considers that the practice of allocating
relatively small grants to a large number of projects is unhelpful in terms
of a planned approach to facility development and should be discontinued. The
amount of grant aid provided should have regard to the level of matching funds
available given the overall cost of completing the project and should, as far
as possible, give the project developers a realistic chance of getting the development
off the ground.
Application Form
9.22 Given the lack of qualitative data and information supplied on
the existing application form, the Review Group recommends that a detailed form
be drawn up to reflect the assessment criteria outlined above. Explanatory leaflets
and more detailed project guidelines for applicants should also be developed.
The Review Group accepts that it may not be possible to develop the more detailed
guidelines in advance of the 1999 round of grant allocations and that this may
fall to the Sports Council to progress in due course.
59 Page 60 61
60
How decisions are made
9.23 One of the issues highlighted in Chapter 5 was the short-comings of the
decision making process under the existing Programme. To ensure transparency
in the future decision making process and a co-ordinated and planned approach,
the Review Group recommends that as part of the assessment process, applications
should be considered by a Committee comprising of representatives of the Department
of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, the Sports Council and other relevant Departments
and agencies involved in facility provision (such as those represented on the
Review Group).
9.24 For the 1999 round of grant allocations, the Review Group
recommends that this Committee should consider applications based on specified
criteria and make recommendations to the Minister as to the projects to be grant-aided.
Upon establishment of the Sports Council in mid-1999, on a statutory basis,
it should be the primary decision making authority on the allocation of funding
under the Programme and any funding earmarked for the Programme should be assigned
to it.
Other elements of a new Programme
Project Viability
9.25 Applicants must be able to demonstrate that the project is viable
and that they have sufficient resources to meet the running and maintenance
costs of a Lottery funded project for a reasonable period after completion.
This requires clubs and other organisations to undertake a more business-like
approach to planning their facilities, thereby ensuring, where possible, that
supply matches demand and that long-term viability is addressed.
School/ College Projects
9.26 In a new Programme, school/ college sports facilities will not
be eligible for grant aid where they provide for the delivery of curricular
sports activities only. To be considered for funding, they must also :
. provide for significant levels of usage by the local community during periods
when the facilities are not being used by the school itself (at least 30
hours per week throughout the year); and
. demonstrate that the facilities concerned will meet an identified deficiency
in that locality, as agreed with other local groups and/ or the local authority.
60 Page 61 62
61
9.27 Applications from schools and colleges should be made jointly with local
sports clubs/ community groups.
Equal Opportunities
9.28 Applicants will have to show that their rules and actions do not
discriminate on the grounds of sex, religion, ethnic origin etc. All groups
funded under the Sports Capital Programme will be required to ensure that their
projects are accessible to people with disabilities. It will be a condition
of funding that groups will be required to show evidence of how they meet the
accessibility requirements.
Prioritisation of Applications
9.29 While all applications will be treated on their merits, the highest
priority will be afforded to projects in disadvantaged areas aimed at increasing
participation, particularly for young people. Those projects where the main
purpose is to provide a facility which enables people to take part in sport/
recreational sport or raise the standards of performance will also be accorded
high priority. Such projects will include, for example, playing facilities,
changing accommodation, essential sport and maintenance equipment and training
facilities (including floodlighting). Lower priority projects will include those
which are not essential or integral to sports participation or performance e.
g. landscaping of grounds, boundary fences, equipment stores etc.
Deeds of Trust
9.30 In the case of all grant allocations over £39,000, clubs and community
organisations will be required to execute a Deed of Trust to safeguard the State's
investment in the development, as under the existing Programme.
Need for Consultation
9.31 As a first step to developing a planned approach to facility provision
in the future, the Review Group considers that before clubs and community organisations
make applications for funding, they should be obliged to consult with local
schools, other clubs and groups in their areas and the local authority. This
would ensure that proposed developments do not result in duplication and/ or
overlap with existing facilities. The Review Group are very keen
61 Page 62 63
62
to ensure, as far as possible, that schools, clubs and community groups share
existing facilities and that future developments are planned in an integrated
way so as to a