Home >Documents >2017|18 · — Gregg Braden The EPG Committee The EPG comprises prominent personalities, men and...

2017|18 · — Gregg Braden The EPG Committee The EPG comprises prominent personalities, men and...

Date post:22-Jan-2020
Category:
View:2 times
Download:0 times
Share this document with a friend
Transcript:
  • Published in the Republic of South Africa by SRSA

    Regent Place Building66 Queen StreetPretoria

    Private Bag x 896, Pretoria, 0001Tel. 012 304 5000www.srsa.gov.za

    EMIN

    ENT

    PER

    SON

    ’S G

    RO

    UP

    20

    18 S

    PO

    RT

    TRA

    NSF

    OR

    MA

    TIO

    N S

    TATU

    S R

    EP

    OR

    T O

    VE

    RV

    IEW

    epgEminent Persons Groupon Transformation in Sport

    TransformationCommission

    EPG Sport Transformation Status Report Overview

    2017|18

  • TOKOZILE XASA, MPSport & Recreation South Africa

    “The remainder of this political administration must be about, school sport, active nation and transformation. South Africans must see themselves in all our national teams.”

    “The key to our transformation is simply this: the better we know ourselves the better equipped we

    will be to make our choices wisely.”— Gregg Braden

    The EPG Committee

    The EPG comprises prominent personalities, men and

    women of good standing in society:

    Mr Happy Ntshingila, the Chair of the EPG

    Ms Ria Ledwaba

    Dr Willie Basson

    Mr Louis von Zeuner

    Mr Maxwell Moss

    Prof Marion Keim-Lees

    Mrs Wimpie du Plessis

    Mr Mark Williams

    Mr Songezo Lubabalo Nayo

    Mr Fezile Gobizembe Sipamla

    Ms Nomsa Mahlangu

    Mr Tebogo Selesho, and

    Ms Nizenande Machi

    2 | SRSA – Emminent Persons GroupSport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|18

  • For different reasons, major political and economically-

    driven transformation processes are sweeping across the

    globe, resulting in a need for effective responses from

    nations and organisations, in order for them to survive and

    prosper. South Africans are not alone in coming to terms

    with the realities of having to adapt to the rapidly-changing

    multi-dimensional environment in which they operate.

    Inequality has many dimensions. There is inequality at

    the top, where the share of income is grabbed by a small

    percentage of people, and inequality at the bottom, which is

    reflected in the number of people in poverty and the depth

    of poverty. There is also inequality in health and in access

    to education, as well as gender inequity and childhood

    deprivation - all of which lead to ‘inequality of opportunity’.

    High levels of inequality of opportunity simply mean that

    those who weren’t born of parents of means have little

    chance of living up to their potential. This is, of course, a

    disaster, not only for these individuals but also for society,

    because it not using its most important asset fully, i.e. its

    people.

    Ongoing exclusion of people from opportunities to develop

    to their full potential will have consequences for all people in

    society at large. We leave others behind at our peril. If we want

    a society of people with a vested interest, everyone should

    feel that being part of that society and complying with its

    rules is a rewarding experience. Today, many are increasingly

    being left behind, with no hope of social mobility. Too many

    people are living lives devoid of human dignity due to abject

    poverty, which is at 64% among Black people, and 55% in

    the population as a whole. Poverty prevents people from

    entering “the race” and even when they do, they carry so

    much baggage that the odds of excelling are small. Social

    injustice, particularly when it involves unfair distribution

    of opportunities, is a huge factor underlying a fractured

    society. The battle between the haves and the have-nots is

    the essence of our fractured society.

    Social justice is a constitutional imperative, as it is about

    the fair and just distribution of opportunities, resources,

    privileges and burdens in society. The preamble of our

    Constitution promises to provide a foundation “to heal

    the divisions of the past and establish a society based on

    democratic values, social justice and fundamental human

    rights”. It further promises “to improve the quality of life of all

    citizens and free the potential of every person”.

    Advancing social justice, therefore, is about delivering

    on our constitutional promise. At an indaba held in

    2011, the way forward for sport was defined, with the

    adoption of a Transformation Charter, the establishment

    of a transformation commission and the EPG, and the

    introduction of annual transformation audits.

    Transformation CharterSport’s structured response to the changing environment

    was the adoption of a Transformation Charter at a National

    Sport and Recreation Indaba held in November 2011, 17 years

    after the first democratic elections were held in 1994..

    The Charter is based on the non-racial, non-sexist and

    democratic principles as enshrined in the Constitution; the

    legal framework of the National Sport and Recreation Act

    of 1998; the White Paper on Sport and Recreation of 2013;

    the Department of Sport and Recreation of South Africa’s

    Strategic Plan and the long-term imperatives of the National

    Development Plan.

    The Charter describes a multi-dimensional process, with

    the purpose of bringing about a sport system within which

    the majority of South Africans are provided with equitable

    opportunity to participate and excel in sport, both on and

    off the field of play. The process is based on two sets of

    drivers. The first is based on altruistic or social justice moral

    principles and is seen as the ‘right thing to do’, because of

    social injustices committed in the past. The other is based

    on strategic considerations, because of their direct impact

    on longer-term sustainability and the competitiveness of

    organisations.

    The purpose of the transformation Charter is to increase the

    number of people who participate in sport, based on fair

    and equitable access to participation opportunities on and

    off the field of play.

    The Transformation Charter acts as a beacon that guides

    the sport system’s journey to bring about systematic

    change in key strategic areas (dimensions), as part of sport’s

    social contribution; these are: participation opportunity;

    Overview

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|18SRSA – Emminent Persons Group | 3

  • development of skills and capabilities; representative

    demographic profiles on and off the field of play; improving

    and optimising performance quality; governance and

    economic empowerment.

    Sport’s multi-dimensional transformation approach

    supports steady and deliberate progress towards the

    establishment of an accessible, sustainable and competitive

    sport system that is based on systematic change in the

    participation demographic profiles, which approach

    is rooted in the vision of providing equitable access to

    infrastructure, resources and participation opportunities,

    in tandem with skill and capability development on and off

    the field of play.

    The access, skills and capability dimensions of the Charter

    are central to the achievement of the ultimate goals and

    objectives of the Charter. Linking activities in cause and

    effect relationships associated with these two dimensions

    to the top and bottom ends of the participation pyramid

    are key to the process. The better the quality of this linking,

    the greater the impact will be at the top end. The access

    dimension will ultimately impact on the representativity of

    sport’s demographic profile, while the quality of the skills and

    capability dimension will contribute to the competitiveness

    of the overall sport system.

    Each component dimension of the Charter is quantifiable in

    terms of the measurable outcomes of actions that are aimed

    at ultimately bringing about changes in the sport system,

    which will, in turn, produce breakthrough results in key

    areas. Achieving breakthrough results involves embedding

    transformation principles in day-to-day operations, so that

    everyone’s job is permeated with these.

    The transformation measurement system represents a

    framework of measures that monitor and track the impact/

    outcome of selected activities identified as the key drivers

    of transformation. Performance measures described in

    the Charter establish and monitor transformation status

    in a prescribed and one-size-fits-all format, which treats

    all federations on the same basis, regardless of the unique

    differences between some of these. Non-achievement of the

    predetermined targets is not subject to the imposition of a

    penalty.

    Eminent Persons Group (EPG)At a sport Indaba held in 2011, it was recognised that

    implementation of the Charter could be problematic and

    that an independent verification agency is critical to the

    veracity of the true measure and pace of change. This led

    to the appointment of an independent Transformation

    Commission, the Eminent Persons Group (EPG), by

    the Minister of Sport and Recreation, to review, make

    recommendations and report on sport’s transformation

    status on an annual basis. This, the 2016/17 transformation

    status report, is the 6th since establishment of the EPG.

    The EPG mandate includes the ‘establishment of a

    management system to monitor, evaluate, advise and

    report on sport’s transformation status and the effectiveness

    of implementation of the Transformation Charter and

    its associated scorecards. The purpose of the EPG is to

    make recommendations and to ensure the sport Ministry

    has adequate information and understanding to assess

    transformation and, where necessary, to intervene in

    improving the rate and effectiveness of transformation in all

    areas of South African sport.

    Federation Transformation Status 2017/18The 2017/18 transformation audit report is the sixth since

    the introductory audit pilot that included athletics, cricket,

    football, netball and rugby in 2011. A further five reports

    followed from 2012 onwards, which included an additional

    14 federations. This report further expands the window into

    the current transformation status of South African sport,

    based on the analysis of data submitted by the 19 audited

    federations, namely: amateur boxing, athletics, basketball,

    baseball, bowls, chess, cricket, football, gymnastics, hockey,

    jukskei, netball, rowing, rugby, softball, swimming, table

    tennis, tennis and volleyball.

    It also provides further insight into and understanding of two

    factors that impact the rate and extent of transformation:

    the ‘state of school sport’ and ‘the impact of population

    demographic change’. These are highlighted in Volume 3 of

    this report, i.e. the annexure to the report.

    Federation transformation status is reflected in two

    scorecard structures. One is based on achievement of the

    prescribed and one-size-fits-all targets of the Transformation

    Charter (introduced in 2011); the other is the ‘Barometer’

    introduced in 2016/17, which is based on the achievement of

    a federation’s self-set and forward-looking projected targets

    that form part of the MoUs entered into with SRSA and

    SASCOC.

    Unlike with previous reports, the 2017/18 Status Report

    comprises three separate volumes.

    The first volume, titled, ‘EPG: Individual Federation

    Barometer and Sport Transformation Charter Scorecards’,

    covers individual federation transformation status in

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|184 | SRSA – Emminent Persons Group

  • selected Transformation Charter categories in scorecard

    format. The scorecard reflects federation transformation

    status based on:

    a. The percentage of predetermined, one-size-fits-all

    Charter targets achieved.

    b. The percentage of federation self-set and forward

    projected MoU based ‘Barometer’ targets achieved.

    The non-achievement of predetermined, one-size-fits-

    all Transformation Charter targets, are not subject to the

    imposition of a penalty - unlike with non-achievement of

    self-set Barometer targets. Transformation progress in this

    instance is dependent on the voluntary implementation of

    corrective action by federations, in response to the findings,

    comments and recommendations captured in annual EPG

    transformation status reports.

    However, non-achievement of 50% or more of a federation’s

    self-set targets could lead to the imposition of one or more

    of the following penalties: suspension or withdrawal of any

    funding from government; revoking of authority to bid for

    international tournaments; withdrawal of opportunity to

    award national colours, and/or withdrawal of recognition as

    national federation in terms of the National Sports Act.

    As experienced by the five pilot federations, athletics, cricket,

    football, netball and rugby in the last year, because of the

    Barometer, transformation audit processes are no longer

    without consequences which makes data reliability, quality

    control and data verification processes and leadership

    accountability non-negotiable.

    The second volume of the report is titled, ‘EPG: Comparative

    Transformation Status Dashboard and Narrative’, reflects

    federation transformation status on a comparative basis in

    dashboard and summary narrative formats. These are based

    on the achievement of predetermined, one-size-fits-all

    Transformation Charter targets.

    The third volume of the report - the Annexure – summarises:

    the ‘implementation status of EPG recommendations’;

    the ‘effect of the ‘current school sport status on sport

    transformation’; the impact of ‘population demographic

    change on federation sustainability profiles’; and the impact

    of selected issues on transformation progress’.

    Federation Data InputMonitoring sport’s transformation status is based on annual

    EPG processes that involve the regular, systematic collection

    and analysis of data and information related to action that

    drives change in key areas, as defined in the transformation

    charter. The outcome of these activities provides evidence

    for the following:

    a. The extent to which the transformation programme is

    being delivered as intended.

    b. Whether or not predetermined Charter and self-set

    ‘Barometer’ targets are being achieved.

    c. Whether or not there is enough progress being made

    towards the achievement of Charter objectives.

    d. Whether or not changes and/or adaptations to the

    approach to transformation are required.

    Evaluation of transformation status enables appropriate

    questions to be asked and judgement calls to be made,

    based on specific criteria. The intention is not to simply

    assess what impact has been seen, but also why the impact

    has occurred, what lessons can be learnt, and how the

    programme might be improved.

    Change occurs when people start looking at things

    differently. Nothing will create change in organisations

    quicker than changing the lens of performance

    measurement, as measurement and target setting are

    crucial enablers of change.

    Integral to the annual transformation audit processes is

    the quality of data collected, formatted and submitted

    by federations. Although much improved since the first

    transformation audit that was conducted in 2011/12, it is not

    yet to the required standard. In most instances, this is due

    to: a lack of finance and human resources; below standard

    data collection and data management processes;

    ineffective support from affiliate structures; sub-optimal

    federation leadership support and accountability.

    A subjective process of evaluating data sheet quality and

    reliability was introduced in 2016 and repeated in 2017. It was

    based on the following criteria: timeliness of submission;

    perceived completeness and reliability of data packages;

    leadership commitment to the process; support received

    from affiliated entities.

    Based on these norms, an average data quality score of 49%

    for all federations was calculated. Thirteen of the nineteen

    federations audited were at the top end of the scoreboard

    and scored between 78% and 50%, in the following order:

    cricket, rugby, netball, gymnastics, rowing, softball,

    swimming, bowls, hockey, jukskei, tennis, table tennis and

    football. The remaining six federations were at the bottom

    end and scored between 10% and 30%, in the following

    order: volleyball, athletics, baseball, amateur boxing, chess

    and basketball.

    The quality of data submissions received from some

    federations (notably cricket, netball and rugby) have

    improved consistently over time and have become

    benchmarks for the process.

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|18SRSA – Emminent Persons Group | 5

  • Data Quality Input 2016 and 2017Eleven of the nineteen federations showed an improvement

    of between 48 and 3 percentage points in terms of the

    quality of data submitted from 2016 to 2017; these were:

    softball, volleyball, cricket, netball, rugby, swimming, rowing

    and boxing. In contrast, the data packages received from

    athletics, bowls, hockey, jukskei, football, tennis and chess,

    showed a decline in quality, ranging from 3% to 33% over the

    same period.

    Factors impacting data quality and reliability include:

    suspect administrative support structures; financial

    resource limitations; uncooperative affiliate structures and

    leadership commitment to the process; and inadequate

    database and data collection structures and processes.

    Transformation Charter (prescribed, one-size-fits-all) Target Achievement The rate of progress and the extent of achieving the

    transformation objectives of the Charter are influenced by

    factors affecting different federations differently, because

    of the unique and dissimilar circumstances. These factors

    include:

    • level and extent of inequality, particularly ‘inequality of

    opportunity’ among constituent members;

    • culture and value differences as a result of imbalance in

    demographic profiles in federation leadership structures,

    which influence decision making;

    • sustainability and competitiveness consequences as a

    result of the changing national population demographic

    profile, which impacts the future shape of organisations;

    • the state of sport in schools, particularly at the majority of

    the 25 000 public schools and a changing previous model

    C school environment.

    The 2017/18 audit report showed that the best performing

    Charter categories, i.e. those in which the highest percentage

    of federations achieved the predetermined, ‘one size fits all’

    Charter targets, included:

    Presidents - 63%; CEOs - 62%; board members - 53%; senior

    male national teams - 47%; female board members - 42%;

    and female referee/umpires - 42%.

    The worst performing Charter categories, i.e. those in

    which the lowest percentage of federations achieved the

    predetermined Charter targets, included:

    Male coaches, male underage team managers and

    senior team selectors, as only 37% of federations achieved

    the Charter’s generic Black targets; followed by 32% of

    federations achieving the predetermined targets for senior

    national female teams, female coaches, male referees/

    umpires, and senior national team managers.

    All are categories in which performances need to be

    improved.

    Of concern is the small number of federations - only 21% -

    that achieved the predetermined 60% Charter target for

    generic Black and Black African targets for both male and

    female underage national teams, as this is the foundation

    of future demographic and competitive profiles of senior

    national entities.

    Only four federations - football, table tennis, netball

    and baseball - achieved the male underage national

    representative team predetermined Charter generic Black

    target of 60%. And only four federations - football, table

    tennis, volleyball and amateur boxing - achieved the generic

    Black target for female underage national representative

    entities. From a transformation perspective, these figures

    signal significant pipeline challenges (male and female)

    for many of the federations audited - a formidable strategic

    weakness in the sport system.

    Compared to pre-1994 and the 20-year period immediately

    thereafter, the current situation reflects a much-changed

    sport transformation scenario. This is largely due to the

    introduction of the Transformation Charter and the EPG in

    2011, the Barometer project in 2016/17 and the regularity of

    EPG transformation audits since 2011.

    Overall, transformation status in terms of individual

    federation prescribed, ‘one-size-fits-all’ Charter target

    achievement is reflected in the following table:

    FEDERATION % OF PRESCRIBED CHARTER TARGETS ACHIEVED

    Football 89

    Volleyball 67

    Table Tennis 67

    Amateur Boxing 61

    Cricket 61

    Basketball 56

    Softball 50

    Athletics 50

    Netball 50

    Chess 44

    Rugby 28

    Baseball 22

    Gymnastics 17

    Swimming 17

    Tennis 17

    Hockey 11

    Jukskei 6

    Bowls 0

    Rowing 0

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|186 | SRSA – Emminent Persons Group

  • The table shows that nine of the nineteen federations

    audited (47% of the total) achieved 50% or more of all

    prescribed Charter targets as follows football, with 89%; table

    tennis, 67%; volleyball, 67%; amateur boxing, 61%; cricket,

    61%; softball, 56%; basketball, 56%; netball and athletics, 50%.

    One federation (chess - with 44%) was the only federation

    to achieve between 40% and 49% of all prescribed Charter

    targets.

    The ten federations at the bottom achieved between 28% and

    0% of all predetermined Charter targets. These federations

    were: rugby with 28%; baseball, 22%; gymnastics, 17%; tennis,

    17%; swimming, 17%, hockey, 11%; jukskei, 6%, bowls, 0% and

    rowing 0%. All are experiencing difficulties, but some more

    than others, in achieving the predetermined, one-size-fits-

    all Charter targets adopted in 2011.

    As shown in the table above, the transformation performance

    gap between the top group of federations achieving 50%

    or more and the bottom group of federations achieving

    between 28% and 0% of predetermined Charter targets,

    is substantial. The split between the two groups suggests

    a two-component sport system from a transformation

    perspective. The one component demonstrates good

    transformation progress measured in terms of achievement

    of the predetermined and one-size-fits-all Charter targets,

    while the other half reflects slow progress has been made

    since 1994.

    The light at the end of the transformation tunnel for some

    federations in the bottom half of the table may be dimming.

    This is mainly due to what appears to be slow or ineffective

    change in the demographic profile, particularly in the

    following areas: senior and underage male and female

    representative teams; high performance groups; coach;

    referees/umpire; medical/scientific; leadership structures.

    Most of these federations seem to be characterised

    by structures that are predominantly White. In this

    instance, ineffective response to the impact of national

    and regional population demographic changes and

    small demographically non-representative participation

    footprints in the lower age groups, could lead to longer term

    sustainability (and competitive) challenges.

    The historic human resource base of several federations

    are in the process of changing because of the impact of an

    ageing White population and the decline in numbers.

    Federation Self-set and Forward Projected Barometer Target AchievementBased on the experience and lessons learned on how to

    improve the rate and extent of transformation, the 2011

    predetermined, one-size-fits-all Charter scorecard was

    supplemented by a self-set target Barometer process in

    2015/16. With this process, participating federations set

    and project forward their own targets in selected Charter

    dimensions, based on a Memorandum of Agreement with

    SRSA and SASCOC.

    In terms of the MoA, failure of a federation to achieve 50%

    or more of its self-set targets could lead to the imposition of

    one or more of the following penalties:

    suspension or withdrawal of any funding from government; revoking of the authority to bid for international tournaments; withdrawal of opportunity to award national colours, and/or withdrawal of recognition as a national federation in terms of the National Sports Act.

    The Barometer process involves 5 federations - athletics,

    cricket, football, netball and rugby – and was successfully

    piloted in 2016. This led to the project being expanded to

    include the remaining 14 federations, in 2017.

    The purpose of the ‘Barometer’ is to address the inherent

    weakness of the prescribed, one-size- fits-all federation target

    system of the Charter, in order to: encourage more focused

    and greater leadership transformation accountability within

    national and provincial sport federation structures; and to

    promote a more informed strategic and forward-looking

    approach to bringing about change.

    The Barometer process has had a major effect on federation

    attitude and support, because of: the added responsibility of

    setting and projecting forward own transformation targets;

    and the threat of a penalty imposition for non-achievement

    of 50% or more of the self-set targets.

    The process highlighted the challenges faced by most

    federations to set and project forward their own targets in

    the selected Charter categories. This was, in some instances,

    due to insufficient knowledge and insight into a federation’s

    current situation, and understanding of how those factors

    shape its future. This was evident in the mechanistic and, at

    times, guesstimating way in which many federations set and

    projected transformation related targets forward. The quality

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|18SRSA – Emminent Persons Group | 7

  • of federation longer-term thinking with respect to possible

    future positions was often vague and uncertain. Additionally,

    season to season planning and budget processes appears to

    dominate thought processes in many federation structures.

    Federation self-set ‘Barometer’ targets differ from

    prescribed, one-size- fits-all Transformation Charter targets,

    in that the latter is not necessarily aligned to an individual

    federation’s specific situation or circumstances nor does it

    involve the potential imposition of a penalty.

    Individual federation Barometer and Charter target

    achievement in selected Charter areas are dealt with in

    scorecard format in Volume 1 of this report, under the

    following headings:

    • Number and percentage of self-set Barometer targets

    achieved in selected Charter categories.

    • Percentage of predetermined, one-size-fits-all targets in

    all Charter categories achieved.

    • Subjective evaluation of federation data input quality.

    • Comparison between Barometer and Charter target

    achievements in the following Charter categories:

    - Administration

    - Senior, Junior, Youth, Underage Male and Female

    National Representative Entities

    - High-performance Pipeline Demographic

    - Coach Demographic Profile

    - Umpire Demographic Profile

    - Sport Medicine and Scientific Support Structure and

    - Schools and Clubs (‘footprint’ data).

    Each scorecard in Volume 1 concludes with general remarks,

    observations, conclusions and recommendations related to

    the achievement of Barometer and Charter targets for each

    federation.

    Barometer Target Achievement 2017|18The Barometer scores achieved in 2017 are shown in the

    table below.

    FEDERATION% OF SELF-SET AND FORWARD PROJECTED BAROMETER TARGETS ACHIEVED

    Table Tennis 76

    Football 73

    Gymnastics 73

    Tennis 65

    Rugby 60

    Cricket 59

    Netball 54

    Baseball 50

    Swimming 39

    Jukskei 39

    Hockey 37

    Softball 35

    Volleyball 33

    Athletics 31

    Chess 27

    Basketball 23

    Amateur Boxing 10

    Bowls -

    Rowing -

    As in 2017, four of the five federations that participated in the

    2016 Barometer pilot achieved 50% or more of their self-set

    and forward projected Barometer targets.

    The 50% or more Barometer self-set target achievement

    performance was as follows in 2017 and 2016: football - 73%

    and 57%; rugby -60% and 60%; cricket - 74% and 52%; netball

    -54% and 58%. Therefore, they will not be subject to any

    penalty imposition, as was the case last year.

    Despite several interventions to address the issues involved,

    athletics submitted data reflecting achievement of 31% of

    the required 50% of its 2017/18 self-set targets. This compares

    with last year’s 43% achievement which could again lead to

    the imposition of a penalty in the 2017 cycle.

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|188 | SRSA – Emminent Persons Group

  • The table above shows that of the fourteen federations

    newly introduced into the 2017/18 Barometer cycle, four

    federations achieved 50% or more of their self-set Barometer

    targets, i.e.: table tennis (76%), gymnastics (73%), tennis (65%)

    and baseball (50%).

    The remaining federations all achieved well below the

    required 50% of their self-set Barometer targets. These

    federations include: swimming (39%), jukskei (39%), hockey

    (37%), softball (35%), volleyball (33%), athletics, 33% (part of

    the original pilot), chess (27%), basketball (23%), amateur

    boxing (10%). These performance levels place them in the

    potential penalty territory, based on the Barometer MoUs

    agreed with SRSA and SASCOC.

    Bowls and rowing have completed agreements and have

    submitted Barometer forecasts for 2019 onwards.

    As was the case with the pilot Barometer project involving

    athletics, cricket, football, netball and rugby, in 2015, the

    first data provided in 2016/17 by most federations newly

    introduced into the process proved to be fraught with

    difficulties and uncertainties. This was due mainly to some

    federations setting and projecting forward questionable

    Barometer targets, based on what appears to be

    guesstimates and conservative ’safety first’ approaches,

    in order to avoid a penalty. The absence of appropriately

    structured and planned human resource pipelines and

    inadequate understanding of the impact of changes in

    population demographics and under-developed school

    sport on structures, further complicated the situation for

    some federations.

    In the initial pilot Barometer (2015), the participating

    federations involved - athletics, cricket, football, netball

    and rugby - experienced similar difficulties and were given

    an opportunity to review, correct and adapt their original

    set of Barometer MoU based targets, before a penalty

    was considered. The revision process was followed by

    resubmission and re-evaluation of barometer targets before

    the imposition of a penalty was considered and applied.

    For this reason, the 14 newly introduced federations

    (including athletics) will also be given a similar opportunity

    to review, correct/ adapt and resubmit their Barometer

    targets before the imposition of a penalty is considered,

    as indicated in the recommendations applicable to each

    federation in this report.

    Therefore, based on the federation specific discussions,

    observations and recommendations included in Volume

    1 of this report, a conditional Barometer pass was given

    to all federations (except for cricket, football, netball and

    rugby, which have all passed), with the proviso that all MoU

    barometer targets are revised, corrected and resubmitted on

    or before 30 June 2019 for final evaluation and consideration.

    Failure to comply with this requirement could lead to the

    imposition of a penalty, as per the agreed MoU.

    Comparison - ‘Prescribed One-Size-Fits-All’ Transformation Charter and Self-Set MoU Based Barometer Target AchievementsAs can be expected, Barometer self-set targets differ from

    Transformation Charter prescribed and one-size-fits-all

    targets, in that Barometer targets are determined and

    projected forward by federations themselves, whereas

    Transformation Charter targets are prescribed as part of the

    Charter adopted in 2011.

    As indicated, non-achievement of Barometer self-set targets

    is subject to the possible imposition of a penalty, whereas

    non-achievement of prescribed Transformation Charter

    targets are not. A comparison between the two sets of

    targets is shown in the following table:

    FEDERATION

    % PRESCRIBED ONE SIZE FITS ALL CHARTER TARGETS ACHIEVED

    % SELF-SET AND FORWARD PROJECTED BAROMETER TARGETS ACHIEVED

    PERCENTAGE POINTS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHARTER AND BAROMETER TARGETS ACHIEVED

    Football 89 73 16

    Table Tennis 67 76 -9

    Volleyball 67 33 34

    Cricket 61 59 2

    Amateur Boxing 61 10 51

    Softball 56 35 21

    Basketball 56 23 33

    Netball 50 54 -4

    Athletics 50 31 19

    Chess 44 27 17

    Rugby 28 60 -32

    Baseball 22 50 -28

    Gymnastics 17 73 -56

    Tennis 17 65 -48

    Swimming 17 39 -22

    Hockey 1 1 37 -26

    Jukskei 6 39 -33

    Bowls 0 - -

    Rowing 0 - -

    The comparison provided above between federation

    Barometer self-set and prescribed Transformation Charter

    target achievement shows good agreement for only two

    federations: cricket and netball.

    The self-set Barometer target achievement reported appears

    to be significantly higher than the predetermined one-size-

    fits-all Charter target achievement for: gymnastics, tennis,

    jukskei, rugby, baseball, hockey and volleyball. This suggests

    the possibility of more conservative (easier to achieve) and

    possible safety-first Barometer target setting by federations,

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|18SRSA – Emminent Persons Group | 9

  • in order to avoid a penalty. However, the self-set Barometer

    target achievement was notably lower than that of the

    predetermined Charter target achievement for: amateur

    boxing, volleyball, basketball, softball, athletics and football.

    This suggests the possibility of more demanding target

    setting.

    The overall transformation status, in ranking order, for 2017

    is provided in the table below, with the statistics based on

    the following:

    1. The % achievement of prescribed one-size-fits-all

    Transformation Charter targets adopted in 2011.

    2. The % achievement of the self-set Barometer targets

    that form part of the MoU Barometer entered into with

    SRSA and SASCOC.

    FEDERATION TRANSFORMATION CHARTER TARGET RANKINGBAROMETER TARGET RANKING

    Football 1 2

    Table Tennis 2 1

    Volleyball 3 13

    Amateur Boxing 4 17

    Cricket 5 6

    Basketball 6 16

    Softball 7 12

    Athletics 8 14

    Netball 9 7

    Chess 10 15

    Rugby 11 5

    Baseball 12 8

    Gymnastics 13 3

    Swimming 14 9

    Tennis 15 4

    Hockey 16 11

    Jukskei 17 10

    Rowing 18 -

    Bowls 19 -

    Rowing and bowls are completing MoUs with SRSA and

    SASCOC, but are only submitting forward projected

    Barometer targets as from 2018.

    The Barometer ranking order indicated above will be

    reviewed once federations have revisited and re-submitted

    their self-set targets and forecasts, based on the comments,

    observations and summaries provided in Volume 1.

    The scorecards show positive progress in sport transformation

    since 1994, in about half of the federations audited, largely

    due to the introduction of the Transformation Charter and

    the EPG in 2011 and the Barometer process in 2016/17.

    The current situation reflects a two-component sport

    system that is based on the reported demographic profiles

    of federation structures. Football, table tennis, volleyball,

    cricket, basketball and softball are all transforming at a

    steady rate. Additionally, athletics, netball and rugby are

    showing promise, although they are marginally behind the

    leading group. However, baseball, gymnastics, swimming,

    tennis, hockey, jukskei, rowing and bowls are lagging, mainly

    because of ineffective and delayed response to the impact of

    population demographic changes, insufficient interaction

    at underage level and facility constraints. There is reason to

    believe that some of these federations could increasingly be

    faced with sustainability challenges in the future, if creative

    solutions are not forthcoming.

    Factors that Impacting the Rate and Extent of TransformationTwo factors impact the pace and extent of sport

    transformation: school sport, and population demographic

    changes nationally and regionally.

    School Sport

    To support effective longer-term sport planning initiatives,

    reliable data on school sport is essential. Over the past

    5 years, the quality of data related to the number of sport

    participating schools sourced from different role players was,

    with few exceptions, sub-standard and unreliable. There is,

    furthermore, little correlation between the number of sport

    participating schools reported by sport federations, DBE

    and SRSA. Attempts to extract more detailed information

    on school sport are problematic. Such information includes:

    number and demographics of underage participating

    teams and leagues, interschool competitions, teachers/

    organisers, accredited coaches, referees/umpires, and

    facilities at municipality, district and provincial level.

    There is a strategic need for a reliable and regularly updated

    centralised school sport database for use by all role players,

    as part of forward planning and resource sharing, as well

    as implementation of the revised MoU between DBE and

    SRSA. Appropriate sport related data in each province,

    district, local municipality and main town is a prerequisite for

    modelling and implementing an appropriate school sport

    system. Most codes have significant difficulty in obtaining

    school sport related data from their provincial, school and

    government sport structures, which reinforces the need for

    a professionally administered central database.

    Data on sport participating primary schools that is provided

    by federations are, with a small number of exceptions,

    unreliable. However, in the absence of any dependable data

    sources, school related data provided by federations remains

    the only source of information for reasonable scoping of the

    primary school environment.

    Effective underage sport participation and skills

    development for most learners remains inadequate,

    because of the relatively low percentage of schools that

    provide structured sport participation opportunity – an

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|1810 | SRSA – Emminent Persons Group

  • average of about 12%. Facility constraints, teacher reluctance

    to be involved in organising, administering and coaching

    sport activities, and ineffective implementation of MoUs

    between DBE and SRSA remain major constraints.

    A declining historic human capital resource base for sport

    (because of a changing national population demographic)

    is beginning to impact codes that are without a meaningful

    footprint in the school environment. This will affect the

    longer-term sustainability and competitiveness of several

    codes. Both primary and senior school sport participation

    profiles are dominated by what appears to be sub-optimal

    and unconfirmed sport participating schools: 14 773 primary

    and 5 918 senior schools.

    In addition to the school participation footprint data that

    was submitted, federations also submitted data on the

    following: number of participating township and non-

    township schools; number of accredited coaches; number

    of township and non-township based high-performance

    participants; number of schools that have girl participating

    teams; financial support provided to schools.

    At a primary school level, codes with the highest number of

    reported participating primary schools - in decreasing order

    - were: volleyball (8 948), chess (6 092), cricket (5 590), netball

    (4 744), table tennis (2 977), rugby (2 410), swimming (1 690),

    hockey (1 096), tennis (802), gymnastics (314), athletics (308),

    softball (198), baseball (192), jukskei (162) and bowls (73).

    Football’s reported number of participating primary

    schools (11 000) is questionable. Football’s school structures

    do not compare with the organised school structures of,

    for example, rugby, cricket, hockey and netball. This is a

    significant strategic weakness for football that has remained

    unresolved for some time now.

    Likewise, Volleyball’s 3 948 primary schools are also

    questionable, given the absence of any additional primary

    school data being provided.

    Boxing, for regulatory reasons, and rowing and bowls,

    because of resource constraints, do not have primary school

    participation in their codes

    Few federations (6) have reported primary schools have

    reported high performance programmes. Hockey reported

    the highest number (512), followed by cricket (253), rugby

    (170), tennis (136) and gymnastics (127).

    Netball (understandably) reported the highest number of

    primary schools with girl teams (3 665), followed by hockey

    (896, of which 100 are township schools), rugby (514, of

    which 309 are township schools), cricket (459, of which 360

    are township based), and softball (216, of which 208 are

    township based). Basketball, boxing and rowing did not

    report any involvement at primary school level.

    The highest number of coaches at primary school level were

    reported by: rugby - 5 990; cricket - 3 139; gymnastics - 1 385;

    hockey - 940; bowls - 649; netball - 396; swimming - 329;

    athletics - 308.

    Cricket reported the highest level of financial support to

    primary schools (R6 675 141), followed by rugby (R2 508

    615), hockey (R800 000), chess (R530  000), tennis (R263

    596), gymnastics (R184 167) and jukskei (R45 000). None of

    the remaining 10 federations have reported any financial

    support for primary schools.

    At a senior school level, football and basketball did not report

    any senior school involvement. Football’s school structures

    do not resemble the organised structures of rugby, cricket,

    hockey and netball. This is a significant strategic weakness

    that may have to be corrected if performance at senior level

    is to be improved. Volleyball also did not provide any senior

    school participation data. For regulatory reasons, boxing

    does not have any participation at senior or primary school

    levels.

    Chess reported the highest number of participating senior

    schools (6 092), followed by netball (2 528), rugby (1 977),

    table tennis (1939) cricket (928), hockey (793), athletics (710)

    and tennis (543).

    Ten federations reported schools with high performance

    programmes. Cricket reported the highest number of

    schools participating in high performance structures (489),

    followed by: rugby (469); hockey (300) and tennis (169). Other

    codes with senior school high performance programmes

    include: gymnastics - 55; rowing – 54; swimming - 44;

    baseball - 10; jukskei - 9. Basketball and football did

    not report senior school involvement. The remaining 6

    federations did not provide any data on senior school high

    performance related data.

    As expected, netball reported the highest number of senior

    schools with girl teams - 2 494 (primary schools 3 665),

    followed by: hockey - 813 (80 of which are township schools);

    athletics - 710 (of which 672 are township based schools);

    rugby - 230 (186 township schools); cricket - 239 (87 township

    based); softball - 220 (131 township based senior schools);

    jukskei - 112 schools (58 township based). Basketball, bowls,

    gymnastics, rowing, swimming, table tennis and volleyball

    did not report any schools with girl teams at senior school

    level.

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|18SRSA – Emminent Persons Group | 11

  • The highest number of coaches at senior school level were

    reported by: rugby - 4 826; cricket - 2 250; hockey - 1 100;

    gymnastics - 875; bowls - 649; swimming - 363; athletics -

    321; netball - 321; jukskei - 193; rowing - 192. Whereas chess,

    football, basketball, softball and volleyball did not report

    any coaches at senior school level.

    Cricket reported the highest level of financial support (R8

    895 233) to its senior school structure, followed by: rugby (R6

    326 856); tennis (R763 555); rowing (R706 741); hockey (R440

    000); chess (R370 000); gymnastics (R149 017). No financial

    support to senior schools were reported by: athletics;

    baseball; basketball; bowls; netball; softball; swimming;

    table tennis; volleyball.

    National Population Demographic ChangeThe impact of population demographic changes requires

    careful consideration if future sport leadership structures are

    not to be left with an uncomfortable legacy of challenges.

    From a sustainability (in some instances perhaps even

    survival) perspective, codes with a predominantly White

    demographic profile need to quantify and understand the

    impact of demographic change on their sport and make it

    an integral part of the planning process. Equally important

    is the implication of these changes on the shape of a

    federation’s forward projected self-set demographic targets

    that form part of the Barometer MoUs recently entered into

    with SRSA and SASCOC, as well as the associated penalties

    for failing to achieve the self-set targets.

    Population demographic changes, nationally and regionally,

    coupled to the suspect state of school sport, do not allow the

    luxury of forward projected self-set Barometer targets based

    on extrapolating the past into the future, some guesswork

    and a ‘safety first’ approach to avoid the risk of penalties

    being imposed, when completing a federation’s forward

    projected Barometer.

    In most instances, federation forward, projected Barometers

    reflect small, incremental and slow change in selected

    Charter categories, which may reflect insufficient insight

    into the complex socio-economic and political environment

    in which they operate. If not understood and dealt with,

    only a small number will escape the consequences of these

    changes.

    The demographic factors influencing the age structures

    of different population groups differ over time. From a

    planning perspective, the size and composition of and

    change in different population categories - nationally and

    regionally - are becoming increasingly important.

    Three key processes or components of population

    growth have a considerable effect on the age and gender

    composition of populations, namely: mortality; fertility;

    and the movement of people in and out of specific areas

    or regions. These factors are the most important causes of

    the existing differences in the age and gender structures of

    different population groups in the country.

    When mortality rates in a population decline faster in the

    lower age categories than in the higher age categories, it

    leads to juvenation of the age structure of the population

    concerned. Based on scales developed by the United Nations,

    the Black African population in South Africa is classified as

    a young population, the Coloured and Indian populations

    as mature, and the White population as aging. The black

    African population is characterised by high and fairly

    constant fertility, with a large proportion of small children

    and a small proportion of people in the productive ages.

    Fertility rates in the Indian and Coloured populations have

    only recently started to decline and are in an intermediate

    position between those of Whites and Black Africans.

    The population demographic profile as at mid-year 2018,

    according to Stats SA, was: total population - 56.5 million;

    Black African - 41 million (89%); Coloured - 4.6 million (8.9%);

    Whites - 4.49 million (8.9%); Indian (2.5%).

    The White population group is the only population group

    whose mortality rate has exceeded its birthrate (around

    2010). Based on data extracted from Stats SA, this means

    that the White population - currently about 4.5m - will

    decrease (the only group to do so) by about 1 million over

    the next 25 years. Contrarily, Black Africans are estimated to

    increase by about 14m, Coloureds by 400,000 and Indians by

    300,000 over the same period.

    The changing population demographic and socio-

    economic and political environments since 1994 have had

    a major impact on the rate and extent of sport’s efforts

    to change from a pre-1994 predominantly White sport

    system. The 5 transformation audits conducted to date

    have demonstrated the potential impact of these changes,

    particularly on the longer-term sustainability of some

    federations. These changes will have a major impact on

    structures with a predominantly White demographic profile

    and low rates of demographic change.

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|1812 | SRSA – Emminent Persons Group

  • The total under 18-year-old component of the population -

    about 20 million (male plus female) - is a reservoir of future

    human capital and is therefore important from a planning

    perspective. The U18 Black male African group - about 9m - is

    projected to increase by 20% over the next 20 years; however,

    there will be a decrease in the Indian (8%), Coloured (19%)

    and White (31%) groups.

    The need to focus on the large black African component

    - which is under-developed, as shown in audit reports - is

    obvious. Sport’s historic resource base is declining. The

    challenge facing existing predominantly White sport

    structures, therefore, is the need to balance the rate of

    decrease in the White population and subsequent decline in

    sport participant numbers, with an increase in the number

    of U18 Black Africans.

    This will require well-developed and effective primary and

    senior school sport structures, if South African Sport is to

    strengthen its position in the premier leagues of world sport.

    Dominant White demographic participant demographics

    are linked to low Black African representation, which

    enhances long-term sustainability risks. Codes in this

    category include, particularly, tennis, hockey, swimming,

    rowing, jukskei and bowls.

    Table tennis and baseball’s high Coloured and low Black

    African demographic could also translate into sustainability

    challenges in the longer term.

    The profile of the 66-year-old and higher population age

    group category for Whites explains bowls’ sustainability

    dilemma. Its 90%+ White membership structure, with an

    average age of 74, is in decline, resulting in club structures

    closing down and the absence of a meaningful underage

    pipeline. This has seen this sport moving into what can

    become survival mode.

    The predominant White profile of the tennis, swimming,

    rowing and jukskei representative entities, will increasingly

    feel the effects of declining numbers in all White population

    age categories. Rugby, netball and cricket (to a lesser extent),

    although actively involved in re-shaping the demographics

    of their representative entities, may have to step up

    exploration and involvement of the significant Black African

    population group.

    Re-shaping a sport’s demographic profile may, in some

    instances, need to be more assertively pursued, if future

    leadership structures are not to be left with difficult

    challenges to resolve.

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|18SRSA – Emminent Persons Group | 13

  • TOKOZILE XASA, MPSport & Recreation South Africa

    “The remainder of this political administration must be about, school sport, active nation and transformation. South Africans must see themselves in all our national teams.”

    “The key to our transformation is simply this: the better we know ourselves the better equipped we

    will be to make our choices wisely.”— Gregg Braden

    Notes

    Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|1814 | SRSA – Emminent Persons Group

  • TOKOZILE XASA, MPSport & Recreation South Africa

    “The remainder of this political administration must be about, school sport, active nation and transformation. South Africans must see themselves in all our national teams.”

    “The key to our transformation is simply this: the better we know ourselves the better equipped we

    will be to make our choices wisely.”— Gregg Braden

    SRSA – Emminent Persons Group | 15Sport Transformation Status Report Overview 2017|18

  • Published in the Republic of South Africa by SRSA

    Regent Place Building66 Queen StreetPretoria

    Private Bag x 896, Pretoria, 0001Tel. 012 304 5000www.srsa.gov.za

    EMIN

    ENT

    PER

    SON

    ’S G

    RO

    UP

    20

    18 S

    PO

    RT

    TRA

    NSF

    OR

    MA

    TIO

    N S

    TATU

    S R

    EP

    OR

    T O

    VE

    RV

    IEW

    epgEminent Persons Groupon Transformation in Sport

    TransformationCommission

    EPG Sport Transformation Status Report Overview

    2017|18

Click here to load reader

Reader Image
Embed Size (px)
Recommended