A Report by the Legacy Research Group on the Special Olympics GB National Summer Games Leicester 2009

LEARNING DISABILITY, SPORT AND LEGACY A Report by the Legacy Research Group on the Special Olympics GB National Summer Games Leicester 2009 Dr. Susan Barton, Project Research Fellow, Dr. Neil Carter, Senior Research Fellow, De Montfort University Professor Richard Holt, De Montfort University Mr. John Williams, Senior Lecturer, Leicester University Leicester City Council, Special Olympics Great Britain, The Centre Internationale d’Etude Du Sport (CIES) NHS Leicester City June 2011 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART I: THE ORGANISATION OF THE GAMES 1. Introduction: Special Olympics GB 2. Bidding for the 2009 Games 3. Planning the 2009 Games 4. The Administrative Process 5. Involving the Community 6. Summary of the Games Build‐up, Local Expectations & Future Prospects PART II: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE GAMES 7. Games Opening Ceremony: 25 July 2009 8. The Week of Games Competition 9. The Organisers’ Experience 10. The Heads of Delegation Experience 11. The Athletes’ Experience 12. The Orange Army: the Special Olympics Volunteers 13. ‘The joy of being picked’: The Special Olympics Families 14. The Media Reaction to the 2009 Games PART III: THE GAMES AND LEGACY 15. Estimates on the Local Financial Impact of the Games 16. The Special Olympics Public Surveys, Feb 2009 – Feb 2010 17. Some Reflections on SOL 2009 and the Games Legacy 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 01. This report examines the holding of the Special Olympics Great Britain (SOGB) National Summer Games – for people with learning disabilities – in Leicester in July 2009. For the first time, the views of the organisers, the athletes, their families and carers and the volunteer ‘army’ who assisted in staging the Games have been systematically collected and analysed. 02. In addition, three on‐street surveys covering 919 members of the Leicester public were carried out at broadly six‐monthly intervals before, during and after the 2009 Games. Each sample was balanced for age, gender and ethnicity in line with the city’s demographics. The aim here was to assess possible changes in public awareness of learning disability and the local impact of the Games. 03. Taken as a whole, this project offers new quantitative and qualitative data and insights into the role of Special Olympics (SO) in terms of: i. the value of sport for the learning disabled and their families and carers ii. the complex financial and organisational problems posed to host cities iii. public and media awareness of learning disability generated by the Games iv. the critical role of volunteers and the volunteer programme v. the very real challenges of sustaining a viable Games legacy PART I: THE GAMES ORGANISATION 04. Sport for the learning disabled has a long if patchy history in the UK, but the Special Olympics movement was founded in the USA in the 1960s. In sporting terms, SO is highly distinctive in that it is based on the duel principles of participation as well as competition. While all learning disabled athletes can take part in competitions at national and international sporting events, their level is based on their ability as much as their disability. [See Paragraph 1.1‐1.2] 05. SOGB is only one of several organisations providing sport for the learning disabled in the UK but it is the largest. It was set up in 1978 and currently has approximately 8,500 members. Its growth is not planned on the basis of need but is rather dependent on the work of local volunteers. The first SOGB National Summer Games took place in 1982 in Knowsley on Merseyside with 800 athletes. Leicester first hosted the Games in 1989. The Games have become a national mega‐event with Leicester 2009 hosting around 2,400 SO athletes, 1,200 coaches plus 6,000 family members and carers. [1.3‐1.4] 3 06. Leicester was keen to host the 2009 Games for two main reasons. Firstly, the place marketing and regenerative ‘branding’ opportunities it offered the city. Secondly, Special Olympics fitted well with the philosophies and policies of a local authority which had placed emphasis on its work with people with learning disabilities. [2.1‐2.7, 2.10] 07. SOGB saw Leicester as ideal hosts for the 2009 Games in two key respects. Firstly, the city was seen positively in relation to its work with people with learning disabilities. Secondly, Leicester was regarded as a dynamic, ‘young’ venue which offered the sort of harmonious ethnic diversity that the Special Olympics movement in Britain rather lacked. [2.9‐2.11] 08. Leicester was awarded hosting rights for the Games in July 2007. This meant there was only two years for the Games’ company, Leicester Games 2009 Limited (SOL 2009), to obtain funding for the Games – in a difficult economic climate – market and promote them, and establish the administrative hub necessary to manage a highly complex event. [2.8, 3.1‐3.2] 09. Leicester councillors and officials were aware that Special Olympics offered possible branding connections with London 2012 and they believed this ‘Olympics’ association would ensure their success with potential sponsors for SOL 2009. This confidence proved misplaced: LOCOG resisted all such sponsorship synergies with 2012. The intervening global financial crisis greatly exacerbated the problem of finding alternative commercial funding for the 2009 Games. Eventually, attempts to secure private sponsorship failed almost completely. [3.3‐3.11] 10. Special Olympics National Summer Games offers some commercial rewards, but it is not financially self‐sufficient or profitable, as other mega‐events often are. Leicester City Council had no alternative, therefore, but to underwrite the cost of hosting the 2009 Games, with Sport England eventually contributing £200,000. It was Leicester City Council’s willingness to help finance the event for the sake of the athletes and their families that saved the Games. This has raised key questions about the funding of future Games. [3.3‐3.11] 11. These financial problems produced major logistical consequences. In particular, much of the detailed planning for the Leicester Games effectively had to be squeezed into a period of around six months. In addition, Leicester lacked some of the sporting facilities necessary to host a number of sports in a single venue; twenty‐one sports were staged at 21 venues. [3.12‐3.18] 12. These challenges placed extreme organisational pressures on the SOL board members and on the small number of senior staff seconded from Leicester City Council to run the 2009 Games. Only the willingness of this group to work extreme, unsocial hours, under 4 great stress for no additional pay, ensured that the Games took place and were a success. [4.1‐4.2] 13. Few of the people involved in hosting SOL 2009 had any previous event management experience of working with people with learning disabilities on an event of this scale and type. Much of the necessary learning for 2009 therefore had to be done ‘on the job.’ Crucially, there was relatively little knowledge transfer involved in staging the Games. No detailed template was available from the previous Games held in Glasgow to aid the new hosts, and relatively little technical support on hosting was on offer from the centre at SOGB. [4.3‐4.12] 14. Nevertheless, within this much shortened window: i. a lavish and unique opening ceremony was planned, rehearsed and delivered ii. venues for all events were fully prepared and in some cases updated iii. accommodation, transport and meals were successfully managed and coordinated iv. a large group of volunteers was recruited, trained and motivated v. a massive volume of athletes’ paperwork involved was processed vi. the event was kept in the local public eye via the appointment of ‘ambassadors’, the production of newsletters, and through new marketing signage to promote the event as part of the city’s ‘One Leicester’ regeneration campaign [5.1‐5.16] 15. To summarise: the 2009 SO National Summer Games were organised in a very short space of time for an event of this scale, with little commercial sponsorship and little knowledge transfer from planning past Games. There was also relatively little local experience available of running events on this scale involving people with learning disabilities. Sports facilities in Leicester made it impossible to run more than one event at any venue, thus adding to the complexities of the event and raising questions about linking venue sites. However, the Games benefited from having a highly committed, if small, full‐time staff, enthusiastic volunteers and creative logistical expertise, which together effectively ensured that the 2009 Games were successfully delivered. [6.1‐6.4] PART II: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE GAMES 16. The Games Opening Ceremony held at the Walkers Stadium was very well attended and involved a range of breathtaking entertainment, including performances involving work produced by local people with learning disabilities. It was also the key event to engage members of the Leicester public in the Games, and the Opening Ceremony is an important symbolic status for SOGB, the athletes and their families and carers. [7.1‐7.2] 17. But the Leicester Opening Ceremony also soon fell behind schedule and was over‐long, finishing late into the night. A substantial proportion of the crowd – especially those with children – had left before the major acts began and some of the athletes also 5 became distracted. The high quality of the event was cited later by many athletes, families and other spectators, but a shorter, better regulated ceremony is clearly required in future, or one that begins much earlier. [7.3‐7.9] 18. Running the SO Games is more complex than running many other sporting mega‐events. The athletes have special needs in terms of management, accommodation and transport, and are required to be assessed and placed in the appropriate skill categories before the competition itself can commence.

Load more