The Sports Council commissioned this study in 1979 because despite a decade and a half of Ministerial exhortation and circulars, and of the Sports Council's promotion of the concept of joint provision of sports facilities, there was still a substantial minority of local authorities which either had not implemented any policy or showed only nominal acquiescence in it. Although common sense suggested that there must be economic benefits from sharing capital resources rather than providing separate sets of facilities without incurring disproportionate costs, and although leading proponents of the policy claimed such benefits, there were no hard data to support or refute the case. Hence the design of this study.
The Sports Council is greatly encouraged by the support its findings give overtly to the policy of joint provision and, by implication, to that of dual use. Firstly, the projected fall in the number of secondary school pupils from 3.96 million in 1979 to 2.85 million in 1991 will limit the scope for new joint provision schemes, but make it all the more important that the smaller number of opportunities to provide community facilities at new or substantially rebuilt schools are taken. The Sports Council will continue to give high priority to promoting joint schemes with its grant-aid.
Secondly, whatever the management arrangements for joint schemes, it is vitally important that the responsibilities and degree of delegated powers for each member of the educational and community staff are clearly set out. This will avoid some of the day-to-day difficulties which have arisen over management decisions, where either it has been uncertain as to whose decision it should be, or decisions have been taken by the person with the greatest status as opposed to the proper responsibility.
Thirdly, the investigation was hindered by the lack of detailed finance and usage records for public, club and educational use of such centres and by the partiality and incompatibility of much of the data that was available. This was basic material which is needed for normal monitoring of usage week by week and year by year. The Sports Council hopes to be able to contri¬bute to improving such data collection: a project we are undertaking with the City of Belfast will provide some experience of one way of doing this.
Furthermore, it is notable that those centres which have won the Sports Council's Sports Centre of the Year Management Award have been those which have most clearly specified their policy objectives and manage¬ment targets, responsibilities and powers, and most nearly met the recommendations set out by our consultants in paragraphs 193-198 of the report.
DICK JEEPS Chairman, The Sports Council(GB) 1981.
Editor's comments - [ The main aim of this  study was to test the assumption that joint provision (Joint School & Local authority recreation facilities) is more cost-effective than separate provision, taking cost to cover both economic and social factors.
Subsidiary aims were to identify which forms of joint provision are most appropriate (i.e. which forms will lead to the greatest net benefit) in different circumstances. The project was to undertake analysis of both financial and social accounts in order to measure the cost-effectiveness of different forms of provision, to identify as many of the social costs and benefits as possible, and to clarify the methodology that might be used in a full cost-benefit analysis. ] Reference this?Cryer, J. (2013). This page title in italics. Retrieved date, from In the text: Cryer (2013)
Reference : Coopers & Lybrand. (1981). Sharing does work: The economic & social costs & benefits of joint & direct social provision. Sports Council study #21 London: Sports Council (GB)
The above reference is in the APA style: See why this is important in our [how to reference] us guide.
Download this document [Use of this document may be limited by © copyright ; by downloading you consent to our terms and conditions ]