Sport New Zealand commissioned this research into the full range of sport and recreation facility management choices available to TAs. The aim was to produce a comprehensive and independent view on the range of choices available, and provide guidance on the decision-making process to ensure wise investment in sport and recreation facilities.
There is no ideal model for management of sport and recreation facilities. Quality facility management resulting in high levels of community access and participation depends on the qualities and skills of those involved in management, marketing and service delivery.
The report, and the accompanying guide, can be used by decision-makers within TAs and by officers who guide and inform TA decision-making. It may also be of value to professional advisers to TAs, or to companies providing sport and recreation facility management services.
The research report provides information and decision-making processes that can be applied both when planning new sport and recreation facilities, and when considering procurement choices for existing sport and recreation facilities.
This report outlines the key characteristics of each of the different models and their advantages and disadvantages, drawn from research conducted with a range of New Zealand TAs and private providers, and relevant Australian and United Kingdom research.
This research report should be read alongside the companion Territorial Authority Sport and Recreation Facilities Decision Guide.
Purpose
Sport NZ commissioned research designed to achieve the following:
(a) Produce an independent, objective report which clearly identifies the choices for TA sport and recreation facility management.
(b) Produce a companion decision-making guide to support and enable TAs to analyse their choices for sport and recreation facility management.
Methodology
The research methodology first involved creating an inventory of all 67 district and city TAs in New Zealand, and the sport and recreation facilities they provide, including who owns and manages them. Regional and environment councils were not included in the research because they do not have a primary role of providing local sport and recreation facilities.
Every effort was made to ensure the inventory is as accurate as possible. This included web searches and discussions with TAs. The inventory provides a clear view of ownership and management of TA sport and recreation facilities in New Zealand. Any inaccuracies are likely to involve incorporating further facilities not already identified, and this is unlikely to impact on determining the overall view of the current ownership and management models.
Establishing an accurate picture of ownership and management of TA sport and recreation facilities enabled the grouping of TAs into study groups based on management type, geographic spread and TA size, including small, rural, medium and large metropolitan TAs. The following TAs were then invited to provide information to inform the study:
| Management Model | Local Authority |
| In-house management (9) | Central Otago, Dunedin, Kawerau, Hutt City, Wellington, New Plymouth, Whakatane, Westland, Auckland Council |
| Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) (3) | Buller, Queenstown-Lakes,5 Tauranga |
| Outsourcing to private companies (6) | Nelson, Tararua, Kapiti Coast, Masterton, Auckland Council, Waipa |
| Outsourcing to community trusts including regional sports trusts (RSTs) (7) | Rangitikei, Marlborough, Hastings, Kaikoura, Tasman, Wairoa, Invercargill |
A questionnaire was distributed to TAs via email, with limited initial response, and this was then followed up with phone calls and further enquiries. Discussions also took place with private sector facility managers and other industry leaders who were willing to contribute to the research.
A table at the end of the report shows who returned questionnaires (11 TAs), who provided documents (9 TAs and organisations), and the number of discussions and meetings held with individuals (13). The information received was analysed to determine the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of each of the models and informs the learnings and conclusions that have been reached.
Information from the Standards New Zealand Guide to Local Government Service Delivery Options also informed the research. This Guide was developed to assist TAs in developing "good practice" for the "process of selecting, reviewing and implementing appropriate methods and levels of service delivery in order to meet changing community needs and expectations".
A challenge of the research was the need to draw conclusions from a variety of different and often conflicting viewpoints, in particular about the efficiency or otherwise of TA management of sport and recreation facilities, and the benefits of outsourcing versus in-house management.
The point of view expressed depended on how much focus the TA put on achieving efficient operations, as well as the capability within the TA to provide good quality, efficient services. It also depended on whether or not outsourcing was a positive experience. For some TAs this was linked to their lack of understanding of cost structures and revenue potential for TA sport and recreation facilities, and therefore a lack of confidence that outsourcing was delivering value.