Learning Surf Life Saving Best Practice from the …...Learning Surf Life Saving Best Practice from the World Leaders Background behind the project Surf Life Saving Great Britain (SLSGB)

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship Report Andrew Byatt 28/02/2013

1

Learning Surf Life Saving Best Practice

from the World Leaders

Andrew Byatt


2

Learning Surf Life Saving Best Practice from the World Leaders

Background behind the project

Surf Life Saving Great Britain (SLSGB) was established in 1955, to save lives on Britain’s beaches, by

the organisations founder, an Australian Surf Life Saver named Allan Kennedy. His work was initiated

after recognition of concurrent increases in bathing participation and subsequent drowning

incidences on the beaches. It was reported that in the 1950’s and 60’s there was on average 2

drownings per week in the peak season on busier British beaches, such as St Agnes, Perranporth and

Bude (D Abraham, 2013). A network of volunteer skilled watermen and waterwomen developed at

the more dangerous and renowned beaches, to help save lives. These individuals largely consisted of

local male surfers and surf swimmers who recognised the need to support inexperienced water

users. They set up voluntary patrols to undertake lifeguarding patrols at high risk times and

locations. They also started clubs to inspire and train less experienced individuals to improve their

water, rescue and first aid skills. This dramatically reduced the drowning reports to levels where it

became almost unheard of to drown within lifeguard patrolled hours, even on the busiest beaches

(R Plimley, 2013). The value of the patrols was recognised by local authorities, who began providing

professional lifeguard services on beaches across the country. More recently, the Royal National

Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) began to deliver services on their behalf. It approached SLSGB and its

volunteer members to help them establish the professional lifeguard services we see on our beaches

throughout Great Britain today.

Since this time Surf Life Saving Great Britain has focussed on inspiring a passionate family of

volunteers. These volunteers help develop Surf Life Saving skills, for all to safely enjoy, promote and

protect life in the sea. The members trained through SLSGB now feed the paid council and RNLI

lifeguard services with experienced and qualified individuals. Members of SLSGB undertake water

safety cover through voluntary patrols, at events and other water based activities, as well as

participating in events and activities to improve their fitness, skills and links in the life saving family.

Many members volunteer a significant amount of their own time to pass on their knowledge and

skills to others. Such volunteering allows members to gain valuable experience which can then lead

them into occupational roles. Additionally, participants are simply more confident, competent and

safe in the water, better connected with the local community and inspire others to get involved with

the Surf Life Saving movement.

In 2009, Surf Life Saving GB realised that it’s relationships with the organisations it had previously

supported were changing. This was negatively affecting the organisation’s ability to work effectively

toward achieving their aims. At this stage, the organisation commissioned a governance review, that

lead to its membership better understanding the need to restructure in accordance with good

governance practice. Key needs were identified to allow the organisation to move forward that lead

to the recruitment of a competency based board, utilisation of paid staff and a more

professionalised approach to delivery. This opened the beginning of a new era for the organisation

and its day to day running.

The almost entirely volunteer lead management of SLSGB, until 2009, was clearly a large strength

that prompted the viral progression in Surf Life Saving GB’s early years. However, after the recent


3

changes and requirements to professionalise, it quickly became apparent that the evolutionary and

volunteer nature had also left some significant gaps. This was largely relative to the effectiveness of

its’ day to day operations and ensuring good practice. Significant gaps were identified for Life Saving

specific programmes, health and safety, business management and support, information &

communications technology, compliance and the nature in which activities were governed. Priorities

for improvement were focussed around providing a safe and unified approach to governing SLS

activities and its volunteer network, establishing expandable and efficient systems that allow

continued improvement within a volunteer Surf Life Saving environment and substantiating SLSGB’s

value to gain continued support. These were all areas Surf Life Saving Australia had significant

international reputation for developing to a high level, with more than 100 years of experience. This

led to the concept of attending SLSA and learning from the world leading organisation, to bring good

practice examples back to the UK.


4

The aim of this Project was to:

1) Gain experience of working within the leading Surf Life Saving organisation in the world (Surf Life

Saving Australia). This was to enable development within the field of Surf Life Saving and my

profession as SLSGB’s Operations Manager. This would specifically provide the opportunity to gain

vital knowledge about good practice in governance, systems, procedures, programmes, initiatives,

resources, processes and techniques that could be utilised by coastal communities representing

SLSGB in its initiatives.

2) To enable collation and dissemination of good practice in International Surf Life Saving from the

World Life Saving Conference and Rescue 2012 Event (World Life Saving Championships), to enhance

saving lives on Britain’s beaches.


5

Methods

SLSGB had a familial relationship with Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) since SLSGB’s conception in

1955. SLSA agreed to accept individuals from SLSGB to experience their world leading Surf Life

Saving organisation, to enable learning to be taken back to the UK. For the Winston Churchill

Fellowship, permission was granted to attend the Surf Life Saving Australia Head Office, National

Foundation and state centres (Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, Perth, Western Australia)

and links given to key services, programmes, clubs and representatives to see local level examples.

At each location, shadowing and/or a semi structured interview type format was undertaken that

allowed leads from each department or programme to highlight the work being completed. This

included overviews of objectives and valuable areas that SLSGB should learn from. Many resources

and documents were collated and posted or emailed back to SLSGB offices (subject to permissions

being gained from the relevant representatives). Photos, videos and notes were taken at locations,

as appropriate, to aid with this report and subsequent dissemination on return to GB. A special

thank you goes to all those who assisted with the experience. Those specified the

Acknowledgements section of this report, are those who provided reference details.


6

Organisational structure and control

At a national level SLSA seeks to maintain relevance within 2 key roles both as ‘Parent’ and ‘Peak’

body. The ‘Parent’ role is to its clubs and members. For example, it agrees standards for key

qualifications, normal operating procedures and gains support to assist national and local

programmes for clubs and members. SLSA then act as a ‘Peak’ organisation for others and advise on

best practice. They may advise the public and other organisations of their safety standards, or

campaigns related to reducing drowning in key target groups. For example, rip current advice

campaigns are targeted to the high risk group of Asian tourists when entering the country by plane.

By attending SLSA head office I hoped to gain an insight into how their organisation assure a

worthwhile pattern of good practice, while avoiding an undesirable pattern of bad circumstances

and how it can do this across its vast volunteer network, i.e. how SLSA governs it activities.

Structure

SLSA and its interrelated sub divisions that govern Life Saving activity are indicated in the structure

diagram below. The diagram overviews the main organisational levels and areas of delivery. The

national body is responsible for setting national level policy, procedures and programs and guide

state level activity. It should be noted that there were distinct areas of state and regional variation

affected by differing laws, financing opportunities and local needs.

Surf Life Saving Australia Surf Life Saving

Foundation

Each state may use ‘regions’ to group smaller subdivisions, known as ‘branches’. The term ‘branches’ to label subdivisions is not used by all states.

Clubs

Surf Life Saving Queensland

Surf Life Saving Tasmania

Life Saving Victoria

Surf Life Saving South Australia

Surf Life Saving New South Wales

Surf Life Saving Western Australia


7

SLSA has a competency based board of trustees to set strategic direction. There is also a Commission

for State representation, a ‘Life Saving Commission’ and ‘Sport Commission’, which each advise on

these portfolio areas. Many technical committees sit within this, that advise on areas of technical

specialism, e.g. powercraft, coaching, performance, research, etc. This is similar to the SLSGB

configuration, except we have not had a consistent approach to setting up effective technical

working groups that feed the Commissions structure.

Although a secretariat and chairperson are assigned to each Commission in SLSA, it seems there is

clear steer from a lead staff member, within each Commission. The staff member acts as in a

supportive capacity to the voluntary chairperson and maintains alignment of work to organisational

based requirements. This is positive in that it keeps meetings appropriately focussed, but it is heavily

reliant on good working relationships between the staff and the chair for it to be effective. All

members of Commissions are to be given clear direction to the commitment required to be in post;

with roles, responsibilities and a delegated level of authority assigned. Almost all work completed is

reported upon via paid staff at a National level, but is assisted, assured or advised by its volunteer

network and at times volunteers lead and complete agreed projects. This is currently quite different

to the SLSGB approach, where a member of staff, at management level, is not necessarily assigned

to a specific portfolio area for similar purposes. Additionally, the value of the chair and any staff

member preparing for commission meetings together, in a unified approach, does not seem

adequately appreciated. There is an opportunity to gain significantly more from the current SLSGB

Commission structure.

Recommendations: SLSGB should consider assigning a staff member to assist in preparing for and

the steering of Commission meetings and build a positive working relationship with a specific

commission chair.

State and Saving Life Saving Foundation (SLSF) Level

Both the individual states and the SLSF (responsible for fundraising for SLSA), are separate legal

entities and feed into the national system through independent boards, with their own finance

structures. Expectations of the states and SLSF are agreed through periodic meetings between state

and national representatives. State activity is aligned to national objectives and agreements are

formed to provide a framework for development with agreed time frames. However, it was noted

that all agreements consider both local and national need. In SLSGB this is similar, in that SLS regions

are separate legal entities to SLSGB. However, each region and SLSGB do not currently work in

alliance toward mutually agreed objectives that benefit both the regions and the national body.

The state and SLSF organisations in the Australian system are required to report back on agreed

objectives, on a periodic basis at national level, but have autonomy over their own actions and

direction as an organisation. In addition to having independent boards and finances, states also have

the option to develop independent qualifications, education systems, operating procedures and

support programmes. This is suggested to have both positive and negative effects. The positive


8

element was expressed seemingly well by an Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA)

representative, who explained that this approach was,

‘…essential for state based legal requirements to be adequately met, but more importantly to drive

self-sustainability in each state, innovation and non-reliance on national funding’.

They also explained that it was felt that the independent nature is what maintains the ‘passion,

enjoyment and feeling of belonging’ throughout the organisation. It was explained that this was

because each organisation has an element of control over its own destiny, while ‘sitting within a

large family network’. The negative side of this approach was highlighted by the lack of control the

national body could exert over state or SLSF actions and decisions. If a state or the SLSF decided it

wished to do something against plan it was free to do so. The majority of state based

representatives, who raised this issue as a discussion point, recommended that states should be

more closely under the direct control of the National Office, whilst maintaining flexibility to cater for

their niches. It was suggested that this would create a more efficient system of working at national

level. However, some of these representatives also had significant concerns if this was to happen

and the agility that would be maintained at local level in the process.

Many states have subdivisions, or branches, that organise activity in a defined area. These are often

coordinated by a volunteer committee(s) and appear to have limited formal reporting requirements

to the state organisation. There appears to be no agreed national framework for development or

reporting from branch offices, with limited control of activities beyond the need to meet normal

operating procedures (NOPs) set at State or National level. When communicating with a chair of one

of the Branches, they explained that they felt there was not a need for a framework for them to

work to, as the system currently relied on ‘good people doing a good job in a voluntary capacity’,

which the current volunteers were happy with. On a separate note three clubs in the same branch

area, felt that they were unsure of any significant support provided by the branch and were having

to help struggling clubs in the surrounding area themselves, without direction. This seems to indicate

a need for more formal support and guidance on objectives at this level, especially relevant to club

support.

An alternative model is also apparent in SLSWA, where they have not set up a volunteer controlled

branch model, but instead have established lead officers in given areas of work, as paid staff that

directly reporting to the state body. This has enabled them to better control the given work stream

for a location, whilst maintaining the flexibility to set up volunteer working groups, under key staff to

ensure buy in and representation. The system was said to be ‘highly effective and reduces issues

that come with working via committees, apparent in other states’. The issues referenced were

extensively reinforced through discussions at almost all levels and locations of SLSA, except for

SLSWA, and seemed to show significant barriers to progression at reasonable speed.

Currently, SLSGB do not require their equivalent to states or branches (home nations and regions) to

report their activity according to set objectives or any form of framework criteria, nor does it require

them feed directly into project development at national level. The nature of the current regional and

home nations set up, is similar to Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) in that it does not fall under the

direct control of the national governing body. This makes it difficult to control local activities and

quality, mobilise national level projects or gain a national level benefit from initiatives. The officers

may have assumed responsibility to the National organisation, but the national office has little ability


9

to affect performance at regional level. However, the lack of committee levels and structure also

keeps the organisation very agile and able to adapt to needs and make decisions very quickly.

Recommendations: SLSGB as an organisation should consult widely with its regions and home

nations to come to an agreement where all feed into a mutually beneficial plan. This should include

a framework that feeds into a national agenda, as well as reportable objectives.

SLSGB should work towards a situation where lead representatives (with incentivised or paid roles)

in each region/area coordinate activities and representative groups, but are reporting and ultimately

answerable to the national body. This should be catered for in a manner that still provides local

regions/areas the scope to cater for niche needs and develop passion and self-reliance for a resilient

and self-sustaining system.

The SLSGB system should consider its strength in its ability to remain agile as an organisation, while

balancing this with increased input from volunteer representation.


10

National Level Controls

As with many organisations, SLSA defines its expectations through articles and rules of the

association, and does not differ that greatly from the SLSGB approach. Members must agree to

abide by rules and policies upon signing up to the organisation. Where there is greater perceived risk

or need for control, subsequent national level policy, guidance and processes are set for the given

areas of responsibility. Periodically the organisation agrees its current projects and work to be

completed.

In Australia, it seems clearly understood that nationally prioritised project lists are agreed and

assigned with Commission representative input. Their needs must be submitted in advance of the

meetings through project proposals (from staff or representatives) and are subsequently discussed

according to benefit to the organisation’s direction. In 2012, one hundred and ten projects were

prioritised and scored for importance to the organisation. Only the highest scoring projects were

selected for progression within available National level resource capacity. This resulted in 60 projects

being put to one side and 50 projects going ahead. The projects ranged from 3-month to 7 year

initiatives.

This process ensured appropriate evidencing of need for projects, and ensured projects are

prioritised adequately, according to agreed set criteria. This ensured the most important and

beneficial projects were taken forward and appropriate level of resource assigned to successfully

complete it. To best utilise the resources available to SLSGB, such an approach is paramount.

Additionally, there is was a reduced risk of individuals deciding to work on areas not approved at

national level. Undoubtedly, this approach left some feeling their projects were under appreciated.

This was said to be mainly due to incomplete understanding of the process or difficulty for the

individual to evidence the need for their project to be prioritised at national level. By providing

training this can be addressed.

Furthermore, by systematically considering their views, and taking project suggestions of the

volunteers, this approach encouraged ‘buy in’ from others, including the Commissions, into the

projects agreed by the national body. Currently, within the SLSGB, it seems this would be an

invaluable step to increase ‘buy in’ and improve cohesion between SLSGB management and

commissions.

However, this approach required project proposers to consult at lower levels, e.g. with branches and

clubs. But in GB this has only be assumed not necessarily confirmed. Commissions are trusted to do

so, but it be would beneficial to be able to specifying that evidence of such consultation is required.

This level of extended consultation is limited in evidence within the SLSGB system by Commission

representatives and is a clearly an area in need of review for development.

Finally, the meetings at Commission level in Great Britain seem much more focussed on technical

detail of projects that would be catered for by technical working groups in the Australian system,

deterring from time to spend on essential consultations. See recommendations below to address

this.

Recommendations:


11

Develop a framework or criteria for SLSGB management team to refer to and use as guidance and

justification for project prioritisation. Framework must include references to resources available to

execute task/project.

Training and mentoring for Commission chairs relating to their roles, with staff members assigned to

each commissioner, to include longer term project planning requirements and timescales.

Technical committees should feed information into Commissions, rather than the Commissions

becoming technical discussion groups themselves.

SLSGB commissions should be capable of submitting project concepts.

Control of Operational Activities via state level

SLSA has nationally agreed Normal Operating Procedures (NOPs) for events and patrolling. These lay

down the expectations of behaviour to operate effectively. Each state highlighted that they are

required to modify the procedures to align to state based variation in laws and needs. On visiting 5

clubs and questioning on the use of the procedures many had them easily accessible and said that

they use some of the procedures for training in qualifications or as a reference. Conversely they also

indicated that the procedures manuals were too large to expect volunteers to realistically

understand and retain all information effectively. The clubs indicated that they remained reliant on

the life savers competency demonstrated through achieving and maintaining proficiency and

qualification tests and daily briefs/debriefs at patrols or events.

The meeting of the expectations were intrinsically linked to points of leverage that ensure clubs and

volunteers complete the activities and adhere to procedures. State representatives responsible for

delegating funding and clothing subjectively link the behaviour and attitude of lead club

representatives to decide on what subsidies, equipment and clothing will be distributed to them.

This incentivises the club to meet its patrolling quotas and maintain a good record to receive

additional kit. There is an audit process to highlight club kit needs, but the distribution of kit is

largely a subjective process attributed to relationships and perceived approaches of representatives.

It was acknowledged that this could be interpreted as ‘not entirely transparent’ and an area for

consideration if SLSGB were to develop this concept. Other points of leverage include, the clothing

given to patrol members, the use of club sports equipment for free, financial and gift based rewards

for excellence of individuals at club, state and national level.

States grant clubs the power to patrol within the ‘Surfguard’ IT system and surf communication login

system. This is based on their registration with the organisation and satisfactory equipment audits

performed on a periodic basis. Clubs grant power to set patrol teams to work according to agreed

rotas, subject to them meeting agreed qualifications for their designated roles.

Support and maintenance programs are provided from either state or branch level usually by paid

staff, so that individuals can gain guidance to run the patrol, as appropriate. There seems to be

limited formal monitoring and verification of volunteer patrol standard operating from state

assigned representatives, beyond equipment and qualification audits or radio log ins of patrols to

the ‘Surfcom’ centre. The approach for volunteer patrols appears to be self-regulating. However,


12

patrols may receive monitoring visits by branch or state representatives, if they are raised as posing

a risk to the organisation or if equipment audit/patrol radio logins raise issues. It was explained that

the system is so well established in Australia now that the level of support required is minimal.

Typically the support is based around issue resolution at clubs and assistance in coordination of

major incidents, typically that require communication with press. The day to day running of

volunteer patrols is normally overseen by one paid lifeguard on duty overseeing volunteers. This

only occurs on weekends, within the week all services are paid lifeguards. Paid lifeguards and

volunteers typically wear different uniforms to allow differentiation and may be paid for by a

separate organisation. This is different to the standard British approach, whereby current lifeguard

services would not allow volunteers to run with a differentiation in brand or presentation. The

system and local authorities have also not recognised the potential of facilitating largely volunteer

club run patrol systems or integrating them with paid services. This has occurred with some success

in select locations, but requires further evidencing of benefit to councils and paid services.

For paid professional services a full quality system aligning to the ISO 90012008 standards of quality

are implemented by SLSA. This is run under the direct control a brand and company, ‘The Australian

Lifeguard Service’. This ensured quality service provision to the international standards, which would

be expected from a professional service. SLSGB has worked significantly to define expectations in

patrolling, events and water safety for volunteer services, but its activities have historically been

insufficiently governed, due to ineffective leverage points over those providing services, as well as

minimal levels of support, maintenance and monitoring to verify performance levels.

When visiting Northcliffe Surf Life Saving Club, it explained it felt there was not a great deal of

contact with Surf Life Saving Australia and a moderate amount of contact with Surf Life Saving

Queensland (SLSQ ) state representatives. It was explained that they were satisfied with the level of

financial support from the organisations, as they had developed their own sustainable income model

($2.56million AUD per annum). The club explained that the area they felt SLSA and SLSQ could

improve was auditing of club performance across its activities using a complete quality system ad

support programmes to continually develop. They explained that they wanted this to ensure that the

club were doing the correct actions and receive credit for their achievements in areas of strength. It

also explained that it had been assisting other struggling clubs in the local area to develop, but there

was not a model of good practice to follow. This view was also supported by club representatives in

Margret River, Western Australia and Dee Why Club, New South Wales.

New South Wales and Surf Life Saving Queensland were currently developing Club Quality Assurance

packages for clubs that would begin to meet the needs highlighted, that aligned with programmes

such as the Australian governing body systems for rugby and netball clubs. These were about to

begin pilot roll out phases over the coming season.

Recommendations: SLSGB should align its operations to a process that assures quality provision of

service across the organisation. It should do this by developing long term plans that prioritise the

following for each area of operation e.g. water safety, club/centre development, education, events:

Defining clear expectations for standards

Linking effective leverage points to motivate adherence to standards/expectations


13

Granting power to appropriate organisations and individuals for their part in maintaining the

standards

Providing support and monitoring

Verifying performance & rewarding behaviour

It may utilise SLSA procedures that have been provided to adapt as required and gain feedback from

the implementation of the Pilot Club QA programmes due for implementation this year.

SLSGB should develop a regional/area based support and verification network of officers with a

national identity to assure implementation of the standards. It may also be beneficial to work with

SLSA to develop further human resource via an exchange programme to progress this area

specifically related to patrolling and water safety remits.

SLSGB needs to facilitate its Life Saving Commission to evidence the ability and benefits of effective

voluntary club patrol services. This needs to be in a format that is useful to land owners and lead

formal agreements to be able to expand provision according to need.


14

State Operations

Education

SLSA aim to provide effective member education programmes and support states to deliver this and

related updates. The national body provides an agreed manual and resource for lifeguard training

information. It also provides an online learning environment with the SLSA lifeguard course provided

with Sharable Content Object Reference Model Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM)

compliant resources. Currently the SLSA is not a delivery body, this role is achieved by states on a

commercial level and clubs on member level. It had been indicated that the biggest challenge had

been to align to a national framework whilst shielding members from the burden associated with

administration that comes with compliance to National Educational Standards. SLSA received

$10million AUD to set up Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) in each state.

Commercial Education Services

The development of awards to the general public had been developed to a commercial scale via the

SLS state organisations. The approach was said to have taken on average 4 years to establish a break

even business as a viable Registered Training Organisation. This was developed to the most

significant level by SLSNSW which has a significantly large market through the population of Sydney.

Seventy percent of its forty thousand awards delivered annually, were in this area through 6 full

time trainers and almost 50 contractors, as well as a dedicated sales and admin team. The market

(primarily focussed around First Aid Courses) was said to be highly competitive and indicated that if

SLSGB was to enter down a commercial avenue that it was very important for it to maintain

differentiation from its competitors. It said the main sell point for SLS states was that SLS was

respected for having young and energetic trainers, a nationally recognised image stronger than its

national airlines and a price point that was competitive with others. The state organisations were

also established within large city populations to target. Some states explained that it was relatively

easy to gain advantage in 20mile radius of their offices due to lack of associated travel and

accommodation costs or coordination of contracts and contractors. However, they are now looking

at ways to branch out in a more cost effective approach to smaller communities along the coasts.

The largest difficulty in the process of becoming RTOs was suggested to come from the increased

compliance requirements that came with it and the qualifications aligned to national standards.

Managing the volunteer expectations for delivery requirements and nature of delivery within clubs

structures quickly became a barrier to utilising RTO delivery standards in a volunteer system.

The method used to counter this was to allow two systems to run side by side i.e. An SLS

qualification and an RTO equivalent matched to it with higher administrative requirements.

Volunteers continue to meet SLSA specific criteria and competencies for their roles, similar to

before. If they wish to achieve the RTO level qualification, they must evidence their current training

and attend assessments that meet RTO compliance requirements.

SLSWA and SLSQ also provided example of their ‘surf babies’, ‘surf kids’ and ‘little nippers’

programmes that were said to be growing in popularity in kindergarten, school and activity club

groups. The schemes allow staged progression of safety and fun under the guidance of surf life


15

savers. These schemes appeared relatively early implementation stages with number of participants

in the hundreds at the time of attendance to the states. It was suggested that prospecting with the

above target groups over the current year had been very successful contributing well to the give, get

involved and be safe principles.

Inclusion and Education

‘On the Same Wave’ and ‘Beach to Bush’

The aim of the above inclusion programmes was to increase the diversity of membership. It was

prompted when significantly diverse needs of individuals were found on beaches and significant

exclusion was experienced at clubs. Furthermore, a significant issue with drowning in ethnic

minorities and those not experienced with the surf in Australia became evident.

Actions taken by SLSA as a result:

All photos and posters now aim to include differing age, race, gender and culture.

Special clothing was introduced to allow for Muslims to remain covered up appropriately with

minimal hindrance to swimming capability through specially designed skin suits.

‘Beach to Bush’ programmes that allowed support from local clubs, to inexperienced individuals

from bush areas. This project was highly dependent upon local relationships flourishing to maintain

sustainability.


16

Clubs and Centres

Club Capacity and Focus

In Britain, there has been a continued expression from SLS clubs that they are working to maximal

capacity in their facilities. Many clubs have large waiting lists for nipper members to join with the

largest clubs remaining under 300 members. There have been some interesting examples in

Australia that counter this assumption and provide examples that may provoke new avenues to be

explored in GB.

A simple example to start with is that a club in New South Wales (NSW) have over 1000 nipper

members alone in their club. There is an argument that club houses in Australia are much larger than

in Britain, allowing them to increase their capacity, which in some cases is true. However, an

example in Western Australia at Coogee beach we have a photo of a club I visited that visually seems

like an average size club facility in Great Britain.

This club has 2000 members, more than 6 times the amount of the largest club in Britain. This leaves

the question ‘how is this achieved?’ and the answers are relatively simple. When asked, it was that

the club had focussed on expanding the number of senior members that can support club activities.

They did this by providing leverage points to keep them involved and incentivised them to support

the club’s development in other ways. It has also increased the number of occasions through the

week it provides opportunities for the members of all ages, rather than just having evenings or more

specifically one or two evenings to be involved for a category. The club required nipper parents to

commit to volunteering support to the club each year, this ensured capacity was developed to

support activities. This also resulted in an increase in active patrolling members and volunteering

hours. This had a positive impact on the ‘charitability’ of the club and consequent generation of

funds.


17

The Gold Coast of Australia has more than 20 clubs over a 20 mile span of beach and provides a good

example of varying focus on their approaches. The question from a British perspective was how

could so many clubs survive in such a small area, when they are aiming to provide the same service

to members and the public. The obvious answers were that there was a large population, Surf Life

Saving was part of the culture on the coast, many people wanted to be involved and there wasn’t

enough space at clubs. But with no member limits at clubs why didn’t everyone just go to ‘the best

club’. When visiting lead officers in clubs, it appeared that each club provided a variety of similar

services, but had evolved to pride itself and its reputation on catering for their own focussed niche

within Surf Life Saving. This evolution then became the focus of their strategy to get enough

members to sustain the club and volunteering services.

For example, North Kirra Club had focussed on attracting 90% of its membership from Brisbane City

based dwellers (more than 1hour and 30minute drive from the club). This was due to the fact that

there was relatively low population around their club and four other clubs within a 2 mile radius that

they were competing with. The next question was ‘how did they attract these members?’. The

answers were simple, they provided points of leverage that made members feel they need to join.

The club promoted provision of free accommodation for patrolling members coming from the city

and free training to get awards and life experience. They also built partnerships with key clubs based

in the city of Brisbane, such as swimming clubs and student activities that acted as feeders to the

club. Therefore, people joined the club to get free weekends and training on the coast. These people

then developed a relationship and commitment to the club and they stayed with the club for life and

bringing their young families back in later life, too.

Northcliffe Surf Life Saving Club was renowned as the highest profile Surf Life Saving Club in

Australia. It attributed its success to focussing its energy on building a reputation for excellence and

providing a great service to its members, so that everyone would tell others to join. David Shields,

the long standing President of the club since the mid 90’s, explained that the success took a long

time to build and started in approximately 1996. This was when the club was struggling to provide

enough qualified volunteer senior members to support its number of patrolling hours (required by

SLSA) on the beach. It recognised that, Surf Life Saving competition mandated competitors to be

lifeguard qualified and provide 25hours volunteer patrolling per year, if they wished to compete. The

training for fitness in the surf was also something that nearly all members who joined, required or

enjoyed within their peer group. This point of leverage allowed the club to target groups of people

who would help them fulfil the clubs patrolling requirements. This group also valued the training and

support service that the club could give them. The club also came to recognise that members who

joined primarily to compete, typically would give 10 years volunteering service. Whereas individuals

that joined from the local area for the purpose of gaining qualifications and patrolling experience,

typically provided only 3-4 years volunteering. The club has focussed on promoting their successes

and has successfully maintained an excellent patrol record with SLSQ.

Other club niche areas that clubs utilised included focussing on such areas as Surf boats or Inshore

Rescue boat provision. Main Beach SLSC was said to provide the majority of the Gold Coasts IRB

equipment, safety cover and highest rates of training opportunities in powercraft. This enabled them

to attract members with a passion for powered craft to come together in a hub. Again this was not

to say that the club did not provide other services, it was just recognising their area of strength and

valuing it.


18

The main points that SLSGB could learn from visiting these clubs was to the value and focus clubs on

their niche markets within Surf Life Saving. They could then be the most successful in their chosen

niche of choice and be recognised for excellence. Each club played on leverage points to gain

members, which SLSGB and its clubs have not facilitated to an optimal level.

An additional consideration was that some clubs have over 10,000 members associated with them.

When looking at the profile of the members, typically more than 50% of these members are part of

the ‘supporters’ club. This is a set up where members pay a nominal fee to support the club and be

associated with them. This provides the supporter with the benefit of being able to access the club

and discounted food, drink and entertainment. It also allows the supporter access to the network of

Surf Life Saving clubs around Australia that will welcome them as part of the Surf Life Saving family

and a similar social offer. The benefit to the active members of the club is that the income helps

support development, training and facilities. This system is not established in any significant form

within SLSGB clubs, apart from one club that allows a supporter membership category and

occasional license to sell food and drink. This club is also one of the most all round successful clubs in

the country. The significant difference with the British network of clubs is that they do not currently

provide services that could give access to food, drink and entertainment or other such benefits that

supporters may value on a regular basis.

Recommendations: SLSGB commissions must review provision of reasonable leverage points to

increase club or member needs to volunteer and increase membership in capacity in clubs. Use of

the SLSA example of volunteer hour mandates to enter certain events may be one option, but

considering innovative routes that will help us grow the capacity of clubs in the British environment

should be the focus.

The organisation’s management team should also discuss how it will integrate guidance and support

for inner city linked clubs that wish to provide leverage points for travelling members, such as the

provision of accommodation.

The SLSGB regional road show and National Update should use the examples of the Australian clubs

and their successes within difficult circumstances, to encourage clubs to develop niche areas of

success.

SLSGB should consider facilitating a supporter category to its membership with associated benefits.

It should also consider how it can facilitate clubs being able to commercialise their activity and

maximise the locations of their clubs, to provide a national network benefit.

Support and Recognition Initiatives

Leaders programme

This is a programme for members 30 years plus with official roles in their club such as the role of

club captain. SLSA conducts a pre-attendance survey of needs of attendees to inform the key issues

they are encountering and the programme is centred around these. As a reward, an agreement has

been reached with certain states where key individuals are then sent through to attend State

Emergency Services camps alongside fire fighters and other emergency services. A focus is also put


19

around making this group feel part of a family within Life Saving, i.e. becoming valued leaders. This is

to keep them involved for life and feel belonging to a wider group. SLSGB does not currently have a

camp that focusses on leaders of this nature and is an area to be discussed for future development.

It is seen this can be vital programme for meeting member needs and creating a family of leaders.

But finding funding to support attendance for current leaders to travel may be difficult. Perhaps

further focussed integration into the National Leadership Camp is a way forward for the more

immediate future or sourcing funding to initiate a focus for this group.

Recommendation: Explore funding opportunities and options to integrate a similar programme

alongside current work such as the ERDF ambassadors programme.

Leadership Camp

A programme for emerging young members of clubs that are likely to be attending the leaders

programme in years to come. Works on general communication and leadership skills and aims to

ensure that the individuals begin to feel part of a family of leaders that will stay with the

organisation for life. A facebook group has been said to be one of the most successful elements for

attendees to get to know each other pre attending, but to remain connected, post the event for

much more extended durations. The Camp schedules and feedback from 2012 has been provided

and a space for an SLSGB member to attend the camp in 2013 was provided.

Recommendation: SLSGB to send a member to the camp to learn and integrate key elements into a

leadership camp in GB for 2013.

Youth Involvement Programme (YIP)

The YIP programme is a relatively new concept introduced at State level by SLSQ and SLSWA. The

programme provides a log book type approach that recognises number of hours volunteering that

youth members undertake. A bronze, silver and gold approach is promoted. The concept has been

welcomed by state level representatives and appears to be popular with clubs where they have

adequate level of financial support to provide rewards suitable for individuals to aspire to, e.g. an

ipad, MP3 player or clothing vouchers are provided upon reaching certain levels. Top volunteers can

be put forward into a national reward for activities, such as experiences in the Westpac Rescue

Helicopters and Rescue Jet boats. SLSGB does not have such a recognition programme for

volunteering at the current time in any age group and should be considered, to effectively motivate

more activity and capacity in clubs.

Recommendation: SLSGB to develop a time phased plan for initiating a volunteer recognition

programme that is sustainable to track and recognise and reward. Also integrate with lead volunteer

programmes, such as the Duke of Edinburgh, scout and Cadet schemes, to expand reach and

incentive.

Hall of Fame and Awards Ceremony


20

Recognition via honorary awards ceremonies are organised through an escalatory type approach.

Clubs will have an awards ceremony and nominate their top individuals through to a Branch awards

ceremony, these are then elevated and invited to the State awards ceremony and eventually

through to the national level.

Currently in the British system there may be club ceremonies and an organised national award

ceremony (Heroes of the Surf), but a Regional or county level is being overlooked. The SLSGB award

ceremonies are limited in recognition as its regional and club representatives have limited

recognition of the volume of nominations received from each club and region. The lack of a ‘stepping

stone’ at regional level could be a barrier to clubs putting persons forward and understanding their

achievements on a local level. Conversely the limited number of nominations coming forward mean

that purely number of years service is being put forward to a national level when it could be

recognised at a local level. For example 10 years service is currently recognised at the National

Awards Ceremony. The National event can become an event recognising local level achievements,

devaluing its appeal and status for people to aspire to. Supporting the regions to develop the

appropriate stepping stones and to nominate via their club would seem an appropriate and

aspirational step to explore with SLSGB regional groups.

Recommendation: Develop and implement an awards plan that encourages an escalating level of

recognition from club through to regional, through to national level for achievements.

Club Open Day package

A club open day system was promoted via a support package that allowed clubs to promote a day

that welcomed individuals to the club and to get them involved in the movement. The ‘clickiness’ of

a club was said to be recognised as a perceived barrier to entry by non-members as an active

member of a club. The pack provides template posters, support resources and information packs

that clubs can adapt to include their own club details. There was not an official objective measuring

the success of the program, but representatives indicated that it hadn’t been overly successful on a

large scale, but worked in select areas with highly motivated volunteers that have the drive to make

it work.

Recommendations: utilise resources to adapt a similar package approach for club open days to use

in 2014 along with regional promotion days surrounding this. almost a National Life savers type day.

Water Safety

Water safety and Surf Sport Injury

Visiting SLSA head Office allowed a meeting with the recently initiated research arm of the

organisation. This was developed to introduce evidence based practice in Surf Life Saving. Part of the


21

research being undertaken has had a strong focus on the reduction of drowning incidents and injury

in surf sports. This is partly due to recent lessons learned from the drowning of both Saxon Bird in

2010 and Matthew Barclay in 2012 at the Australian Surf Life Saving Championships. This

significantly raised awareness of the risk of surf sports injuries. The coroner’s reports from the Saxon

Bird incident highlighted an immediate need to better understand the risk of injury in surf sport

events and ensure appropriate controls are implemented.

Three significant issues that Australia were currently attending to were.

The difficulty in finding missing persons and submerged bodies in surf conditions

The need for appropriate means to reduce the likelihood of drowning without inhibiting

participation in Surf Sports via a flotation device

Enhanced safety management at events

Finding submerged bodies or missing persons in the surf - Research conducted by Surf Life Saving

Australia concluded that luminous pink vests made bodies most visible in surf conditions when

above water or submerged. The pink was more readily seen at greater depths than other colours. It

was also the most contrasting colour when competitors were above water within white water

conditions or with glare from the sun. It has been made mandatory that all competitors must now

wear these vests in surf sport competitions within SLS National and State rule books. Additionally, a

number of clubs are deciding to introduce similar policies within their daily training activities. During

a visit to Northcliffe Surf Life Saving club, it was highlighted that the club had made it mandatory for

all individuals undertaking training, to wear the pink vests. Vests were a reasonable price of

approximately £10-15 equivalent purchase price for individuals and reduced cost when bought in

bulk. It was agreed to take this recommendation to Britain and implement this as a reasonable

measure in SLSGB events and indicate the benefits to the National Water Safety Forum (NWSF)

groups from SLSA learning.

In addition the use of vests, SLSA have now introduced drill type safety practices prior to larger

events for search and emergency situations. These utilise an agreed search team that are called

upon in an emergency and methods for searching according to the location and expected conditions,

they also initiate dye releases into the water to be able to clearly see the current patterns at the

location and understand where a missing person may have drifted towards. The SLSGB Commission

representatives and Events Manager will be notified of these approaches and of the need to review

safety and standard operating procedures for the coming season and implement reasonably

practicable methods of a similar nature for the future.

Appropriate buoyancy aids in surf sports for individuals - An appropriate means of buoyancy for use

in surf lifesaving sports were currently being researched by SLSA, but results were currently

inconclusive. A specification had been established by SLSA that recognises that participants wearing

buoyancy aids in surf lifesaving sports need to be able to be able to swim under water to 2 metres

depth, for 5 successive waves while wearing the buoyancy in standard surf lifesaving training and

competition, but float them sufficiently if the participant became unconscious. This specification was


22

set as it was agreed that participants are often required to swim clear of waves, other competitors

and craft to remain safe in the surf (i.e. swim underwater). There had been a number of difficulties

with achieving this specification in line with current standards for buoyancy aids within ISO and

Australian standards. Initially, auto inflation and fixed level buoyancy aids were used, which allowed

appropriate paddling technique, but as soon as individuals went into the water, it would prevent

them from swimming below the surface due to the level of buoyancy. Various options of wetsuits

and lesser buoyancy levels were also trialled. These allowed additional buoyancy than swimming

costumes, whilst allowing individuals to submerse when required. Although many of the wetsuit

options allowed suitable submersion, the level of buoyancy, did not meet the requirements of ISO or

Australian Standards. In discussion with the researcher, it seemed that a current opinion was that

there was a form of stale mate developing with the requirements of the participation and the

current defined standards by ISO and Australian committees. The current thoughts for a path of

progression appeared to point towards the defining of a new standard of buoyancy that would meet

the requirements of the events. However, it was noted that this did not seem a highly favourable

approach to be taken by the standards committees. SLSA were continuing to research this area and

continue conversations with suppliers and policy makers. SLSA have agreed to forward updates on

the development of this area as they emerge to inform future development in GB, any information

provided should be disseminated to the SLSGB Event Manager, Safety Advisor and Commission

Chairs and wider National Water Safety Forum.

The coroner’s report from the Saxon Bird cases recognised that at the time of these incidents that

there was inadequate communication of risks between Referees, Officials and Safety

representatives. The examples cited included managers, competitors, parents and others that

reported concerns regarding safety about inter-related issues. This was to numerous different event

representatives on the beach, as well as a number of competitors not able to complete the courses

or craft being damaged. Although the issues were reported to different representatives, they were

not recognised in a central register to highlight the need for change or postponement in the running

of the events, by a designated individual responsible for safety.

Recommendations: The importance of a central issue and risk register that is frequently reported

into at events will be communicated to the SLSGB Events Manager. It should be considered for

inclusion to recommended updates to standard operating procedures at the next review.

The procedures for event safety must ensure that the elevation of issues/risks at events that would

allow a timely and informed approach to changing or postponing events when dangerous

occurrences were reported to a central point.

SLSA have also provisionally agreed to SLSGB representatives to use of their new iPhone application

that aids recording of risks at events and elevating them to a central location. When an agreement is

confirmed and the process written into SLSGB procedures and training defined, the application

should be made available for Qualified SLSGB members to use.


23

Water Safety

A note was made that in the mid 2000’s IRB racing was removed from Surf Life Saving sport

programme, due to rising concerns with the number of injuries occurring and also rising insurance

premiums. The effect was a significant drop in the number of qualified IRB drivers in clubs to a level

that there was inadequate numbers of members to fulfil patrolling requirements at clubs and for

water safety at events. A large review was held that reviewed the rules to the sport to make it much

safer and allow the sport to continue to attract life savers who would man the craft. The learning

point was the motivational benefit and leverage that the sport can provide to incentivise people to

volunteer and support at clubs. SLSGB and other water safety organisations must maximise this

opportunity.

Equipment specifications

SLSA undertake testing of Life Saving equipment and maintain an approved list. This list will be

provided to SLSGB and can be utilised by the SLSGB Life Saving Commission to state its approved

equipment list. It was suggested that additional equipment may be added/removed according to

British requirements and any testing should involve a minimum of a test from National or

State/Regional level. Then if appropriate successful equipment should be piloted in one to two clubs.

Upon appropriate feedback they may be added to the approved equipment list. Within Australia,

clubs are not permitted to buy outside of the approved list if they wish to be insured.

Recommendation: SLSGB Commissions to maintain a complimentary list of recognised equipment

for use by members and utilise SLSA research to help guide decisions.

Distance event rule additions

SLS Australia distance events had undergone a review and recognised the need to cater more

credibly for potential areas of risk. SLSGB had already made the majority of changes provided by

SLSA for the 2012-13 season. Key additions were the requirement to have checkpoints and ‘spotters’

to record participants passing through key check points across a course on a periodic basis. Where

paddlers did not return to a shore based checkpoint for a significant time, then a system was still

implemented where water based craft had to pass between buoys/boats which either recorded or

relayed the details of competitors when reaching checkpoints via communication methods such as

radio.

Another addition introduced not currently catered for in current SLSGB rules, was the requirement

of a qualified life saver to paddle alongside swimmers in distance swims where safety cover could

not realistically support the breadth of a location. The individual entering the event was responsible

for finding qualified cover and evidencing the qualifications to the event organiser.

Recommendations: Inform SLSGB events manager of the need to review the use of checkpoints and

communication relay procedures for distance events, especially in areas where not returning to

shore for extended periods.


24

Review the possible routes for participants in events to use life savers to cover distance based

endurance swims, with the possibility of a register of qualified lifesavers that could support this

function.

Review of British Event Water Safety guidance

SLSA feedback on the newly produced guidance for event water safety guidance in Britain was that it

provided a fair and non-restrictive framework to allow safety provision at water based events.

Suggestions for improvements in future revisions were to consider:

Detail of requirements for the Lead Water Safety officer related to preparing, planning,

monitoring the water safety delivery.

Highlight good practice scenarios of issue/risk escalation through an event water safety

team

Provide an auditable checklist for each level of responsibility identified that can assure

meeting of the duty of care

Provide the feedback to the royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for consideration in future

revisions.

Recommendations: Provide an auditable approach to checking responsibilities that is reviewed by

the National Water Safety forum. Ensure that there is a dissemination plan to ensure local

authorities and land owners are aware of the standards and how they can be recognised.


25

Surf Sport Injury Reporting

The epidemiology of surf sports injuries was discussed and the pilot study proposal for surf sport

injury surveillance raised with Dr Shauna Sherker and Barbara Brighton, the lead research

representatives for Surf Life Saving Australia. It was recognised that there was an inadequate

understanding of the relative risk of surf sport injury according to exposure hours. It was understood

that that there was not currently a recognised and agreed approach to collecting surf sport injury

surveillance data to inform and measure control measure development, accurately. The fact that no

study currently existed that used relative risk according to exposure hours to given hazards makes it

very difficult to accurately understand if a new control measure was being effective because it was

implemented or just that the exposure to the risks was reduced.

It was understood that the gold standard for recording sport injury should be used in line with other

sports injury reporting data, i.e. injuries per 1000 participation hours, used to collect data requir

standardisation. Current research data from published journals is not collated according to this

manner. It was recognised from the discussion that there was a need to discuss this further and

develop a research group to gain an expert consensus opinion on reporting methods. It was

discussed that one option to initiate the process may be to use a small international focus group of

3-4 Surf Life Saving nations capable of piloting an agreed approach. A further discussion was

proposed to develop this concept, and a date is to be agreed.

Other proposals were to share SLA recent research papers through SLSGB website, subject to

appropriate recognition to the papers through the SLSGB site.

Ensure that the new website allows a section for latest research to be published and linked to SLSGB

literature.


26

Attendance of the International Life Saving (ILS) meetings

I attended the ILS general assembly, which saw the standing down of the acting president Dr Klauss

Wilkins from Germany representing the DLRG organisation. The election bids resulted in Graham

Ford from Surf Life Saving Australia stand as the new president with a very positive pitch to combat

drowning in developing nations as the largest focus of the ILS. Chris Brewster from United States Life

Saving and John Martin OBE stood for election, but did not receive enough votes to counter the very

impressive pledge from Graham Ford from Surf Life Saving Australia. Useful contacts were built with

Surf Life Saving Australia representatives and Japan Life Saving Association (JLA). Discussions with

Toshinori Ishikawa, the chair of the drowning prevention committee in JLA provided insight into the

similarities in size of SLSGB and the JLA organisations, facing different challenges and successes that

could be learnt from. These included success with the university market to support a motivated

volunteer network. Initial agreements were had to send a British team to the first International Life

Saving Cup to be held in Japan, in September 2013. There were also the opportunities expressed for

future exchange opportunities to see the relatively large gains achieved on a small budget.

Attendance at the ILS commissions

I attended the International Life Saving Federation Sports commission meeting in Adelaide, initially

as an observer, but part of the meeting involved voting for new members into the group. My

application had been welcomed by the group earlier in the year and was supported to become a full

voting member to the group. The group discussed the strategy that had been agreed at board level

and previous actions from meetings and focussed on establishing working groups/projects for

developing agreed equipment specifications and event operating toolkits to allow safe and well ran

events to be sanctioned by ILS. Further meetings will be held in the coming years.


27

National Foundation and Raising the Funds

The National Foundation was set up from a State based initiative by SLSQ and became a national

concept in 2011. It was run by a highly competent and experienced board made of significant

business and media representatives to provide funding to Surf Life Saving states and clubs. The

funding helped provide equipment and grant to assist clubs to run their activities. SLSGB does not

currently have a foundation concept, so the following is for information and consideration for

potential paths in the future.

Three key pillars

All of the SLSF and SLSA schemes aimed at the public focus on the following 3 key pillars:

1. Give

2. Get Involved

3. Be safe

Products and promotions are profiled around the pillars e.g. within retail, education, CPR, First Aid,

events, fun activities, fundraising and sponsorship. There are numerous schemes utilised and the

following is a summary. SLSF have agreed to offer their artwork originals and electronic files,

contacts (within data protection constraints) and any further advice to SLSGB to help, as

appropriate.

Data collection was said to be highly important to ensure that sufficient number of the correct

people were targeted. Gaining access to people provided an avenue for maintaining contact and

attracting further support from them. Many of the schemes were focussed around this to get people

involved.

Pin and Win

The ‘Pin and Win’ scheme is the closest and most realistic of the lottery type approaches to earning

income that could transfer from SLSF to the GB market. A pin badge is sold with a free card that can

be scratched away to reveal a prize, if the purchaser goes online and registers their details, they can

receive the prize. The difference with this approach is that it is not technically classed as a lottery or

gambling, as the purchaser is buying a pin badge, so can be sold in any number of outlets as a ‘trade

promotional’ item. SLSA use a professional sales agency to distribute, whilst advising utilising a

sponsor such as say ‘BP’ to cover the costs of production and distribution. It was suggested that

having a sponsor such as service stations, supermarkets or similar reduces the sales agent and rental

fees, ensuring that more money goes back to SLSGB. Card and pins cost approximately 58cents per

item to make, the seller cost is approximately $7.50 (mainly site rental and sales agent fees), the

remaining $1.92 goes to the organisation. The cards made just over £3million dollars in 2012 and the

safety info on them reached over 5 million people.

Activation schemes


28

Start and finish for promoting alongside a scheme such as YIP programme or an event. Sponsors

provide in the region of £2-10k benefit to launch their products alongside SLSA programmes or

events and utilise associated photography and goodwill at the locations. SLSGB do this to a level

through a focussed officer, but it may be worth a more planned approach across departments and

programmes. Currently this may be a step to far for already overstretched staff, but once the

organisation is stable with its day to day delivery and governance, it should be raised in priority by a

range of areas.

Grant seeking

The largest area for Grant and equipment provision funding in Australia was related to achieving

‘compliance’ requirements, i.e. so the organisation is undertaking the correct processes and

procedures to meet legal, statutory and occupational health and safety requirements. The advice

was to seek out this area more significantly in the UK to see if this exists to the same level in British

industry.

Secondly building relationships with philanthropic organisations was said to be the key to significant

grant funding to be provided in Australia. It was also said to provide the best links to donors likely to

leave money to the organisation for the future.

Linkage grants

Linkage grants refer to match funding support for research projects that occur in Australia through

Australian Research Council (ARC). It was advised to see what equivalents may exist in GB.

Efficiency Grants

Support finding grants for efficiency have been successful related to water collection, solar power

and energy efficiency improvement ratings. Typically in the region of $10k

Small grant application assistance

The organisation has developed an in-house grant writing department that bids for grants for

national, state, branch and club level activity. These may write the applications completely or

provide support or proofing functions to each organisation. It was indicated that in the early

approaches of setting up the team the SLSF tried two alternative approaches to having a specific

grant writing team. The SLSF had trialled approaches of using contracted agencies to write

applications and also tried staff in each department writing their applications, but the development

of an in-house team had proved most successful. Both the former approaches were explained to

have drawbacks. The first approach was indicated to be very cost intensive for the return gained and

required significant staff resource to ensure that the writers fully understood the projects and


29

approach that was needed to be taken. When using staff from state level management they were

not as experienced with writing the applications, but also became side tracked from implementing

operational activity.

Donors

Legacy funding was said not to be as advanced as it is in the UK, with lesser targeting and success

achieved than organisations such as the RNLI . The most significant successful message achieved in

Australia to date is ‘Your legacy is a lifesaver’. All sample resources have been provided in a package

and an agreement to adapt and utilise providers is in place.

All significant givers are provided significant thank you ‘presents’ to say thank you and show the

individuals are valued, but not to a level that makes the individual feel that they have wasted their

money, via it being spent back on expensive promotional materials.

Sponsorship

It was explained that it was felt that sponsorship plateaus had been reached by the organisation.

Approximately £4.6million per year is raised, but significant gains beyond this were thought to be

limited to the optimal ratio between number of sponsors and the value of the sponsorship

opportunities that can be provided. Increasing the amount of sponsors reduces the value to the

sponsor. Increasing the cost would price major sponsors out, especially within the current global

economic climate. It was indicated that all sponsorship income was allocated directly to designated

expenditure, e.g. the Westpac sponsorship scheme was an agreement specifically to run the

Westpac Rescue Helicopter service. It was also suggested that many of the significant sponsorship

deals were brokered due to strong links with Surf Life Savers working in influential positions in the

organisations and organisations mainly supporting according to goodwill.

The organisation feels it has almost reached a plateau with self-generated income from its current

avenues and feels that the next step is to pitch as a government subsidised service. There are

conflicts with this within the different fractions of the organisation. When the Surf Life Saving

Foundation and clubs are seeking funding they need to focus on the charity elements of the cause.

However, when the public feel that it is a public service, National Governing Body or Registered

Training Organisation they are less likely to give. This is said to lead to counterproductive streams

and thought processes developing in the organisation, but the Heads of the organisation feel that

the biggest potential for increased revenue at this stage in the organisations development is via

government subsidies.

Quality Assurance systems need to account for controlling lower level allocation of the SLSA logo. To

ensure it is protected and allows for ‘Major Sponsors’ to be assigned appropriate benefit without

devaluing by State and club level association with the logo.

It was stated that with hindsight the organisation should have established a much tighter intellectual

property (IP) policy earlier on in its days. The level of ‘giving away’ and ‘undervaluing’ of the IP is said


30

to be prolific amongst clubs. To a level where National Banks are paying in the regions of £10-100k

to gain similar association with the brand that other national banks are paying $3million for at

National level. It was strongly recommended to establish an IP policy that goes with the current

brand guidelines to ensure that approval of use of logo at club and regional level is normal practice.

The brand in Australia is fiercely protected with on average 10 IP breach letters sent out each week,

but the organisation is finding it very difficult to take this same approach with its own clubs.

‘National Boardies Day’

Using the concept of a ‘National Boardies Day’ SLSA have managed to build a community of largely

schools and businesses donating online via the Artez platform (computer programme for donating to

charity). People wear board shorts (boardies) to school to raise awareness and money for Surf Life

Saving Australia, a bit like a ‘non-uniform’ day. The program has been said to be mildly successful in

niche areas, but has not had large enough financial investment to make it a truly recognised National

Day. 2012-2013 will see $100.000 put into the program promotion as a last chance to make it work

as a significant fund raiser.

SLSGB already have initiated a concept of ‘Boardies Day’ and some clubs have achieved success with

the concept locally at schools, but similar to the Australian model it has not taken off mainstream

yet. Looking at the finances required to push the concept in Australia, SLSGB would require a

significant promotional campaign to truly get it off the ground.

Beneficiary Events

Many Beneficiary events are organised to encourage people to give, get involved and be safe, these

include:

Raffles

Golf days

Escape from the tower

Corporate lunches

Festivals and tin shaking (said to raise on average $10k on the gate, per large festival)

There are said to be very effective for building relationships that result in giving whilst covering costs

for the promotional events themselves.

Utilisation of community service announcements

In Australia, approved charities are provided with community service announcement airtime. The

organisation ensures that its messaging of ‘Give, Get involved, Be safe’ is integrated in the TV and

radio slots. SLSGB to find out if any such initiatives exist in GB and how these can best be utilised in a

sustainable away.


31

Utilisation of Tourism Providers

To support a programme that has a display on hotel TV when arriving in the room that promotes the

Give, Get Involved, Be Safe type approach utilising the importance that ‘When everybody else has

gone, surf life savers are still there for you!’ This should be the similar in key information centres or

tourist destinations. The advice provided was that the biggest effects are seen where there is an

indigenous club and a local community of life savers.

Evidencing value of Volunteers and services

Australia have used a strategy of valuing the socioeconomic benefit of life saving and its volunteers.

Valuing each of the roles that are provided and how many hours are provided by the organisation

existing. It has also proposed to put a price on how much each drowning and suicide costs the

Government in not only the direct hospital fees and rescuing/flying of the individual to hospital, but

also the loss of Taxes paid, subsequent depression and anxiety of family and lost time at work, etc.

Recommendation:

SLSGB to review the activities of SLSF and potential pivot points for SLSGB, then devise a long term

development plan for implementation from 2014, to build a sustainable financial model for SLSGB

development. Also explore the potential for a secondment position from SLSF or similar bodies to

help establish such a set up.

Utilise tourism networks as a quick way to market with any national scheme as they have the

connection to a relevant market


32

Information Communications Technology

The SLSA Information system was exemplified at each access level from the central administrator

through to individual member access levels. SLSA explained it took between 6-8 years to get its core

business areas together within a coordinated IT system, that met its needs. It started with areas that

were central to core business and using the most extensive resource across the organisation. Access

codes were provided to utilise on return to GB and screen shot examples provided for areas that

could not be provided access codes.

Membership information system

The first stage included management of member information and recording awards taken. The

member information system was mainly lesser developed to the system developed for SLSGB use,

over the past 3 years, this was with regard to both function and capability. However, one of the key

areas recognised from the SLSA system was the use of text based communications to groups defined

within the system. This was possible for SLSA financially via a partnership agreement with the

telecommunications company (Telstra). The text messages were suggested to be more effective at

eliciting a response than email based approaches, but were used sparingly. SLSGB could implement

the text based approach in its system provided a cost effective approach was established to allow for

the volumes of texts to be sent that would be required.

Recommendations: implement text based system for small groups such as with training courses and

a policy of usage by office based staff. Explore options for partnership agreements that would allow

text use on a larger scale.

Education and Awards

The SLSA head office did not assume responsibility for administration or quality assurance of its

qualifications and awards and as such had not developed beyond a basic approach to recording

award names to member records in their database system. The requirements sat with club or branch

based representatives. The SLSGB approach relies on the National system to facilitate QA processes

across the nation and was far in advance, leaving little to be gained, beyond recognition of the

simplicity of use for volunteers. When looking at State based operations there was a much larger

need for administration and recognition of QA. This was mainly catered for by administration teams.

Water safety and patrolling

The next area was development of systems that accounted for patrols and tracking of beach safety

activity information. This is far in advance of SLSGB and provides incident tracking, and safety

information across all beaches in Australia. As well as a ‘Surfcom’ system that allowed for centrally

located radio communications systems in each state that coordinated all patrols and emergency


33

scenarios nationwide. Further details regarding the system and its detail are to be communicated to

the SLSGB Life Saving Commission at the 2013 Commissions forum.

Recommendations: display capability and requirements of the system to SLSGB Life Saving

Commission identifying current needs of national patrol and incident command system .

Events administration

SLSA have adopted a state developed utility for events administration. This allows for defining of

different level events with varying disciplines, age groups, team or individual categories and

inclusion of result tracking and round based progression through to finals. The system had similar

functions to those that have been developed in the SLSGB events administration specificaton. The

important learning points were the essential requirement for an effective bulk processing of entries

and results. The approach being used at present by SLSA was seen as a significant bug and cause of

complaint by local level representatives. Many screen shots were provided and a login to see the

lower level login components. There was also limited integration with this system and the SLSA

membership system. The data did not provide live updates to each system due to the independent

nature of development and different platforms for development used, but used scheduled

communication between systems on a periodic basis.

Recommendations: ensure that the SLSGB events administration module development was

conscious of ensuring user friendly bulk processing of entries and results.

Maintain an integrated approach to systems development for the SLSGB database wherever

possible, to ensure ease of compatibility

Beach safe and Mobile device safety applications

SLSA have invested significantly in risk assessment based mobile applications that enable accurate

tracking and recording of risks to ISO standards. SLS bodies must use the event risk app and Water

Safety policy app for any approved SLS events or training to take place. The following is an overview

of the applications.

Event Risk App – for performing risk management at surf life saving events

Water Safety Policy App – for performing risk assessments at all SLS training sessions

Beach Safe website and app - Allows for live tracking of water craft, patrol members, live hazard

information uploads, photos’ incident overlays. The future developments will also provide

augmented reality of hazards to be put into place.

A provisional agreement was developed to utilise the Event Risk app and Water safety policy app for

SLSGB members with login codes. The beach safe application required an extensive database of

information to sit behind it to allow effective use.


34

Recommendations: Develop appropriate agreement to enable utilisation of applications for SLSGB

officers.

Explore opportunities to develop appropriate data to utilise the Australian beach safe website and

application

Conclusions

SLSGB must develop clear prioritised plans that facilitate the following for each area of delivery and

level of representation are required:

Defining clear expectations for standards

Linking effective leverage points to motivate adherence to standards/expectations

Granting power to appropriate organisations and individuals for their part in maintaining the

standards

Providing excellent support and monitoring

Verifying performance & rewarding behaviour

The provision of effective leverage points represents recurring theme and difference between SLSGB

and SLSA. SLSGB must significantly develop these to succeed and facilitate expansion of service

provision. Initially, this may be through non-financially linked approaches evidenced in clubs, but

also considering its approach to develop a sustainable method for incentives requiring financial

contributions using concepts from the SLSF example.

Clubs need to have a raised awareness of the possible capacity and reach that they can achieve

within their clubs and realise the level to which clubs with similar facilities have achieved. Examples

of how clubs have thrived by catering for niches within small areas with large volumes of clubs. The

benefit of providing a national backed supporter membership scheme must be explored to allow

clubs to develop services for their members.

There are many initiatives that Australia has experience in implementing to help support

volunteering activity that SLSGB could learn from. Although SLSGB could not implement all of these

in the near future, due to current resource, they should be presented for consideration for

prioritisation in future development.

SLSGB should review its event rules in line with recent developments from SLSA, specifically related

to its distance rule updates and risk/issue elevation system. It should also advise updates to the

National Event Water safety guidance to cater for specific information regarding lead water safety

officers and issue escalation procedures within a water safety team. SLSGB should also consider

development of auditable criteria for events to encourage safety in water based events in GB.

SLSGB may consider developing a commercial education strategy to support its membership in line

with national standards. If it was to do this it must ensure that it can commit for significant term

with appropriate resource to allow it reach a breakeven point. It must also ensure a sustainable

means to meeting compliance requirements. Avenues that require lesser barriers to start up would


35

appear to be focussed around a tourist and parent child route to market, especially via significant

tourist linked bodies.

As a result of the communication that has developed via the WCMT trip an MOU was signed at

Buckingham palace in the Presence of Prince Phillip, between SLSGB ad SLSA to allow better

coordinated partnership working. Within this an exchange concept between Australia and GB has

been established and will be initiated in 2013.


36

Acknowledgements

A very knowledgeable and helpful group of individuals from Surf Ife Saving Organisations in Australia

and around the world made the trip a success. The following have also offered assistance in the

future to support Surf life Saving in Great Britain. The relevant contacts will be provided to SLSGB

commissions and Staff representatives:

Name Role Organisation

Paul Andrew Chief Executive Officer Surf Life Saving Western Australia

Peta Lawlor Life Saving Services Manager Surf Life Saving Queensland

Barbara Brighton Research Assistant Surf Life Saving Australia

Dr Shauna Sherker National Research Manager Surf Life Saving Australia

Peter George Chief Operating Officer Surf Life Saving Australia

Felicity Colbourne National Sport Operations Manager

Surf Life Saving Australia

Kate Hayes Marketing Manager Surf Life Saving Australia

Bree Corbett Operations Project Coordinator Surf Life Saving Australia

Vanessa Brown Development Manager Surf Life Saving Australia

Reese Moore Manager Classic Imports Australia – Medal production specialists

Chris Inglis Sports Events Coordinator Surf Life Saving Western Australia

Michael Thompson Marketing and Partnerships Manager


Alison Miller Training and Education Coordinator


Brett Willliamson Chief Executive Officer Surf Life Saving Australia

Steve Francia Executive Director Surf Life Saving Foundation

Janelle Slattery Member Education Officer Surf Life Saving Western Australia

Norm Farmer Head Of Strategic Development Surf Life Saving Australia

Stevee Hudson Community Programs Officer Surf Life Saving Australia

Renee Scully Health and Development Coordinator


Dr Timothy Scott Coastal Scientist School of Marine science and engineering – Plymouth University

Chris Peck Operations Manager Surf Life Saving Western Australia

Vanessa Brown Development Manager Surf Life Saving Australia

Amy Teale Training and Education Manager

Surf life Saving Australia

Andre Slade Director Oceanfit

Masahiro Ueno Secretary general Japan Lifesaving Association

Toshinori Ishikawa Chairman of Drowning Prevention Committee

Japan Lifesaving Association

Phil Dunn Lifeguard Coordinator (Operations)

Surf Life Saving Services

Daniel Pearce Surf Sports Events Coordinator Surf Life Saving New South


37

Wales

Alistair Russell Partnerships Manager Surf Life Saving New South Wales

Prof Andrew Short Deputy Chair Scientific Advisor

National Surfing Reserves Surf Life Saving Australia

Bob Pratt Director of Education Great Lakes Surf Rescue Project

Jeremy Jacks Beach Education Lead Surf Sense Beach Education

Dan Gaffney Academy Business Manager Surf Life Saving Services

Jamie McIntyre Commercial Services Manager Surf Life Saving Tasmania

Kerry Clifford Manager Marketing and Communications

Surf Life Saving Foundation

Craig Fischer Club Coach Margret River and Cottesloe Surf Life Saving Club

Simon Peppler Beach Lifeguard Surf Life Saving Services

Zan Marshall Research and Communications – Grant seeking unit


Brett Lucas Supporter Relationships Manager


Tony Van Den Enden General Manager Surf Life Saving Tasmania

Dave Thompson National Surf Life Saving Sport Manager

Surf Life Saving Australia

Matt Thompson Coastal Services Manager Surf Life Saving Australia

Travis Klerk IT Development Surf Life Saving Australia

Gregg Potent National Donor Acquisition Manager


David Shields President BMD Northcliffe Surf Club

Mark Williams Director of Surf Sports BMD Northcliffe Surf Club

Dean Storey Life Saving Manager Surf Life Saving New South Wales

Ben Whibley Member Education Manager Surf Life Saving Queensland

Nathan Fife Lifesaving Services Co-ordinator – Gold Coast

Surf Life Saving Queensland

Priya Parmar Direct Marketing Manager – Donor



38

References

D Abraham, 2013

R Plimley, 2013

Documents

Learning Surf Life Saving Best Practice from the …...Learning Surf Life Saving Best Practice from the World Leaders Background behind the project Surf Life Saving Great Britain (SLSGB)