Sport Governance Benchmarking Report
Evaluation and assurance of sporting organisations
The 2022 Sport Governance Standards (SGS) Benchmarking Report provides insights into how national sporting organisations (NSOs) and national sporting organisations for people with disability (NSODs) assess their governance maturity.
The standards bring the 9 Sports Governance Principles to life and assist NSOs and NSODs to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their governance systems and processes.
As well as informing individual Governance and Organisational Enhancement plans, the Benchmarking Report identifies the major development needs of NSOs and NSODs and helps the ASC prioritise support, education and resources for the sector.
Results are in
- 45 sports improved their governance performance in 2022.
Understand the rationale and data behind the SGS benchmarking report.
Background
After the release of the evolved Sport Governance Principles in August 2020, all funded NSOs and NSODs undertook a self-assessment of the SGS in September 2020. the results of which informed the first SGS Benchmarking Report (released May 2021)
This report, a combination of data collected from 64 funded NSOs and NSODs in April 2022, is designed to provide insights for NSOs and NSODs into the results and findings of the self assessment process against the SGS.
Limitations of this report
The data in this report is self-reported by NSOs and NSODs. The ASC is not able to independently verify all data in this report.
Why have standards?
The SGS are an organisational governance evaluation tool. Using the SGS, the ASC will be able to identify, advise, support, resource, and educate partners and, in turn, work with NSOs and NSODs to help them continually improve their governance systems and processes. Similarly, the STASRs have adopted the SGS framework, which is currently being rolled out across jurisdictions.
The SGS provides a mechanism for transparency, accountability and provision of ongoing support for continual improvement. They enable accountability to both Federal and State Governments who provide significant investment to sporting organisations. This is coupled with members and participants, who have high expectations that sport at every level will be administered with the highest level of integrity and good governance. Finally, the SGS establish a transparent accountability framework that is publicly reported.
Additionally, the SGS are intended to provide guidance on how improvement can be measured. The language of the SGS is specifically designed to be applicable to all sporting organisations no matter size, jurisdiction or maturity.
Governance performance cycle
The ASC has developed the governance performance cycle for NSOs and NSODs, an annual process incorporating the SGS self-assessment and the development of Governance and Organisational Enhancement (GOE) Plans.
The results of the SGS self-assessment inform each organisation’s GOE Plan, which is used to capture tailored activities to develop the governance maturity for each NSO and NSOD. Organisations are encouraged to report their governance performance at their AGM and in their annual report.
Engagement with other agencies
The ASC will share this report, its finding and insights with other government agencies including Sport Integrity Australia and STASRs. The ASC will engage with these relevant agencies in the development of GOE plans for identified NSOs and NSODs.
Observations from the 2022 SGS benchmarking report.
Key insights
Average score 3.12 out of 4
Forty-five sports increased their governance performance in 2022. The average score reported for a standard across all funded NSOs and NSODs in 2022 was 3.12, up from 2.95 in 2021.
Priority standards
To provide focus for the sector, the ASC and state and territory agencies for sport and recreation (STASRs) identified the standards in the table below as specific areas of focus for 2021. The priority standards were selected based on the areas of greatest need across the sector.
| Standard | 2021 avg. | 2022 avg. | Summary insights |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Code of conduct | 2.37 | 2.67 | The third highest improvement for all standards |
| 2.1 Engagement strategy | 2.89 | 2.75 | Normalising due to clarification of interpretation |
| 4.2 Board diversity | 2.11 | 2.35 | 100% uplift in NSOs with a score of 4 |
| 4.5 Nominations committee | 3.08 | 3.20 | 35% of NSOs scored 4 |
Tier performance
All funded NSOs and NSODs are sorted into tiers, based on the financial investment they receive from the ASC, and the reported revenue generated by the organisation. In this way, the ASC sets an expected governance maturity level based on resources available to the NSOs.
There was improvement in the average score reported across each tier, with organisations at each level of resource capacity reporting increases in their governance maturity.
Tier | 2021 Ave | 2022 Ave |
|---|---|---|
1 | 3.18 | 3.39 |
2 | 2.97 | 3.13 |
3 | 2.83 | 3.00 |
4 | 2.59 | 2.75 |
Assessed maturity
The majority of NSOs and NSODs reported improvement in their governance maturity level, with 42.91% of the Standards being assessed at the highest level. This indicates a significant shift towards good practice amongst NSOs and NSODs.
Maturity level | 2021 Ave | 2022 Ave |
|---|---|---|
4 (highest) | 36.73% | 42.90% |
3 | 30.41% | 32.22% |
2 | 21.42% | 17.50% |
1 (lowest) | 11.44% | 7.38% |
Values, culture and behaviours
Principle 1 – The spirit of the game, has two corresponding Standards which measure: how the board uses a code of conduct to set the standard for the organisation; and the level to which the board engages with its stakeholders to establish, define and communicate its core values and behaviours.
Identified as a priority by the ASC and STASRs in 2021, the focus on Standard 1.1 – Code of conduct contributed to the third greatest percentage improvement for any principle, a 13% increase from 2.37 to 2.67.
Continued prioritisation of this Standard, along with a focus on the related Standard 5.5 – Board charter (average 3.02), will lead to further improvement in the professional and ethical conduct of directors across the sector.
Additionally, NSOs and NSODs reported that there is still room for improvement in the level of stakeholder engagement used to establish, define and publish their core values and associated behaviours and the mechanisms to communicate and embed those values and behaviours across their sports. In 2022, the ASC is developing a new online director education course to further support NSOs in this important area.
Collaborative governance
One of the few standards to reported a lower score in 2022 was Standard 2.1 – Stakeholder engagement. Feedback from NSOs and NSODs following their 2021 evaluation revealed the term ‘strategy’ was initially misinterpreted by some to mean the organisation’s strategic plan. Consequently, the ASC revised the wording of the Standard to better reflect the principle, to be: The board develops, publishes, and implements a stakeholder engagement plan.
With the intention of the Standard more clearly articulated, the decrease in the average year-on-year result from 2.89 down to 2.75 is considered to be a correction and a more accurate representation of the current state of maturity of this Standard across NSOs and NSODs.
Board composition
Assisted by a focus over the previous 12 months on improving nominations committee processes, NSOs and NSODs demonstrated pleasing progress in the documentation of transparent processes for the selection of directors (average 3.20, up from 3.08).
NSOs and NSODs reported improvement across 5 of the 6 Standards within Principle 4 – The Players, including having a diverse mix of skills, expertise and experiences within the board (average 3.49, up from 3.24), and directors being independent, rather than representative (average 3.61, up from 3.51).
Despite the progress made in the development and achievement of diversity goals within the board’s composition, the Standard remains an area of focus.
Incorporation
The most improved standard was 5.1 – Legal entity, increasing from 2.27 to 3.92. This marked improvement is a consequence of the clarified interpretation that because the majority of NSOs and NSODs are incorporated as a Company Limited by Guarantee, they conform to the highest level of governance maturity.
Risk management
Over the past 18 months, the ASC has developed resources to support a Risk Management Framework for NSOs and NSODs, and results indicate that organisations are developing their maturity in this regard, with an improvement in the average reported score to 2.96 from 2.78 for Standard 7.2 – Risk management.
The ASC launched an online course, The Defence – Risk Management for Directors, in the second half of 2022 to further develop this capability.
Performance and evaluation
Several NSOs and NSODs actively engaged in board evaluations with the support of the ASC during the reporting period, resulting in a 16% increase in total reported scores for Standard 9.1 – Board Evaluation (average 2.35, up from 1.97). A continued focus on systems of evaluation, including CEO performance evaluation (average 3.02, up from 2.60) will further drive improvements in effectiveness and performance.
Board delegations
NSOs and NSODs reported improvement in documentation and processes around financial delegations (average 3.25, up from 3.00) and non-financial delegations (average 2.69, up from 2.60). Standard 9.6 – Non-Financial Delegations has been adopted as a priority in 2022 to support NSO and NSODs to further strengthen their processes and oversight in areas such as staffing, public relations, strategic actions, business plans, and grievances and complaints.
2022 results
NSOs and NSODs evaluated their governance maturity against each standard using a 4-point scale. A score of 1 represents low maturity and 4 represents high maturity. The average score across all sports and principles in 2022 is 3.12, up from 2.95 in 2021.
Values-driven culture and behaviours
Principle 1: The Spirit of the Game
Values-driven culture and behaviours
An organisation’s culture and behaviours should be underpinned by values, which are demonstrated by the board and embedded in its decisions and actions.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | The board have a directors’ code of conduct which outlines the high standards of professional and ethical conduct expected by directors in the interests of members | 2.4 | 2.7 |
| 1.2 | The organisation actively engages with its stakeholders to establish, define and publishes its core values and associated behaviours | 3.0 | 3.2 |
- Standard 1.1 – Code of conduct, was a priority standard for the ASC, NSOs and NSODs to focus on in 2021. This Standard registered the third greatest improvement across all Sport Governance Principles.
- Standard 1.2 – Values and behaviours, saw a moderate improvement and scored slightly above the average for all Standards. In 2022, there was a 21% reduction in the number of NSOs and NSODs scoring 2 or less and an additional 20% of NSOs and NSODs scoring 4.
- There is still room for further improvement in the level of stakeholder engagement used to establish, define and publish NSO and NSODs core values and associated behaviours and the mechanisms to communicate and embed those values and behaviours across the sport. In 2022, the ASC is developing another online director education course to further support NSOs and NSODs and other sporting organisations in this important area.
SPOTLIGHT ON LACROSSE
Lacrosse Australia undertook a comprehensive review of the Director Code of Conduct and leveraged resources from the ASC and the Australian Institute of Company Directors to develop a new director code of conduct, outlining a new set of values and behavioural expectations.
By publishing the new director code of conduct and committing to reviewing and updating it annually, Lacrosse Australia improved their maturity score on standard 1.1 from 2 to 4.
Aligned sport through collaborative governance
Principle 2: The Team
Aligned sport through collaborative governance
Across a sport, boards should work together to govern collaboratively and create alignment to maximise efficient use of resources and implement whole-of-sport plans.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | The board develops and publishes a strategy for engaging with, and listening to, the organisation’s members and stakeholders (including boards of their member; bodies) | 2.9 | 2.8 |
| 2.2 | The board identifies and implements opportunities to meet with and collaborate regularly with the boards of their member bodies | 3.4 | 3.4 |
| 2.3 | The organisation proactively engages, communicates and collaborates with its members, ensuring accountability and transparency | 3.5 | 3.7 |
- All Standards measuring Principle 2 maintained strong scores from 2021 to 2022 with Standard 2.3 the second highest scoring across all standards.
- There was a 21% reduction in NSOs and NSODs which reported a score of 4 from 2021 to 2022 for Standard 2.1. This is in line with a clarification of the interpretation of the Standard and is therefore considered a correction that provides a more accurate representation of the current state of maturity of this standard across NSOs and NSODs.
- The results of Principle 2 indicate that the majority of NSOs and NSODs have existing mechanisms to communicate and engage with member bodies, but that these mechanisms are not driven by a stakeholder engagement plan.
SPOTLIGHT ON VOLLEYBALL
Volleyball Australia committed to an update of their national engagement plan, following a series of stakeholder consultation meetings with members. One key area of discussion was the previous board practice of meeting with members only once a year at the AGM. Under the new plan the board and its members meet at least five times a year, reviewing different aspects of the strategic plan at each meeting. These regular forums build trust and transparency and provide a two-way forum to understand challenges the sport is facing, decision-making processes and joint areas of focus for the sport.
This increased collaboration with members contributed to Volleyball Australia achieving a maturity score of 4 on Standard 2.1, up from 2 in 2021.
SPOTLIGHT ON SPECIAL OLYMPICS
Special Olympics Australia (SOA) sought feedback on engagement methods, activities and timing from members and stakeholders as part of the process of reviewing and updating their engagement strategy. The goal was an engagement strategy that is inclusive and fit for purpose, driving a high level of engagement.
As a result of the engagement process, SOA established a national council with state chairs and held virtual town hall meetings, which have informed tweaks to strategy and key changes to program delivery. SOA also introduced a monthly newsletter – Field of Play – which provides key updates and fosters open communication between the organisation and its members.
These initiatives led to a lift in the maturity score for Standard 2.1 from 3 to 4.
A clear vision that informs strategy
Principle 3: The Gameplan
A clear vision that informs strategy
The board is responsible for overseeing the development of the organisation’s vision and strategy as well as determining what success looks like.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | The organisation has adopted, in consultation with its members, a strategic plan with clear and measurable targets which link to a detailed operating budget | 2.9 | 3.1 |
- Standard 3.1 achieved a slight score increase from 2021 to 2022 but remained slightly below the overall average across all Standards.
- Organisations with the highest level of maturity have implemented a nationally aligned rolling strategic plan in collaboration with member bodies.
- There was a 56% increase in the number of NSOs and NSODs that scored themselves a 4 for this Standard.
A diverse board to enable considered decision-making
Principle 4: The Players
A diverse board to enable considered decision-making
A board should be a diverse group of people who collectively provide different perspectives and experience to facilitate more considered decision-making.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | The board should have a diverse mix of skills, expertise and experience in order to meet the strategic goals of the organisation | 3.2 | 3.5 |
| 4.2 | The board demonstrates a strong and public commitment to progressing towards achieving its diversity targets within its board composition including: Geographical locality, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, CALD, Age, SES, Disability, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Race, Religion | 2.1 | 2.4 |
| 4.3 | The board, while ensuring the prevailing criterion for election is eligibility, skills, expertise and experience should be composed in a manner such that no gender accounts for more than 60% of the total number of Directors | 3.5 | 3.4 |
| 4.4 | The organisation’s directors should be independent, regardless of whether elected or appointed | 3.5 | 3.6 |
| 4.5 | The organisation has a documented and transparent process for the identification and appointment of directors | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| 4.6 | The board has a composition which incorporates both elected and appointed directors | 2.7 | 2.7 |
- Standard 4.2, focuses on the Board’s diversity and commitment to achieving diversity goals. Whilst there was a 100% uplift of NSOs and NSODs who reported a score of 4, 33% of NSOs and NSODs scored a 1 in 2022. The Standard remains an area for further improvement and has been identified as a priority Standard across the sector.
- Following the ASC’s focus on improving Nominations Committee processes over the last 12 months, NSOs and NSODs demonstrated pleasing progress in the documentation of transparent processes in the selection of directors
- NSOs and NSODs reported improvement across 5 of the 6 Standards within Principle 4, including having a diverse mix of skills expertise and experiences within the board and directors being independent, rather than representative.
- While scoring remained high, there was a reduction in Standard 4.3 – Gender diversity, indicating the gender mix on NSO and NSOD boards is subject to annual election and appointment cycles. There is an opportunity for NSOs and NSODs to sustain improvements in board diversity by embedding sustainable governance practices.
SPOTLIGHT ON HOCKEY
Hockey Australia identified in their Governance and Organisational Enhancement Plan a priority to mature its director nominations process. Hockey Australia worked with an ASC governance advisor to benchmark its process against other industry and governance standards and draft a robust new policy to attract, assess and provide members with critical information about gaps identified in director skill and experience to enable a diverse and effective board to be elected. Alison Gaines, a highly regarded corporate governance and recruitment expert, was appointed as the independent chair of the nominations committee. The more mature process led to an expanded list of talented candidates for consideration by the members.
This governance improvement helped Hockey Australia increase their maturity score for Standard 4.6, from 2 to 3.
Documents that outline duties, powers, roles and responsibilities
Principle 5: The Rulebook
Documents that outline duties, powers, roles and responsibilities
An organisation should clearly define and document its structure and the duties, responsibilities and powers of members, directors, committees and management.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | The organisation should be a legal entity incorporated under the legislation which best fits its size, need and jurisdiction | 2.3 | 3.9 |
| 5.2 | The organisation should have a staggered rotation system for directors, with term limits and a maximum tenure of no longer than 10 years. A director may serve on the Board for a maximum of 12 years if appointed as chair of the organisation or to a senior position with an international federation | 3.4 | 3.6 |
| 5.3 | A director who has completed the maximum term on the board is not eligible to stand as a director for that organisation for a period of at least three years | 2.9 | 3.3 |
| 5.4 | The board has a process for inducting new directors | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| 5.5 | The board operates under a documented board charter | N/A | 3.0 |
- After being one of the lowest scoring standards in 2021, Standard 5.1 ranks as the most improved Standard in 2022 and the highest scoring standard overall. This significant improvement is a result of clarification of the Standard and acknowledging that most NSOs and NSODs are already incorporated as a Company Limited by Guarantee and conform to the highest level of governance maturity in this area.
- Due to a systems error, Standard 5.5 was not collected in 2021.
SPOTLIGHT ON ICE RACING
During the Governance and Organisational Enhancement planning process Australian Ice Racing worked with their ASC governance advisor to apply to become a Company Limited by Guarantee through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. This entity status enables a more appropriate legal structure for the size, scope and activities of Australian Ice Racing.
Becoming a legal entity that best suits the size, needs and jurisdiction of the organisation, helped Australian Ice Racing leap from 2 to 4 on the maturity scale for Standard 5.1.
Board processes which ensure accountability and transparency
Principle 6: The Playbook
Board processes which ensure accountability and transparency
Through effective processes and continual review of its performance, the board is able to demonstrate accountability and transparency to its members and stakeholders.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1 | The organisation has a Finance, Audit and Risk committee | 3.2 | 3.3 |
| 6.2 | The board shall appoint the chair and evaluate their performance | 2.5 | 3.0 |
| 6.3 | The board shall ensure that the CEO, upon leaving their role, is not appointed or elected to the board within 3 years | 3.1 | 3.3 |
| 6.4 | The board has rigorous processes for identifying and managing director conflicts of interest | 3.4 | 3.3 |
| 6.5 | The organisation reports on governance outcomes at both its Annual General Meeting (AGM) and in its Annual Report | 2.7 | 2.8 |
- Standard 6.2 increased significantly in 2022, with the number of NSOs and NSODs reporting a score of 4 more than doubling in 2022.
- All other Standards for Principle 6 support effective board operations and remain among the highest scoring Standards.
SPOTLIGHT ON TOUCH FOOTBALL
Touch Football Australia identified in their Governance and Organisational Enhancement Plan a priority to establish an audit and risk committee as a mechanism for effective and continual review of its performance, with supporting terms of reference and an independent certified practising accountant as a member of the committee.
The committee was established and meets quarterly, which allows it to manage and navigate risks and opportunities more proactively, ensuring sustainability and more informed decision-making across the sport.
By establishing the new committee and related initiatives, Touch Football Australia lifted its maturity score for Standard 6.1 to the top score of 4.
A system which protects the organisation
Principle 7: The Defence
A system which protects the organisation
To proactively protect the organisation from harm, the board ensures the organisation has and maintains robust and systematic processes for managing risk.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1 | The organisation has a documented process to ensure compliance with working with vulnerable persons legislation (that reflects the varying legislative requirements of all States and Territories) including maintenance of relevant checks | 3.2 | 3.4 |
| 7.2 | The board has a documented process for ensuring that the policies and procedures implemented by management are consistent with the organisation’s risk management framework | 2.8 | 2.9 |
- In line with increased adoption of the National Integrity Framework by NSOs and NSODs, the average score for Standard 7.1 (compliance with working with vulnerable persons legislation) increased substantially, driven by a 31% increase in the number of NSOs and NSODs that reported a score of 4.
- While there was a moderate improvement in the average score for Standard 7.2 – Risk management frameworks, 27% of NSOs and NSODs assessed their current maturity as 2 or less. The ASC launched an online course, The Defence – Risk Management for Directors, in the second half of 2022 to further develop this capability.
A system for ensuring integrity
Principle 8: The Best and Fairest
A system for ensuring integrity
An organisation should have measures and protocols to ensure integrity of the sport and safeguard its participants.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.1 | The organisation maintains an appropriate stakeholder education and communication plan for its integrity framework | 2.6 | 2.9 |
| 8.2 | The organisation has a defined process for reporting integrity issues (e.g. bullying, corruption, harassment, doping) throughout the organisation and escalation to the board and Sport Integrity Australia where appropriate | 3.1 | 3.4 |
| 8.3 | The organisation has clearly defined processes for resolving NSOs related disputes that include both internal means of handling complaints, and external dispute resolution mechanisms | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| 8.4 | The organisation’s Member Protection Policy and Child Safeguarding Policy are compliant with Sport Australia and Sport Integrity Australia requirements | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| 8.5 | The organisation has established mechanisms to create a culture that promotes inclusion, safety and good behaviour through codes of behaviour and education to support their Member Protection Policy and Child Safeguarding Policy | 2.7 | 2.8 |
| 8.6 | The organisation has a Sport Integrity Australia approved Anti-Match-Fixing Policy | 3.1 | 3.0 |
| 8.7 | The organisation’s policy on Anti-Doping is current and compliant with relevant requirements | N/A | 3.4 |
| 8.8 | The organisation’s policy on Improper Use of Drugs and Medicine is current and compliant with relevant requirements | N/A | 2.9 |
- Standards 8.7 and 8.8 were added for the 2022 SGS assessment to assist NSOs and NSODs to conduct a more comprehensive evaluation of their governance of the National Integrity Framework.
- In line with increased adoption of the National Integrity Framework by NSOs and NSODs, the average score for the majority of Standards under Principle 8 – The Best and Fairest increased.
Embedded systems of internal review to foster improvement
Principle 9: The Scorecard
Embedded systems of internal review to foster improvement
The board must have an appropriate system of internal controls to enable it to monitor performance, track progress against strategy and address issues of concern.
| Standard | 2021 Avg | 2022 Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9.1 | The board should regularly evaluate its performance and performance of individual directors. The board should agree and implement a plan to take forward any actions resulting from the evaluations | 2.0 | 2.4 |
| 9.2 | The board will operate itself in an efficient manner and directors meet as appropriate to discharge their duties effectively | 3.3 | 3.4 |
| 9.3 | The board has documentation and processes to operate its meetings in an efficient and effective manner | 3.5 | 3.6 |
| 9.4 | The board maintains accurate records of meetings and board decisions | 3.1 | 3.3 |
| 9.5 | The board has documented financial delegations. This includes, but is not limited to: expenditure, funding, grants, other financial transactions as resolved by the board | 3.0 | 3.3 |
| 9.6 | The board has documented non-financial delegations. This includes, but is not limited to: staffing, public relations, strategic actions, business plans, board resolutions, grievances and complaints | 2.6 | 2.7 |
| 9.7 | The board has a documented CEO performance evaluation process | 2.7 | 3 |
| 9.8 | The board has a documented succession planning process for key personnel and the retention of corporate knowledge | 1.7 | 1.9 |
- Principle 9 continued to have the greatest variance in scores, with scores varying from 1.89 for Standard 9.8 to 3.56 for Standard 9.3. All Standards which form Principle 9 had scoring improvements from 2021 to 2022.
- A number of NSOs and NSODs actively engaged in board evaluations with the support of the ASC during the reporting period, resulting in a 16% increase in total scores for Standard 9.1 – Board Evaluation. A continued focus on systems of evaluation, including CEO performance evaluation (Standard 9.7) will further drive improvements in effectiveness and performance.
- NSOs and NSODs reported improvement in the documentation and process around both Financial Delegations (Standard 9.5) and Non-Financial Delegations (Standard 9.6). However, NSO and NSOD assessments indicate that arrangements regarding Non-Financial Delegations are less mature and accordingly this has been adopted as a priority in 2022 to support NSOs and NSODs to further strengthen their processes and oversight in areas such as staffing, public relations, strategic actions, business plans, and grievances and complaints.
- Standard 9.8 – Succession planning remains the lowest scoring Standard across all Principles. The ASC will continue to support NSOs and NSODs to improve this Standard through the development of resources and continuity of business planning tools.
SPOTLIGHT ON WATER POLO
In its Governance and Organisational Enhancement Plan, Water Polo Australia identified the need to undertake a board evaluation process to foster continuous improvement. Supported by their ASC governance advisor, the Water Polo Australia board used the ASC's board evaluation tool to gain a clear understanding of its governance practices, responsibilities and priority areas for improvement.
The board evaluation insights were the catalyst for the board to achieve increased maturity across the Sport Governance Standards. The Board has refreshed several of their committees and developed whole of sport values and behaviours, enshrining them in an updated code of conduct and board charter for their board directors.
Water Polo Australia has surged from 1 to 4 on the maturity scale for Standard 9.1.