GPA0016

Written evidence submitted by The Sports Think Tank

Introduction

The Sports Think Tank is an independent group of individuals interested in evidence-based policy for the sport and physical activity sector. It is a Cross-Party platform and calls on a wide range of individuals, academics, and practitioners to form policy responses to current issues. It creates a safe space to have challenging conversations within sport and to make the wider case to government about the positive role for sport in policy making. It also challenges the sport and physical activity sector to think differently and continually change its culture and practise to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Summary

The Inquiry is looking at Grass roots participation in Sport & Physical Activity and its ‘Value for Money’ from government investment over the last decade.

A clear understanding about broad and varied nature of the sports sector and who and what they deliver is essential to answering this inquiry: grassroots sport tends to be delivered through local sports clubs associated to a specific sport national governing body through specific sporting leagues, competitions and coaching leading to more professional and elite sporting activity. School sport is delivered by teachers and often third-party organisations and NGBs, which may also be linked to after-school sporting activity. Community sport or sport for development tends to provide a more fun and multi-sport provision, delivering social outcomes through sport. This provision tends to be delivered by other community organisations including the third sector although many leagues and NGBs and clubs also offer this. Leisure and gyms are another part of the sector usually delivered by LA’s and private sector providers. 

The Evidence base is there, and reports already published cover more ground than we can here. We maintain a database of the Reports produced by the sport sector and parliament. Research Pages

The recent NAO Report and House of Lords Reports on sport provide essential background reading and there is little point in us repeating the evidence and main findings. We largely agree with the reports and were delighted to have played a part in working with the teams pulling this report together.

Therefore, this submission is more of a commentary and some key recommendations based on the case made in these Reports.

The shift in the Sporting Futures strategy in 2015 was welcome - concentrating on outcomes rather than outputs of participation figures. Whilst we supported much of this strategy and its new emphasis the failure of the government to work in a cross-department way has held this back. We must recognise that DCMS is a small department with a very small budget. A population level change in behaviour (more physical activity) requires a genuine cross government approach. In it needs leadership from Both No10 and No11. This has not been forthcoming on a consistent basis and therefore little progress has been made in recent years. Indeed, Covid exposed and exacerbated main of the inequalities recognised by the Sporting Futures strategy.

One success over recent years is the Holiday Activity and Food scheme (HAF) lead by the Education Department. This programme provides children on Free School Meals with sporting activity, social interaction and healthy meal during the holidays is a good case study about how a cross-government approach can work. There are also signs that using sport to tackle youth violence and anti-social behaviour is also developing an effective cross- department approach including Police and Crime Commissioners, Violence Reduction Units, Youth Offending Teams, Youth Justice, Youth Endowment Fund, Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.   

With the production of the Uniting the Movement strategy, Sport England has taken the natural conclusions of Sporting Futures and its shortcomings and built these into a cross government approach to tackling inequalities in activity. At the time of writing, we understand that the Sporting Futures strategy was being updated in DCMS building on the Uniting the Movement strategy. This means that in 2022 the strategic and delivery approaches of both Sport England and DCMS are very different to the system in 2012. As the NAO report accepts (Rec 14) this new approach is in line with lessons learned and a much more collaborative approach. For example, the strategy was developed in an open and transparent collaborative manner, whereas previous SE strategies were announced to the sector and sometimes as a surprise to some key partners!

The pressure is now on central government to show its cross departmental working can achieve greater consistency. Integrating other government policy approaches such as Levelling Up and tackling health inequalities is a further challenge but is critical to successfully using sport to deliver social outcomes, providing stronger pathways into grass roots sport and beyond into professional and elite sport and major events, creating further value for money.

More importantly an approach for growing levels of sport and physical activity requires central leadership and consistency from the centre. Without No10 and the Treasury support little can be achieved. Major expenditure on tackling inequalities needs to come through DLHUC, Health and Transport for example.

To effect real change and better value for money for public funding significant thought is required to ensure that all levels are joined up, policy and funding at national, regional and local level. To tackle inequalities, local community organisations – even non-sporting ones - are critical working alongside leisure centres, recreational facilities, and other local authority provision such as youth services. These organisations also need simple, clear and coordinated funding frameworks that are measured using agreed and standardised metrics. Much more emphasis needs to be put into delivery.

As the NAO Report recognises (Finding 17) the department and Sport England have applied some of the lessons from London 2012 its approach to the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games. However, only time will tell to see if the £35m committed (against a budget of around £800m to hold the games) to legacy has a lasting impact.

Conclusion

• Major events in themselves are not able through ‘inspiration’ to drive up participation numbers in sport and physical activity. Major event bidding should not rely on participation legacy as a justification. Accepting participation legacy will not just happen then VFM for major events can be set against the other legacy benefits they claim. Was the £800m spent on the Commonwealth Games in 2022 VFM against other criteria – physical infrastructure, economic impact of the ‘feelgood factor of putting Birmingham in the ma’? These outcomes and VFM narrative to be tested at the early stages of bids.
• There is evidence that when local community organisations are involved, some positive participation legacy can be delivered. This needs to be planned, coordinated and invested in over the long term. But the social outcomes are worth much more to government.
• The approach to expecting increased outputs in participation figures through Whole Sport Plans was in retrospect unachievable in and of itself.
• Government support for growing participation had ‘waned’ as the NAO report suggested by 2016
• Whilst the NAO report and this evidence suggests it is concerned with participation amongst the post 16 population, we do not believe this can be taken in isolation. The failure to ensure spending on School Sport and PE has been effective since the abolition of the SSPs in 2010 leads

to a greater challenge for Sport England and DCMS to recover the lost levels of participation of children at school age.

• A whole system approach is required to measure VFM. The expenditure of Sport England and DCMS is a tiny fraction of the government investment in sport and physical activity and cannot be seen in isolation. Sport England has been investing around £300m per annum but set against this we argue that around £600m per annum has been taken out of local authority expenditure on leisure. Local Authorities, however, are still the largest investors in sport and recreation.
• Over the last 3 Government Sport Strategies there has been a growing understanding of the wider impact of sport and physical activity beyond simple participation for its own sake. There has also rightly been a greater emphasis on physical activity and moving rather than sport as the CMO guidelines for physical activity can be met in many ways.
• As the Lords Committee’s report highlights, the high-level, holistic approach prioritised in New Zealand around the concept of wellbeing has much merit and should be considered in detail, led by HMT.
• The measurement of the Social Return on Investment has started to be used by SE and many sporting bodies. Whilst a helpful start much more sophistication is required in future. We know not all investment and outcome is equal.  Investment in some activities and groups will yield a 1-10 ration and some a 1-1 ratio. We argue Sport England and DCMS should become far more sophisticated in its investments to reach greater VFM. #Uniting the Movement strategy and the new sports strategy gives a new opportunity to do this. The Wellbeing supplementary guidlace for the Green Book approach should be embedded in future policy development.
• Clear measurements for success need to be set out and targets set for what ‘success’ will look like and how this will be reported to Parliament.
• Sport England and DCMS should fully embrace the principle of Proportionate Universalism in its investment approach in the future. We know the most benefit and VFM is fund by investing in those least active and in the most deprived areas.
• With its limited resources, Sport England needs to target the groups who would most benefit individually and at community level. Supporting those already active and sports with business models that leave their grassroots impoverished should be re-assessed.
• Doing more of the same is not an option. Funding organisations that have failed to grow participation or tackle inequalities in their sport participation should be replaced by those who can in those communities.

September 2022