Written evidence submitted by Sport for Development Coalition, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University and Division of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Brunel University
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Sport in Our Communities Inquiry
Sport for Development Coalition Written Submission
1.1 This submission sets out eight key policy considerations in response to the questions posed by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Sport in Our Communities Inquiry. They primarily focus on sustaining and enhancing the positive social impact of the community sport and physical activity, which is estimated to provide £85 billion of social and economic value to the country. The submission covers both immediate responses required to sustain community sport in the face of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic as well as longer term considerations based on the mixed economy of grassroots sport mapped out in this submission.
1.2 Three key community sport governance models are considered: traditional voluntary sports clubs; private, public and leisure management contractors; and the growing and increasingly impactful Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector. In assessing the relative strengths of these governance models, and at what level public money should be spent, the submission draws on evidence that shows that sustained, inclusive and participatory-focused community sport interventions that are focused on hard to reach communities and coordinated with other social service provision deliver more substantial return on investment. Community sport delivered in this manner can thus further contribute to improved health and wellbeing, individual, social and community development, and wider economic returns.
1.3 The submission also outlines the need for enhanced policy frameworks, investment and sectoral action across the mixed economy of community sport to address inequalities in the sector and to strengthen systems to safeguard participants.
On this basis the following policy considerations are presented in relation to spending public money on sport:
1.4 The submission also outlines the substantial impact that the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had on the financial sustainability and maintenance of the workforce across grassroots sport. It sets out the extensive impact across the sector and on VCSE sport organisations particularly.
In response, to secure the viability of grass roots sport, the following policy considerations are presented
1.5 Finally, the submission comments on the impact that the foundations and trusts of professional and elite sport organisations have on the provision of opportunities for people to participate in community sport and in delivering wider social outcomes. Given the current challenge to the sustainability of many professional sport entities, continued funding for these foundations and trusts is at risk.
In this context, to sustain the role of elite and professional entities in supporting community sport, the following policy consideration is presented:
Background to the Sport for Development Coalition
2.1 The Sport for Development Coalition is a group of more than 150 organisations that use sport and physical activity to intentionally generate positive personal and social outcomes. The Coalition mobilises collective action to measure the impact of sport for development at scale, support the creation of an enabling policy environment and, in conjunction with our partners at Made by Sport, unlock new investment to realise the potential of community sport and physical activity to contribute to positive social change. It is comprised of 157 aligned networks, charities, VCSE organisations, governing bodies and research institutions.
2.2 This submission has been supported through the research and co-authorship of the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University and the Division of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Brunel University as well as inputs from the Alliance of Sport in Criminal Justice, London Youth Games, Street Games, Street League and the Youth Sport Trust.
Governance and Public Spend on Sport
Key questions:
3.1 The popular notion of sport is that it is an organised competitive team activity that takes place within primarily voluntary sports clubs overseen by governing bodies. Sport is, however, an evolving concept and defies a fixed concrete definition. The European sports charter outlines that,
“Sport embraces much more than traditional team games and competition. Sport means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition in all levels”.[1]
3.2 In framing a definition of sport to respond to policy questions posed by the Select Committee it is useful to bear in mind that sport reflects “the criterion of general acceptance that an activity is sporting, e.g. by the media and sports agencies” by policy agencies and the community at large.[2]
4.1 The provision and experience of sport, especially at community and grass roots level, is diverse, multi-layered and delivered through a mixed economy. The following broad governance models are prominent in the sector: i) Voluntary Sports Clubs; ii) VCSE organisations; iii) private, public and leisure management contractors.
4.2 The Active People and Active Lives Survey findings [3]show that fitness provision through private, public and leisure management contractors, as well as casual recreation such as walking exceeds the participation in community sport supported by voluntary sport clubs. However, the role of VCSE organisations is less well understood but it is known that they directly target personal, social and economic inequalities.
4.3 Third sector and VCSE sport organisations make up the bulk of the 27,000 charitable organisations in the UK that include ‘amateur sport’ in the description of their activities.[4] Flexibly oriented third-sector sport organisations have developed in part due to local authority cuts during austerity but also in response to ‘big society’ and ‘localism’ agendas , and to meet the needs of the less advantaged communities targeted by the Government’s Sporting Future strategy[5]. These organisations seek to provide local opportunities to engage in sport and physical activity in disadvantaged communities and work collaboratively with charities and other local partners to facilitate cross-sector activity accounting for local needs.[6]
5.1 An important distinction can be made between community sport policy direction and investment that explicitly aims to: i) develop and widen participation opportunities in community sport, and, ii) intentionally use community sport provision to deliver wider social outcomes (or ‘sport for development’).
5.2 A considerable body of evidence exists on the contribution or association between participation in community sport and physical activity and improved physical and mental wellbeing, social and community development, and wider economic returns.[7] [8] Community sport and physical activity has been estimated to contribute £85.5 billion to the country in social and economic benefits, delivering nearly a four-fold return for every pound invested in the sector.[9]
5.3 The benefits of community sport has seen it positioned as a “a conduit to achieving wider development outcomes rather than an end in itself”.[10] There is considerable momentum behind international policy positioning sport as an important contributor to economic and social development, including to the Sustainable Development Goals and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.[11] [12]
5.4 The most recent public policy statement on the contribution of sport to wider social outcomes in the United Kingdom is presented in ‘Sporting Future’,[13] in which the focus is not upon participation or performance in individual sports but, rather, the overall contribution sport makes to the five key outcomes of: i) Physical wellbeing; ii) Mental wellbeing; iii) Individual development; iv) Social and community development; and, v) Economic development.
5.5 To deliver such outcomes, the evidence base suggests that policy frameworks, interventions and delivery approaches with ‘specific characteristics’ and which are ‘intentionally orientated’ towards non-sport outcomes deliver more substantial returns and wider community benefit.[14] Characteristics that have been shown to deliver wider impact include: increased regularity and duration of delivery; the integration of self-reflection and personal development activities; incorporating social interaction; and linked counselling or signposting. [15] Strategic approaches shown to be more impactful encompass: locally led and place-based approaches; collective-impact and cross-sector collaboration; and robust planning, monitoring and evaluation approaches that extend beyond participation and focus on contributions to wider social outcomes. Such project focussed interventions underpin the VCSE sector and are a common feature of the approach taken by organisations in the Sport for Development Coalition.
5.6 Codifying the ‘specific characteristics’ and ‘intentionality’ that underpin these successful interventions in a national charter and ring-fencing resources for their delivery would support funders to invest in the most impactful approaches and help scale up the wider impact delivered through community sport.
Policy Consideration 1
Develop an evidence-based Community Impact through Sport Charter prioritising a ‘sport for development’ approach (i.e. delivering outcomes beyond participation) and ring-fence a percentage of public funding and capacity building support for organisations demonstrating these principles.
6.1 Significant inequalities exist in sport participation, coaching and leadership. As indicated in Sporting Future these crosscut sports and cover gender, ageing, socio-economic disadvantage and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups. In the latter case, prior to COVID-19 62% of all adults met physical activity guidelines compared to 56% of Black people and 55.1% of Asian people. Equally just 54% of adults from Low Socio-economic Groups (LSEG; NS-SEC 6-8) were classed as active. While 66% of adults with no disability were active, only 44% of disabled adults or those with a long-term health conditions were active. This dynamic is mirrored in the activity levels of children and young people.[16]
6.2 These inequalities have been exacerbated by the pandemic. There has been a 6.4% decrease in physical activity among lower socioeconomic groups, and average 14.8% decrease among people from Asian, Black and Other ethnic backgrounds.[17]
6.3 Inequalities and discrimination in the sector mirror broader societal inequalities and extend to customer service experiences, the workforce and leadership of the sector. Sector-led research showed 40% of BAME participants report a negative customer service when taking part in community sport and leisure compared to just 14% of white British.[18]Across the signatories of the Sport and Recreation Alliance Black Lives Matter pledge, just 1% of paid coaches, 2% of volunteers and employees were black.[19] Across Sport England and UK Sport funded-bodies: 5% of board members are BAME compared to 15% of the UK population, 5% of board members declared or consider themselves to have a disability, compared to around 22% of the wider UK population; and, 3% of board members identified as being openly LGBT+ compared to 2% of the UK population.[20]
6.4 In this content research conducted by Sported, a member of the Sport for Development Coalition, identifies the need for sustained structures and safe spaces within the sector to share experiences of racism and discrimination, amplify issues and develop, advance and monitor solutions; a review of representation and pathways for individuals in sport bodies; and, addressing potential bias in funding streams. [21]
6.5 The Government’s Sporting Future strategy set out a particular desire to focus funding on addressing inequalities in the sector. Sport England have committed to making tackling inequality “overtly central to their purpose”,[22] while it is also core to the mission of the Youth Sport Trust.[23] The prioritisation of this issue by these key national agencies and organisations is of critical importance and is fully supported by the Sport for Development Coalition because the organisations that comprise the coalition specifically target disadvantage.
6.6 Sport England have outlined that providing more support to the communities and people who need it most will be a key guiding principle for their new strategy.[24] This approach draws on principles of proportionate universalism (i.e. investing resources proportionate to need), which it has been argued is key to address inequalities in access community sport and physical activity.[25] This approach is strongly endorsed by the Sport for Development Coalition.[26]
Policy Consideration 2
Prioritise investment of public money: i) to address current inequalities in the sector; and, ii) in a manner that is proportionate with individual/community need.
7.1 Peoples experience of community sport is often safe, enjoyable and developmental. But this not always the case. There is increasing recognition that, as with society at large, there are safeguarding risks in community sport and that participants have experienced physical, emotional or sexual abuse, mistreatment or lack of care, and harm.[27] [28] Adaptions to community sport delivery in response to COVID-19, not the least increased online and digital delivery of sport and physical activity programming, have intensified a number of these risk factors.[29]
7.2 Due to the complexity, sensitivity and ethical considerations around reporting and research on non-accidental violence, abuse and harm in community sport, prevalence statistics are incomplete. But expert analysis suggests cases are widely underreported.[30] [31] [32]It is therefore crucial that any analysis of governance and public spend on sport considers measures to bolster and strengthen the culture, processes and systems to safeguard all participants, especially children and vulnerable adults.
7.3 The resources, tools and capacity building support on safeguarding in sport available in the UK are high quality and globally recognised.[33] These include the safeguards, system development processes and support provided by the Child Protection in Sport Unit which are backed by extensive research and are relevant across community sport providers. However, the current focus for support on safeguarding in sport has been primarily directed to stakeholders in the community sport system affiliated with National Governing Bodies or working with County Sport Partnerships. [34] It is important that this support is extended across the community sport ecosystem, including to VCSE sport organisations.
7.4 The Government’s Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance sets out the current statutory framework and parameters to safeguard and promote the welfare of children across sectors. This guidance outlines that all voluntary clubs and private sector providers should have arrangements in place to safeguard children and, specifically, that all National Governing Bodies of Sport that receive funding from either Sport England or UK Sport, meet the NSPCC Standards for Safeguarding and Protecting Children in Sport. On note, the 2018 update included sport organisations as ‘relevant (child safeguarding) agencies’ for the first time, meaning in addition to complying with any national arrangements, community sports organisations “should also ensure that its safeguarding arrangements and procedures reflect the relevant local safeguarding arrangements”.[35]
Policy Consideration 3
Provide clarity that all providers of community sport are ‘relevant providers’ and must aim to comply with appropriate standards and local arrangements for safeguarding and protecting children in sport; and, extend investment and capacity building support on safeguarding in sport to VCSE sport organisations.
8.1 The four-fold return on investment in community sport and physical activity highlighted earlier in this submission underscores the value and importance of investment in sport at this level. In 2018/19 the combined amount invested from DCMS and the National Lottery into community sport (through Sport England) amounted to £303.7 million (63% of total investment). [36] A further £179.4 million, or 37% of total funding, was invested in bodies responsible for elite sport (UK Sport, UK Antidoping, Sports Grounds Safety Authority; Birmingham Organising Committee for the 2022 Commonwealth Games Ltd). [37] [38]
8.2 In assessing the relative merit of funding different levels of the sport ecosystem, it is important to consider that investment in elite and professional sport generally has limited impact on increased participation among the general-public without dedicated and resourced complimentary programming.[39]
8.3 The total inputs into community sport and physical activity in 2018 were estimated to be worth £21.85 billion.[40] The consumer sector provided the bulk of these inputs (62.7%) followed by non-financial inputs, primarily in the form of volunteering (26.15%). The public and government sector accounted for just 11.1% of total inputs. When non-financial inputs are removed the balance is 84.9% from the consumer sector to 15.1% public sector inputs.
8.4 The Sporting Future strategy sets out the ambition to create a “more financially and organisationally sustainable sport sector, less reliant on the public purse and better able to access alternative sources of funding”.[41] The inputs provided by the public/government sector (£2.4 billion) into community sport and physical activity represent as small percentage of the total inputs (£21.8 billion) and value of the outcomes delivered (£71.61 billion).[42] This suggests the public receive a significant return on investment in community sport and this should be protected and enhanced in future budgets. This is particularly the case for VCSE organisations because, as noted below, their resources are more project-specific and sensitive to funding shocks such as in Covid-19 and yet they offer bespoke and tailored intervention to inequality in communities.
Policy Consideration 4
Enhance and protect the ratio of investment of public money in community sport (outside of education) to 70% of overall government and lottery spend on sport.
9.1 While the overall return on the investment on public money invested in community sport is significant, two issues should be noted. First, the existing inequalities within the sector (highlighted earlier in this submission), and second, the limited level of cross-government funding for community sport and physical activity, outside of the Department for Education, [43] [44] and the absence of a joined-up investment strategy in the sector.
9.2 Where ‘non-sport’ funding has been provided for grassroots sport it has typically been for initiatives with ‘specific characteristics’ that are designed to ‘intentionally use’ community sport to contribute to a (non-sport) social outcomes (such as crime prevention, social inclusion or youth employment). It has also usually been supported through co-investment from sport-related entities, whether capital, revenue or in-kind investment.
9.3 A number of good practice examples exist on the use of sport-related funding or in-kind resource to mobilise cross-sector funding for the use of community sport to deliver wider outcomes. These include:
9.4 Potential exists to scale the strategic investment of public funds earmarked for community sport in a manner that unlocks additional funding and investment from other sectors aimed at delivering wider social outcomes through sport.
Policy Consideration 5
Ringfence a defined percentage of public funding for community sport programming that has the potential to attract match or scaled funding from other sectors (e.g. health, justice, housing and communities).
Securing the viability of grassroots sport
Key Questions:
10.1 The viability of grassroots sport is based on the capacity of organisations to draw on a diversity of assets and resources required to achieve their objectives. These go beyond finance and include: i) workforce and human resource; ii) strategic planning and internal management processes; iii) access to facilities and infrastructure; iv) adequate management processes; and, v) organisational relationships and networks.[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] The specific type and level of risks faced varies based on governance model considered.
10.2 The revenue available to private, public and leisure management contractors, which rely upon membership, usage fees and both employed and self-employed personnel, has hugely reduced during the pandemic.[54] This has affected both financial and human resources capacity. The costs of the adaptation of facilities has also been substantial. Government grant schemes, including the £100 million ringfenced for public sector facilities in the winter support package for local government, [55] will help meet the shortfall in revenue that the pandemic has generated from reduced or prevented customer visits. Access to furlough schemes will also help, but it has to be recognised that may personal trainers working in the largest gym chains are self-employed and so face particular challenges.[56] Reliance on universal credit has proven to be problematic because of delays.[57] Allowing them to stay open has also been argued to be part of the solution, reducing subsidy costs, improving fitness, health and well-being and with little evidence that indoor facilities have contributed to the spread of Covid-19 is an option.[58] [59]
10.3 Voluntary Sports Clubs are reliant on revenues from members through fee income, match fees and smaller-scale commercial income from bars and hospitality,[60] hosting sports events or other fundraising opportunities,[61] with fees being a source of income that normally insulates against the volatility of other sources of income.[62] One of the two major capacity issues that affect these clubs are thus falling revenues and rising costs of facility adaptation as with leisure centre operators. As with leisure centre providers, the second major capacity issue is also human resources but, in this case, reduced volunteering. There is a trend towards reduced volunteer numbers generally,[63] [64] but it has been identified also that Covid-19 might accelerate this trend.[65] The pandemic has affected both membership income as well as potential access to future volunteers because of the loss of social shielding. However, it has also been identified that relatively speaking sports clubs have some financial reserves to buffer the impacts of the shock.[66] Sport England’s £220 million support package and flexibility in managing existing funding will also assist.[67]
10.4 Across the diverse profile of community sport stakeholders, the impacts on VCSE sport organisations, who in many cases support the most disadvantaged in society, are most pronounced.[68] Primary research reveals that such third-sector organisations report a greater chance of them ceasing to operate permanently compared to voluntary sports clubs due to the grant and project based-nature of much of their funding.[69] As introduced above, given the communities many of these organisations serve there are constraints on the level they can generate additional income. Consequently, these organisations have had to make permanent staff redundant and expect to do so more than voluntary sports clubs in the future.[70] This implies a greater perceived need to increase reliance on volunteers in the future which, as noted above, is a challenge already facing the sector. Of particular significance for this sector is that it recognises a greater need to collaborate across the sector to pool resources as a buffer against COVID-19. But the grant and project-based nature of funding for these organisations consequently carries with it challenge for network capacity.
10.5 There has also been an observable trend over the past decade towards asset-transfer of community sport and leisure facilities away from local authorities into third sector organisations. This dynamic has increased the fixed- costs for these organisations.
11.1 Given the varied impact on the different stakeholders within the grassroots sport sector outlined above, measures to support community sport need to strike a balance between assistance for organisations that: i) deliver benefits and services to an exclusive membership group; ii) those who generate wider economic and employment opportunities; iii) those with liabilities due to managing community assets; and, iv) those who can evidence broader social impact, especially for the marginalised communities and groups.
11.2 The government support packages referenced above have provided critical short-term support for grassroots sport organisations, however, significant additional support is required. As of May, the number of people who met physical activity guidelines had fallen by 7.1% (equivalent of over 3 million, adults) while inactivity levels had risen by 7.4% (3.4 million adults).[71] Yet more than sixty percent of people feel it is more important to be active at this time than compared to other times.[72] It is essential to reverse this trend and secure the viability of the sector in order to sustain its impact on health and well-being, social capital and community development, personal development as well as contributing to the economy.[73] [74] [75] [76]
11.3 In response a further rescue package is required, alongside additional VAT relief, to secure the viability of the sector.
Policy Consideration 6
To secure the viability of the grassroots sport and physical activity sector: i) provide a community sport and physical activity rescue package proportionate to need; and ii) extend the VAT reduction that has been applied to the culture and hospitality sectors to the sport and physical activity sector.
12.1 Research by the Sport for Development Coalition found the pandemic has had a significant impact on Sport for Development organisations across funding, forced reduction and adaptation of delivery, and in engaging participants, many of whom who rely significantly on the services provided.[77] I The pandemic has resulted in increased cooperation and joined up work within the VCSE sector.
12.2 Recent research revealed that a quarter of community sport groups believed that they would no longer exist in six months’ time,[78] and over two thirds (68%) of their young participants did less physical activity during lockdown.[79] In response organisations are seeking: i) direct investment and help to fundraise; ii) opportunities to share ideas and approaches to supporting Low Socio-Economic Group (LSEG) young people, families, and communities through the lockdown; iii) training and support for staff and volunteers to respond to the pandemic; and, iv) space to inform policy and wider local, regional and national response. [80]
12.3 Based on the disproportionate impact on third sector and VCSE organisations identified through this and other research, the Sport for Development Coalition is urging that a percentage of any response and recovery funding for community sport be ringfenced for third sector and VCSE ‘sport for development’ organisations.
Policy Consideration 7
Ring fence a defined percentage of any support package for community sport and physical activity for third sector and VCSE ‘sport for development’ organisations.
The role of elite and professional sport
Key Questions
13.1 The community arms, foundations and trusts of professional and elite spectator sports make notable contributions to wider outcomes delivered through community sport.
13.2 For example, the Premier League Charitable Trust distributes approximately £35million a year to support over 90 club community organisations across the Premier League and English Football League. This has enabled over 1.4 million children in England and Wales to participate in the activities focused on health and education outcomes since 2010.[81] The community programmes of Premiership Rugby reach 310,000 participants per year delivering initiatives focused on rugby-based programmes that support improved health and wellbeing, social inclusion and improving education outcomes.[82] Chance to Shine, an independent charity that grew out of the England and Wales Cricket Board – and which is still funded through that body - reached over 550,000 children and young people in 2018, forty-nine percent (49%) of whom were female. Over 80% of teachers involved in the programmes reported their pupils had improved confidence after participating.[83]
13.3 The financial impact of COVID-19 on elite and professional spectator sport is well documented. The governing bodies of major sporting codes and professional sport leaders have reported significant financial losses due to the pandemic, with selected sports are facing above £100 million in lost revenue.[84] The flow on effect for the community-focused work of these entities is still to be determined but could be significant.
Policy Consideration 8
Make any Government rescue package and economic support for professional and elite sport conditional on maintaining proportionate levels of funding to their community trusts and foundations.
Further information
Ollie Dudfield, Executive Director, Sport for Development Coalition
Andy Reed OBE, Chair, Sport for Development Coalition
Professor Paul Downward, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University
Dr Tarryn Godfrey, Division of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Brunel University London
Dr Carolynne Mason, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University
References
Council of Europe. (2001). Revised European Sports Charter. https://rm.coe.int/16804c9dbb
[2] Gratton, C., & Taylor, P. (2000). Economics of sport and recreation. Economics of Sport and Recreation. London: Routledge.
[3] Sport England. (2020). Active Lives Online Data. https://activelives.sportengland.org/
[4] Charity Commission. (2020). Register of Charities. https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/
[5] Godfrey, T. (2020). Partnerships, Policy and Practice: An examination of organisational capacity within Third Sector Sports Organisations in England (Doctoral thesis, Loughborough University). https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/ thesis/Partnerships_policy_and_practice_an_examination_of_organisational_ capacity_within_third_sector
sports_organisations_in_England/12594221/1
[6] Active Partnerships. (2020). About Active Partnerships. https://www.activepartnerships.org/about-us
[7] Sport England. (2017). Review of the Evidence of Outcomes of Sport and Physical Activity: A Rapid Evidence Review,
Online. https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/sport-outcomes-evidence-review-report-summary.pdf
[8] Eime, R.M., Young, J.A., Harvey, J.T., Charity, M.J., & Payne, W.R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and
social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-98
[9]9 Davies, L., Christy, E., Ramchandani, G. & Taylor, P. (2020). Measuring the Social and Economic Impact of Sport in
England - Report 1: Social Return on Investment of Sport and Physical Activity in England. https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-09/Social%20return%20on%20investment.pdf ?5BgvLn09jwpTesBJ4BXhVfRhV4TYgm9E
[10] Schulenkorf, N. (2017). Managing sport-for-development: Reflections and outlook. Sport Management Review, 20(3),
243-251.
[11]11 United Nations. (2015). The 17 sustainable development goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
[12]12 United Nations. (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf
[13]HM Government. (2015). A Sporting Future for All. London: Department for Culture Media and Sport.
[14] Laureus Sport for Good and Commonwealth Secretariat (2018) Sport for Development: The Road to Evidence, https://www.sportanddev.org/en/document/research-and-project-evaluations/sport-development-road-evidence; Schulenkorf, N., Sherry, E., & Rowe, K. (2016). Sport for development: An integrated literature review. Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 22-39.; and, Sport for Development Coalition (2015) Sport for Development Outcomes and Measurement Framework, https://londonfunders.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/SfD%20Framework_0.pdf
[15] Sport England. (2017). Review of the Evidence of Outcomes of Sport and Physical Activity: A Rapid Evidence Review,
Online. https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/sport-outcomes-evidence-review-report-summary.pdf
[16] Sport England. (2020). Sport for all? Why ethnicity and culture matters in sport and physical activity.
https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-02/Sportforallreport.pdf? td0pMbTNOs7caO jvMZ0HCRPwsI3jGnFA
[17] Sport England. (2020). Active Lives Adults Survey: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Report. https://sportengland-production-
files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-10/Active%20Lives%20Adult%20May%2019-20%20 Coronavirus%20Report.pdf?2L6TBVV5UvCGXb_VxZcWHcfFX0_wRal7
[18] Sport and Recreation Alliance. (2018). Negative customer service threatens BAME sports participation.
https://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/news/equality%20and%20diversity /negative-customer-service-threatens-bame-sport
[19] Sport and Recreation Alliance. (2020). Alliance survey shines light on underrepresentation.
https://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/news/equality%20and%20diversity/alliance-survey-shines-light-on-under-represe
[20] Sport England. (2019). Inclusive boards - Diversity in Sport Governance: Annual Survey 18/19. https://sportengland-
production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/diversity-in-sport-governance-full-report.pdf
[21]21 Sported. (2020, October 21). Tackling racism at the grassroots. https://sported.org.uk/tackling-racism-media-release/
[22] Fox, J. & Taylor, V. (2020). Shaping Our Future: Update. Sport England strategy update at Sport for Development
Consultation Forum. Presentation, United Kingdom.
[23] Youth Sport Trust. (2017). Equality and Diversity Action Plan, Online. https://www.youthsporttrust.org/system/
files/resources/documents/YST-diversity-action-plan-2017-2020.pdf
[24] Fox, J. & Taylor, V. (2020). Shaping Our Future: Update. Sport England strategy update at Sport for Development
Consultation Forum. Presentation, United Kingdom.
[25] Hämäläinen, R. M., Sandu, P., Syed, A. M., & Jakobsen, M. W. (2016). An evaluation of equity and equality in physical
activity policies in four European countries. International journal for equity in health, 15(1), 191-207.
[26] Sport for Development Coalition. (2020). Inequality and wider outcomes come to the fore in Coalition consultation.
https://sportfordevelopmentcoalition.org/2020/10/27/inequality-and-wider-outcomes-come-to-the-fore-in-coalition-consultation-on-sport-england-strategy-2/
[27] Fortier, K., Parent, S., & Lessard, G. (2020). Child maltreatment in sport: smashing the wall of silence: a narrative review
of physical, sexual, psychological abuses and neglect. British journal of sports medicine, 54(1), 4-7.
[28] Stafford, A., & Lewis, R. (2011). The experiences of children participating in organised sport in the UK (main
report). Edinburgh: Centre of Learning in Child Protection.
[29] Centre of Sport and Huan Rights. (2020). An Overview of the Sport-Related Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on
Children. https://www.sporthumanrights.org/uploads/resources/An_Overview_of_the_Sport_related_Impacts _of_the_COVID-19_Pandemic_on_Children.pdf; and, Child protection in Sport Unit. n.d. Online safety, NSPCC, Online. https://thecpsu.org.uk/help-advice/topics/online-safety/
[30] Vertommen, T., & Parent, S. (2020). Measuring the prevalence of interpersonal violence against children in
sport. Routledge Handbook of Athlete Welfare, 385-395.
[31]31 Bjørnseth, I., & Szabo, A. (2018). Sexual violence against children in sports and exercise: a systematic literature
review. Journal of child sexual abuse, 27(4), 365-385.
[32] Hartill, M., & Lang, M. (2018). Reports of child protection and safeguarding concerns in sport and leisure settings: An
analysis of English local authority data between 2010 and 2015. Leisure Studies, 37(5), 479-499.
[33] Child Protection in Sport Unit. (2019). About Us. https://thecpsu.org.uk/about-us/.
[34]34 Active Partnerships. (2020). Safeguarding. https://www.activepartnerships.org/services/core-service/safeguarding
[35] DCMS. (2018). The Child Safeguarding Practice Review and Relevant Agency (England) Regulations 2018: Information
for sports organisations, https://thecpsu.org.uk/media/445545/relevant-agency-england-regulations-2018-
dcms-note-for-sports-organi.pdf
[36] The English Sports Council. (2019). The English Sports Council Grant-In-Aid And National Lottery Distribution Fund
Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31 March 2019. https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/sport-england-2018-19-annual-report-and-accounts.pdf?oHJX2Ebidlk7JIj8VLpkimm9l5a5gEqo
[37] National Audit Office. (2020). Departmental Overview: Department of digital, Media, Culture and Sport.
www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Departmental-Overview-Digital-Culture-Media-Sport-2019.pdf
[38] The United Kingdom Sports Council. (2019). Grant-in-Aid and National Lottery Distribution Fund Annual Report and
Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/821726/UK_Sport_Annual_Accounts_2018-19_FINAL_for_website.pdf
[39] Dawson, P. (2019). Participation and Demonstration Effects: 'Couch Potatoes to Runner Beans'? In P. Downward, B. Frick, B. R. Humphreys, T. Pawlowski, J. E. Ruseski, & B. P. Soebbing (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Sports Economics (pp. 405–414). London: SAGE Publications Ltd; Downward, P., Dawson, P. and Mills, T.C. (2015) Sports Participation as an Investment in (Subjective) Health: A Time Series Analysis of the Life Course. Journal of Public Health doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv164; and, Weed, W., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L., & Dowse, S. (2015). The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: a systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(2), 195-226.
[40] Davies, L., Christy, E., Ramchandani, G. & Taylor, P. (2020). Measuring the Social and Economic Impact of Sport in
England - Report 1: Social Return on Investment of Sport and Physical Activity in England. https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-09/Social%20return%20on%20investment.pdf ?5BgvLn09jwpTesBJ4BXhVfRhV4TYgm9E
[41] HM Government. (2015). A Sporting Future for All. London: Department for Culture Media and Sport.
[42] Davies, L., Christy, E., Ramchandani, G. & Taylor, P. (2020). Measuring the Social and Economic Impact of Sport in
England - Report 1: Social Return on Investment of Sport and Physical Activity in England. https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-09/Social%20return%20on%20investment.pdf ?5BgvLn09jwpTesBJ4BXhVfRhV4TYgm9E
[43] Department of Education. (2019). School Sport and Activity Action Plan.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-sport-and-activity-action-plan.
[44] HM Treasury. (2020). Budget 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2020-documents/budget-2020
[45] Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. (2020). Business Plan 2020/21. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/884764/YJB_Business_Plan_2020-21.pdf
[46] Ministry of Justice. (2018). Government response to ‘A Sporting Chance’ - An Independent Review of Sport in Youth and
Adult Prisons. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/733311/a-sporting-chance-govt-response.pdf
[47] Department of Education. (2019). School Sport and Activity Action Plan.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-sport-and-activity-action-plan.
[48] Ministry of Housing (2020, October 22). Jenrick confirms allocations of £1 billion funding for councils this winter.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jenrick-confirms-allocations-of-1-billion-funding-for-councils-this-winter
[49] Hall, M., Andrukow, A., Barr, C., Brock, K., Wit, M. de, Embuldeniya, D., Jolin, L., Lasby, D., Lévesque, B., Malinsky, E., Stowe, S., & Vaillancourt, Y. (2003). The Capacity to Serve A qualitative study of the challenges facing Canada’s nonprofit and voluntary organisations. Toronto, ON: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.
[50]50 Doherty, A., Millar, P., & Misener, K. (2020). Return to community sport: leaning on evidence in turbulent times.
Managing Sport and Leisure. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.179494
[51]51 Millar, P., & Doherty, A. (2016). Capacity building in nonprofit sport organizations: Development of a process model.
Sport Management Review, 19(4), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.01.002
[52] Godfrey, T. (2020). Partnerships, Policy and Practice: An examination of organisational capacity within Third Sector
Sports Organisations in England (Doctoral thesis, Loughborough University). https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/thesis/Partnerships_policy_and_practice_an_examination_of_organisational_ capacity_with in_third_sector_sports_organisations_in_England/12594221/1
[53] Clutterbuck, R., & Doherty, A. (2019). Organizational capacity for domestic sport for development. Journal of Sport for
Development, 7(12), 16–32.
[54]54 Mintel Group Ltd. (2020). Health and fitness clubs - Inc impact of COVID-19 UK - September 2020.
https://store.mintel.com/report/health-and-fitness-clubs-inc-impact-of-covid-19-uk-september-2020
[55] Walker, T. (2020, October 22). UK leisure centres can bid for £100m of government support. Health Club Management.
https://www.healthclubmanagement.co.uk/health-club-management-news/Local-Government-Robert-Jenrick-Department-for-Digital-Culture-Media-and-Sport-DCMS-leisure-centres/346471
[56] UKactive. (2020, June 8). Together: Thriving gyms and personal trainers after lockdown. https://www.ukactive.com/blog/
together-thriving-gyms-and-personal-trainers-after-lockdown/
[57] Smith, B. (2020, March 27). Thousands of DWP staff move to handle surge in Universal Credit. Civil Service World.
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/thousands-of-dwp-staff-move-to-handle-surge-in-universal-credit
[58] Walker, T. (2020, October 31). HCM calls on Boris Johnson to keep gyms open during second lockdown. Health Club
Management. https://www.healthclubmanagement.co.uk/health-club-management-news/Boris-Johnson-gyms-
VitaminD-EcSOD/346529
[59] UKactive (2020, October 31). UKactive responds to Prime Minister’s lockdown announcement.
https://www.ukactive.com/news/ukactive-responds-to-prime-ministers-lockdown-announcement/
[60] Godfrey, T. (2020). Partnerships, Policy and Practice: An examination of organisational capacity within Third Sector
Sports Organisations in England (Doctoral thesis, Loughborough University). https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/
thesis/Partnerships_policy_and_practice_an_examination_of_organisational_ capacity_within_third_ sector_sports_organisations_in_England/12594221/1
[61] Findlay-King, L., Reid, F., & Nichols, G. (2020). Community Sports Clubs’ response to Covid-19. https://www.pa.gov.sg/Our_Network/Grassroots_Organisations/Community_Sports_Clubs
[62] Wicker, P., Hallmann, K., Breuer, C., & Feiler, S. (2012). The value of Olympic success and the intangible effects of sport events–a contingent valuation approach in Germany. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12(4), 337–355.
[63] Wicker, P., & Breuer, C. (2011). Scarcity of resources in German non-profit sport clubs. Sport Management Review, 14(2), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.09.001
[64] Wicker, P., Longley, N., & Breuer, C. (2015). Revenue volatility in German nonprofit sports clubs. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(1), 5–24.
[65]65 Findlay-King, L., Reid, F., & Nichols, G. (2020). Community Sports Clubs’ response to Covid-19.
https://www.pa.gov.sg/Our_Network/Grassroots_Organisations/Community_Sports_Clubs
[66] Godfrey, T., Mason, C., & Downward, P. (2020). Covid-19 and the resilience of third sector sports organisations in the UK. Awaiting publication.
[67] Sport England. (2020). Funding, flexibility and innovation, Online. https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-
help/coronavirus#fundingflexibilityandinnovation
[68] Godfrey, T. (2020). Partnerships, Policy and Practice: An examination of organisational capacity within Third Sector
Sports Organisations in England (Doctoral thesis, Loughborough University). https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/
thesis/Partnerships_policy_and_practice_an_examination_of_organisational_ capacity_with
in_third_sector_sports_organisations_in_England/12594221/1
[69] Godfrey, T., Mason, C., & Downward, P. (2020). Covid-19 and the resilience of third sector sports organisations in the UK. Awaiting publication.
[70] Godfrey, T., Mason, C., & Downward, P. (2020). Covid-19 and the resilience of third sector sports organisations in the UK. Awaiting publication.
[71] Sport England. (2020). Active Lives Adults Survey: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Report. https://sportengland-production- files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-10/Active%20Lives%20Adult%20May%2019-20%20
Coronavirus%20Report.pdf?2L6TBVV5UvCGXb_VxZcWHcfFX0_wRal7
[72] Sport England (2020) Coronavirus: Week to week findings. https://www.sportengland.org/know-your-audience/
demographic-knowledge/coronavirus?section=research
[73] Downward, P., & Rasciute, S. (2011). Does sport make you happy? An analysis of the well-being derived from sports participation. International Review of Applied Economics, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2010.511168
[74] Downward, P, & Hallmann, K. (2017). Exploring the interrelationship between sport, health and social outcomes in the
UK: implications for health policy. European Journal of Public, 28(1), 99-104.
[75] Kumar, H., Downward, P., Hodgkinson, I., & Manoli, A. E. (2019). Means as well as ends: some critical insights for UK sport policy on the impact of facility ownership and configuration on sports participation. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2018.1522660
[76] Lechner, M., & Downward, P. (2017). Heterogeneous sports participation and labour market outcomes in England.
Applied Economics, 49(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1197369
[77] Sport for Development Coalition. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the Sport for Development Sector.
https://www.flipsnack.com/CS2020magazine/impact-of-covid-19-on-the-sport-for-development-sector-v2.html
[78] Sported. (2020). Community Pulse UK. https://sported.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Community_pulse_
UK_5thJune_phase2.pdf
[79] Street Games. (2020). The Experience of the Coronavirus Lockdown in Low-Income Areas of England and Wales.
https://www.streetgames.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=14c38379-43e2-40ca-856e-fc97e8c6f070
[80] Street Games. (2020). The Experience of the Coronavirus Lockdown in Low-Income Areas of England and Wales.
https://www.streetgames.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=14c38379-43e2-40ca-856e-fc97e8c6f070
[81] Premier League. Premier League. https://www.premierleague.com/communities/plcf
[82] Premiership Rugby. (2019). A plan to improve a million lives. https://www.premiershiprugby.com/community/community
-brochure/
[83] Chance to Shine. (2019). Our Impact. https://www.chancetoshine.org/news/chance-to-shine-impact-report-2019
[84] UK Parliament. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on DCMS sectors: First Report. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/
cm5801/cmselect/cmcumeds/291/29105.htm