Sport for Development Coalition – Written evidence (NPS0144)

Contents

1.              Summary and Key Recommendations

2.              The collective voice of Sport for Development: Background to the Sport for Development Coalition

3.              Answering the question, ‘why sport and recreation?’

4.              Codifying policy, planning and programming approaches that maximise the social value of sport and recreation

5.              Balancing the mixed economy of community sport and recreation

6.              Responding to the diversification of community sport and recreation stakeholders

7.              Embedding place-based working

8.              Matching budget increases in education and rebuilding school-community links in response to COVID

9.              Enhancing voice and ownership of underrepresented groups in policy and programming

10.              Investing proportionate to need

11.              Strengthening safeguarding culture, capacity and compliance

12.              Better understanding different outcomes delivered through different investments and interventions

13.              Aligning policy and planning to wider national priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals

14.              Enacting a new social contract with sport and physical activity

15.              Further information

1.           Summary and Key Recommendations

1.1       This submission supports the development of coherent national policy and plans for sport and recreation. It sets out an argument for policy direction to be ambitious and transformative such that it is a catalyst for a ‘a new social contract for sport and physical activity’. 

1.2       The key tenet of the submission is that the scope of sport and recreation policy can continue to extend beyond active lifestyles as a key measure of success, to set out why investment in the sector offers value across government, for civil society and private sector actors, and for communities at large. Fundamental to this approach is cross-government plans, alongside commitment across relevant sectors, geared towards fully mobilising the assets across the sport and physical activity ecosystem in order to maximise the sector’s contribution to the social and economic development.

1.3       The intention to ‘refresh’ the Sporting Future strategy provides an important opportunity to set out an evolved whole-of-government position on sport and recreation that reaffirms the primary purpose of public policy and investment in sport and recreation is to contribute to wider social and economic outcomes. The vision and architecture of Sport England’s 2021 – 2031 Uniting the Movement Strategy provides a basis and a core pillar for this approach. But “transforming lives and communities through sport and physical activity” will require more extensive cross-government, multi-sector and societal engagement, underpinned by strong political commitment and a clear policy stance.

1.4       At a time when the United Kingdom faces unprecedented health, economic and social challenges brought on by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a policy stance and planning with this focus and ambition takes on added significance.

1.5       Under the framework of this overarching tenet, and the questions set out by the House of Lords Select Committee, the following themes are addressed in the submission:

i.               Answering the question, ‘why sport and recreation?’ through a focus on delivering wider social value.

ii.              Codifying policy, planning and programming approaches that maximise the social value of the sector and allow for better targeted investment.

iii.            Balancing the mixed economy of community sport and recreation to reduce financial barriers.

iv.            Responding to the diversification of community sport and recreation stakeholders and strengthening regulatory, funding and resource provision for ‘non-traditional’ voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sport organisations.

v.              Embedding place-based working across the system.

vi.            Matching budget increases in education and rebuilding school-community links in response to COVID.

vii.          Enhancing voice and ownership of underrepresented groups in policy and programming.

viii.        Investing proportionate to need.

ix.            Strengthening safeguarding culture, capacity and compliance.

x.              Better understanding different outcomes delivered through different investments and interventions.

xi.            Aligning policy and planning to wider national priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals.

1.6       These themes provide the basis for the following key planning and policy considerations recommended in the submission:

i.               Orientate future sport and recreation policy and planning towards maximising the contribution of the sector to clearly defined outcomes, and establish cross-sector and whole of government coordination mechanism to drive implementation.

ii.              Develop a ‘Sport and Community Value Charter’ that sets out evidence-based principles on delivering wider social outcomes through sport.  Prioritise funding, resource allocation and capacity building support for stakeholders aligned to its core principles.

iii.            Revise sport and recreation funding frameworks and support mechanisms to provide clear provision and backing for VCSE sport organisations.

iv.            Revise sport and recreation funding frameworks to ensure there is ringfenced budget provision to invest in placed-based working.

v.              Embed ‘proportionate universalism’ as a core principle for future policy and planning for sport and recreation.  Within this framework, ringfence and sustain investment to address current inequalities in the sector and drive equitable voice, ownership and oversight of the future policy, programmes and interventions.

vi.            Strengthen the focus on building a ‘safeguarding culture’ across sport and recreation, ensure this adequately addresses safeguarding adults at risk, and extend investment and capacity building support on safeguarding in sport to VCSE sport organisations.

vii.          Accelerate implementation of a COVID-adapted School Sport and Activity Action Plan that strengthens school-community links to provide a weekly after-school sport guarantee for all young people.

viii.        Strengthen monitoring systems to enable a better understanding of the different type and intensity of outcomes associated with ‘how’ and ‘where’ people participate in sport and recreation.  Support this system through funding frameworks that set a benchmark for a percentage of budget and resource to be utilised for monitoring and evaluation.

ix.            Develop coherent national policy and plans as the basis for a ‘new social contract with sport and physical activity’ in response to COVID-19 and that advances whole-of-government and cross-sector action, focused on maximising the social value of the sector.

2.           The collective voice of Sport for Development: Background to the Sport for Development Coalition

2.1            The Sport for Development Coalition is a group of more than 160 organisations that use sport and physical activity to intentionally generate positive 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 unlock new investment to realise the potential of community sport and physical activity to contribute to positive social change.  It is comprised of networks, charities, VCSE organisations, sport governing bodies and research institutions.

2.2            This submission has been supported through the research and inputs from Active Partnerships, the Alliance of Sport in Criminal Justice, Laureus Sport for Good, Sported, StreetGames, Street League and the Youth Sport Trust, as well as the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University and the Division of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Brunel University

3.           Answering the question, ‘why sport and recreation?’

3.1       There is broad recognition across the country of the important contribution sport and recreation can make to wider social and economic outcomes. This acknowledgment is underpinned by an emergent evidence base and has been supported to varying levels through successive policy cycles and political leadership.

3.2       In response to a generation-definition public health emergency, economic shock and social policy crisis brought on by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the value and purpose of sport and recreation should be rigorously (re)assessed.

3.3       In 2019, sport directly contributed £17.0 billion or 0.9% of Gross Value Added (GVA) to the economy[1] and accounted for 1.7% of all employment.[2][3] When expanding the scope of the definition of the sport to include linked industries (for example, sport advertising and sport-related construction), for which figures were last compiled in 2016, the sport-related GVA was estimated to be £37.3 billion or 2.1 per cent of total UK GVA, and sport-related employment was 1.2 million, or 3.7 per cent of total UK employment.[4]

3.4       While not insignificant, these figures do not capture the full extent of the contribution of the sector, or its nascent potential. Community sport and physical activity alone 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.[5]

3.5       The 2015 Sporting Future strategy represented an important policy milestone in seeking to maximise the wider social and economic value of sport. The ambition of the strategy to ‘redefine’ what success means, with a focus five key social outcomes, was impactful.[6]  A broad range of stakeholders across the sector aligned components of their strategic focus towards these outcomes. The new Sport England Strategy, launched in January 2021, is geared towards “transforming lives and communities through sport and physical activity”.[7] As this strategic direction was based on “18 months consulting extensively with a wide range of partners and other stakeholders in the sector”,[8] it is plausible to infer that there has been a level realignment in the sector towards success for sport and recreation being defined by its wider social impact.

3.6       The impact the Sporting Future strategy has had on actors in other sectors outside of sport and recreation, and across government, is less clear.

3.7       Effectively evaluating the level to which the outcomes set out in the Sporting Future strategy have been achieved is also challenging. Progress reporting against the 25 KPI’s set out to measure strategy implementation was last published in 2018.[9]  But more fundamental to this challenge is the breadth of the outcomes at the core of the strategy, which makes success hard to define and measure, particularly in relation to individual and community development.

3.8       If the objective of future policy, strategy and plans is to maximise the wider social value of sport and recreation, and mobilise support from across communities, institutions and policy makers, then a more targeted articulation of outcomes (and associated results frameworks) is worth consideration.

3.9       Being more specific in terms of the outcomes sport and recreation is being positioned to contribute to, would align with learning from international contexts and multilateral approaches.[10]  International policy instruments on sport and the Sustainable Development Goals have, for example, identified 36 of 169 overall targets where sport can be credibly positioned as a contributor. [11] In a domestic context, setting out that enhancing the contribution of sport and recreation to economic growth, [12] employability and skills development, especially among young people,[13] reducing offending and recidivism,[14] and mental health and wellbeing,[15] where areas of emphasis, for example, would allow for clearer recognition of the role of the sector in contributing to specific societal and whole of government priorities. It would also help define more clearly which departments and public bodies need to be engaged in any cross-government coordination mechanisms.

3.10  More fundamentally, in a post-COVID context, this approach will help more succinctly answer the question of ‘why sport and recreation?’. 

4.           Codifying policy, planning and programming approaches that maximise the social value of sport and recreation

4.1       There is a growing evidence base showing that policy, programming and interventions delivered through purpose-driven organisations, that have ‘specific characteristics’ and which are ‘intentionally orientated’ towards targeted non-sport outcomes deliver more substantial returns and wider community benefit.[16]

4.2       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. [17]

4.3       Strategic approaches shown to be more impactful include: 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.  These strategies are a common feature of the approach taken by organisations in the Sport for Development Coalition.

4.4       Codifying the ‘specific characteristics’ and ‘intentionality’ that underpin these successful interventions in a national charter would support public, private and third sector funders and commissioning groups identify and invest financial and non-financial resources (e.g. facility access, capacity building support) in the most impactful approaches.

4.5       Prioritising these ‘specific characteristics’ and ‘intentionality’ in programming approaches and intervention design has also been shown to be most successful in seeking to mobilise cross-sector funding for sport and recreation-based approaches. For example:

• The partnership between the Alliance of Sport in Criminal Justice and London Marathon Charitable Trust leading to the Youth Justice Board supporting the implementation of the sport-based Levelling the Playing Field Project aimed at tackling over representation in the youth justice system.[18] The Alliance’s review of sport in youth and adult prisons also resulted in a £1.8million commitment from Government to enhance physical activity and educational opportunities in the criminal justice system, including through sport-based projects and community partnerships.[19]

• The provision of £2.1million from the Department of Work and Pensions and Education and Skills Funding Agency to Street League to support its sport and employment programmes. This supports the provision of employability services in some of the UK’s most disadvantaged communities in which sport plays a crucial role in the wrap-around support offered to develop essential skills for the workplace and support young people gain qualifications.

• Between July 2018 and December 2020, StreetGames Sustainability Leads helped secure £10.7 million of external funding for locally trusted sport organisations harnessing the power of sport to create positive change in the lives of disadvantaged young people across the UK.[20] 85 per cent  of this funding was from non-sport sources.

5.           Balancing the mixed economy of community sport and recreation 

5.1       More equitable access and outcomes for people ‘of all ages and abilities’ to sport and recreation is critical in seeking to maximise the wider social value of the sector, and is an issue central to the mission of the Sport for Development Coalition.[21] Given the complexity of social systems within which behaviour change occurs, there is wide ranging support across social policy and public health for systems thinking in understanding and working to influence change.[22]

5.2       In applying this lens to assessing enablers and barriers to active lifestyles, and coordination and coherence between constitute parts of the system, further system-level and structural analysis is pertinent.

5.3       The total inputs into community sport and physical activity were estimated to be worth £21.85 billion in 2018.[23] The consumer sector provided the bulk of these inputs (62.7%),[24] followed by non-financial inputs, primarily in the form of volunteering (26.15%). The public and government sector was estimated to account for 11.1% of total inputs, inclusive of exchequer and lottery funding. This amount included £589 million spend by secondary schools and higher education institutions on ‘sport provision’ and £389 million expenditure on cycling and walking.

5.4       The current level of public funding for sport has been significantly reduced by austerity measures and resultant cuts to local government budgets. Sport and recreation is not a statutory function for local government. In an environment in which “councils have increasingly focused on services required for them to meet their statutory duties”, [25] the amount budgeted to be spent on sport and recreation (including leisure centres and sports pitches) by English councils in 2019/20 was 70% lower than in 2009–10.[26] Charging for services through sales, fees and charges (SFC) has been the primary strategy used to fill shortfall, further commercialising service provision.

5.5       Whilst the modelling above does not draw on official expenditure statistics, it does provide an indicative picture of relatively low government expenditure on community sport and physical activity as a percentage of overall expenditure. In comparison, government expenditure is just under four-fifths (78%) of total current healthcare expenditure in the country.[27] In the current context, this reliance on commercial revenue has significantly accentuated the impact of Coronavirus restrictions on the sustainability of the community sport, leisure and recreation sector.[28]

5.6       There are varying estimates as to the level of funding or commissioning for sport and recreation-based programmes and projects by Charitable Trusts and Foundations.  In 2019 total grant making by all charitable foundations was £6.5 billion.[29] In 2019 among the top 300 Foundations in the UK ranked by giving, who account for just under half of this total (£2.9 Billion), just five were primarily focused on sport and recreation-based interventions. [30] Although a number of others included funding for sport-based interventions in their portfolios (e.g. Comic Relief, BBC Children in Need). Other sources of funding of sport-based interventions include, for example, the Premier League Charitable Fund (PLCF) [£35million a year].

5.7       Further mapping and analysis is required to get a more complete picture of the size of investment in community level sport and recreation from Charitable Trusts and Foundations, as well as from private sector partners.

5.8       Nevertheless, the resulting situation is one where ‘pay to play’ is an increasingly prevalent model for delivery across the sector. Within this context there are risks that commercial sustainability and funding imperatives are prioritised by stakeholders over collaborative approaches and collective impact. These commercial imperatives risk the exclusion of access for the community organisations who are often best equipped to engage those groups currently under-represented in sport and recreation. Whilst this is not uniform, and a range of good practice examples of joined up approaches exist, the intensifying structural imbalance between commercial income and funding for service provision within the sector warrants further analysis.

5.9       A funding landscape that better balances commercial and public income is likely to help foster enhanced collaboration and coordination across stakeholders. It would also provide government and public bodies at all levels scope to institute additional policy levers to promote cooperation and help balance interventions with a commercial verses community outcome focus.

6.           Responding to the diversification of community sport and recreation stakeholders

6.1       Peoples experience of sport and recreation in the country is increasingly varied, multi-layered, and delivered through a mixed economy. Fitness provision through private, public and leisure management contractors, as well as casual recreation such as walking, exceeds the participation rates in community sport supported by voluntary sport clubs.[31]

6.2       Within this mixed economy model, stakeholders that support participation opportunities can be generally categorised into three broad categories: i) private, public and leisure management contractors; ii) sport clubs affiliated to governing body structures; and, iii) third sector voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations.[32]  Across these stakeholders the role of VCSE organisations are least understood, inadequately monitored in national data and requires further attention in future policy and planning processes.

6.3       VCSE sport and recreation organisations make up a significant proportion of the 27,000 charitable organisations in the UK that include ‘amateur sport’ in the description of their activities.[33] But the number of VCSE sport organisations far exceeds this number as there are a range of organisations across the third sector who use sport to achieve there aims but who do not have amateur sport in their articles.

6.4       This extensive group of 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.[34] For example:

• The 1,000 Locally Trusted Organisations who are part of the StreetGames network “pride themselves on bringing sport to the right people, in the right way, and at the right time, place, and price point to suit their needs (with a focus on) the wellbeing of disadvantaged young people.”[35]

• The 2,500 community groups working with Sported are described as being “deeply rooted within their communities and focused on initiatives that help young people from their community to succeed.”[36]

6.5       VCSE sport organisations stand out as being well placed to balance the increasing commercial orientation of the sector. Emerging evidence is showing that the importance of the role VCSE sport and recreation organisations play in supporting diverse communities, often poorly engaged by leisure sector and voluntary sport clubs, has been accentuated by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.[37] [38] But  challenges remain in ensuring many of these organisations can effectively access many funding and grant schemes. [39]

6.6       These factors make the need to better define funding and support structures for these VCSE sport organisations of critical importance in future policy and planning.

7.           Embedding place-based working

7.1       Placed-based working is fundamental to the approach taken across the Sport for Development Coalition network.

7.2       Place-based approaches are characterised by a shift away from centrally dictated siloed policies, towards more holistic solutions, which are defined, generated and delivered locally.[40] The importance and value of placed-based approaches is recognised across policy domains. A position paper produced by the University of Sheffield for UK Research and Innovation argued the UK “needs more place-based types of thinking than almost any other industrialised country”.[41]

7.3       In their new strategic plan Sport England have committed to “expand place-based working by collaborating with more places and their decision-makers on their local priorities and partnership opportunities, helping them use sport and physical activity to deliver the outcomes they want and their communities need”.[42]

7.4       This approach draws on learning from Sport England’s Local Delivery Pilots that demonstrated the value of relationship-based investment, coalescing around a shared purpose, prioritising lived experience, the importance of iterative learning, and moreover, that all the influencing factors need to work coherently as a ‘system’.[43]

7.5       There are a number of case studies from across the Sport for Development Coalition network of the effectiveness of localised, placed-based working:

• The Model City London spearheaded by Laureus Sport for Good, the Mayor of London and Nike supports coalitions of community members and groups to work together to identify local challenges and design sports-based interventions to address them. Funding is directed towards the issues and approaches that coalitions recognise as being important to their area and its residents.[44] Across three localities in London, this approach has delivered double figure percentage increases in the number of individuals (+19%) and local organisations (+11%) engaged, as well as a growth in the number of VCSE sport organisations involved in the collective working approach (+10.5%). This is in spite of many activities being halted, deferred or adapted to be delivered virtually due to the Coronavirus pandemic.[45]

• Active Burngreave’s 'placed-based approach' to reduce inactivity levels in an ethnically diverse inner-city ward of Sheffield put the community “at the centre of all decisions, shaping exactly what delivery looks and feels like”.[46] This has resulted in the diversity of participant interventions reflecting the diversity of the ward (64% Asian, 10% Somali, 10% Roma/Slovak, 7% Arab, 3% White British) and evaluations showing reduced social isolation, increased understanding of the importance of physical activity, and increases in resilience and aspirations across participants.

• StreetGames work with community-led, locally trusted organisations has supported over 20,000 disadvantaged young people deliver almost 400,000 hours of volunteering over the last decade and attain more than 11,000 new qualifications. Thirty-three percent (33%) of these volunteers identify as ethnically diverse.[47]

7.6       In embedding place-based working in policy or plans with national scale, the ability to ‘deliver locally at scale’ through a systems approach is essential. Consultation undertaken by the Sport for Development Coalition emphasised that sustainable, scaled and systemic change on the ‘big issues’ will happen through locally-led and community driven (placed-based) approaches. National actors and those seeking to deliver change at scale can best support these processes through facilitating shared learning, supporting co-creation and design thinking, and facilitating connectivity within and across communities around common objectives and outcomes.[48]

7.7       There is significant potential to grow and develop placed-based working to maximise the positive social impact of sport and recreation.  In the context of substantial reductions in participation in sport and physical activity during the pandemic, the need for place-based solutions to enhance participation and the wider impact of sport and physical activity has never been greater.

7.8       There is however a need to reform funding frameworks and partnerships to fully utilise the value proposition offered through mainstreaming this approach. [49] Fundamental to this reform must be recognition that based on the communities many of these organisations serve, there are constraints on the level to which they can generate additional income and therefore an unsuitability of ‘pay to play’ models.[50] Equally, it is not compatible with franchise-orientated commissioning and contracting models.

8.           Matching budget increases in education and rebuilding school-community links in response to COVID

8.1       The recommendations and priorities for the action outlined above apply across the life cycle, including for children and young people. However, in working to maximise the wider social value of the sector, specific attention on enhancing the contribution of sport and physical activity ‘in’ and ‘through’ the education systems warrants specific attention.

8.2       The School Sport and Activity Plan provides a well-developed and robust starting point for this purpose.[51] The Plan is supported by the three key government departments whose engagement is required to maximise the potential of school sport and physical activity (Education; Health and Social Care; and, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport). Through the School Sport Sector Summits, led by the Youth Sport Trust, there is also a diverse network of nearly 50 nationally significant non-government organisations working collaboratively to support implementation. Future sport and recreation policy and planning should seek to accelerate delivery of this plan and not duplicate its focus.

8.3       There is however a need to revise the plan to fully account for the impact of COVID-19 and the implications of Spending Review 2020 on the financial commitments that underpin the plan. But these would constitute adaptations and enhancements as opposed to a wholesale revision. Indeed, the detrimental effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and young people’s physical activity, mental health and wellbeing, and educational attainment,[52] means that the framework provided by the School Sport and Activity Plan takes on greater importance.

8.4       In enhancing the plan there is also an opportunity to strengthen recognition of the importance of a wider range of community sport and physical activity stakeholders in the overall school sport and physical activity system. Especially VCSE sport organisations that, as outlined earlier in this paper, comprise a group of stakeholders that extend beyond the traditional formal sport bodies and designated service providers who receive most prominence in the current plan. This added prominence would support placed-based approaches in working to deliver the commitments in the plan that are focused on: empowering young people; trialling innovative new approaches; increasing the provision of after-school sport opportunities; and, creating a stronger and more unified sector.

8.5       Alongside this emphasis, strengthened coordination and accountability mechanisms would help ensure investment made through the plan has the most substantial impact. The approach utilised for the DfE Pupil Premium provides a model of setting out an evidence-based framework for effective use and monitoring of funding through a ‘premium’.[53] Establishing a nationally co-ordinated, but locally based network of co-ordinators stands out as one viable mechanism to scale the impact of stronger connections between community organisations and schools. This network would facilitate the sharing of good practice, support coordination and quality assurance, and assist national decision making. In turn, supporting these co-ordinators to understand and effectively engage with VCSE organisations that do not necessarily have sport as their sole purpose will be important.

8.6       Fundamental to delivering the ambitions and commitments set out in a revised plan is continuation (in real terms) of the investment of £320 million in PE and school sport currently provided through the PE and sport premium for primary schools. There is evidence of the impact this funding can have when invested well in increasing the proportion of children doing 30 minutes of activity each day, improving teacher knowledge and confidence, and raising the profile of PE and sport in supporting whole school improvement, [54] continuation of this investment, coupled with the enhanced coordination and accountability mechanisms, as outlined above, is essential.

8.7       In addition, there is a need to define the level of ringfenced investment on school sport and activity within the £1.4 billion outlined in Spending Review 2020 to help children catch up on lost learning due to COVID-19, and the government’s ten-year school rebuilding programme which will commence with £1.8 billion of investment in 2020-21.[55] At the least, ringfenced investment in school sport and physical activity should match the 5.9% increase in overall provision for schools in the 2020-21 Departmental Expenditure Limit for DfE, and subsequent increases in further budgets.[56]

8.8       These measures would allow a weekly after-school sport guarantee for every young person to be a cornerstone of the revitalised School Sport and Activity Plan.

9.           Enhancing voice and ownership of underrepresented groups in policy and programming

9.1       Inequality within the sport and recreation sector in the UK requires urgent action. 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.[57] 

9.2       These inequalities extend to customer service experiences, the workforce and leadership of the sector. Sector-led research showed 40% of BAME participants reported a negative customer service when taking part in community sport and leisure compared to just 14% of white British.[58]

9.3       The paid and volunteer workforce in the sport and recreation sector is disproportionately orientated towards young men. 58% of all volunteers were men, while triple the share of professional roles in the sector are held by men under 25 when compared with the wider workforce. Only 13% of sport volunteers had a disability or long-term health condition (despite representing 21% of the population), and only 11% of sport volunteers were from NS-Sec 6-8 (despite representing 31% of the population).[59] Across Sport England and UK Sport funded-bodies, just 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.[60]

9.4       In most cases these inequalities have been exacerbated by the pandemic. However, this was not uniform. As of May 2020, women had seen a smaller drop in activity levels (-5.4%) than men (-8.9%) compared to one year earlier.[61] Activity levels increased by 2.4% for girls.[62] Equally, activity levels did not change amongst those from the least affluent families as opposed to a 3.7% and 1.9% drop for those of medium and high affluence.[63]

9.5       Whilst further data collection, analysis and insight is required to understand these trends, the differential impact of the relative shut down of the formal system on some groups who were traditionally underrepresented in the sector should be assessed, and learning for future policy, funding and national planning fully explored.

9.6       Of particular concern at present is the impact of the pandemic on the activity levels of disabled people. Just under half of disabled people surveyed by Activity Alliance in their annual survey reported the pandemic has made them feel that they do not have the opportunity to be as active as they want to (44%), compared to 29% non-disabled people. Whilst double the number of disabled people reported that the pandemic greatly reduced their ability to do sport or physical activity compared to non-disabled people (27% vs 13%).  This following inactivity levels among disabled people decreasing prior to the pandemic.[64]

9.7       In framing a response to inequalities in the sector, the critical importance of voice, ownership and equitable leadership structures has been emphasised by the Sport for Development Coalition network.[65] These inputs reinforced research conducted by Sported, a member of the Coalition, that identified 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.[66]

9.8       There are examples that exemplify different elements of this approach that can be drawn to inform future approaches. These include:

• The ‘Tell Your Story’ initiative being supported by home county sport councils as an “opportunity to listen, learn and work with all communities to shape the future of sport across the UK”.[67]

• Initiatives to amplify the voice of young people from ethnically diverse communities implemented by organisations within the Coalition network including the Rio Ferdinand Foundation and Sport 4 Life.[68]

• The Sporting Equals Leader Board initiative working to both increase demographic diversity on Boards and in executive leadership positions in the sector, and underscore ‘diversity as essential’ for the future success of our sector. Thus far, over a third of graduates from this programme have taken up Board positions in the sector. [69]

• The review of the elements of the Code of Governance for Sport that support equality, diversity and inclusion – including those aimed at ensuring greater representation of those from diverse ethnic communities, those with a disability or long-term health condition, and female representation on boards. [70]

10.     Investing proportionate to need

10.1  It is important to underscore that each of these examples outlined above were underpinned by targeted investment and resource allocation. However, an important message from consultation conducted by the Coalition is that action must go beyond funding initiatives. Tackling inequality must be embedded in the vision, mission and results the sector is seeking to deliver, from local to national level, and fundamental to overall investment and delivery plans.

10.2  Sport England’s commitment to placing tackling inequality at the heart of its next ten-year strategy serves as a model for this level of commitment. In framing this strategy, the organisation’s commitment to “follow the established concept of ‘proportionate universalism’…balancing targeted and universal provision in a way that’s proportionate to the level of need” is notable.[71]

10.3  A key principle of proportionate universalism is tailoring the supply of interventions, policies and programmes to the needs of different groups to ensure their needs are met and structural disadvantages are addressed. Fundamental to this approach is recognition that localised stakeholders embedded in local communities are best placed to understand the needs of specific individuals and groups and how best to address them, but that competence and legitimacy for different policy areas will be shared, concurrent or overlapping from local to national level.[72]

10.4  There is emerging evidence of the effectiveness of blending principles of proportionate universalism with an equity lens to address inequalities related to physical activity promotion,[73] underscoring the relevance of this approach in framing any future policy and planning for sport and recreation towards tackling deep rooted inequalities in the sector.

11.     Strengthening safeguarding culture, capacity and compliance 

11.1  Ensuring sport and recreation is accessible, safe, enjoyable and a positive experience for participants is both a right and fundamental to maximising the wider social value of the sector.  There is increased understanding and growing evidence of the specific risks of physical, emotional or sexual abuse, mistreatment and lack of care in sport and recreation, and that people have suffered harm in or though the sector.[74] [75]   A robust and intensified response to these issues is therefore required in future policy and planning. This response should account for the impacts of COVID-19 and adaptations to delivery models in the sector that have introduced new risks, especially through enhanced online connectivity and digital delivery.[76]

11.2  It is also pertinent to note that due to the complexity, sensitivity and ethical considerations around reporting and research on non-accidental violence, abuse and harm in sport and recreation, prevalence statistics are incomplete, with expert analysis suggesting that cases of harm within sport and recreation are widely underreported.[77] 

11.3  While compliance with the statutory frameworks and standards on safeguarding and duty of care are key to a system-wide response, building safeguarding capacity across sport and recreation and promoting a culture that prioritises the rights of participants and open discussion on harm and abuse prevalence and risk are equally important, both in relation to children and adults at risk.[78] 

11.4  The Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance sets out the current statutory framework and parameters to safeguard and promote the welfare of children across sectors. The 2018 revision of this guidance has 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”.[79]

11.5  The 2014 Care Act put safeguarding of adults onto a statutory footing. It also clarifies that abuse of adults links to circumstances, rather than the characteristics of the people experiencing the harm. This marks a shift away from framing adult safeguarding as pertaining to so called ‘vulnerable’ groups only, to encompass adults potentially ‘at risk’ from harm or abuse. This Act sits within a wider suite of legislation that together set out clearly that safeguarding adults is a responsibility for every sport and physical activity organisation.[80]

11.6  The resources, tools and capacity building support on safeguarding in sport available in the UK are high quality and globally recognised.[81]  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 Active Partnerships, and has had a strong focus on children[82]. It is important that this support is extended across the community sport ecosystem, including to VCSE sport organisations, and encompasses more substantive issues related to safeguarding adults at risk.

11.7  The Code for Sport Governance positions safeguarding as an issue pertaining to ‘Legal Compliance and Control’. It sets out that the funding agreements of Sport England and UK Sport contain specific obligations concerning safeguarding that require organisations to implement and adhere to the Standards for Safeguarding and Protecting Children in Sport.[83] In any upcoming review of this Code, there is potential for the focus on safeguarding and duty of care to be strengthened and mainstreamed across governance considerations, including a more substantial focus on the cultural dimensions of safeguarding and duty of care.

12.     Better understanding different outcomes delivered through different investments and interventions

12.1  A focus on wider social outcomes across sport and recreation policy and planning has substantial implications for monitoring systems and evaluation processes. In this regard the quality of data currently available to decision makers, headlined by Sport England’s Active Lives survey, [84]  should be acknowledged.

12.2  Two aspects of the current monitoring system are particularly noteworthy:[85]

• the provision of statistically significant disaggregated data which allows for a broad understanding of inequalities as they pertain to physical activity levels, volunteering and the workforce;

• the provision of data on the association between activity levels and nationally validated measures for physical wellbeing, mental wellbeing, individual development, and social and community development.

12.3  In combination with Sport England’s new SavantaComRes Tracker, the Active Lives data has become increasingly important during the COVID-19 pandemic. In combination these systems have provided a crucial picture of how people have engaged with sport and physical activity during the pandemic.[86]

12.4  Separate to the current sport and physical activity surveillance systems, the ONS and specific departments capture official statistics that provide additional valuable insight for future policy and planning (e.g. on the social engagement of the population through volunteering in sport).[87]

12.5  Where challenges have arisen in relation to the current monitoring system is when there has been a perception (or practice) that a singular quantitative tool is sufficient to fully understand the complexity and contextual variance in sport and physical activity participation levels, and more fundamentally, any association with wider social outcomes. The importance of going beyond measuring activity levels and drawing on mixed methods to understand the wider outcomes achieved through sport and physical activity has been recognised in UK Government publications and wider literature on this issue. [88] These principles should be a defining tenet of future monitoring and evaluation.

12.6  A particular challenge facing sport and recreation policy makers is where they are having to make inferences for macro policy and strategy using generalised population level data or granular research and evaluation that draw on small sample sizes, that is focused on singular interventions and/or applies limited methodological detail and rigour.[89]

12.7  Enhancing the capability within the current surveillance system to produce data that better enables assessment of the association between specific types of sport and physical activity participation and measures of wider individual and social outcomes would represent an important advance. Sport, recreation and physical activity is not homogenous and there is a need for the opportunities and challenges associated with using different sports and physical activities to contribute to wider social outcomes to be better understood.[90] Whilst there have been important advances in this regard within the monitoring and evaluation of specific interventions, population-level and sector-wide surveillance needs to be enhanced to support this type of understanding. 

12.8  The Sport for Development Coalition is aiming to contribute to this objective by supporting collective measurement across our network using a standardised survey tool, analysis process and reporting mechanism.[91] The use of this tool will be implemented as one component of organisations’ wider context- and institution- specific monitoring, evaluation and learning systems. The tool aims to provide a better understanding of the association and comparison between national data, drawing on official data sets and validated questions, [92] [93] [94]  and the outcomes reported by participants in collective, segmented and individual interventions across the sector. The aim is to provide a more granular understanding of the association between types of interventions and measures of wider outcomes.

13.     Aligning policy and planning to wider national priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals

13.1  There has been considerable progress made through the multilateral system and international platforms to position sport as an important contributor to economic and social development. This has been headlined by recognition of sport as ‘an important enabler of sustainable development’ within the Sustainable Development Goals and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs).[95] The adoption of the Kazan Action Plan was also a notable development as it represented a commitment across UN member countries to intentionally align sport policy to the SDGs and cross-government agendas.[96]

13.2  Learning from a diverse range of countries who have worked to evolve sport policy and planning in line with this objective offers valuable insight for the UK.[97] Stand out examples include:

• The alignment of Sport New Zealand’s Outcomes Framework 2020-2032 to the New Zealand Government’s Wellbeing and Living Standards Framework. This policy approach aims to position sport and recreation as an important contributor the wellbeing of all New Zealanders. It takes a ‘whole-of-government’ view that prioritises “intergenerational outcomes and improving the wellbeing of all New Zealanders over time”.[98]

• Mauritius have adopted a targeted policy framework that aims to increase the contribution of the sport and physical activity sector to gross domestic product from 1.2 per cent to 1.8 per cent and to increase the percentage of Mauritians undertaking sufficient physical activity from 23 per cent to 35 per cent.[99] These targets form the key pillars of a policy aiming to foster a nationwide culture of community sport and physical activity to promote health, well-being and social cohesion among all Mauritian people that has been supported by successive and incremental investment across three national budgets.

• Canada have positioned the use of sport as a tool for social and economic development, and the promotion of positive values at home and abroad as a key objective of the national sport policy framework.[100] [101] This has been supported through direct investment from the Government of Canada in the “key role of sport…in supporting dynamic and healthy communities, building self-esteem and developing leadership skills.[102]

13.3  Across these, and other countries, an emerging success factor in supporting enhanced participation in sport and recreation, and promoting active lifestyles, has been raising the profile of this policy area within the broader national agenda and, in turn, unlocking cross-government investment.

14.     Enacting a new social contract with sport and physical activity 

14.1  Drawing on the recommendations put forward in this submission, a reframe of national policy and planning for sport and recreation presents an opportunity to deliver a ‘new social contract with sport and physical activity’.

14.2  The intention to ‘refresh’ the Sporting Future strategy provides an important opportunity to set out an evolved whole-of-government position on sport and recreation that reaffirms the primary purpose of public policy and investment in sport and recreation is to contribute to wider social and economic outcomes.[103] The vision and architecture of Sport England’s 2021 – 2031 Uniting the Movement Strategy provides a basis and a core pillar for this policy. But “transforming lives and communities through sport and physical activity” will require more extensive cross-government, multi-sector and societal engagement, underpinned by strong political commitment and a clear policy stance.

14.3  At the same time, the social and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will require that all national assets be mobilised to rebuild and reinvigorate lives and communities. Coordinated national policy and plans can help affirm sport and recreation as key amongst these assets.

14.4  Overall, coherent  policy and planning aimed at setting out a ‘new social contract with sport and physical activity’ would provide an opportunity to enhance the role and commitment of government and public authorities across policy domains working with the sport and recreation sector, wider civil society and private sector actors, and the community at large, to ensure the potential of sport and recreation to contribute to the rebuild, reinvigoration and social and economic development of the country is fully maximised.

15.     Further information

15.1  The Sport for Development Coalition appreciates the opportunity to input into this inquiry and would be happy to provide additional evidence as required.

19 February 2021