LGA consultation response to Sport England’s next implementation plan for 2025 to 2028

Sport England’s present implementation plan for its Uniting the Movement strategy ends in March 2024. Sport England are working on the next implementation plan, which will cover the period 2025 to 2028. At its heart it aims to help provide opportunities to people and communities that have traditionally been left behind, by removing the barriers to activity. 

1. Thinking about what you’ve learnt and the changes you’ve seen since Uniting the Movement (UtM) was published in 2021, what three things do we most need to consider for our plan for 2025 to 2028?

UtM identifies Sport England (SE) as an important advocate for big issues. It successfully united the sectors voice, gathered data when it mattered to secure the Leisure Recovery & Swimming Pool Support Funds. But it was mostly reliant on individual relationships not a strategic approach. SE would benefit from an organisational wide strategic approach to partnership working to increase stakeholder engagement, delivery of UtM at local level, better advocate for the sector at national level. The LGA has excellent connections with parts of SE, but its inconsistent resulting in key communications not being received, for example: SE’s response to the recent violent disorder left us unable to cascade support to our members or support SE's work. SE should do more to articulate the value of local government to delivering its aims. Arts Council England recognises the importance of local government as the biggest investor, role in sustainability & delivery of its strategy. Since 2016 its worked with the LGA via a Shared Statement of Purpose on how it works with local govt, it strengthens our joint ability to advocate for the cultural sector at local/national level; we would like to do the same on physical activity. Our members tell us the current landscape is too complex. Too many funding pots, competing policy priorities/strategies, resources often unknown/underused. This is on top of complex local environments. A strong partnership would simplify the complexity for councils, Active Partnerships, public health, social care & enable better implementation of UtM, accelerate learning & be joined up. 

There’s a strong focus on prevention now. Since COVID-19 transformation of traditional sport/leisure service to an active wellbeing service is increasing. Resources need to be targeted to support this. LGA research (2021) shows at least £875 million capital investment into leisure facilities, pitches, and parks is needed. This strategic investment would help build/refurbish 25 new facilities per year over three years, creating a network of hubs to help people become more active everyday. This needs to be twin tracked with investment in community sport development, without them local areas struggle to effectively engage with traditionally marginalised communities, a core aim of UtM. Without investment, our critical leisure infrastructure, will come to the end of its life, unable to be replaced by councils facing a £6.2 billion funding gap. 

Our research highlights a lack of high-quality data & research. The Active Lives Survey is insufficient to interrogate against multiple demographics at local level. Co-produced activities prevents avoidable mistakes, creating programmes to encourage participation because users are listened. We encourage investment in direct delivery of bespoke activity for specific populations. Nationally research on the least active groups & intersectionality is needed. Place partnership's goal is to reduce inactivity in specific groups by 2030 which is reliant on data.

2. What do you feel are the biggest risks to our mission to tackle inequalities in sport and physical activity and how should we respond to them in our plan for 2025 to 2028?

UtM says it “will be guided by where the biggest impacts...on reducing inequalities”. While we support the localised approach via the “place partnership programme”, its delivered in waves & recipients must wait for their programme, in the interim there's no resources to support areas, meaning they can fall further behind.  It is also not universal and we're unaware of a central depository of resources open to all councils to learn from areas receiving support. UtM must take a strategic approach to investment in the resources that make the biggest impact. The sector has been hollowed out, without investment in facilities and sports development, there’s a risk UtM won’t be delivered. We argue SE’s approach should be based on need, its funding model should ensue all local authorities are able to deliver a minimum sport/leisure offer

The LGA is the credible voice of local government, trusted by our members & looked to for policy thinking/resources to support implementation. We strongly recommend SE develops a more formalised approach to partnership working with the LGA, that builds on & goes beyond the successful SE/LGA leadership training. For instance, other DCMS arms-length bodies have established regular meetings with the LGA Chair or Chair of the Culture, Tourism and Sport Board to capitalise on strategic opportunities.  We're experienced in supporting councils to transform & professionalise its services & could take a more formalised approach to supporting the transformation of the leisure service by sharing effective practice & developing key guiding principles. In particular, we'd like to join you in conversations with health partners, to maximise the impact of our joint voice & bring local experience & evidence of impact to the conversation. 

Research shows ‘This Girl Can’ needs to go further to provide qualitative data to understand the inhibitors & views on motivation. Nationally there's a lack of research on the least active groups & intersectionality. SE investment in local place partnerships supports targets to reduce inactivity in specific groups by 2030 they need the data to achieve this. Even if the targets do not remain under the new Govt there remains a fundamental issue about insufficient data & research on the least active groups which is preventing areas from making progress. We recommend SE undertakes an assessment of the effectiveness of the Active Lives Survey for adults and CYP and the existing evidence base available to local areas to support their work to tackle inequalities and inactivity. A similar approach to ‘The REACH Plan: A five-year plan’ could be taken to set out a strategic plan to develop an effective evidence base of what works to share with the sector policy making/delivery is best informed by proven programmes through robust impact evaluation.  

3. What do you feel are the biggest opportunities and how should we respond to them in 2025 to 2028?

Invest in services & workforce to enable service transformation. Invest at least £875 million capital investment into leisure facilities, pitches, & parks, twin tracked with investment in community sport development & robust research. This would enable local areas to make the biggest impact on tackling inequalities. Investment could be aligned to the Govts policy for neighbourhood & Youth hubs to build on existing anchor institutions/facilities that are already known & trusted by local communities, maximising investment & impact.  Work with the LGA to transform/professionalise services. We worked with Public Health England, the NHS & the professional associations to deliver a transformation programme for health visiting services which transferred from the NHS to local govt in 2015.  We worked in partnership to help local areas to understand what a transformed service delivery model looked like, helping to conceptualise and articulate it to local decision makers like elected members and demonstrate its value. If local govt is given a multi year funding settlement, opportunities for service transformation in leisure services may be more feasible because councils will be able to plan for the longer term. 

A strong partnership would simplify complexity for local systems. An example of this complexity is the multitude of organisations & networks locally. There are 317 local authorities, 48 Active Partnerships, 42 Integrated Care Systems – plus Integrated Care Boards, Integrated Care Partnerships, Health & Wellbeing Boards, 7 regional networks for social prescribing & a network of over 1600 Locally Trusted Organisations spread across 308 different local authorities across England/Wales. Many of these relationships already exist in local places, councils are more often then not the convenor of partnerships, service provider, funder or have a statutory responsibility for the above mentioned partners. It is near impossible for local areas to navigate this & connect because national organisations are not connecting to simplify things for them which is why better recognition of local govt key role and better partnership working between our organisations is critical. 

Undertake a deep dive to better understand what research & data is available to support local areas to tackle inequalities. Campaigns like This Girl Can may already provide the data but our research shows councils/partners struggle to find it or credible sources. Partnering with the LGA to disseminate resources with our members is critical. We'd like to see a deep dive to understand & address the gaps, a long-term strategic approach & commitment to building the evidence base on the programmes that work to tackle inequalities in the least active groups. SE relationship with Sheffield Hallam University is positive and effectively shown the value/impact of community sport but it could be expanded to specific groups.

5. What, if anything, has Sport England done to enable you/your organisation to tackle inequalities in sport and physical activity i.e. anything that has helped you to support under-represented groups and communities to be active?

Separately we are funded to deliver the LGA/ SE Leadership Essentials (LE) programme for portfolio holders and officers. Supporting 50 officers and 14 councillors through sport and physical programmes and briefings and a further 116 officers through themed sessions.  We deliver this in partnership with SE and bring policy insights both presenting at LE programmes and in the past, we have helped shape programme content to ensure it lands well with councils and is relevant.

The LGA recently completed a call for evidence on supporting women and girls to be physically active. We asked for case study examples of effective practice to share with the sector and for evidence on the barriers/opportunities/solutions. Our contact at Sport England was very helpful in cascading our call for evidence out to the Active Partnerships and to the This Girl Can team. As a result, we received several excellent case studies and evidence, which informed our final report.

SE’s relationship with Sheffield Hallam University and the report “Measuring impact | Sport England” to capture evidence on the social and economic value of community sport has been game changing for the sector. This alongside the Moving Communities (MC) data platform which captures real time data on the delivery of programmes and facilities and its social value locally and its recent report has been beneficial to national and local lobbying for the investment and prioritisation of community sport, leisure and physical activity. 

The LGA is a member of the MC Board, and we have co-delivered webinars to councils to increase their understanding of the data insights and increased uptake. We believe MC is a cutting edge and transformative breakthrough in the way that impact is captured and evidenced – we have used it as an example of excellence and to advocate for a similar approach in a variety of other service areas. MC is enabling councils to make evidence-based investment decisions on what to prioritise and resource. 

MC enables councils to articulate the social value of leisure services, the return in investment on wider service areas and improved outcomes for communities. As well as advocating for leisure to be protected against wider council budgetary pressures. It will be more beneficial when it is expanded to look at the economic benefits in informal settings like parks and with health data. Enabling councils to evidence the impact to NHS partners on the benefits of investment in preventative services like leisure and sport, and how it can support the delivery of NHS strategic aims for reducing inequalities and demonstrate cashable savings. 

6. What, if anything, has Sport England done that’s proved challenging in your work to tackle inequalities in sport and physical activity?

SE could be much better at sharing learning from its investment in local areas. The Local Delivery Pilots (LDP) could have shared learning to support councils and their partners who were not an LDP to make progress in the absence of SE investment. The LDPs was a big investment and whilst it greatly benefitted the 12 LDPs it is questionable how much the learning from that investment has been available to other areas, particularly areas that do not qualify as a Sport England place partnership. While the expansion of its place partnerships is positive, the resources available to local areas is not very practical, and it tends to be more evaluative and reflective of SE approach to delivering the programme rather than tangible lessons local areas can learn from and implement. We are concerned that the approach does not successfully adopt proportionate universalism and leaves many areas across the country without effective access to advice and best practice. The LGA has produced a number of practical guides to support councils and their partners but it is not clear how to get this cascaded through the SE network to share with Active Partnerships, other than going through personal contacts.

7. Is there anything you wish you had from Sport England to support or accelerate your work in tackling inequalities?

A more formalised approach to partnership working, to support councils and their partners some of whom fall under the SE network to navigate complex local systems and better join up support and resources at local level.

Despite an effective response to immediate threats to swimming pools, we are not clear that Sport England fully grasps the risk to physical activity levels from an ageing estate and reducing council budgets. While there has been some advocacy for making leisure a statutory service, this will have no impact if funding does not accompany it. Many statutory services, such as planning and libraries, have seen funding cuts of over 40 per cent due to budgetary pressures, and it is essential that government understands what will be lost if councils cannot replace their ageing assets.

8. How could Sport England be more efficient with the resources we have available to us?

Work more effectively with key stakeholders to avoid duplication, join up systems for local areas, share learning more effectively. Use its AP networks to cascade learning, effective practice to support and stimulate thinking and action on transformation. An example of duplication is that SE has commissioned an important piece of work on alternative investment models to support the sustainability of leisure services. However, the LGA completed a briefing for councils and its partners on the same subject in 2022. The SE briefing has not been published yet but we question how different the two documents will be and if it may have been more effective to share our briefing with their networks or to build on the gaps from our briefing. If there was a more effective way to share and cascade work like this with SE, it may have been avoidable. 

9. Assumption A: Continue to be rooted in the core belief, vision, mission and principles of ‘Uniting the Movement’.

Agree.

10. Assumption B: Continue to provide resources through five main types of investment.

Disagree.

11. Please tell us why you disagree with Assumption B

• Partnerships: a network of organisations who play important roles in the governing and delivery of sport and physical activity and/or who help us to tackle the issues we're trying to tackle and reach people we're trying to reach, to impact on the mission. (Agree, but this needs to be joined up with wider stakeholders like the LGA to support networks and local areas more effectively) 
• Places: local organisations and leaders in specific places (80 - 100) where there is the greatest need for support and free tools and resources to make it easier to provide sport and physical activity opportunities for individuals and communities in need. (Disagree, we are concerned that the approach does not successfully adopt proportionate universalism and leaves many areas across the country without effective access to advice and best practice.) 
• Open funding: to help smaller organisations and projects through grants, crowdfunding support and free tools and resources to make it easier to provide sport and physical activity opportunities for individuals and communities in need. (Agree) 
• Campaigns: targeted campaigns such as ‘This Girl Can’, ‘We are undefeatable’ and ‘Play their way’  to reach specific audiences in the population to change norms and behaviours (Disagree, we want to see a more long-term, strategic approach to developing a robust evidence base on the programmes that work to reduce inactivity in the least active and most marginalised groups) 
• Government programmes: where we play a role to support central government in the administration of things like School Games Organisers and Sport Survival package. (Agree)

12. Assumption C: Investment and ways of working reflect collective learning about tackling inequalities

Disagree.

13. .Please tell us why you disagree with Assumption C

This needs to be more than a reflection and be more practical.

14. Assumption D: Investments could be more effective if more joined-up

Disagree.

15. Please tell us why you disagree with Assumption D

We would agree with this, but for it to be effective this needs to be done in partnership with key stakeholders like the LGA.

16. Assumption E: The big issues remain the critical focus areas for change.

Disagree.

17. Please tell us why you disagree with Assumption E

We would agree but only if there's better alignment with key stakeholders like the LGA, only then would this approach be effective.

18. If you want to provide more explanation of previous answers or there’s anything else you’d like to tell us to inform the development of the plan, please share here.

Please see caveats in previous section.