Submission to Culture, Media and Sport Committee's Inquiry on community and school sport

The term ‘grassroots’ sport needs careful reflection as it encapsulates a mixed economy of the traditional sports club sector coordinated by national governing bodies (NGBs), fitness activity primarily supplied by the private sector but also local authorities and informal activity supported by public infrastructure like parks and or supplemented by charities targetting hard-to-reach communities. It is most important for the committee to recognise that the traditional sport club sector comprises the substantial minority of participation and it emphasises younger male participation. The private fitness sector  has also seen rapid growth supporting substantial participation across multiple activities, attesting to their meeting some needs of the population.

However, the overall quantity and quality of facilities across the sector are are not well known or understood but challenges are identified. Local Authority provision resides in ageing infrastructure in a context of increasing costs and the risk of closure, with swimming pools being particularly under threat. Significantly the private sector is not a major supplier of swimming pools that underpin one of the largest participation activities or sports halls that facilitate collective participation. There is also recognition that the number of facilities available in communities have better served formal participation of traditionally-viewed male sports and not seen to be conducive to women’s participation. Moreover, it is also recognised that informal activity and the use of informal and inclusive spaces is of more important to women and contributes to greater well-being and social benefits compared to men.

Where school facilities are of sufficient standard, they can help meet the needs of the community for both sports club and private use. However many school facilities fail to meet the requirements of sports clubs or private users. A wide range of barriers exists within schools to operate their faculties outside of school hours. The cost of opening facilities including heating, cleaning and staff often leave the potential opportunity cost to be too high with the perceived legal risks and potential for damage often resulting in schools only opting to use their facilities for after school clubs and not for out of hours community use.

The development of the mixed economy of provision has led to fragmentation with the community sport system. Whilst at one level this may be viewed as an efficient segmentation response to the different needs of communities, it also brings with it a linear focus of specific organisational mission and accountability. A more imaginative approach is needed in which resourcing flows from the multiple use of facilities, organisational collaborations and social rather than individual organisational accountability. Consequently, rather than prioritising the development of formal, single-purpose sports facilities (e.g. courts, pitches), greater attention should be given to creating informal, multi-use spaces that encourage sport participation and physcial activity. Moreover, early interpretation of findings from evaluating the implementation of Opening School Facilities (OSF) would indicate the need for a specific role to integrate the relationship between schools and the wider sport and physical activity sector. A review of the previous PESSCL strategy and School Sport Partnerships may be required. Active Partnerships would appear to be in a strong position to lead any new developments in this space provided they were adequately resourced and had the tools to elicit greater cross-agency strategy development and implementation.

The key challenges facing volunteers in grassroots sport are longstanding and reflect the related elements of recruitment and retention. The key sources of recruitment for sports clubs tends to come from its specific constituents, through word of mouth, networks and is thus predominantly reactive in nature. Both attracting and retaining volunteers is then subject to time pressures, particularly connected with work and family commitments. Likewise, the move towards the professionalisation of volunteering, for example connected with sports coaching qualifications, safeguarding and other increased rsponsibilities has tilted the emphasis towards formal from informal volunteering, bringing with it challenges to the initial motivation to volunteer (as a charitable donation of time) as well as the time available per se. In addition, the lack of quality experiences associated with the volunteer who has better experiences engaging in their own activity e.g. through the private sector, as well as related cultural changes with a move towards more individualistic than collective culture, hamper recruitment. Retention hinges on satisfaction with the experience of volunteering and key factors enhancing satisfaction including recognition and support by organisations. An extremely important sub-dimension of this experience lies in the growing physical and verbal abuse of officials, which accounts for an alarming and widespread loss of incumbents.

Tensions that persist in the community sports system connected with sports clubs are that the socio-demographic profile of volunteers tends to reflect participants, the profile of volunteers is also ageing, and this has implications for wider policy goals of inclusivity. The current structures of volunteering also do not allow for informal volunteering that better meets the expectations and time available of a younger generation. Mechanisms need to be put into place to ensure that informal volunteering can flourish, that safeguarding and other ‘professional’ volunteering requirements are simplified and can be shared across the sector, and that challenges in the form of abuse are properly sanctioned. The success of initiatives such as parkrun indicate that less traditional forms of sport could be encouraged by clubs and or take place at their facilities, engaging in modes of activity tailored to non-standard participants and even community physical activity.

Some of the challenges and potential solutions to aspects of increasing the accessibility of sport to under-represented groups have been discussed above, for example in connection with facility provision and women’s participation and that formal volunteering in sports clubs tends to mirror the non-diverse profiles of the sport’s participants. Insights from the charity sector are informative in connection with targeting a broader participant base. For example having offers that meet StreetGames’ five rights: time, place, style, people, and price. This could be supplemented with  the creation of local user volunteer development in connection with non-traditional sports that resonate with youth and ethnic populations, for example, climbing, skateboarding, parkour, BMX, along with the development of informal ‘pick up’ opportunities, as in Canada, to introduce participants to competitive sport  in non standard forms (e.g. 5-a-side football, 3 x 3 basketball) that allow new and former participant to play without formal, seasonal, club-based commitments. The latter approach has been the main focus of previous sport policies but is too rigid and inflexible. As noted above, such initiatives need to be supplemented by not prioritising the development of formal, single-purpose sports facilities (e.g. courts, pitches), but informal, multi-use spaces.

The current curriculum is implemented with a heavy focus on skill development for sport, although sport should be part of the PE curriculum the focus should be much broader to provide pupils with a better understanding of the lifelong benefits of physical activity and providing them with more varied experiences and opportunities relevant to their local environment. Although a whole school approach has potential to develop this broader understanding, this should be taken further to incorporate a whole community approach, involving local sports clubs and an understanding of the available facilities for formal and informal activities.

Early interpretation of the evaluation of the implementation of OSF demonstrates the need to offer wider activities and the opportunity for informal play especially for those pupils that are not already engaged in regular sport and physical activity. Pupils seem to demonstrate that they want more variety and flexibility, favouring either non-traditional activities with a focus on participation and fun or multi-sport activities. There is a need for schools to facilitate and pupils to develop an understanding of participating in informal sport, to encourage lifelong participation. Increasing the quality and quantity of coaches and PE teachers with the knowledge and skills to deliver multiple sports is required.

PE teachers should be given more flexibility to respond to local pupil needs rather than rigid curriculum requirements. There also needs to be more accountability on schools for pupils achieving health and physical literacy outcomes.

Early interpretation of the evaluation of the implementation of OSF demonstrates that Active Partnerships are well positioned to act as the link to facilitate relationships between schools and sport organisations. Their local and regional knowledge of facilities, schools, local sports clubs and national sports partnerships  allows them to develop the best place-based responses to deliver local needs.

Despite the previous response, whilst Active Partnerships are meant to have a synthesising role within the sector, as noted earlier, they lack the resourcing and tools to be fully effective in encouraging and delivering a better coordinated delivery. Currently, there is inconsistency in the Active Partnership network with competing priorities and varying levels of resourcing and capacity. More direct investment with a specific remit to develop this space is required. This suggests a return to a similar approach to the PESSCL and School Sport Partnership would seem appropriate, with the need for a school PE/Sport/ PA and community link role. However, this should include a broader remit than was there before, which includes developing both formal and informal sport and physcial activity opportunities as well as developing facilities and more active forms of transport to and from schools and within local communities.

As we indicate in our response to question 2, we know that there has been a growing complexity and fragmentation in the community sports system reflecting its segmentation. One consequence has been that many NGBs have predominantly focused on high and general performance programming often at the expense of school and grassroots sport. Indeed, the majority of the delivery of sport and physical activity (and in many primary schools PE lessons) from government funded programmes such as the PE and Sport PE premium, Holiday Activities and Food programme (HAF) and Opening School Facilities (OSF) are not being delivered by NGB’s but are often delivered by private providers and level 1 and 2 sports coaches. Moreover, whilst formal participation initiatives have stagnated, there has been a growth in more inclusive informal activity. Improvements need to take place to incentivise existing linear segments of delivery to collectively meet community needs, recognising that this delivery does not need to be formalised sport. For example, parkrun successfully operates from both public parks and some traditional sports clubs. The use of the latter for broader community physical activities, coordinated and governed in the same way should be encouraged. This will require, however, a shift in priorities and programming of NGBs and their clubs’ and will only likely change with appropriate restructuring of incentives. For example, as indicated by the conditions required for formal recognition of governing bodies by UK Sport and Sport England to access funding. In our view, the active partnership network is best positioned to take a more active role in delivering grassroots sport.

The vehicle for greater coordination across the sports sector requires careful reflection, not least of which because different Government departments have a stake in the development of the sector and the policy outcomes it seeks. It is clear that community sport and its relationship to school sport has much potential to better meet the needs of the local community but the resourcing and policy levers that Active Partnerships currently have need to be enhanced. Funding and accountability need to be more closely and effectively tied to cross-sector impacts, and not just focus on KPIs like participation/ attendance data that lack granularity and do not address outcomes. This requires a need for a review of all stakeholders in local landscapes, and to revisit initiatives that support co-ordination such as School Sport Partnerships and PESSCL strategy as well as to make better use of current school and club facilities.