Turning the rhetoric of Uniting the Movement into Reality

About the Sports Think Tank

The STT is a Think Tank dedicated to delivering sport and physical activity research and policy solutions. With our bases in London and Loughborough we ae dedicated to helping the sport and physical activity sector think clearly and strategically based on the best available evidence. And create deliverable policy solutions.

Our purpose is to conduct and promote research and help the education of the public about the benefits of sport and physical activity and to help the sector think more clearly using the evidence about the best ways to create advocacy, impact and investment in the sector. We understand sport, policy and how government works.

Published by The Sports Think Tank October 2023

@Sports Think Tank. Some Rights Reserved

STT Sport Park

Loughborough Leicestershire LE11

www.sportsthinktank.com

@sport_thinktank

The contents and opinions expressed in this briefing paper are those of the authors only

INTRODUCTION

Chair - Andy Reed OBE

programme solutions and into a much better place co-creating solutions with communities and in place.

The thinking and language have moved in the right direction, but now comes the hard bit. We are already seeing examples where a different approach is delivering improved outcomes and we will be sharing some of these in our upcoming project on providing policy ideas for the upcoming party-political manifestos.

Welcome to the latest in the series of a Thought Leadership pieces from leaders from across the Sport and Physical Activity Sector. As you know we exist to help facilitate deeper discussion and thinking on some of the key questions facing the sector with these longer Think Pieces.

We know policy making and specifically delivery is complex. If it was easy, we would all be delivering solutions in communities across the country.

We have been very supportive of the ambitions set out in Uniting the Movement from Sport England. Its analysis is correct and many of the solutions proposed could have profound effect on the way we think about delivering change. Hopefully, we have moved away from top-down

But Martyn in this paper asks that we go further and faster into this new mode of working – once again moving out of our Silo approach and into one single integrated place-based change programme. As he says change will only happen at the speed of trust, not by rules and procedures. We know it is easy to say and put into a pamphlet, but this is now where we must learn to let go.

As the new investment from Sport England expands the place-based working there is a golden opportunity with fresh local leadership to make all of the happen and at pace. But successful system change will depend on investing in local leadership argues Martyn. We agree.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

1. Place working, reshaping public leisure and developing system leadership must be seen through one lens as a single integrated place based change programme. Get out of our silos!

2. We need a sector wide communication strategy that helps establish a common language and shared understanding as the starting point for further place working. Common purpose only comes from common understanding!

3. In terms of accountability Sport England and all the stakeholders must ‘lean into the local’ and away from the national until trust is built locally and confidence in the new system prevails. We must all learn to let go!

4. At the end of the day change will only happen at the speed of trust, not by rules and procedures and change cannot be rushed if it is to be sustainable. Get the local governance right from the outset!

5. To succeed we must first build the organisational capacity to provide ongoing support for leadership development and learning exchange. Build the capacity to build the capacity!

Despite all the challenges we face we still have a great opportunity to make the aspirations of Uniting the Movement a reality. Many positive changes are already happening across the country in the Local Delivery Pilots, some Active Partnerships, some facility operations partnerships, some NGBs and in some community organisations as each in their own way are wrestling with changing the system. However, progress remains slow and incremental.

The results of the last Active Lives survey showed that inequalities in activity levels could once again be widening as a result of different recovery rates. What we now need is a step change in leadership that reboots all our collective efforts to address stubborn inactivity and inequality.

Over coming months Sport England will be announcing further investment in expanding place based working. It continues to advocate for the future of public leisure facilities at a place level. But successful system change will depend on investing in system leadership development to create the capacity, capability and confidence to facilitate the scale of culture change needed. Place working, pivoting public leisure and developing system leadership must be seen through one lens as a single integrated place based change programme.

We are not the only group of professionals wrestling with this system change journey. Although councils have been focused on place for some time, our health partners are only starting to engage in place working as they implement the new Integrated Care Systems. Like us the NHS, Social Care and Public Health have a fractured system that fails many people and does not function well together. Like us they have major funding problems: an infrastructure problem with ageing facilities. Often they are in the wrong place and delivering the wrong services: like us they have a workforce crisis in terms of capacity, skills and diversity. System change is now seen as the way forward for both sectors and if we are to become better partners we need to work better together and learn together in places.

Recently I came across a report from the Nuffield Trust ‘People,partnerships and place, how can ICSs turn the rhetoric into reality’ which included significant learning we should all digest. The processes involved in implementing Integrated Care Systems and Uniting the Movement although different in scale are complimentary and even the title of this report could apply to us, “How do we turn the rhetoricofUnitingtheMovementinto reality”.

The report’s authors having interviewed many of those involved in ICS implementation set out what they believe are the risks to success and suggest some actions to mitigate against these risks. The report concludes that “theimplementationof ICSs risk repeating the cycle of successivereorganisationsintheNHS thatchangehowservicesareplanned and coordinated which come with a significant opportunity cost and disruption but fail to address the fundamentalanddeep-rootedchanges neededtodeliverintegration.”

This same claim could be levelled at our own attempts to address the inequalities in participation in sport and address inactivity. Every government sport plan including the new one and Sport England strategy over recent years has attempted to change how sport and leisure services are planned, coordinated and delivered with significant costs and disruption. However, they have not yet fundamentally shifted the deepseated inequality in participation and engagement. So we must all remain determined that Uniting the Movement will be different and be the strategy that finally succeeds.

A COMMON LANGUAGE AND SHARED UNDERSTANDING

Before examining the risks, the report highlights two challenges in understanding which are quite important to the whole implementation process.

The first is the term ‘integration’. Although we know ICSs are seeking to integrate services at the local level so that we get better health outcomes for people, the report questions if those working in the health system actually share the same understanding of what is meant by the term ‘integration’. The report points out that “ManyofthechallengesICSsfacestemfromintegration beinganebulousconceptthathasdifferentmeaningsindifferentcontexts. Integrationisnotsomuchaserviceinterventionthatcaneasilybeliftedfrom oneplaceandappliedtoanother.Itisratherawebofsystems,processesand behavioursthatinfluencehowdifferentteams,professionsandorganisations worktogether,theoutcomeofwhichisacoordinatedservicedeliveredtomeet theneedsofpatientsandserviceusers.”

The report also raises a second question in relation to the use of the term ‘place’ which has multiple levels of application in ICSs such as neighbourhood, place and system (region/sub-region) all where better integration is needed. But this multiple application of geography has already created some confusion.

Having listened to many working in the sector I remain concerned that we too have a problem with common language and shared understanding. Do we all share the same understanding of the terms sport, physical activity, movement, system change, collaboration, universal, proportionate, targeted, pivot to active wellbeing or even ‘place based working and expansion’? For those working in facilities, sports clubs and community organisations what does ‘Place’ actually mean? Is place a facility, a community, a neighbourhood, a town, city, county or region? When we talk of collaboration do we just mean better partnership working or are we actually talking about service integration? And what system are we trying to change, the sport and leisure system and / or the health system?

National Governing Bodies of Sport may be uncertain as to how they as national member bodies relate to local places beyond supporting their local clubs. Funding national bodies equipped to administer their sport to also deliver local health interventions to the most inactive and deprived has always been a difficult ask. So what is their actual role in place based system change?

Facility operators too remain unsure about where they sit in place working given the ongoing and worsening tension between impact, resources, service specifications and contracts. Some may even feel threatened by funding shifts to activity and movement through walking and cycling rather than the much needed additional funding of more traditional sport and leisure provision in sports centres, pools and on playing fields. These concerns may be being debated as a result of the recent report on the Future of Public Leisure (Dec 2022) and the proposal to ‘pivot to active wellbeing’. I fear there is still no shared understanding and common agreement on what this should actually look like in the context of place?

When we deliver our Leadership Essentials programmes for councillors and managers we make sure we use a common language and we build a shared understanding of what these terms mean. This is so participants can go away better informed and able to collaborate using a common language and understanding. We now need a sector wide communication strategy that establishes a common language and shared understanding as the starting point for further place working.

THE RISKS

The report goes on to identify five key risks and challenges which the authors believe will influence the success or otherwise of ICSs. I would suggest that these same or very similar risks will almost certainly influence the success of further place working.

Culture, behaviours and inter-organisational power dynamics.

In ICSs these factors will act against the development of place-based approaches if they are not genuinely addressed by all relevant partners. The report identifies two specific dimensions, the imbalance in power across the different players and the relationship between central and local control.

Given that power and scale imbalances will exist across and within most sectors the report says “Stakeholders reflected how difficult it can be to achieve this power shift in the face of funding pressures that leave organisationalleadersprotectiveoflimitedresource.Therearesomeparallels betweenthechallengesexperiencedbytheVCSEsectorandbyprimarycare organisations. In both cases multiple small organisations have limited managementresourcescomparedtolargeacuteproviders,andcanbevying for available funding which also impedes progress against collaborative workingandrequiresalonger-termculturalshift”.

In terms of rolling out place working, culture change will be critical. We are already seeing similar tensions due to power imbalances between upper and lower tier councils, one responsible for health and social care and the other for sport and leisure. There is also tension between bigger and smaller operators, between larger and smaller NGBs and sports clubs. Are we expecting Active Partnerships to broker across these often tense relationships and if so do they have the ability to do so and what support will they need?

There is mounting evidence that to reach the most deprived and inactive communities we should rely more on locally trusted voluntary and community based organisations. They are closest to these communities they are already the least powerful and already struggling with limited short term funding and capacity.

The report also points out that “Ensuringthatplace-basedpartnershipsare rootedinlocalneedswillalsorequirenewrelationshipsbetweenthecentre (nationalgovernment)andlocalsystems,androundtableparticipantsnoted thisasanotherkeyculturalbarrierthatmayholdbackthedeliveryofplacebasedpartnerships.Akeymotivationforthechangesistofreeupmorespace for ICSs to lead at a local level and assume greater responsibility (and accountability)fordecisionmakingintheircommunities.ButevenasICSstake hold, participants voiced concerns that some decisions – such as around capital spend – are still being micromanaged by NHS England, and risk perpetuatingcommandandcontroldynamicswhilediminishingtheabilityfor place-basedpartnershipstodeliverchange.

ThereisalsoariskthatasICSsmature,theybecomethenew‘centre’ thatfails todevolveleadershipeffectivelytoplaceandthefrontlineteamsatthecentre ofintegratedcaredelivery.”

Sport England is accountable to and influenced by the DCMS. They will need to resolve how they address the balance between being accountable for performance and funding upwards to central government and ‘letting go.’ This is in order to empower more freedom and devolved local decision making. The new government strategy has clearly enhanced national accountability with yet more performance indicators and impact metrics. How they fund future place working, fund national organisations to work locally and how they align capital and revenue funding with local priorities that may not necessarily involve traditional sport provision will bring many challenges. Similarly NGBs and the bigger national facility operators whilst wanting to engage locally will also continue to be accountable upwards to their national membership and national boards often with competing priorities.

To address this, we must start by being much more open about these tensions. We need to ensure that in applying accountability for public funding any new local governance arrangements do not stifle innovation and frustrate delivery on local priorities. We also need to ensure new local system partnerships don’t themselves become ‘new centres of power and control’ that then exclude and frustrate greater community empowerment. We can best do this by building trusting relationships from the outset and focus not just on negotiating between competing organisational priorities but by finding common purpose.

However,attheendofthedaySportEnglandwillinevitably havetobeconfidentand ‘leanintothelocal’andawayfrom thenationalifplaceworkingistobesuccessful.

b)Organisationalcomplexity,duplicationandoverlappingfocus.

The report suggests that “thepictureemerginginICSsisoneofoverlapping structuresandpartnershipsthatarenotfullyalignedleadingtoconfusedgoals andmisalignedincentivescreatingunnecessarytensionswithintheprovider collaborativesandalsoleadstoavailablecapacitybeingspreadtoothinly.”

The same risk could happen with place working as some providers already with limited capacity may try to engage with multiple local partnerships and networks. Without the right leadership, they could simply become ‘talk shops’ that fail to achieve a clear enough focus and shared outcomes. We already hear fears from smaller sport and activity providers including local community organisations, small clubs and even some NGBs that they don’t have the capacity to fully participate in the numerous place partnerships and networks where local decision making will take place. Those responsible for rolling out place working must be alert to this problem and find ways to simplify local governance by avoiding unnecessary overlaps, duplication and tensions. Otherwise, this will result in smaller providers being squeezed out so undermining better collaboration. At the end of the day sustainable change will only happen at the speed of trust and not through rules, procedures and milestones.

c)Resources,fundingandcapacityconstraints.

The report confirms what we all know about the scarcity of resource. “ Revenue,capitalorcapacityincludingworkforcecapacitywilllimittheability todevelopmulti-disciplinaryworkingandimplementchange.Thedesignmight berightbuttheabilitytoactismissing.Thechallengingfinancialclimatemay createa ‘burningplatform’ fromwhichtodrivechangeandanincentiveforall partsofthesystemtoworkbettertogethertomakethebestuseoflimited resources. However, implementing integrated care takes resources, infrastructure,staffand,importantly,headspace–allofwhicharehardtocome byinperiodsoffinancialdifficultyleavingstakeholdersworriedthatthereisa big risk that these financial circumstances undermine integrated service deliveryattheplacelevel.”

They further point out that “Oneofthemostconsistentfindingsofprevious evaluationsofintegrationistheneedforupfrontresourcesandenoughbudget for new integrated service models and ways of working to double-run alongsideexistingsystems.Integratedapproachesneedtimetomatureand findtheirfootingbeforeotheronesareswitchedoff.Thereisariskthatunder currentplans,placeswillbeexpectedtoredesignservices“inflight”,whichis unlikelytogiveteamsthebestchanceatadaptinganddevelopingnewwaysof workingthatcanbesustained.”

We know the sport and activity sector is also operating under the same financial and capacity constraints. There is a real risk that place working could be seen not as the driver of necessary change but an additional burden on survival. The Local Delivery Pilots received significant additional funding for a number of years to enable ‘double running’ new and existing systems. Future place investment from Sport England is unlikely to be at the same scale which means ‘in flight’ change is the only option. The recent National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports and now the new sport strategy has certainly put pressure on Sport England and their stakeholders to move more rapidly. This is contrary to the LDP learning that system change needs time and an acceptance of ‘test and learn’ to be successful. Any funding will need to be allocated to support the actual process of system change, building local capacity, relationships and leadership skills to enable sustainable change. It will need to avoid pressure to simply plug local funding gaps and deficits. Those responsible in Sport England and Active Partnerships for awarding the funding and measuring its impact must be able to act as ‘intelligent clients’ to support and enable the effective use of the funding.

Anyattempttodriveplacedbasedworkingwithoutgiving adequatetimeandsupportwillbearoutetocertainfailure.

d)Difficultiesindefining,measuringandevaluatingintegration.

The report suggests “Itisfareasiertoobserveandmeasureprocessthanlong -termoutcomes,andexceedinglydifficulttodrawacausallinkbetweenthe twoandunderstandifintegrationisprogressinginsuchawaythatlong-term objectivescanberealised.Thislimitstheunderstandingofitsimpact,andwhat difference subsequent reforms have ultimately made to service users and patients”.

The report further identifies the use of metrics and measurement, the lack of focus on the perspective of those using services and funding flows and regulation as factors adding to these risks.

Local Delivery Pilots have already identified similar challenges with;

• measuring the impact of place working and the tensions between demonstrating the impact of process

• measuring change in activity levels and;

• demonstrating the cause and effect relationships between them.

Rolling out further place work will continue to expose these risks and challenges particularly now Sport England could be put under greater pressure to measure national progress using traditional performance measures. Whilst the new Moving Communities data base for facilities may have improved national performance data, it is only just starting to test a model that measures activity and performance at a place level including its alignment to indicators of need. There is also a huge risk that this tension between national and local accountability could inhibit the building of local relationships based on trust, a key requirement for system change. As suggested above the acceptable position must be to ‘lean into the local’ until trust is built and confidence in a new system prevails.

e)Stafffatigue,burnoutandintegrationoverload.

Even without the challenge of developing new ways of working in ICSs and place-based partnerships, leaders at all levels face a substantial challenge in keeping staff motivated after two-and-a-half years of working through a pandemic and 10 years of austerity. The report explains that “Deteriorating performancestatisticsarenotsimplynumbers,theyrepresenttheworsening experienceofrealpeople.Aspatientsandservicesusersreceivelesstimely, andperhapspoorerqualitycare,likewisestaffareexperiencingrealmoral injuryandburnout.Whilethiscontextcanmaketheaimsofintegrationeven morepressingandworthwhile,developingthesystemsandprocessesneeded tomakeintegrationworkinpracticemaytakesecondpositiontoaddressing moreextremeissuesfacingtheservice.”

The same will ring true in the sport and activity sector. A decade of austerity had made much of the sector highly vulnerable in the pandemic. An energy crisis and a cost of living crisis added to this. Many facilities, sports clubs and voluntary organisations are left focused on survival so for many place working will not be seen as an essential way forward but just a further distraction. However resources are not only about money. People are our biggest asset and our work on Leadership Essentials has shown that by investing in peoples development you can build their confidence as leaders of change, expanding their resilience and so increase the overall capacity of the system. Changing how we lead is key to changing how our culture works.

Our messaging needs to be more consistent and clear going forward. We need to better explain that system change and place working are not just another Sport England initiative. It is a legitimate tried and tested way to change how the system works, making it work better for those that previously have been excluded but also better for those working in that system. It’s not just about doing different things it’s about doing things differently by working together better. It’s also about giving those working in the system confidence to lead and take more personal responsibility to change things. Only if all of us own this new way of working will change happen.

ADDRESSING THE RISKS

The report concludes with some suggestions to address these risks in ICS delivery which are also relevant to how we roll out place working.

a) Foster culture change through greater mutual understanding and joint working.

Given that for many ICSs the risks to integration are rooted in cultural differences the report concludes that moreneedstobedonetofostergreater mutualunderstanding.With mutual understanding comes greater trust, which is essential for integration and collaboration to work. To build trust across the system, real autonomy, resources and control must be delegated and shared across partners.

This has been at the heart of the LDP learning and working differently is the key message in Uniting the Movement. Unless we make culture change central to our ambition we will once again spend time and resources doing the same things but expecting different results. At the heart of this lies the need to invest in system leadership development at scale not only in places but in the numerous stakeholder organisations that operate in those places. Crucially, there needs to be wholesale transformation across the delivery workforce.

b)Buildintegration(collaboration)intothedayjob.

Integration the report suggests is not the objective for its own sake – it is an approach to streamline services for people accessing them and to improve outcomes and help keep people healthy and well. Integration only happens if people do something different as part of their day jobs – structural shifts and changes to organisational diagrams alone will never drive change. Changing culture will.

This is equally true for us. Greater collaborative working depends on building trusted relationships and requires different ways of working across the system if barriers to activity are to be removed. It takes time before the new ways of working are fully embedded and become ‘the day job’ so we must build the infrastructure and provide capacity to support the processes of change.

c)Bringclaritytocomplexitybylearningtolivewiththemess.

Maximising capacity in the system says the report depends on simplifying and streamlining decision-making and governance arrangements. This underlines the importance of efforts to decentralise decision-making and control, giving more autonomy to ICSs to define for themselves how these arrangements should work in practice. This means that governance and planning arrangements will better reflect the distinctive history and culture that informs decisionmaking in each place as well as in provider collaboratives and other partnership structures.

Learning to live with and work with complexity has also been a key element in our system leadership work. Whilst in the past traditional management models may have solved our more simple and complicated problems, complex problems like inactivity need a very different approach to leadership, based on finding common purpose, testing and learning from new innovative approaches and then sharing that learning with others. Whilst collaborative planning is important writing lengthy plans is a waste of both time and energy. Sport England will need to resolve quickly how we will provide adequate support to place working given every place will be both complex and different. Traditional management models, funding processes, governance arrangements, training and methods of accountability will not work. Places will need to be helped, supported and then trusted to develop their own approaches to these complex problems.

d).Usebettermetrics,dataandperformancemanagement.

The report confirms that many of the risks to integration relate to expectations around outcomes, and how to measure, define and incentivise them, while ensuring the right flows of information are in place to meet objectives. Integrated care reform has suffered from short-termism. Energy and focus often gravitate towards the immediate challenges such as waiting lists at the expense of long-term goals and objectives such as health inequality. Performance frameworks, where they have existed, have tended to focus on individual organisational targets, which incentivise silo activity and leave out considerations of how well services work together which can lead to illdefined goals across system partners.

As a sector we too have struggled with the tension between measuring organisational performance and the short term impact on activity levels and demonstrating longer term system change across a place. Pressures nationally and locally to demonstrate impact and value for money will continue to grow particularly as a result of the new government strategy but system change needs time and a willingness to fail and learn from failure. Organisations and partnerships will have to be accountable for public funding and given the long term failure to address inequality in activity urgency is definitely required. But if system change is to be sustainable we must find the right mix of metrics and data that also shows the progress we are making on changing how the system itself works. Any performance management approaches must be collaborative and constructive, helping support and build trust.

e)Rebalanceourcapacity.

The report concludes that by streamlining the way different parts of the service work together we not only improve outcomes for individuals. We also create efficiencies and therefore opportunities to expand capacity to do even more. By changing how the system works, in time we make it both more effective and efficient and also better to work in.

During the pandemic the sport and activity system worked collaboratively to achieve a common purpose of helping individuals and communities in crisis. Looking back we changed how the system worked, made it more inclusive, removed unnecessary bureaucracy to get things done, collaborated rather than competed so creating additional capacity. Despite these challenges we not only reignited the social value and impact of the sector but many working in the sector also said they felt better valued and rewarded. It seems that in the face of further challenges of rising energy costs and the cost of living problems rather than building on the changes we made and further embedding this way of working we have perhaps reverted to old behaviours and old cultures.

By focusing together on place working we have another opportunity to rethink what we can achieve by working differently and rebalance our limited capacity so it works better and does more, but only if we have the leadership capacity and confidence to drive the changes needed.

BUILDING BETTER SYSTEM LEADERSHIP

The Nuffield report clearly sets out the challenges facing the ICSs and defines the risks of delivering change in a system already struggling with resources and capacity and the dangers of having to rely on ‘inflight change’ when opportunities for ‘double running’ old and new systems don’t exist. In response the Health sector are already investing heavily in leadership development as they seek to implement the ICSs. The LGA have also recently announced a significant programme of sector lead improvement to support councils wrestling with place based system change.

The early investment by Sport England in the Local Delivery Pilots and the Leadership Essentials programme was a brave leap forward and has triggered the start of a movement for change across some parts of the sector. Bravery and exceptional leadership is now necessary if we are to turn the rhetoric into reality. Expanding place working at scale with limited resources means we are likely to depend on nurturing and supporting “in flight” change. The LGA/Sport England Leadership Essentials programmes have already helped hundreds of politicians and managers from councils, trusts and Active Partnerships to better understand and develop the confidence to use system thinking and system leadership in their own organisations and in some places.

Its also encouraging to see the GM Active Transformational Leadership Programme firmly established with operational leisure staff. This needs deepening and the learning shared wider and quicker.

Recently I had the privilege to pilot with Ken Masser a place based version of the programme in Blackpool and Wirral helping individuals who attended the national programme to embed their learning in those places. The early feedback was very positive but replicating this at scale while continuing to provide national programmes will require a very significant investment of money, time and people.

This can only be done by harnessing the growing experience and learning that now exists in the sector and properly managing its transfer to others as quickly as possible. This will require significant organisational infrastructure to support capacity building and learning exchange at scale both inside Sport England, in Active Partnerships and other stakeholders across the sector. But at the same time, we must also work with CIMSPA and other professional bodies to reappraise our existing management standards and competencies to ensure all our training across the sector shifts from just managing the existing system to leading and supporting place based system change.

SUMMARY

In summary based on this ICS learning and my own experience what would I conclude?

1. Place working, reshaping public leisure and developing system leadership must be seen through one lens as a single integrated place based change programme. Get out of our silos!

2. We need a sector wide communication strategy that helps establish a common language and shared understanding as the starting point for further place working. Common purpose only comes from common understanding!

3. In terms of accountability Sport England and all the stakeholders must ‘lean into the local’ and away from the national until trust is built locally and confidence in the new system prevails. We must all learn to let go!

4. At the end of the day change will only happen at the speed of trust, not by rules and procedures and change cannot be rushed if it is to be sustainable. Get the local governance right from the outset!

5. To succeed we must first build the organisational capacity to provide ongoing support for leadership development and learning exchange. Build the capacity to build the capacity!

6. Uniting the movement is not just another Sport England initiative it’s a movement for change and only if all of us collectively own this new way of working will it succeed. Time to decide if you are in or out!

MartynAllison.19thSept2023.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/people-partnerships-and-place-how -can-icss-turn-the-rhetoric-into-reality

The Sports Think Tank is a champion of people and ideas. We bring people together to listen and understand each other. We take a policy view of our affection to the world of sport, physical activity and wellbeing. We understand good policy has a role to play to enhance the impact of sport on society and for society to help improve our sports landscape to make it truly inclusive.