Neil King writes for the Sports Think Tank:

Local authority provision for Sport and Recreation Services (SRS) in England has been an important and valuable component of public provision for forty years, particular in respect of creating opportunities for citizens not provided for via the private and voluntary or community sectors. A new report by Neil King at Edge Hill University for the Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE), based on 18 months of research across 50 councils suggests that although significant service revision is needed in many localities given the cuts to local government finance, to simply curtail services 'throws out the baby with the bathwater' and will have financial consequences for statutory services. However, in many places throughout England, curtailment is presented as 'the only option'. The report is available at www.apse.org.uk as is a press release that outlines the key findings. These include:

• The 'financial health' of Sport and Recreation Services (SRS) was generally weak across two thirds of authorities prior to the current economic downturn and is significantly weaker following the Comprehensive Spending Review of 2010
• Downsizing and the fragmentation of leisure departments in recent years has meant that the strategic coherence for SRS has been undermined. Further, advocacy for SRS is generally weak in two-thirds of local authorities
• Political support is critical to retaining services. However, elected member support for SRS varies from pro-active to benign, indifferent or hostile
• The emphasis on market-led practices has in some cases marginalised welfare goals where 'widening participation' has become a peripheral policy concern and focus of investment, at least in respect of mainstream budgetary commitments
• Trusts are now an established mechanism for service delivery and direct provision is in decline
• Currently, there is only a marginal platform for extending private sector management of provision in many areas of England
• One third of authorities have responded pro-actively to the Big Society agenda with others either demonstrating resistance to delivering services through voluntary or private sector organisations or not having the capacity to do so
• Moving forward, it is likely that the local sport sector will experience an increasing fragmentation in forms of provision. This raises questions regarding service accountability, equity, quality and sustainability
• A significant 'democratic deficit' exists at the local level with SRS needing greater visibility in and engagement with local communities in any revised service model
• A revised model of SRS based on 'ensuring' principles could be integrated into wider council provision. This requires innovation and collaboration across service areas and across municipal boundaries
• The report recommends that SRS align services to health services and adult social care in order to embed SRS within the political and administrative structures and objectives of the local authority in future years
• The report recommends that SRS need to acquire and utilise evidence-based data to 'make the case' both in financial and social terms as there is an 'evidence gap' in many locations.

The report concludes that, at a fundamental level, local authorities must decide what it is that SRS should prioritise and invest in and from what to retreat. The report argues that a third of SRS are poorly prepared for the political and financial challenges ahead and may need to design a more robust model of SRS. A further third of councils are 'adapting to survive' leaving only one-third of councils valuing and actively supporting SRS but not necessarily the 'welfare-oriented' aspects of the portfolio that usually depend on subsidy.

The report suggests that SRS could engage with the principles of the 'ensuring' council. These principles 'reflect the key stewardship role of local government and recognises that local government has to have the capacity, knowledge, skills and ability to intervene effectively on behalf of local communities'. It is argued that although SRS configure their service delivery arrangements differently, councils 'cannot ultimately divest responsibility or fulfil a purely residual role without undermining core purpose and legitimacy'.

What then is the 'core purpose' of SRS? If it is related to 'sport for all', 'widening participation' or related actions, then sadly, as the report identifies, investment has gradually become dependent on external funding sources such as Area Based Grants, that when curtailed, create a hole in service provision. This in turn raises serious questions around the legitimacy and limits of welfare state intervention. This is particularly the case in parts of England where private and voluntary or community providers either cannot or chose not to 'fill the gap' left by the removal of services. If councils are to build the capacity of communities to manage or deliver services, this requires a new settlement or 'contract' between the state and the citizen and perhaps a re-definition of both 'welfare' and the role of local councils. The report compares different 'models' of council-led SRS in this respect.

Arguably, a period of economic austerity directs effort towards what is important and what works in practice. This report is not prescriptive as one size does not fit all across English councils, but the findings do imply that a service review to identify 'core business' leading to actions such as those highlighted in the report by councils 'ahead of the game' is required, if SRS is to remain a component of local authority provision. In many local authority areas, we may only discover what was of value when it's gone.