ADD2771 CSS VRU holiday provision – Inclusive Access Fund

1.1.    In June 2025 Mayoral Decision (MD) 3380 approved the delivery plan for the strategic programme, Supporting and Inspiring Young London (SIYL). This programme will contribute to the following core London-level outcomes: 

•    children and young Londoners achieve the health and learning outcomes they need to thrive at every stage of development
•    children and young Londoners have the positive opportunities needed to be successful
•    Londoners have the skills they need to improve their lives. 

1.2.    The SIYL delivery plan describes how the GLA will work to bridge the gap between opportunity and offer; and enhance young Londoners’ ability to access these opportunities. The Mayor will work across London to bring together key partners, all delivering for young Londoners. This includes directly commissioning key programmes to work on meeting the most acute of these opportunity gaps. It includes activity towards meeting the Mayor’s commitment to provide 250,000 positive opportunities for young Londoners during this Mayoral term. 

1.3.    MD3380 approved the establishment of the SIYL programme; and assigned the role of Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) to the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport. It also approved the delivery plan for the SIYL programme, including the resources allocated to it: namely, £527.8m revenue funding across 2025-26, 2026-27, and 2027-28 (as set out in the delivery plan). MD3380 delegated authority to the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, to approve the receipt of any additional funding from central government, or other sources, to expand or extend existing approved projects contained in the SIYL delivery plan,  where the parameters of the project remain the same or similar, and  after consulting with legal advisors and the GLA’s Chief Finance Officer, and having subsequently secured agreement from the Mayoral Delivery Board. MD3380 also approved (where this is not already covered by a delegation in an existing MD) the delegation of authority to the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, to approve expenditure funded by the resources allocated to the delivery plan, or income under the terms set out in MD3380, for projects listed in paragraphs 1.18 and 1.19 of that MD.

1.4.    The Holiday Hope project is cited in paragraph 1.18 of MD3380; it is an approved project contained in the SIYL delivery plan. It supports young people by increasing their access to youth spaces and positive opportunities during school holidays. It directly contributes to the Mayor’s overarching ambition that 250,000 young people will have access to positive opportunities by 2028.

1.5.    It is proposed that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) transfers £200,000 to the GLA. This is so the GLA can fund sports and physical activity opportunities for children and young people (CYP) with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in London during school holidays. This work contributes to the objectives and expected outcomes of the SIYL delivery plan. It is proposed that the funding will be made available through a fund, to be known as the Inclusive Access Fund (see: 2.3-2.6 below).  

1.6.    It is considered that the proposal in 1.5., above, supports the Holiday Hope programme, and other projects and programmes delivered by the GLA’s Civil Society and Sport unit (CSS), working with the Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) at MOPAC. To the extent that receipt and expenditure of this money extends or expands the Holiday Hope programme, it is considered that the original parameters of that project would nevertheless remain the same or similar; and would not be significantly changed in terms of the outcomes to be delivered, or attendant risks of the original programme. 

1.7.    Legal advisors and the GLA’s Chief Finance Officer have been consulted. They are content that, for the reasons given above, it would be within the delegation to the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, as SRO (approved in MD3380) for them to approve the receipt and expenditure of £200,000 from MOPAC for the purposes and reasons above. The Mayoral Delivery Board will need to agree that the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, as SRO, should exercise that delegated authority and take the decisions proposed in this ADD. 

1.8.    It is proposed that the money is transferred from MOPAC to the GLA by a revenue grant under section 121 of the GLA Act. Relevant approvals will need to be sought from MOPAC for it to transfer this money using this mechanism. A grant under that section can only be made by MOPAC , with the Mayor of London’s consent. The Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, can provide this consent and approve the GLA’s receipt of such a transfer under the authority delegated to them under MD3380.This is because the proposed transfer sum is below £250,000. In accordance with Mayoral Decision Making in the GLA, giving Mayoral consent (under sections 120 or 121 of the GLA Act) to the making of capital or revenue grants between the GLA and a Functional Body and/or between Functional Bodies is only a Category 2 matter (exercisable only by the Mayor) where the value is over £250,000. 

1.9.    As part of the process of approving Mayoral Delivery Plans, the governance around spending has also changed for Delivery Plans Senior Responsible Officers (SROs). In Delivery Plans, there are three categories of projects:

1.    where the project is already set out in detail in an approved MD and the SRO has delegated   authority to proceed to make expenditure decisions included in that legacy decision form;
2.    where the project budget is defined in the delivery plan and the delivery plan MD, once approved by the Mayor, provides delegation for the SRO to take expenditure decisions outside of the thresholds stated in the current Mayoral Decision-Making Framework (MDM);
3.    where the project is less well-defined at present and will need a further MD to set the strategic direction of the budget.
This request falls under category No.1, in that the amount requested is in excess of the thresholds for delegated decisions, as set out in the current MDM, but the delegation to the delivery plan SRO as set out in MD3380 allows for this.
 

2.1.    Since 2020, CSS has worked in partnership with the VRU at MOPAC to deliver sport and physical activity projects that focus on tackling serious youth violence as a key outcome. This includes school holiday provision, delivered in partnership with the VRU through Sport Unites. This is a programme where projects such as Open Doors provided grants to community and sport organisations, to use mainstream school facilities outside term time. These facilities were used to provide coaching, mentoring and support to young people during school holidays. Through projects such as Open Doors, young people have access to local role models and local delivery; and positive opportunities in safe and familiar spaces. This ensures that, when term-time ends, engagement for vulnerable young people does not. 

2.2.    CYP with SEND are at increased risk of being inactive and affected by social isolation. Sport England’s Active Lives Children and Young People Survey made the following findings:

•    Over half (50.9 per cent) of disabled CYP in London engage in less than the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity per day.
•    Disabled children are twice as likely to be lonely compared to their non-disabled peers (72 per cent vs 36 per cent), and are more likely to feel they have no one to talk to; to feel left out; and to feel alone. Social isolation and limited access to support are key contributing risk factors to becoming involved in or affected by violence. 
•    This risk becomes even more heightened during out-of-term periods. This is where access to a safe structured environment pauses, and the ability to take part in PE and free physical activity stops. School holiday provision is therefore crucial in supporting families and young people most affected by violence. 

Inclusive Access Fund

2.3.    The Inclusive Access Fund (through which the money proposed to be received further to this decision will be expended) will support community youth and sport organisations to provide safe spaces in local communities for young people to be inspired through the power of sport. With a fund total of £200,000 for expenditure in 2025-26, grants will be awarded (up to £20,000 for individual organisations and up to £30,000 for organisations applying in consortium) through an open call for bids to community youth and sport organisations. This funding will ensure young people have access to safe spaces and trusted adults during the school holidays; and will have a particular focus on reaching CYP with SEND. The programme also aims to provide CYP with SEND with improved access to positive opportunities during school holidays, engaging them at times when they often lose access to positive role models, sporting and physical activities. 

2.4.    The delivery approach of organisations and/or consortiums will be as follows:

•    Activities will take place over holiday periods between the summer holidays in 2025 and Easter 2026, depending on their communities’ needs, for a total of five weeks of delivery.
•    Activities can either be specific for groups of CYP with SEND; or wider activities that are inclusive to integrate CYP with SEND into mainstream sessions.
•    Activities must include sport and/or physical activity, and wraparound support. This might include support for families, mentoring, employability and food provision. 
•    Organisations will be able to allocate part of their budget towards training for staff, to: ensure their workforce is skilled in supporting CYP with SEND; and build their organisational capacity to support diverse young people beyond the funded holiday activities.
•    Applications from consortiums are encouraged to strengthen learning, within the sector, on best practice; and to ensure a wider range of activities offered to young people with SEND, who typically have a limited range of exposure to sporting activities due to the lack of accessibility of activities.
•    This programme prioritises reaching young people with SEND. As part of this, it will also prioritise organisations working with SEND individuals who face further additional barriers to active participation, either in relation to a protected characteristic (i.e. age, disability, sex, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, race, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity, and marriage or civil partnership status), or in relation to circumstance (for example, a person who is a carer, or a person who is isolated and/or lonely, or a person who comes from a lower socio-economic background). 

2.5.    Outcomes include:

•    improved access to high-quality, inclusive sports activities for CYP with SEND
•    increased delivery period of inclusive sports activities for CYP with SEND, to include more days per week and/or more weeks of the school holidays
•    continuity for families and CYP with SEND who rely on the structured support of schools to thrive
•    improved accessibility of mainstream sports programmes, in order to increase reach/improve quality of provision for CYP with SEND
•    increased knowledge and skills, within the sport youth workforce, in delivering inclusive activities that are accessible to CYP with SEND. This will include any training in neurodiversity and disability sport via inclusive sports coaching (where organisations require), and will be funded through their grant. This will result in strengthened working relationships between the community sports sector and wider systems partners (such as the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub; local Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services; and SEND teams) to improve the quality and reach of inclusive sports activities.

2.6.    This project also aligns with the Holiday Hope outcomes – that young people accessing Holiday Hope provision demonstrate progress against one (or more) of the following outcome domains:

•    improved mental health and wellbeing 
•    improved socio-emotional learning 
•    improved relationships 
•    improved engagement 
•    improved learning and work 
•    reduced risky and harmful behaviour.
 

3.1.    Under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, the Mayor and GLA must comply with the public sector equality duty and must have due regard to the need to:

•    eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act
•    advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not
•    foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not.

3.2.    As set out in MD3380, activity within the SIYL programme will provide support to disadvantaged children and young Londoners. This includes young people with protected characteristics and those who are more vulnerable. The projects in the programme will particularly support certain disadvantaged groups – for example, young people with SEND; young refugees and asylum seekers; those who are socio-economically disadvantaged; Black, Asian and minority ethnic young Londoners; disabled young Londoners; young people with a social worker; young care leavers; and those who are at risk of exclusion, or who have been excluded, from school or college. Careful consideration will be given to ensuring appropriate accessibility for the widest range of young people; this will include targeted engagement, where this is considered supportive. Young people’s voices and co-production will be used in planning, development and delivery, to maximise effectiveness. 

3.3.    In planning the Mayor’s investment into community sport between 2021 and 2025, the Sport team consulted stakeholders and partners with proven expertise in engaging and CYP – particularly those who are disadvantaged; considered to be at risk; and/or face additional barriers to positive participation for personal development and improved life chances. In a review of demographic data of VRU Sport programme participation to date, CYP with SEND was identified as a key underrepresented demographic. In consultations with the sector, a key recurring theme was the lack of funding for tailored provision for children with SEND. Organisations are oversubscribed with waiting lists for children and families looking for support. This work aims to address this gap, and provide improved equity in access to sporting opportunities in the capital. 

3.4.    This work inherently prioritises young Londoners who are underrepresented in sport and physical activity. While this programme prioritises reaching young people with SEND, funding will be further prioritised with regards to intersectionality – for example, for those who face the most barriers to active participation, either in relation to a protected characteristic (i.e. age, disability, sex, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, race, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity, and marriage or civil partnership status), or in relation to circumstance (for example, a person who is a carer, or a person who is isolated and/or lonely, or a person who comes from a lower socio-economic background). Underrepresentation in sport and physical activity is heavily influenced by intersectionality, and the Inclusive Access Fund will place particular emphasis on young Londoners facing multiple and intersectional barriers and challenges as outlined above.
 

Key risks and issues

4.1.    The key risks, and mitigations, are listed in the table below:

4.2.    The programmes outlined in this decision support the following Mayoral strategies:

•    The Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, as revised in the Mayor’s Equality Objectives (2022), which aims to remove the barriers preventing children and young Londoners from realising their potential now and in later life. 
•    The London Health Inequalities Strategy, the Mayor’s ten-year strategy to address unfair, systematic and completely avoidable differences in health between groups of people. This includes the key commitments Healthy Children (every London child has a healthy start in life) and Healthy Minds (all Londoners share in a city with the best mental health in the world). 

4.3.    Statistics from the last UK census (2021) show that 17 per cent of residents in London (1,519,800) have a disability (Office of National Statistics). Disabled people in London are more likely to experience poverty and inequality than people who are not disabled. As seen year after year in the Sport England Active Lives survey, disabled young people, those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, ethnically diverse participants, and females are much less likely to take part in sporting activities. Disabled people (41 per cent) are almost twice as likely to be inactive compared to non-disabled people (20.9 per cent). Access Sport’s ‘Breaking Barriers’ research identified that disabled teenage girls’ enjoyment of, and positive attitudes towards, sport is lower than that of their non-disabled peers; but 67 per cent of this group want to be more active. Many disabled young people report feeling isolated and excluded; disabled children are twice as likely to be lonely compared to their non-disabled peers (72 per cent versus 36 per cent) and are more likely to feel they have no one to talk to, feel left out, and to feel alone (Activity Alliance).

4.4.    Sport England reports that disabled individuals are twice as likely to be physically inactive as their non-disabled peers. This makes them less likely to experience the proven positive benefits of participating in sporting activities, which include improved physical and mental health and wellbeing, life prospects and sense of belonging/community connection. Research by the University of Bath showed that 97 per cent of children reported feeling a sense of belonging when attending sport clubs supported by Access Sport. 

4.5.    London has traditionally seen a rise in violence over the warmer, summer months, demonstrated through the London VRU’s high harm crimes data. Families with fewer financial resources may not be able to afford to pay for extracurricular activities or go away on holiday. In many communities, especially those with limited resources, there may be a scarcity of recreational facilities or programmes during the summer. This lack of positive and engaging activities can leave young people with: few options for occupying their time; a lack of trusted adult supervision; and increased likelihood of being involved or affected by violent crime.

4.6.    There are no conflicts of interest arising from those involved in the drafting and clearance of this decision form. As and when individual conflicts of interest arise during the delivery of initiatives contained in the SIYL delivery plan, they will be handled in line with the GLA policy on registering and declaring interests.

4.7.    As is identified at paragraph 1.7 above, legal advisors, the GLA’s Chief Finance Officer and the Mayoral Delivery Board have been consulted on this proposed decision.

5.1.    Approval is being sought for the following:

•    receipt of a revenue grant from MOPAC totalling £200,000 in 2025-26, paid to the GLA pursuant to section 121 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999

•    expenditure of up to £200,000 in 2025-26, for the purposes of the GLA funding the provision of sports and physical activity opportunities in London for CYP (including those with SEND) during school holidays; this work contributes to the objectives and expected outcomes of the SIYL delivery plan.

5.2.    The income from MOPAC would be received in the Sport for Social Outcomes Budget, and expenditure would be made from the same budget.
 

6.1.    MD3380 delegated authority to the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, as SRO, to approve the receipt of any additional funding from central government or other sources to expand or extend existing approved projects contained in the SIYL delivery plan, where the parameters of the project remain the same or similar, and after consulting with legal advisors and the GLA’s Chief Finance Officer; and subsequently having secured agreement from the Mayoral Delivery Board. 

6.2.    It also approved, where not already covered by a delegation in an existing MD, delegated authority to the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, to approve expenditure of the resources allocated to the delivery of the plan, or income under the terms set out in MD3380, for projects listed in paragraphs 1.18 and 1.19 of MD3380. 

6.3.    Paragraph 1.6, above, identifies that, to the extent that receipt and expenditure of the proposed £200,000 transfer from MOPAC to the GLA extends or expands the Holiday Hope programme, GLA officers consider that the original parameters of that project would nevertheless remain the same or similar; and would not be significantly changed in terms of the outcomes to be delivered or attendant risks of the original programme. 

6.4.    Paragraph 1.7, above, identifies the conditions to be met before the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, as SRO, can exercise the functions deleted to them under MD3380. Paragraph 1.7 identifies that Legal advisors and the GLA’s Chief Finance Officer have been consulted. Accordingly, it would be within that delegation for the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, as SRO to approve the receipt and expenditure of the £200,000 from MOPAC as proposed in this ADD, subject to the Mayoral Delivery Board’s agreement to this. 

6.5.    It is proposed that the money is transferred from MOPAC to the GLA by a revenue grant transfer under section 121 of the GLA Act. Relevant approvals will need to be sought from MOPAC for it to transfer this money using this mechanism. A grant under that section can only be made by MOPAC, as a functional body of the GLA, with the Mayor of London’s consent.  As identified in paragraph 1.8 above, because the proposed transfer is under £250,000, the Assistant Director, Civil Society and Sport, is able to provide this consent and approve the GLA’s receipt of such a transfer under the authority delegated to them under MD3380. A grant under section 121 must not be made subject to any limitation in respect of the expenditure which it may be applied towards meeting (other than that the expenditure must not be capital expenditure).

6.6.    In expending any money transferred to it, the GLA must ensure that, if expending it using the Mayor’s general powers section 30(1) of the GLA Act, it does not incur expenditure in doing anything which may be done by MOPAC - see section 31(1)(b) of the GLA Act. 
 

7.1.    The work will be delivered according to the following schedule: