There are issues of trust with activity quality especially with smaller community groups. The risks should be a case by case risk management decision and the richer data will provide evidence to help that decision. The quality of the activity could be trusted through the quality of the provider.
Sport England have an existing quality standard called Quest. MCRActive are doing their own quality check e.g. whether a safeguarding policy is in place. It would make sense if this was a cross-sector initiative but should at least be a cross geographical boundary standard. There are two considerations. Firstly that a common standard is adopted - such as Quest. The second is considering how compliance to that standard is assessed.
This strategy suggests that consideration is given to the ‘Active’ areas trusting each other’s quality kitemark. This may use the same standard as other areas, but in terms of trusting the assessment undertaken this should start across the 33 Active Partnerships borders. The issue with having a wider shared inspection / assessment Geography is not about the trust in the assessment process, but that actually most of the risks / issues tend to relate to provider management. Hence if Provider A is OK in location A, this is no guarantee that the same provider will be OK, 100 miles away, as the management control will be very different.
Technically this would mean an assurance system outside of OA data but adding a reference and a link to verify the accreditation.
Care should be taken as to not burden the small activity providers too much and also not to under promote those without this quality standard as the client may trust their local church even without a quality kitemark.
Note Open Referral allows many quality reviews which could be a local CVS (Council for Voluntary Sector) kitemark, NHS social prescribing kitemark, Active kitemark, CQC or Ofsted etc.