Board Effectiveness Review

UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) is the national body responsible for creating a UK-wide environment of confidence in clean sport. Whether that is in competition, training or spectating, we are working for everyone who loves sport.

In the UK, we make sure sports bodies comply with the World Anti-Doping Code through implementation and management of the UK's National Anti-Doping Policy. Our functions include: • a prevention through education programme • intelligence-led athlete testing across more than 40 Olympic, Paralympic and professional sports • investigations and results management authority for the determination of Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) Created in December 2009, UKAD is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) which is accountable to Parliament through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

Further information can be found on our website. Background to our requirement.

As per best practice, and as set out in the Code for Sports Governance, the UKAD Board and its Committees undertake an annual effectiveness review. Historically this has been externally facilitated on a triennial basis.

UKAD last commissioned an external Board Effectiveness Review (BER) in 2022 and subsequently undertook internal reviews in 2023 and 2024. UKAD wishes to appoint a partner organisation which can undertake a Board Effectiveness Review which follows the guidance produced by the Cabinet Office and follows the principles set out in the Corporate governance in central government departments: code of good practice, HM Treasury.

Our requirement Good practice in respect of corporate governance requires that boards assess their effectiveness regularly and the UKAD Board is committed to doing so on an annual basis. Responsibility for ensuring this takes place has been delegated to the People Committee.

On behalf of the Chair, UKAD is looking to appoint an external advisor to deliver a formal and rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness and performance of the board and its committees. The purpose of the review is to identify where processes, interactions and decision-taking are working well, and provide supportive recommendations where matters can be improved.

In the Corporate governance in central government departments: code of good practice, HM Treasury and Cabinet Office Guidance (Chapter 4) sets out expectations including a formal and rigorous annual evaluation of the board's performance, that of its committees and of individual board members. In support of this, the Cabinet Office has produced specific guidance which follows the principles set out in the Code of Good Practice.

It is therefore expected that the review will be undertaken in line with the following guidance (Appendix 1 - Board Effectiveness Reviews - principles and resources for ALBs and sponsoring departments): The overarching principles that should underpin the BER are: • A BER must provide a robust review of the board's effectiveness - including whether it has the structure, processes, people and performance to deliver. It must consider how it interacts with the executive and stakeholders, and whether respective roles are clear.

It must involve feedback and perspectives from outside the board and consider best practice elsewhere; • A BER should focus on both outcomes and behaviours; • In deciding the scope of the Review, it is recognised that 'no one size fits all' for ALBs. However, ALBs should be comfortable in explaining why they have not complied with this guidance if they deviate from it; • The department and ALBs board should work together to implement its recommendations; and • BERs should consider, and be considered by, any ALB review that has been undertaken or is proposed for the body Detailed principles on the process are as follows: Preparation, including 'who' is responsible for delivery • The Chair: Must lead the BER and has overall responsibility for the process.

If relevant, the BER should involve the senior independent director (SID) and other NEDs as appropriate. The Chair should consider ways to obtain feedback from the ALB's employees and other stakeholders on the performance of the board • The Sponsoring Department: Must be provided with a copy of the proposed scope of the review and given an opportunity to feed into the scope and process of the review as appropriate.

However, they should not seek to substitute their own views, or role, for that of the board Frequency • The Chair: Must conduct a BER annually and ensure that BERs are externally facilitated every three years (see below) Content • The scope and areas of focus should be appropriate to the specifics of the ALB. No one size fits all Areas which must be considered as part of the annual review include: • How the board and its committees support the Accounting Officer in meeting the requirements set out within Managing Public Money Areas which may be considered as part of the annual review include: • The overarching culture and tone set by the board.

Clarity of, and leadership given to, the purpose, direction and values of the ALB; • How the board has appropriately considered whether the ALB's policies and actions support Ministers' strategic aims; • The quality of relationships between all board members and its relationships with the ALB's stakeholders. In particular, relationships between the executive and non-executive members, the board and its sponsoring department and Ministers; • How the board communicates with, listens and responds to, its organisation and other stakeholders; • The composition of the board and its committees; including the balance of skills, experience, knowledge, and diversity (including diversity in its broadest sense, i.e. diversity of place); • Processes for identifying, reviewing and managing risks; • Succession and development plans; • Progress on the implementation of recommendations made in the last annual review; • Quality of the general information provided on the ALB and its performance, in particular KPIs used; • Evidence that the board is using high quality performance data to assess whether outcomes and KPIs are being achieved, and how the board is challenging whether the data it is provided represents best practice; • Quality and timing of papers and presentations to the board; • Quality of discussions around individual proposals and time allowed.

The process the Chair uses to ensure sufficient debate for major decisions or contentious issues - including how constructive challenge is encouraged; • Effectiveness of board committees, including their Terms of Reference, and how they are connected with the main board; and • How the board's practices, relationships and cultural norms compare with other ALBs / best practices. Base location UKAD has two office locations, and the executive team spend time in both locations; • SportPark, 3 Oakwood Drive, Loughborough, LE11 3QF • 2 Redman Place, Stratford, London, E20 1JQ.

Board and committee members are geographically spread (Wales, Newcastle, Southeast England) and the expectation is that the review will take place largely remotely. Findings of the review are expected to be delivered at a Board meeting which will be held in Stratford London in February 2026.

The invoice address is SportPark, 3 Oakwood Drive, Loughborough, LE11 3QF. Invoices must quote a purchase order number provided by UKAD.

Staff vetting, experience and qualifications Recent experience conducting Board effectiveness reviews with similar arm's length bodies is desirable. At least, experience of managing multiple reviews within the criteria set out by the Cabinet Office within the last twelve months is required.

Key milestones The potential provider should note the following project milestones that the Authority will measure the quality of delivery against: Milestone 1: Supplier appointed and briefed Timeframe: Mid-September 2025 Milestone 2: Review design and preparation Timeframe: Mid-October 2025 Milestone 3: Review conducted Timeframe: Late October - mid December 2025 Milestone 4: Findings shared with Chair Timeframe: early January 2026 Milestone 5: Final report and recommendations signed off by Chair Timeframe: mid-January 2025 Milestone 6: Report back to Board in person at a Board meeting to be held in Stratford, London Timeframe: February 2026 Authority's responsibilities As previously mentioned, the review must be carried out in line with the expectations set out in the Corporate governance in central government departments: code of good practice, HM Treasury and Cabinet Office Guidance (Chapter 4). Reporting Regular touchpoints and status updates are required through the project.

Formal reporting requirements are set out under milestones. Definitions and acronyms UKAD Board and its Committees The scope of the review covers the UKAD full Board plus the Audit and Risk Committee and the People Committee.

There are currently nine Board members (including the Chair), and five members of the executive team (including the Chief Executive). The Chief Executive and the Director of Finance and Business Services are members of the Board ex-officio. The Chair is new in post and was appointed in August 2025.