Download GUIDANCE ON COMPLETING AN EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FULL EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM B
Function being assessed:
Leisure Facilities Management Contract (LFM) covering:
 William Penn Leisure Centre (WP)
 Rickmansworth Public Golf Course (RPGC)
 The Centre (TC)
 Sir James Altham Pool (SJA)
Is this a new function or a review of an existing function?
Review of existing function. A phased LFM contract was awarded to Hertsmere Leisure in
November 2005. They have managed WP and the Fairway Inn at RPGC since January 2006.
Subject to a review of initial performance, the contract will be extended to TC, SJA and
remaining RPGC contracts in January 2008. The contract runs until December 2015.
What are the aims/purpose of the function?
“To secure a long term partnership to ensure that the residents of Three Rivers receive high
quality, cost effective leisure services meeting user needs at an affordable price that remains
VAT-efficient for TRDC. TRDC wishes to work with a Contractor who will assist TRDC to deliver
its corporate and service policy objectives of providing a mix of leisure facilities for all ages
and abilities, in co-operation with the many schools, companies, clubs and voluntary
organisations active in sport and leisure across the district. “
LFM Output Specification, p.3, May 2005
Is the function designed to meet specific needs such as the needs of minority
ethnic groups, older people, disabled people etc?
Aspects of the function are intended to address specific target groups, principally identified by
age, in order to address corporate objectives to:
4.1.1 Increase the take-up of leisure activities by older people
4.2.1 Enable a greater proportion of young people to participate in leisure and
recreational activities
4.3.1 To increase the number of adults participating in regular physical activity
Other targeted activities aim to encourage attendance by disabled people, by women and by
members of BME communities. Sample targeted programmes include:
Children & young people
Lessons (WP, SJA, RPGC)
School swimming (WP.SJA)
Free swimming (WP.SJA)
Fun splash (WP.SJA)
Targeted fitness/exercise
sessions (TC, WP)
Concession pricing (all)
Holiday activities (all)
Pool parties/discos (WP. SJA)
Support for Mill End Youth
Project (WP)
Adults
Adult lessons (WP, SJA)
Adult-only swims (WP, SJA)
Cardiac rehab (TC)
Older people
Concession pricing (all)
Targeted fitness/exercise
sessions (TC, WP)
Disabled people
Concession pricing and free
escort admission (all)
Disability swim (SJA. WP)
Women
Women-only swims (SJA,
WP)
BME communities
Women-only swims (SJA,
WP)
What information has been gathered on this function? (Indicate the type of
information gathered e.g. statistics, consultation, other monitoring information)?
Attach a summary or refer to where the evidence can be found.
Demographic information is captured for venue memberships, but not for casual users.
Concession information is automatically collected for all sales, but is not authoritative (e.g. sales
may be allocated to the wrong concessionary category but at the correct price).
The Sport England Active People Survey (12/06) provides demographic data for participation in
sport and physical activity for a sample group (approx. 1,000) of district residents. This survey
will be repeated in three years.
Benchmarking surveys of WP (5/06), TC (11/06) & SJA (11/06) have recently been carried out
by Sport England, using Ipsos/MORI researchers interviewing a random sample group of users
over a week. The demographics of the survey group were compared to population data for the
catchment area to produce participation ratios. These were then compared to CPA thresholds
and benchmark groups of similar venues. It is intended that these surveys will be repeated
annually, in order to track trends.
Does your analysis of the information show different outcomes for different
groups (higher or lower uptake/failure to access/receive a poorer or inferior
service)? If yes, which aspects of the policy or function contribute to inequality?
The benchmarking surveys reveal a mixed pattern of participation:
The Centre
Compared to CPA thresholds
Usage by 11-19 years
Between thresholds
Usage by 60+ years
Above upper threshold
BME communities
Above upper threshold
Compared to benchmark groups
11-19 years
Second quartile
60+ years
Top quartile
BME communities
Second quartile
Disabled <60 yrs
Top quartile
Disabled 60+
Top quartile
Women
Third quartile
SJA Pool
William Penn
Between thresholds
Between thresholds
Above upper threshold
On lower threshold
Between thresholds
Above upper threshold
Second quartile
Third quartile
50%
Bottom quartile
Top quartile
Top quartile
Second quartile
Third quartile
Third quartile
Bottom quartile
Top quartile
Second quartile
Are these differences justified (e.g. are there legislative or other constraints)? If
they are, explain in what way.
National participation rates in sport and physical activity obviously vary (and generally decline)
with increasing age. Participation ratios (see above) which take account of this are therefore
used in benchmarking surveys.
Improvements in physical access at all venues have recently been carried out to ensure full
compliance with the DDA. These are to be reviewed in 07/08. Nevertheless, there remain many
physical and other barriers to participation in sport and physical activity by disabled people (e.g.
availability of transport and assistance).
What action needs to be taken as a result of this Equality Impact Assessment to
address any detrimental impacts or meet previously unidentified need?
Analysis of the benchmarking surveys has already identified areas of relative underperformance
(i.e. Young people at WP, disabled people under 60 at WP & SJA). Additional targeted
programmes are being developed to encourage improvement in these areas.
All venues have been given improvement targets to improve participation by young people,
older people, BME communities and people with disabilities. These are being set as
performance indicators, and will be monitored through performance management and contract
monitoring arrangements.
The benchmarking service is nor available for golf courses. An equivalent method of measuring
participation rates will need to be developed.
When will you evaluate the impact of action taken? (When next programmed on
the Corporate Equality Plan? Post project review?)
The next round of benchmarking surveys (to be completed at TC & SJA by 03/08) will allow for
assessment of progress. This will be reported through performance management routines and
the Annual Management Plan of the LFM.
Benchmarking of WP will be postponed during the refurbishment of the wetside of the building,
but will resume in 2008. Other methods will be used for interim monitoring during this period.
Assessment completed by:
NAME
Patrick Martin
SERVICE
Leisure
DATE
22 March 2007
Please send your completed assessment to your service head. Completed forms should
attached as an appendix to the relevant report and a copy sent to the Community
Partnerships Unit in Corporate Development, Strategic Services.