Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.