Community Impact Assessment Form
For a summary of this Community Impact Assessment, click here
Title of Community Impact Assessment (CIA): Young Person’s Sector
Directorate: Sustainable Regeneration
Date of assessment: 30th March 2012
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment. (Please identify Lead Officer):
Lead - Emily Grace, Supporting People Team
Sector Review Conducted by – Kerry Thornley, Supporting People Team
Section A – What are you impact assessing?
(Indicate with an “x” which applies):A decision to review or change a service
A strategy
A policy or procedure
A function, service or project
x
Are you impact assessing something that is?New
Existing
Being reviewed
Being reviewed as a result of budget constraints
x
x
Describe the area you are impact assessing and, where appropriate, the changes you are proposing?
A sector review of young people’s services has been carried out. The proposed model comprises of the following:
- Reconfigure the three main services to create an effective pathway. The three services are: Adullam, Liberty House; Places for People,
1
-
Salford Foyer; and City of Salford, Petrie Court. Reconfiguration will include providing a specific role for each service, and placing one
service as a ‘lead’ and reducing the referral routes to ensure information of needs/demand can be gathered effectively.
Introducing mediation, to reduce the amount of young people accessing supported accommodation long term.
Proposal to tender out the teenage parents service. The service has run for five years without ever going to tender. In line with good
procurement practice, the intention is to put this service out to tender.
Section B – Is a Community Impact Assessment required (Screening)?
Consider what you are impact assessing and mark “x” for all the statement(s) below which apply
Service or policy that people use or which apply to people (this could include staff)
Discretion is exercised or there is potential for people to experience different outcomes. For example, planning
applications and whether applications are approved or not
Concerns at local, regional or national level of discrimination/inequalities
Major change, such as closure, reduction, removal or transfer
Community, regeneration and planning strategies, organisational or directorate partnership strategies/plans
Employment policy – where discretion is not exercised
Employment policy – where discretion is exercised. For example, recruitment or disciplinary process
x
If none of the areas above apply to your proposals, you will not be required to undertake a full CIA. Please summarise below why a full CIA is not
required and send this form to your directorate equality link officer. If you have identified one or more of the above areas, you should conduct a full
CIA and complete this form.
Equality Areas
Indicate with an “x” which equality areas are likely to be affected, positively or negatively, by the proposals
Age
X
Religion and/or belief
Disability
Gender (including pregnancy and maternity)
Gender reassignment
Race
Sexual Identity
X
People on a low income (socio-economic inequality)
Other (please state below) (For example carers, ex
offenders)
Alcohol dependent service users
2
x
If any of the equality areas above have been identified as being likely to be affected by the proposals, you will be required to undertake a CIA. You
will need only to consider those areas which you have indicated are likely to be affected by the proposals
3
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently monitor by the
following protected characteristics or
equality areas?
Age
Yes (Y) or
No (N)
Disability
Y
Gender (including pregnancy and
maternity)
Y
Gender Reassignment
Y
Race
Y
Religion and/or belief
Y
Sexual Identity
Y
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
Y
If no, please explain why and / or detail in the action plan at Section E how you will
prioritise the gathering of this equality monitoring data.
Y
Other (please state) (For example carers,
ex offenders)
Section C (continued) – Consultation
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals?
Stakeholder, service user and staff consultation has already taken place
4
If “no”, please explain your reason(s) why
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
Consultation - Pathway:
Summary (stakeholder )











Salford Foyer’s referral process takes too long, and that this would have to be reduced to aid the flow in this pathway. It is proposed that all
providers will start to use the same
documentation; this documentation will follow the young person through their journey; rather than having to complete lengthy documents each
time they access a service. In addition,
The preliminary negotiations have been regarding Adullam taking the lead and being in charge of referrals. Adullam have been tasked with
developing and rolling out these common documents.
Communication would need to improve in order for the pathway to be a success. The intention is to have smaller, more regular meetings with
just the three services in attendance, as opposed to the wider bi-monthly meeting.
Issues with crime in the area where Liberty House is situated. The police suggested that the surrounding area would make it easy for
vulnerable young people to become involved in offending activity. This risk can be reduced by regular police attendance and communication;
the officers who took part in this consultation confirmed that they are willing to make these links, and help wherever possible. The short length
of stay will also make this easier to manage
Some feedback suggests that Liberty House is not a desirable place to stay (with regards to decor). However, this is felt to be appropriate for a
very short term period of assessment. It should be noted that work has been carried out to redecorate the bedrooms quite recently
Liberty House’s manager/staff are credited for their creativity in dealing with the extremely challenging individuals that they take (and that other
service’s will not/cannot) an the model acknowledges this strength of this provider
Petrie court has been cited as a more homely environment, with the focus on training and education. This small and secure service lends itself
well to dealing with those in need of more structured and intensive support
Suffolk Ruling was raised a number of times throughout the consultation. The child in need assessment appears to be a significant barrier for
16/17yr olds. To ensure that the pathway is a success for all young people, a commitment from Children’s Services (Colin Jones) is required.
These assessments must be completed accurately and swiftly.
Emergency bed space is underutilised and costing the Housing Advice & Support Service more than B&B would. It also loses Adullam money
in rent. However, children’s services do highly value this facility. Adullam confirm that the bed space has only been filled 93 nights in the last
year. Though all views have been taken into consideration, it is felt that the emergency bed space does not represent good value for money for
anyone concerned. The extended referral times and immediate access that will be offered via the new model should compensate for the
withdrawal of this facility
Services do not have a good geographic spread. There is concern that the areas the services are in may be detrimental to some more
vulnerable young people. If the proposed model is effective, it is envisaged that there will be a drop in the number of ‘low needs’ bed spaces
(due to the mediation intervention). Future tendering of young people’s provision could incorporate an element of dispersed housing for this
group, in place of the large 35 bed accommodation. This service is widely deemed as not being appropriate, due to its size and location.
Consultation has revealed that stakeholders thought the facility was far too big and that problems with institutional bullying are in existence.
5


The night security and freedom offered at the services are an increased risk to vulnerable young people. However, at this time, demand for the
service is too high to remodel or reduce the amount of units.
Feedback suggested that a high percentage of young people could be deterred from entering into this system. The mediation element of this
model is a direct response from the views of people involved in this sector
In the rare instance that a young person may be unable to attend Liberty House (due to risk factors of location or others that are staying there),
it is proposed that Liberty House would still handle the paperwork,, for consistency but that the young person could be physically placed at one
of the other services.
Summary (staff)
Liberty House:

one staff member in agreement with the service users that perhaps it may not be wise to have all young people with high support needs
together under one roof as they would not motivate each other and risks may be created

Overall thoughts around the suggested process: the consensus was that it is a good idea but residents should be well informed at the
beginning of admission regarding overall processes and structures. It was suggested that paperwork and documentation needs to be kept
consistent and be available to all agencies to prevent young people in transition having to repeat their story over and over again to different
services and agencies

Liberty House service manager proposed the appointment of an on-site counsellor and the introduction of mediation on the Project to
encourage better relationships with family where appropriate and possible.
Salford Foyer:

Staged process of assessment and then referral to appropriate support was good for young people. This may help to reduce the ‘revolving
door’ and also, in time, a reasonable bench mark of who meets criteria for supported accommodation and who doesn’t could be more realistic
and appropriate to meet needs in Salford.

Not having to do the assessment process would save a lot of time and resources for their project. Overall, if this was only being done once for
each person, this should save a lot of resource time over the year in Salford.

Paperwork moving with the service user was a great concept so the young person can clearly see their own progress throughout support,
despite where they are.

Staff thought that if they had residents with similar needs under the same roof they could really tailor support to meet those individuals.
Support could be concentrated around housing, move into independence, tenancy skills and work/education/training. The project could then
look at linking in with RSL’s and private landlords in the area as in theory they should have a large percentage of residents at any one time who
could consider having their own tenancy. Supported tenancies could also link in with Foyer, really closely, to prepare young people for move
on and look at preventative support around tenancy skills so young people don’t fail their own tenancies.
Petrie Court:

Concerns about young people being housed together who are not engaging with support or who have high support needs. Staff think it may be
difficult to achieve positive outcomes if service users disengage together

Ideas were put forward that the right support services could be brought in such as police, probation, drug/alcohol services, mental health
support and also for the project to build good links with positive engagement opportunities such as Unlimited Potentials, Fairbridge, Salford
6



Foundations etc
May be a possibility of encouraging peer mentoring or ‘befriending’ type support sessions as one to one to increase support bespoke to
individuals. These ‘mentors’ could be volunteers recruited by the project or peers from another project (such as the Foyer)?
Potential issues around what will happen if the project becomes full and it was discussed that the idea would be to move on any individuals who
are doing well, either back to Liberty House for another assessment or straight on to Salford Foyer, depending on their level of
progress/independence.
staff like the idea of support plans and the ILS workbook going with the individual so progress can be monitored all the way through support
and for this to link in with Salford’s Allocation Policy for additional ‘housing points’.
Summary (Service User)
Liberty House :

The general consensus was that this seemed to be a good idea

SU1 expressed that perhaps eight weeks was not a long enough time to sort out move-on accommodation and benefits as this can be a
lengthy process. She suggested a minimum period of three months

The general feeling around Petrie Court being suggested as the high support unit was that perhaps it may not be wise to have all young people
with high support needs together under one roof as they would not motivate each other and risks may be created. Private renting and
completion of the Independent Living Skills Workbook were seen as being beneficial.

SU2 expressed that Liberty House would be a good central hub as he had learnt a lot already from being such as mutual respect and budgeting
skills

SU2 and SU3 expressed that on admission to Liberty House they feel residents would benefit from clear explanation and breakdown of the
licence agreement, rules and regulations of the Project and advice on money matters and benefits. Structure and clarity are fundamental

SU3 asked about involvement in projects such as media etc, courses and voluntary work and whether this could be carried on should residents
leave Liberty House. Janelle encouraged continued involvement past residence at Liberty House.

Overall thoughts around the suggested process: the consensus was that it is a good idea but residents should be well informed at the
beginning of admission regarding overall processes and structures especially in terms of support around and referrals for move-on
accommodation so that residents own personal goals can be worked towards appropriately. SU3 suggested that all young people are different
therefore some may benefit from a little push, more so than others. It was suggested that paperwork and documentation needs to be kept
consistent and be available to all agencies to prevent young people in transition having to repeat their story over and over again to different
services and agencies. However residents understand that different Projects have different rules and procedures

It was felt that mediation was not always successful but counselling availability may be worthwhile

No suggestion for improvement to the proposed changes.
Salford Foyer:

Residents loved the idea of their progress being linked into Allocations Policy and that their efforts would be rewarded towards helping them to
find their own accommodation. They said that young people who have been moved around services due to none engagement or non-payment
of rents would understand what the consequences of this is right from the start rather than going to different projects with different rules.

Residents did like the idea of separating engaged young people with none engaged young people but were worried that a wrong decision at
one time in their life might mean they are moved into Petrie Court and mix with others who have a negative effect on them
7



Salford Foyer residents felt 8 weeks assessment would probably be long enough.
They asked what would happen if a young person ‘played the game’ and were engaged at Liberty House, then moved to the Foyer but then
decided to disengage or caused ASB/damage etc. They were informed that that person (dependent on the situation) would be moved to Petrie
Court or referred back to Liberty House. They thought this was a good idea and as a young person, in services, would understand better where
they are ‘up to’ dependent on what ‘stage’ they were physically at.
It was discussed that young people would have a clear progress plan like a ‘housing CV’ almost which can be added to as they move through
support and then this can be used in line with references for potential landlords.
Petrie Court:

Residents think this is a great idea. Consultees seem fairly engaged so they saw the benefits of a structured process where individuals can
understand clearly where they are at what stage and what their housing options may be dependent on where they are living and where they are
in terms of their support plan / ILS workbook progress

The young people felt they would be much safer in a place where others were at a similar stage as them. They said that when levels of support
needs are mixed it tends to be the ones who are ‘naughty’ who get all the attention and the ‘good ones’ can be neglected a little bit.

Users really liked the idea of having their support plan move with them so they don’t have to start again at each new accommodation placement

Unsure about the length of stay at Liberty House or if 8 weeks would be enough but they felt it probably would be as long as it could be
extended if they needed it to be

Residents felt it would be a good incentive for young people being able to follow this structure to make sure they engage and pay rent etc so
they can move on into independence as early as possible. They believed people who don’t really engage still deserve a service but that they
should maybe only get so many chances and then support should end.
Consultation - Teenage Parents Service:
Teenage Parents Consultation – Integrated Youth Support Services Manager

Have looked into incidents and safeguarding issues. Conclusion was that night security is sufficient.

Demand and the waiting list have been analysed and whilst, there has never been a long waiting list, there has also not been vacancies. 4
units is deemed an ideal number of units.

1 bed flats – so limited to 1 child, but taken on case by case basis – sometimes have toddler and pregnant mum, or toddler and newborn etc.

The location of this type of service would not be an issue – though the highest rates of teenage pregnancy are in central Salford.

This accommodation is for those who are most vulnerable and have an emergency accommodation need. Those who would not manage with
their own tenancy and floating support. The service is female only (Not including the children). Under 20’s are targeted, but over 20’s are
considered if they have multiple needs.

The service must operate Mon-Fri 9am – 8pm, with on call and night security outside of these hours.

Safeguarding is paramount – for the young woman and her child/children.

Currently operated with rules around visiting / visitors and overnight stays etc. These types of rules need to be considered / maintained.
Tenant Participation Advisor Service (TPAS) –

The main role is to keep mother and baby together (which is considered best for both mum & baby, but also produces a huge cost saving to the
city).
8





TPAS has 18hrs staffing role (1 dedicated TPAS worker) on top of the normal level of support from the Foyer. (across all 4 units)
The service concentrates on getting the families tenancy ready.
The majority of the teenage parents are ‘Inactive’ (not in training or education) 22 out of 34.
Incidents discussed and processes that need to take place. I.e. reporting as a concern at each incident – rather than just adding details to a
case in progress. One tenant has a number of concerns, but as they have been reported as one – this has not been investigated.
Drop in sessions attended by ex-tenants. These are going well. Most of issues raised are about relationships.
Section C (continued) – Analysis
C3 What information has been analysed to
inform the content of this CIA? What were
the findings?
Information on all equality strands is collected on an annual basis from all services.
Please include details of, for example,
service or employee monitoring information,
consultation findings, any national or local
research, customer feedback, inspection
reports, and any other information which will
inform your CIA.
For the main services the results show that there is a fairly equal split of male/female. With 48%
males and 52% female. Service users are predominately white British. The services accept 16-25yr
olds. From the information provided; 39% of service users were 16-19yrs, 57% 20-24yrs and 4%
25yrs.
Please specify whether this was existing
information or was specifically in relation to
this equality analysis and CIA process
Existing
The teenage parents’ service is a female only service. All service users were under 20yrs, with the
age range from 17-19yrs. Again, the young people accessing this service were predominately white
British.
Section D – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
differential impact relating to age
equality
Are your proposals discriminatory
N
on the grounds of age?
Will people within certain age
ranges not be getting the outcome
they need?
N
No discrimination but the Young People's services are specifically for those aged 16Will people within certain age
25. This is due to existing general homeless services not always being appropriate for
ranges be disadvantaged as a
young people, as they have a different set of needs/vulnerabilities that adult services are
result of your proposals?
N
not equipped to deal with.
If the impact is negative, how will it
9
be reduced or eliminated?
N
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain age ranges
will experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Y
There will be a positive impact on the young people receiving these services – as a result
of improved services.
N/A
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
differential impact relating to
disability equality
Are your proposals discriminatory
N
on the grounds of disability?
Will people with disabilities not be
getting the outcome they need?
Will people with disabilities be
disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
Will the proposals mean that
people with disabilities will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
10
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
differential impact relating to
gender equality (this includes
pregnancy and maternity)
Are your proposals discriminatory
on the grounds of gender?
N
Nothing has changed from current provision, however, it should be noted that the teenage
Will men or women, boys or girls
parent service is for females only. This is due to demand (no evidence to suggest a
not be getting the outcome they
teenage father service is required), and managing the risk to the vulnerable young women
need?
that use this service.
Will men or women, boys or girls
be disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
Will the proposals mean that men
or women, boys or girls will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
11
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a differential
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
impact relating to equality for people
planning, undergoing or who have
undergone gender reassignment?
Are your proposals discriminatory for people
planning, undergoing or who have
N
undergone gender reassignment?
Nothing has changed that will adversely effect this.
Will people planning, undergoing or who
have undergone gender reassignment not
be getting the outcome they need?
Will people planning, undergoing or who
have undergone gender reassignment be
disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it be
reduced or eliminated?
Will the proposals mean that people
planning, undergoing or who have
undergone gender reassignment will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact on
community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance relationships
between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is potential to
foster good relations
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to race
equality
Are your proposals discriminatory
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
12
on the grounds of race?
Will people within certain racial
groups not be getting the outcome
they need?
Will people within certain racial
groups be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
Nothing has changed to have an adverse effect on this.
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain racial groups
will experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
religion or belief equality
Are your proposals discriminatory
on the grounds of religion or belief?
Will people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs not be
getting the outcome they need?
Will people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs be
disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Nothing has changed within services that will have an effect on this.
13
Will the proposals mean that
people of certain religions or who
have particular beliefs will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to sexual
identity equality
Are your proposals discriminatory
on the grounds of sexual identity?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bi-sexual
people not be getting the outcome
they need?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bi-sexual
people be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Nothing has changed within the services that will have an adverse effect on this.
Will the proposals mean that gay,
lesbian and/or bi-sexual people will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
14
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact on socio
economic equality (people on a low
income)?
Are your proposals discriminatory
on the grounds of socio economic
inequality?
Will people on a low income not be
getting the outcome they need?
Will people on a low income be
disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Current Housing Benefit legislation is a deterrent to this client group seeking full time
education/employment. This is widely acknowledged and services manage this for each
individual.
No changes have been made that will adversely effect this.
Will the proposals mean that
people on a low income will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
15
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to any
other equality groups, for example,
carers, ex offenders?
Are your proposals discriminatory
in relation to any other groups?
Will people within any other groups
not be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people within any other groups
be disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
No changes have been made to service delivery – and therefore no adverse effect.
Will the proposals mean that
people within any other groups will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Section E – Action Plan and review
Detail in the plan below, actions that you have identified in your CIA, which will eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and/or foster
good relations.
If you are unable to eliminate or reduce negative impact on any of the equality areas, you should explain why
16
Impact (positive or
negative) identified
Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Positive
When writing contract
specifications for these
services, all equality
strands will be considered,
in line with the consultation
and equalities information
gathered.
Kerry Thornley /
services
Where will action be
monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate Business
Plan, Service Plan,
Equality Action Plan)
Business Plan
Target date
Required outcome
July 2012
Service specifications
that incorporate
relevant equalities data
/ monitoring.
Could making the changes in any of the above areas have a negative effect on other groups? Explain why and what you will do about this.
No
Review
Your CIA should be reviewed at least every three years, less if it has a significant impact on people.
Please enter the date your CIA will be reviewed ……………………..You should review progress on your CIA action plan annually.
17
Section F – Summary of your CIA
As your CIA will be published on the council’s website and accessible to the general public, a summary of your CIA is required. Please provide a
summary of your CIA in the box below.
Summary of Community Impact Assessment
How did you approach the CIA and what did you find?
Consultation was conducted with staff and service users including quality monitoring of service users and the results analysed. There should be no
negative impacts as a result of these proposals.
What are the main areas requiring further attention?
Contract specifications are to take into consideration all equality strands.
Summary of recommendations for improvement
Ensure the above action points are included in the Supporting People business plan and are monitored at team meetings and through supervision.
Section G – Next Steps
Quality Assurance
When you have completed your CIA, you should send it to your directorate Equality Link Officer who will arrange for it to be quality assured. Your CIA
will be returned to you if further work is required. It is important that your CIA is robust and of good quality as it may be challenged
“Sign off” within your directorate
18
Your directorate Equality Link Officer will then arrange for your CIA to be “signed off” within your directorate (see below). Your directorate Equality
Lead Officer or other senior manager within your directorate should “sign off” your CIA (below).
Publishing
When your CIA has been signed off within your directorate, your directorate Equality Link Officer will send it to Elaine Barber in the Equalities and
Cohesion Team for publishing on the council’s website.
Monitoring
Your directorate Equality Link Officer will also send your CIA to your directorate Performance Officer where the actions identified within your CIA will
be entered into Covalent, the council’s performance management monitoring software so that progress can be monitored as appropriate.
19