Community Impact Assessment Form
For a summary of this Community Impact Assessment, click here
Title of Community Impact Assessment (CIA): The delivery of Children’s centre services in Charlestown and Lower Kersal and
Summerville children’s centre reach areas
Directorate: Children’s Services, Starting Life Well
Date of assessment: 9 July 2014
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment: Rachel Buckler/ Joan Parry
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
1
Describe the area you are impact assessing and, where appropriate, the changes you are proposing?
This community impact assessment is being undertaken as a result of changes in the delivery of children’s centre services across the
City.
It is proposed to make changes to the Children’s Centre structure by merging Children Centre Clusters to create four main hubs reducing
the number of cluster coordinators, deputy coordinators and Children Centre Workers and reducing the number of buildings.
In keeping with a greater and increasing emphasis to work with families in most need of support, it is proposed that less universal
services are delivered in Children’s Centres enabling targeted work to take precedence. Partnerships play a significant role in the
delivery of Children’s Centre services. These include health services, social care, local schools and colleges, housing, private childcare
providers, employment services, voluntary sector, and adult services.
It is proposed to merge the existing Children’s Centre clusters to create four main hubs with a greater emphasis on outreach work to
support the model. This will focus our main resources on the communities most in need and developing a clear outreach strategy,
supporting the most vulnerable families and children in accessing services.
It is proposed that we reduce the number of buildings which we pay running costs for and return these buildings back to schools. The
recommendation is to retain main four hubs in areas with the most deprivation and highest numbers of children in the reach area.
The proposed four Children’s Centre Hubs are:
West
Central
South
North
Little Hulton
Broughton Hub
Langworthy Cornerstones (including Belvedere as a key
outreach building)
Winton
Mossfield (which will move to Swinton Gateway in 2014)
It is proposed that additional buildings are required in the Central Locality due to the size of the reach area and deprivation:
 _______________________________________________________________ Belvedere has 65.3% of its total reach figures living
in the highest 10% super output areas;
 _______________________________________________________________ Little Hulton has 63.6% of its total reach figures
living in the highest 10% super output areas;
 _______________________________________________________________ Broughton has 60.3% of its total reach figures living
in the highest 10% super output areas;
2
 _______________________________________________________________ Swinton has 39.1% of its total reach figures living in
the highest 10% super output areas;
 _______________________________________________________________ Winton has 35.5% of its total reach figures living in
the highest 10% super output areas;
 _______________________________________________________________ Charlestown and Lower Kersal has 22.0% of its
total reach figures living in the highest 10% super output areas;
 _______________________________________________________________ Irlam and Cadishead has 11.1% of its total reach
figures living in the highest 10% super output areas;
 _______________________________________________________________ St Paul’s Heathside has 6.5% of its total reach
figures living in the highest 10% super output area.




Locality
Central
West
North
South




Total Reach
5,013
3,919
4,114
4,162




10% SOA
3,135
1,156
1,258
1,127
The hubs would deliver the full core offer to targeted families and would be used for running target services, such as, parenting groups,
supervised contacts, midwifery clinics, adult learning. They would also be used as a base for Children’s Centre Workers.
Additional spaces to run targeted Children’s Centre services and provide staff space would be requested in community venues in the
reach areas and local schools.
We intend to continue to build stronger partnership arrangements with schools, health partners, private and community providers to
deliver universal services, enabling the Children’s Centre staff to deliver a more targeted offer to vulnerable children and families.
This will enable us to reduce the number of Children’s Centre Cluster Coordinators from eight to five and the Deputy Coordinators from
seven to four. An additional manager is required in central locality due to size of the reach area, number of buildings and level of
targeted work required in the most deprived area of the city.
We are proposing to reduce the number of Children’s Centre Worker posts from fifty four posts to forty three posts resulting in a
reduction of 11 posts.
The reductions will come from 5.5 full time equivalent vacant posts and 5.5 full time equivalent posts from staff who are on fixed term
contracts whose contracts are due to end on the 31st March 2014.
3
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
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
X
Sexual Identity
Gender (including pregnancy and maternity)
X
People on a low income (socio-economic inequality)
Gender reassignment
Other (please state below) (For example carers, ex
offenders)
4
X
X
Race
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
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently monitor by the
following protected characteristics or
equality areas?
Age
Yes (Y) or
No (N)
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
Our service provides for children 0 – 19 although predominantly 0 -5’s
accessing children’s centres services.
Disability
Y
Disability data is recorded and monitored in order to ascertain need. Children
and parent/ carers needs are met accordingly.
Gender (including pregnancy and
maternity)
Y
Data recorded and needs met accordingly.
Gender Reassignment
N
Race
Y
Religion and/ or belief
N
Not recorded due to the fact that everyone is welcome within the children
centre this information is not recorded
Data recorded. This is then on the Registration form and recorded for
statistical information as we have target to achieve in this area
Data recorded on the and used for information and evidence based
Sexual Identity
N
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
Y
Not recorded The children centre is open to all families and we would not
discriminate around sexual identity –
Data recorded and needs met accordingly and we have target to achieve in
relation to outcomes
Other (please state) (For example
carers, ex offenders)
5
Section C (continued) – Consultation
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals?
Yes
If “no”, please explain your reason(s) why
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
Children’s Centre Staff
The Children’s Centres consultation will be a 90 day consultation with staff which will start on Friday 21st March and end on Friday 20th
June.
Staff will be consulted with in line with the Managing Workforce and Structural Change Policy.
All the proposals during the consultation will be shared with relevant recognised trade union officials for consultation with employees,
and consultation meetings will be held with recognised trade unions and wider staff groups.
Individual consultation meetings will be held with all employees requesting an individual meeting, in additional to this various group/team
consultation meetings will also take place for staffs who requested the meetings in this format.
Stakeholders
An online consultation will take place setting out the key proposals. A Children’s Centre Consultation document and the full staff
consultation report will be made available for reference.
http://www.salford.gov.uk/cc-consultation2014.htm
children_centre_cons
ultation.pdf
6
A stakeholder consultation plan has been developed that outlines details of all stakeholders, dates of engagement and engagement
format.
Children's Centre
Consultation - March 2104.docx
An on-line questionnaire form will be available for stakeholders to comment.
Questionnaire-Paren
Questionnaire-Profes
Questionnaire-School
ts-Carers-Families-March2014.doc
sional-Service-Commissioned-Service-Private-and-Voluntary-Sector-March2014.doc
s-and-Governing-Bodies-March2014.doc
A suitable period of time will be left at the end of the consultation period for feedback on proposals from the staff and employees
affected.
Section C Analysis
C3 What
Consultation results:
information The council received 365 user responses to the consultation. Of these, 108 (30%) respondents provided no equality
has been
information. 257 respondents provided equality information, 70% of total responses. The majority of responses that
analysed to provided no equalities information was from River View/Higher Broughton Children’s Centre. Each of the consultation
inform the
forms had an equality section, however this section was not returned.
content of
this CIA?
These were in relation to six of the eight Children’s Centres. There were no responses from users of Moorside as this
What were centre was unaffected by the proposals and RiverView/ Higher Broughton and Summerville/ Charlestown and Lower
the
Kersal were combined. The responses for each of the Children Centre clusters are:
findings?
As expected, 87% of returns were from women. 66 (26%) were aged 31-35, 54 (21%) aged 26-30 and 43 (17%) aged 36Please
40. This is reflective of the client group and existing customers of the Children’s Centres.
include
details of,
for
7
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.
Please
specify
whether
this was
existing
information
or was
specifically
in relation
to this
equality
analysis
and CIA
process
Children’s Centre
Fiddlers Lane/ Cadishead
RiverView/ Higher Broughton
Summerville/ Charlestown and Lower Kersal
Winton and Eccles
St. Paul’s Heathside
Little Hulton
Total
Number of
responses
74
131
114
17
22
7
365
% of
responses
20%
36%
31%
5%
6%
2%
100%
66% of the total responses were received from parents/ carers of children under the age of 5. 61% of parents/ users
usually visit a Children’s Centre in Salford at least once a week. The Children’s Centres most often visited by the
respondents are River View/ Higher Broughton (36%), Summerville/ Charlestown Lower Kersal (31%) and Fiddlers Lane/
Cadishead (20%).
Overall feedback shows that 41% of all service users agreed that funding should be allocated to those Children’s Centres
in areas of greatest need. A quarter of service users disagreed. 13% of respondents did not answer at all.
86% of the responses received disagree with the proposal to reduce the number of Children’s Centre buildings.
The survey results indicate that the majority of service users either walk or travel in a car when accessing Children’s
Centres. 62% of users walk and 27% travel by car, either as a driver (23%) or a passenger (4%). This indicates that
Children’s Centres services, whether in a Centre or at other facilities, should continue to be provided in local areas so as
to ensure access by families, and to facilitate sustainable travel and access options.
Respondents were asked which alternate venues they would be willing to use if a Children’s Centres was closed under
this proposal, they stated:
 GP surgeries 20%;
 Schools 30%;
 Health centres 16%;
 Faith buildings 7%;
 Community centres 25%;
 Other 2%.
The consultation demonstrates that the following Children’s Centre services are widely accessed across the City and are
of value to service users: parenting (i.e. Parenting group and advice), school readiness (i.e. Stay and Play Rhyme time)
8
and health services (i.e. Baby Weigh/ Clinic). These services are consistent with meeting the Children’s Centres Core
Purpose, focused on improved child development and school readiness, parenting aspirations, self esteem and parenting
skills and child and family health and life chances.
A clear theme from the overall public feedback, particular from existing service users, was that there needs to be a
balance of Children’s Centre services between ‘universal’ and ‘targeted’ in the future. Those ‘universal’ services most
important to respondents were: Stay and Play sessions, Baby Clinic, Breastfeeding and Parenting Advice.
Headline responses protected characteristics analysis:
 82% (212) White British, 9% varied ethnic heritage (i.e. 3% (7) any other white background and 2% (4) Asian or Asian
British - Indian) and 9% (23) not answered;
 26% (66) 31-35yrs, 21% (54) 26-30yrs, 17% (43) 36-40yrs, 9% (24) 41-45yrs, 7% (19) 20-25yrs, 6% (16) over 50 yrs,
6% (15) 46-50yrs, 2% (4) under 20yrs and 6% (16) not answered;
 87% (223) female, 5% (14) male and 8% (20) not answered 37%;
 87% (224) with no disability, 5% (13) with a disability and 8% (20);
 48% (121) hold no religion, 42% do, of which 40% (104) are Christian and 2% (7) Muslim-Sikh-Hindu, and 10% (24)
did not answer whether or not they hold a religious belief.
Summerville/ Charlestown and Lower Kersal analysis
This Children’s Centre generated 114 user responses to the consultation – 31% of the overall number of responses (365).
88% (100) of returns were from women. 26 (23%) were aged 31-35, 18 (16%) aged 26-30, 18 (16%) aged 36-40, and 14
(12%) aged 41-45. This is reflective of the client group and existing customers of the Children’s Centres.
86% (98) were White British and 6% (7) of varied ethnic heritage (i.e. any other white background and Asian or Asian
British - Indian).
86% (98) have no disability whilst 6% (7) respondents do have a disability.
52% (59) hold no religion, 40% do, of which 38% (43) are Christian and 2% (2) are Muslim.
53% (60) of the total responses were received from parents/ carers of children under the age of 5. 44% of the total
9
responses were received from parents/ carers of children aged between 5 and 18 years. Only 36% (41) of parents/ users
usually visit a Children’s Centre in Salford at least once a week. 17% (20) visit once a month and 23% (26) do not use
core Children’s Centre services, rather they utilise adult learning/ training facilities.
55% (63) of all service users agreed that funding should be allocated to those Children’s Centres in areas of greatest
need. 12% (14) of service users disagreed. 16% (18) of respondents did not answer at all.
85% (96) of the responses received disagree with the proposal to reduce the number of Children’s Centre buildings.
The survey results indicate that the majority of service users either walk or travel in a car when accessing this centre. 67%
(76) of users walk and 15% (17) travel by car, either as a driver (14% - 16) or a passenger (1% - 1). This indicates that
Children’s Centres services, whether in a Centre or at other facilities, should continue to be provided in local areas so as
to ensure access by families, and to facilitate sustainable travel and access options.
Respondents were asked which alternate venues they would be willing to use if this Children’s Centres was closed under
this proposal, they stated:
 GP surgeries 22% (36);
 Schools 36% (60);
 Health centres 14% (23);
 Faith buildings 4% (7);
 Community centres 23% (37);
 Other 1% (1).
The consultation demonstrates that the services widely accessed at this Children’s Centre are: Stay and Play; Baby Clinic;
Baby Weigh and Adult Learning/ Training.
Section C (continued) – Analysis
C3 What information has been analysed
to inform the content of this CIA? What
were the findings?
Please include details of, for example,
service or employee monitoring
The children’s centre registration and attendance data has been analysed:Attendance at Children's Centre Activities
Between 01/04/2013 and 31/03/2014.
Total number of individuals attending Activities.
Under 5 Yrs Adults No DOB
10
Total
information, consultation findings, any
national or local research, customer
feedback, inspection reports, and any
other information which will inform your
CIA.
Charlestown & Lower Kersal
1,594
1,221
2,815
- Registration Figures
No of Children Currently Registered Age 0 to 5 Years on 24 April 2014
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Total
Please specify whether this was existing
CHALK
180
281
347
434
444
1,686
information or was specifically in relation
to this equality analysis and CIA process The above figure represents 82% of the children living in the reach area are registered
with the children’s centre.
27% of families are from the 10% most deprived IMD area.
25.6% of families in the reach area are living in poverty.
Ward
Number of
households
Claremont
Irwell
Riverside
Kersal
Langworthy
Pendlebury
Weaste and
Seedley
4,151
5,245
4,746
6,531
5,458
5,403
Number of
households
adult not in
employment
with
dependant
children
82
479
%
%
2%
9.1%
Number of
households
with
dependant
children
aged 0 to 4
yrs
452
559
294
500
361
320
%
10.9%
10.7%
Number of
households
with lone
parents
with
dependant
children
278
557
6.2%
7.7%
6.6%
5.9%
871
581
757
625
18.4%
8.9%
13.9%
11.6%
368
675
648
538
7.8%
10.3%
11.9%
10.0%
6.7%
10.6%
This shows that there a high proportion of families in the locality that are
unemployed and claiming benefits
Feb-09
Area
No.
Aug-11
%
11
No.
%
Trend
(Rate)

Duchy
295
32.8
280
Lower
Kersal
310
32.7
345
BrindleHeath
395
41.2
380
Whit Lane
440
40.9
410
Salford
27,700
19.8
31,990
21%

Gtr Mc
278,090
17.2
322,770
19%

NW
694,40
16.4
807,820
18%

GB
4,931,300
13.4
5,787,000
15%

28%

32%

36%

36%
Section D – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
age equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
age?
Will people within certain age
ranges not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will people within certain age
ranges 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 within certain age ranges
will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
Yes (Y)
No (N)
All children centre services are generic and parents as well as grandparents are
welcome with their children/grandchildren.
N
The Children’s Centre re-structure will continue to meet the Sure Start Children’s
Centre Statutory Guidance (April 2013). The Children’s Centres will continue to
deliver services for children aged 0-5 and their families through a universal and
targeted offer.
N
The restructure of the Children’s Centre will put a greater emphasis on working
with families and children in most need of support. It is proposed to deliver
Children’s Centre services from four main hubs, in areas with the most deprivation
and the highest number of children in the reach area.
N
It is proposed that the hubs will deliver the full Children’s Centre Core offer to
targeted families and would be used for running targeted services, such as,
parenting groups supervised contacts, midwifery and health visiting clinics and
adult learning.
It is proposed to build stronger partnerships with schools, health services, voluntary
organisations and Early Years settings to support the delivery of universal services.
N
12
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
The restructure of the Children’s Centre will predominately support Children aged
0-5.
Teenage parents are recognised as a priority group for targeted support by
Children’s Centres and this support will continue as part of the refocus on targeted
support.
Community cohesion is served through the nature of drawing together all members
of the community by providing inclusive groups and activities for children and their
families.
Registrations
The total number if children in the cluster area is 2055 of which 1706 children are
registered with the children’s centres (=83% registration @ 31.04.14)
Apr
2012
Apr
2013
March
2014
Number of Children age 0 to 5yrs living in
Locality
2055
2005
2005
Children 0-3
1227
1227
1218
778
778
837
Number of children age 0 to 5yrs
registered with a CC
1560
1489
Children 0-3
853
715
824
children 3-5
707
774
882
children 3-5
1706
% of children 0-5yrs Reg
78%
74% 83%
Children 0-3
70%
58% 68%
children 3-5
91%
99% 100%
13
Number of children age 0 to 5 yrs (living in
Cluster) attending events in your Cluster
620
505
1260
Children 0-3
457
367 712
children 3-5
163
138 548
% of children living in Locality 0-5yrs seen
at CC in Locality
31%
25%
61%
Children 0-3
37%
30% 58%
children 3-5
21%
18% 65%
% of children registered in Locality
74%
0-5yrs seen at CC in Locality
40%
34%
Children 0-3
54%
51% 86%
Children 3-5
23%
18% 62%
Number of children age 0 to 5 yrs (living in
Cluster) attending events at any Area.
979
794
1464
Children 0-3
728
576 858
children 3-5
251
218 606
% of children living in Locality 0-5yrs seen
at any CC
49%
40%
Children 0-3
59%
47% 70%
children 3-5
32%
28% 72%
% of children registered in Locality 0-5
years seen at any CC
63%
53%
Children 0-3
85%
81% 100%
Children 3-5
36%
28% 69%
14
71%
86%
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
disability equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory 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?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
All families are invited into the children centre we do have specialist services
N
There will be no changes in this respect as a result of this proposal. Families with
children with disabilities or special educational needs already benefit from targeted
support being delivered through Children’s Centres across the City and some
Children’s Centres already run services specifically for children with disability or
special educational need.
N
It is proposed in the Children’s Centre Consultation that a greater emphasis is
placed on targeted services, so these sessions would continue to operate in
Children’s Centres where this is an identified need.
Will the proposals mean that
people with disabilities will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Y
Community cohesion is served through the nature of drawing together all members
of the community by providing inclusive groups and activities for children and their
families.
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
It is proposed that we deliver services from a range of venues in communities
across the City. A greater emphasis will be on targeted outreach work, delivering
services that support individual communities.
Y
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
15
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to
gender equality (this includes
pregnancy and maternity)
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
gender?
Will men or women, boys or girls
not be getting the outcome they Y
need?
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
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis? There
is no evidence to suggest that changes in the service would have an impact on
gender equality
N
The restructure of the Children’s Centre will predominately support Children aged
0-5.
Reduction in Midwifery services being delivered from Children’s Centres across the
City.
N
These services are accessed predominately by women as the primary carers,
however fathers are actively encouraged to engage in these services.
Y
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
Reduction in Health Visiting services being delivered from Children’s Centres
across the City.
Strong and established working relationships with Health Visitors (SRFT) should
ensure we can continue to deliver these services in an integrated approach.
N
Relationships between children’s centres and health partners are good and
established. Positive outcomes will be maintained and developed.
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
16
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 undergone gender reassignment?
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
analysis?
N
The question of gender reassignment is not collated by our service. We
would meet the needs of all individual services users should they voluntarily
share such information with us.
All groups with whom we deliver services are non discriminatory. Needs
regarding accessibility and meeting individuals’ specific requirements are
met.
N
N
Since the service meets the needs of the individual and their family, support
will be based entirely upon individual need and within the framework of
Ofsted and the Core Purpose. Positive outcomes will be achieved through
assessments such as the Common Assessment Framework and
engagement into universal and targeted services in line with the needs of
the child.
From consultations it was established that parents already find it difficult to
access some of our targeted services due to a waiting list or not being in
one of our priority target groups. We acknowledge that this may present
difficulties in promoting community cohesion, however the service works in
an integrated manner with partners to ensure universal and targeted
services are provided to meet the needs of the local community whilst
ensuring services are not duplicated. This also enables resources to be
maximised across the city.
At this time we know of no individuals who have undergone gender
reassignment and access our service. Since the service meets the needs of
the individual and their family, support will be based entirely upon individual
need and within the framework of Ofsted and the Core Purpose. Positive
17
outcomes will be achieve through assessments such as the Common
Assessment Framework and engagement into universal and targeted
services in line with the needs of the child.
This service will not discriminate on the basis of gender and will be open to
all families within our reach area.
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 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?
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain racial
groups will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
All groups with whom we deliver services are non discriminatory. Needs regarding
accessibility and meeting individuals’ specific requirements are met.
N
N
Y
18
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
N
N
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
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?
Will the proposals mean that
people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs will
experience positive outcomes?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
All groups with whom we deliver services are non discriminatory. Needs regarding
accessibility and meeting individuals’ specific requirements are met.
N
N
Y
19
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
N
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 bisexual people not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people be disadvantaged
as a result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
Will the proposals mean that
gay, lesbian and/or bi-sexual
people will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Y
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
The question of sexual identity is not collated by our service. We would meet the
needs of all individual services users should they voluntarily share such information
with us.
N
N
All groups with whom we deliver services are non discriminatory. Needs regarding
accessibility and meeting individuals’ specific requirements are met.
20
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
From consultations it was established that parents already find it difficult to access
some of our targeted services due to a waiting list or not being in one of our priority
target groups. We acknowledge that this may present difficulties in promoting
community cohesion, however the service works in an integrated manner with
partners to ensure universal and targeted services are provided to meet the needs
of the local community whilst ensuring services are not duplicated. This also
enables resources to be maximised across the city.
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)
Will the proposals mean that
people on a low income will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Y
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
A clear and determined focus of children’s centres is to reduce inequalities and
improve outcomes for all children and their families. Services are delivered
sensitively and specifically to address the needs of families experiencing poverty.
Outreach strategies and plans to reach families who may not otherwise access
services are in place. Advice and signposting to services that support families’
economical wellbeing are a key feature and target for children’s centres
N
N
21
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
Yes (Y)
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
Y
groups 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 within any other groups
will experience positive
outcomes?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
All groups with whom we deliver services are non discriminatory. Needs regarding
accessibility and meeting individuals’ specific requirements are met.
N
The Children’s Centre meets the needs of individual families to encourage positive
outcomes in line with the Children’s Centre Core Purpose.
22
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
From consultations it was established that parents already find it difficult to access
some of our targeted services due to a waiting list or not being in one of our priority
target groups. We acknowledge that this may present difficulties in promoting
community cohesion, however the service works in an integrated manner with
partners to ensure universal and targeted services are provided to meet the needs
of the local community whilst ensuring services are not duplicated. This also
enables resources to be maximised across the city.
23
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
Impact (positive or
negative) identified
Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Families with disabled
children
To maintain a high level
of integrated services
were everyone feels
welcomed
Possibly to move this
area of work into the
youth service building so
that hopefully there is a
high proportion of people
attending this group
To maintain a high level
of integrated services
were everyone feels
welcomed
To maintain the high
level of information that
can support families in
this area
All members of
the children’s
centre staff
Gender (including
pregnancy and maternity)
Race
People on a low income
(socio-economic
inequality)
Where will action
Target date
be monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate
Business Plan,
Service Plan,
Equality Action
Plan)
Within the children
ongoing
centre business plan
and also the SEF
Required outcome
Co working with
the teenage
pregnancy
advisor and the
children centre
staff
All members of
the children’s
centre staff
Within the children
centre business plan
and also the SEF
ongoing
Service maintain but
a change of venue
which in turn may
increase participants
Within the children
centre business plan
and also the SEF
ongoing
Service maintained
at a high level in the
area of race
All members of
the children’s
centre staff
Within the children
centre business plan
and also the SEF
ongoing
To continue to offer
services to these
families
Service maintained
in the area of
disability
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.
24
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.
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?
Analyse information collated from the parents and partner agencies also information within the business plan and SEF
What are the main areas requiring further attention?
Coordination of services and possible relocation
Summary of recommendations for improvement
That the service is within a number of venues within the community so that it becomes more accessible
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
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).
25
Name
Signature
Date
Senior Manager
Rachel Buckler/ Joan Parry
x July 2014
Lead CIA Officer
Becky Bibby
x July 2014
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.
26