Community Impact Assessment Form
For a summary of this Community Impact Assessment, click here
Title of Community Impact Assessment (CIA): The proposal is to close the current children centres in Irlam and Cadishead and
amalgamate some of the services into an offer deliverd from Winton Children’s centre.
Directorate: Children’ Services, Universal Services, Starting Life Well.
Date of assessment: 10th July 2014
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment: David Fielding
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
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
Specifically looking at the Irlam and Cadishead area. The proposal is to close the current children centres buildings in Irlam and
Cadishead and amalgamate some of the services into an offer delivered from Winton Children’s centre.
There currently does not appear to be adequate and appropriately equipped facilities within the area to be able to accommodate the
services delivered by or for all these groups/ organisations.
Families living in the Irlam and Cadishead area find it difficult to access services within other parts of the city due the geographical
isolation and the travel distance/ time. There is often long delay on the A57 which impedes families accessing services. It has been
made clear by parents in Irlam and Cadishead (particularly the hard to reach and most vulnerable) that they will not be able to access
services of the centre. They have stated that they would find this particularly difficult in time of crisis, as they would not be able to make
the journey to Winton children’s centre.
There will be reduced staffing under the new proposal to support families of Irlam and Cadishead, as there will be a requirement for
prioritization of the most vulnerable families (i.e. the most deprived SOA). For the south locality this will mean that the focus for
engagement and outreach will be Eccles and Baron. Leaving Irlam and Cadishead lower down the priority list.
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.
4
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
X
Other (please state below) (For example carers, ex
offenders)
Race
X
Those resident whom live in Irlam and Cadishead
X
X
X
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.
Disability
Y
Gender (including pregnancy and
maternity)
Y
Gender Reassignment
N
Race
Y
Religion and/or belief
N
Systems and registration forms do not currently record this information
Sexual Identity
N
Systems and registration forms do not currently record this information
Y
Systems and registration forms do not currently record this information
5
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
Y
Other (please state) (For example
carers, ex offenders)
Y
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 21 st 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.
6
http://www.salford.gov.uk/cc-consultation2014.htm
children_centre_cons
ultation.pdf
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?
7
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.
Please
specify
whether
this was
existing
information
or was
specifically
in relation
to this
equality
As expected, 87% of returns were from women. 66 (26%) were aged 31-35, 54 (21%) aged 26-30 and 43 (17%) aged 3640. This is reflective of the client group and existing customers of the Children’s Centres.
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%.
8
analysis
and CIA
process
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)
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.
Fiddlers Lane/ Cadishead analysis
This Children’s Centre generated 74 user responses to the consultation – 20% of the overall number of responses (365).
80% (59) of returns were from women. 20 (27%) were aged 31-35, 14 (19%) aged 26-30 and 14 (19%) aged 36-40. This
is reflective of the client group and existing customers of the Children’s Centres.
79% (58) were White British and 9% (7) of varied ethnic heritage (i.e. 3% (2) White Irish and 4% (3) any other White
background).
87% (64) have no disability whilst 4% (3) respondents do have a disability.
9
50% (37) hold no religion, 38% (28) do, all of whom are Christian and 12% (9) did not answer.
77% (57) of the total responses were received from parents/ carers of children under the age of 5. 74% (55) of parents/
users usually visit a Children’s Centre in Salford at least once a week.
31% (23) of all service users agreed that funding should be allocated to those Children’s Centres in areas of greatest
need. Over a third (28) of service users disagreed. 2% (2) of respondents did not answer at all.
93% (69) 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. 57%
(42) of users walk and 35% (26) travel by car, either as a driver (34% - 25) 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 16% (18);
 Schools 31% (37);
 Health centres 17% (19);
 Faith buildings 7% (8);
 Community centres 27% (32);
 Other 2% (2).
The consultation demonstrates that the services widely accessed at this Children’s Centre are: Stay and Play; Baby
Weigh; Baby Weigh and Antenatal.
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
Yes (Y)
Yes
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
-
Families from Irlam and Cadishead have made it clear that they will not be able to
access the services of children centre (specifically designed for children under 5
10
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
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
years) as they will NOT be able to travel the distance to Winton (or it will take them
longer to travel there than the length of the session attended, thus vastly reducing
the effectiveness of the session and increasing parental stress).
-
Some of the impact will be reduced by delivering some sessions in Irlam and
Cadishead community centres, although these will not be of the same quality as
the setting will not be purpose built or furnished.
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.
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.
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.
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.
11
1183 children ages 0-5 years are registered with the children’s centre of these 619
attended children’s centre services in reporting year 13/14
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?
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?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
Yes (Y)
Yes
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
-
-
Irlam and Cadishead currently supports two groups for children with disabilities.
Banardo’s and Autism and friends. Both of these groups have stated it will be
difficult to find alternative premises within the locality that can offer them the
facilities of the children centre which support there services used to access. It is
highly unlikely that parents of disabled children will be able to travel out of Irlam
and Cadishead to access other groups/ services.
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.
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.
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.
It is proposed that we deliver services from a range of venues in communities
12
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
across the City. A greater emphasis will be on targeted outreach work, delivering
services that support individual communities.
Base line data show 42 children aged 0-5 living within Irlam & Cadishead whom
have a SEN/ Disability. Of these 31 are registered with the centre and 16 are
regularly engaged in centre services
-
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
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
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
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
No
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.
Reduction in Health Visiting services being delivered from Children’s Centres
across the City.
These services are accessed predominately by women as the primary carers,
however fathers are actively encouraged to engage in these services.
Strong and established working relationships with Health Visitors (SRFT) should
ensure we can continue to deliver these services in an integrated approach.
Relationships between children’s centres and health partners are good and
established. Positive outcomes will be maintained and developed.
For reporting year 2013/14 there has been 481 persons attend pregnancy related
services. In terms of volume this equates to 2199 separate attendances at the
children centre in the same period.
13
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 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
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your
analysis?
No
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.
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.
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
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
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?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
No
All groups with whom we deliver services are non discriminatory. Needs regarding
accessibility and meeting individuals’ specific requirements are met.
BME – Irlam & Cadishead wards are predominantly white British. Of the 1464
children 0-5 living in the area 158 (base line data) are considered BME of these 87
are registered at the centre and 52 regularly engage in centre services (for
reporting year 2013/14)
15
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
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
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
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
No
All groups with whom we deliver services are non discriminatory. Needs regarding
accessibility and meeting individuals’ specific requirements are met.
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.
16
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?
Highlight any positive impacts
Our local knowledge informs the centre that the following religions are predominant
within the reach area: Catholic, Church of England.
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 bisexual people not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people be disadvantaged
as a result of your proposals?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
No
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.
17
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Will the proposals mean that
gay, lesbian and/or bi-sexual
people will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
All groups with whom we deliver services are non discriminatory. Needs regarding
accessibility and meeting individuals’ specific requirements are met.
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
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?
Yes (Y)
Yes
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
-
Residents of Irlam and Cadishead have stated it will be to costly and time
consuming to be able to access services at Winton Children’s centre (cost of £4-5
plus 30-60 minutes journey). This would make the centre inaccessible for families
on low incomes.
As per table below
18
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
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
Target Groups
Lone
parents
with child
under 5
No.
enga
ged
159
No.
registe
red
338
%
engaged
vs
registere
d
47%
%
engage
d vs
baselin
e
66%
basel
ine
242
%
registere
d vs
baseline
140%
Source - best available data
sets. Assumptions included
below
Source: Nomis - Working age out of work
benefit claimaints (small areas) - Lone Parent
Income Support (Nov 2013). Data based on
13 LSOAs. % applied where any over lap of
LSOAs with other CC cluster areas.
More lone parents registered with centre
than eligible to claim LP Income Support.
19
Notes
Benefit system changed May 2012 - LP
Income Support only for parents with
child under 5 - unemployed or on low
income working less than 16hrs per wk &
have <£16k capital. If child >5yrs then
claim ESA or JSA.
Children in
workless
households
141
250
56%
54%
261
96%
Source: HMRC Tax Credit Data Small Area
Statistics (2011) - shows number of children
living in workless households at LSOA level.
For Irlam & Cadishead this is 843 children
aged 0-17yrs. No further LSOA data is
currently available, however LA level HRMC
data published for children in workless
households between Dec 2011-2013 is static
for Salford. Assumption: Irlam & Cadishead
follows same pattern as LA, and number of
children in workless households has
remained the same. Using CENSUS 2011
data, we know 31% of child population in
Irlam & Cadishead is aged 0-4yrs. Applying
this to tax credit data gives an estimate of
261 children aged 0-4yrs living in workless
households in the cluster.
26% of all children 0-17yrs live in
workless households in the reach area.
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
groups be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
No
Target Groups
Teenage
parents
No.
engaged
19
As per table below
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
20
No.
registered
28
%
engaged
vs
registered
68%
%
engaged
vs
baseline
158%
baseline
12
%
registered
vs
baseline
233%
Source - best
available data sets.
Assumptions
included below
Local Source: Salford
City Council Teenage Pregnancy
Team - Open/closed
cases known to IYSS
(19yrs or younger) in
cluster area
Notes
More
teenagers
registered with
centre than
known to LA
Teen Preg
Team.
Referrals for
team only
accepted if
pregnant
before 18th
birthday.
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
Impact (positive or
negative) identified
Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Inability for parent of
children ages 0-5 years,
of a child with disability,
and from socioeconomically deprived
families living in the Irlam
and Cadishead area to be
able to access a “front
door”.
To continue to utilise a
reduced space within
Fiddlers lane community
primary school for the
school year 2014/15.
Cluster
coordinator
(David Fielding
Or whom
becomes
designated)
21
Where will action
Target date
be monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate
Business Plan,
Service Plan,
Equality Action
Plan)
Children’s centre
Summer term
business plan
2015
Required outcome
To support the
community in
working with the
children centre move
to an outreach
delivery model
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.
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.
22
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?
 Information from parents, partner agencies, local knowledge and local data for the area were used to inform the CIA.
 Additionally information from the city wide consultation has been used to support the information within the CIA.
 Suggestions from the consultation process are being used to reduce and mitigate against the impact on the community.
What are the main areas requiring further attention?
Irlam and Cadishead children centre will move to be managed under the umberella of Winton and Eccles children centre cluster
(becoming south locality children’s centre). This is a move from the current School based management, Fiddlers Lane CPS governing
body will need support top look at the impact of this on there governing body.
Irlam and Cadishead children centre will move to a model of a “front door” at Fiddlers lane CPS. This will need to be communicated to
the local community, additionally the will need to be a transition phase for those services that need to be relocated form the current
buildings.
Summary of recommendations for improvement
Irlam and Cadishead will continue to move towards a delivery of a full outreach model, this will be done over an extended period to
support the transition for parents, children and partner agencies.
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).
23
Name
Signature
Date
Senior Manager
David Fielding
10 July 2014
Lead CIA Officer
Rebecca Bibby
10 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.
24