Hengrove Play Park supervision .1 Background

The second example chosen to illustrate how policy decisions were subject to the Duty and also impacted single mothers was the proposed reduction in free supervision at Hengrove Play Park in South Bristol (BS14). This was a large play area which was established originally to have 7-day staff supervision. As a free amenity, which included water and sand play, a skate park and climbing dome as well as a café, the council recognise it was highly valued, not least because of the play supervision which the LA provided free of charge

A proposal was made to discontinue supervision as part of the city-wide budget cuts. The EIA carried out to inform this decision contained recognition that single parents were a specific group of service users (see figure 9, below), though there was no exploration of any potential adverse impact on this group.

Page: 171

Figure 9: Excerpt from Equality Impact Assessment showing inclusion of single parents in decision-making criteria

(Source: BCC EIA R-PL-010 (highlights author’s own))

In addition, there was no specific data available on any service users who used the park, though there was, mention of “equalities groups” and “equalities communities” (which, in the Equality Plan is often used interchangeably with the term ‘protected characteristics’⁴⁵⁵). In terms of potential impact, it was recognised that the staff currently at the site on a 7-day basis give a sense of safety and security, and that parents and children from “all equalities groups may discontinue using the site if they have a perception of feeling less safe without the council presence”⁴⁵⁶. Other than these statements, therefore, no qualitative or quantitative data about the profile of user groups was used in the assessment.

5.3.5.2 Impact on single mothers as service users

In terms of the Hengrove Play Park decision needing to meet the aims of the Equality Plan, there were no specific performance targets which would be affected. I would suggest, though, that when considering the Plan’s objectives, it related to providing effective, accessible services that reduce inequalities and meet the needs of the most vulnerable communities and is also likely to address

455 Bristol City Council (2012c), ibid.

456 : Bristol City Council (2014n). Bristol City Council Equality Impact Assessment Form: R-PL-010 – Discontinue Hengrove Park Supervision. https://www.bristol.gov.uk/ [Retrieved 9/7/2016]

Page: 172

concerns within child poverty strategic goals to widen access to developmental and play facilities⁴⁵⁷. Given the use of this park as a place for adult socialising – and potentially developing networks (possibly with other single mothers) - the council’s commitment to tackling social isolation experienced by those with lone caring responsibilities, as detailed in the Child Poverty Strategy was also relevant.

Furthermore, a mayoral commitment to the importance of parks and play was also likely to impact on any decision.

The decision to cut supervision in the park had potential to impact the lives of single mothers within my case study areas. Most of the single mother service user participants had included parks as an essential, free activity for them and their children, and the suitability (or not) of different parks in meeting the needs of a single parent was a point of discussion during some of the interviews, in particular, whether the facilities could keep children of different ages interested and whether a suitably gated and secure area was provided. Participants with more than one, differently-aged child had reported it “a struggle” to find activities for them in the same location as “it’s too difficult to watch them both”. Participants highlighted play areas as one type of facility where it might be more difficult for single parents to use than two-parent families. For example, where equipment was large, some felt that they needed to play with the children to keep them safe rather than leave them unsupervised: this was extremely difficult for those who had more than one child of different ages and sizes or, as in the case of one participant, one of your children has a disability.

Hengrove Park was, therefore, highlighted by some of the single mother participants (from both BS3 and BS4 areas) as being particularly suitable for them compared to other parks. In addition to the supervision available, reasons included that it was gated and secure, had equipment which catered for children of different ages and a café which provided a site to meet with other adults, which was particularly important to those who felt socially isolated.

5.3.5.3 The public consultation

The proposed change to park supervision was significantly impacted by the city-wide consultation which prompted a considerable response on this subject.

Consultation feedback showed that this was “number 21 on the list of unpopular proposals”⁴⁵⁸, notably in the top 30 despite affecting a facility in just one area of

457 Equality Plan Theme 2 – see Appendix X.

458 Bristol City Council (2013f), ibid.

Page: 173

Bristol, in comparison to the children’s centre changes which were city-wide.

Through involving the public in the decision-making process, the consultation supported engagement and participation of equalities communities, particularly meeting the measure under the Equality Plan to improve the role of equalities stakeholders in the development of EIAs⁴⁵⁹. Feedback received about this proposal on the council website attracted close to 100 responses which were broadly spread across ‘agreement’ and ‘disagreement’. There was no feedback on any particular needs that single mothers/parents might have, though some identification that providing supervised play sets this park apart from others and may be of greater value to those who were economically or socially disadvantaged. Some who responded to the consultation were sympathetic to this, stating that supervision helped keep the equipment safe, particularly for children with special needs, and made them and their parents feel more secure.

There were, however, a small number who felt that “parents should be expected to supervise their own children during play – not rely on free child minding”⁴⁶⁰. Furthermore, this particular proposal triggered additional community activity which was not led by the council. This activity included a large number of complaints via social and traditional media, a Facebook page which, at its peak, received 11,162 likes and an e-petition introduced by a member of the public opposed to changes to the park in part because it was used “by children of all ages, many from deprived backgrounds⁴⁶¹”. Though it was not strictly part of the overall consultation process, it nevertheless was monitored by the council and included

“as useful context” in the final report for the cabinet⁴⁶². The outcomes from the consultation formed part of the evidence for the final decision and, as outlined above, this contributed to the decision by the cabinet to maintain park supervision in its existing form.

459 Equality Plan Theme 3 – see Appendix X.

460 Bristol City Council (2014f), ibid.

461 Ibid.

ibid.

Page: 174

Figure 10: Excerpt from Equality Impact Assessment showing decision to maintain supervision at Hengrove Park

(Source: BCC EIA R-PL-010)

5.3.5.4 Hengrove play park supervision – discussion

The decision-making process carried out in relation to the proposal to reduce supervision at this play park provided some useful examples of the how the Duty has been implemented ‘on the ground’, particularly in relation to the consultation process; use of an evidence base and the service user perspectives.

The consultation process for this policy decision showed a lively and multi-faceted deliberation process which involved a variety of participants from the wider community. A small number of participant comments revealed tensions related to the way that resources were distributed. However, the space for self-organised and other groups provided a platform which individuals and groups used to support equality of opportunity for disadvantaged groups in terms of them having access to play facilities. As with the proposals for children’s centre service reduction, it was also important to recognise that there were competing interests within the decision-making process. The Hengrove Park exercise was notable for both the prominent campaign to ‘save’ it, and the additional support which the mayoral priorities garnered. This demonstrated some of the complex, and potentially unequal, power balance which can exist within such environments, and these are discussed further in chapter 6.

Although single parents were noted in the EIA as typical service users of the park facilities there was a lack of meaningful data for this group. In this case I would argue that ‘single parents’ were used as a by-word for poverty and disadvantage.

This left no room for understanding that there was nuance in different groups’

Page: 175

motivation for choosing certain facilities or services, and therefore little opportunity to usefully mitigate any impact from removing or reducing supervision services.

This presented a further example of where collecting qualitative feedback from service users would help focus service delivery in ways which met the needs of specific, equalities groups. For instance, from the perspective of single mothers, the supervised park can be amongst other things, a much-needed social space which might enable them to participate in community activities as well as form or strengthen essential social networks. Simply providing children’s play facilities elsewhere would not necessarily replace these important features.

Finally, further analysis of this illustrative example can give us differing perspectives and therefore a more developed understanding of the complexities of service user need. Supervision of the park represented the council’s ‘allocative’

power to discontinue its support, but was also a demonstration of ‘authoritative’

status in that it created well-being for users by providing a safe space for the park’s users. Feedback on the consultation identified that the 7-day supervision was valued by service users whose perception was that the facilities would be less safe without it, for example, concerns were raised about teenage groups who were viewed as disruptive and might visit more frequently if supervision was removed.

Changing the supervisory arrangements could have a range of different impacts on user groups, as this policy was likely to constrain the agency of some users who felt a need to stop using the site if it no longer felt safe. This was particularly relevant for some of the single mothers in this study, for whom free or low-cost spaces, where they have potential to create a non-judgemental environment are rare. However, through providing supportive structures to respond, ie, through a formal consultation, and including feedback from wider sources, such an e-petition, in their final decision the agency of service users and those advocating on behalf of disadvantaged groups was supported. This was one example of how the reflexive mechanisms of the Duty could act as enabling structures.