Equality Impact Assessment - Economic Regeneration – Kingston Workstart

• Home
• Your Council
• Equalities
• Equality Impact Assessments
• Equality Impact Assessments - Chief Executives Directorate
• Equality Impact Assessment - Economic Regeneration – Kingston Workstart

Function being assessed:

Economic Regeneration (Partnership & Regeneration Unit, Chief Executive’s Dept) - Local Area Agreement target relating to Supporting people with health related problems into work

Is this a new function or a review of an existing function?

This project was developed in response to this particular Local Area Agreement indicator which was chosen by RBK.

What are the aims/purpose of the function?

The sole aim of the project was to work with people with mental, physical, learning disabilities who were in receipt of economically inactive welfare benefits and to support individuals to sustain paid work for a minimum period of 13 weeks.

Is the function designed to meet specific needs such as the needs of minority ethnic groups, older people, disabled people etc?

The project is aimed at people who are unemployed and furthest removed from the labour market. Arguably, this project is aimed at 100% disabled people as the reason why the target group are in receipt of economically inactive welfare benefits is due to their ill health/disability. However, many people who are in receipt of incapacity benefits for mental health reason do not associate themselves with the term ‘disabled’.  

What information has been gathered on this function? (Indicate the type of information gathered e.g. statistics, consultation, other monitoring information)? Attach a summary or refer to where the evidence can be found.

Data has been collected on people who have engaged over the lifespan of this project. this data includes gender, nature of disability, ethnicity and outcome.

Over the lifespan of this project we engaged with 188 individuals in the borough. We engaged with these people via various resources such as GP surgeries, local charities for people with mental health, drop in groups, libraries, community centres, Jobcentre Plus. We produced various marketing material including leaflets, posters, pens, notepads and highlighter pens. We held stalls at fairs throughout the borough, including New Malden, Surbito and Cambridge Rd Estates' fun day. We has articles in the local press, including the Korean local newspaper and one of our Employment Consultants was interviewed for Korean TV. However, unfortunately none of these efforts resultedin any referrals from the local Korean community.

The ethnicity breakdown is as follows:

White:

51.6% British

4.8% Irish

9.0% Any other White Background

Mixed:

0.5% White & Black Caribbean

0.5% White & Asian

0.5% White & Black African

0.5% Any other Mixed Background

Asian or Asian British:

3.2% Indian

2.1% Pakistani

3.2% Any other Asian Background

Black or Black British:

1.1% Caribbean

1.1% African

Chinese or other Ethnic group

0.5% Chinese

1.6% Any other background

19.7% Prefer not to tell you my ethnic group

The breakdown of nature of disability is as follows:

69.1% Mental Health

18.6% Physical/Mobility

8.5% other please state……Brain Injury

2.1% Sensory

1.1% Learning Disability

0.5% Prefer not to say

This is reflective of what we would expect to see, we particularly targeted people with mental health problems in our marketing. The reasoning for this was it is well documented that a large percentage of people receiving incapacity benefits are people with health/mental health problems.

Does your analysis of the information show different outcomes for different groups (higher or lower uptake/failure to access/receive a poorer or inferior service)? If yes, indicate which groups and which aspects of the policy or function contribute to inequality?

The majority of people engaged with this service were white British 51.6%,  according to GLA latest update for 2007, Kingston has a BME representation now of over 20%.  However, only 14.8% of BME community engaged with our service. This could be for many reasons, it could be due to the breakdown of the BME community on welfare benefits in Kingston. This is reflective on the up take of community care services in general from the BME community.  

Are these differences justified (e.g. are there legislative or other constraints)? If they are, explain in what way.

What action needs to be taken as a result of this Equality Impact Assessment to address any detrimental impacts or meet previously unidentified need? Include here any reasonable adjustments for access by disabled people. Include dates by which action will be taken. Attach an action plan if necessary.

• As the project moves into its new funding stream (ESF London Councils) it would be beneficial to collect data on all six strands of equalities and this information to be recorded at the initial meeting with the client.
• Discuss with non RBK organisations within Kingston how they engage with the BME community, particularly JCP who are directly working with a similar client group.

When will you evaluate the impact of action taken? Give review dates.

• September 2009
• March 2010

Assessment completed by:

Andrea Biggs

Kingston Workstart

6 March 2009