Councils  have the power to transform how local parks feel for teenage girls in their community.

Lots of councillors and staff members can be involved in making decisions that will lead to more inclusive parks and public spaces.

In town/parish councils, the clerk, community development teams and members of committees (eg the planning committee) are likely to be most closely involved. But they will often have to work with their local district and/or county council for change to happen. In county, district and borough councils there are likely to be more complex teams, covering parks, children and families, sport and leisure, health and well-being and planning; and in a two or three tier structures, working with councils in the other tiers will also be key to getting change on the ground. 

A good place to start is to understand who within your council structure needs to be part of the process to make a change.  And once identified give them the information they need to understand why change is needed. 

We have produced a Fact Sheet on why change is needed which you can find below.

Council resources are very limited and community engagement is key in making a space that is more inclusive. So finding ways to support a local Friends of Group or other community group committed to Making Space for Girls can be a really good way to make change happen.  For example:

Let people know your council’s commitment: if your council is committed to making parks that are more welcoming to teenage girls, publicise this to your local community groups and let them know who they can contact if they want more information.

Being clear up front about limitations: if there are site specific limitations that would stop certain facilities (eg concerns about anti-social behaviour, ecological impacts or planning or other strategy implications) identify these up front.

Be flexible: if you have a policy document that states that an existing MUGA or pitch must always be replaced by a MUGA or pitch, consider whether that policy is right for that location and that community.

Access to providers: the first question a group may ask is “how much would a space like this cost”: the council can use its connection with equipment manufacturers to help the group get indicative prices.

Access to funding: Charities/community groups can often access funds and grants that a local council cannot; providing support to the charity to help with grant applications. We have come across at least one example where a town council helped a group of interested parents establish a charity to support a playground renovation so that funds could be accessed. Helping the community group to access CIL/section 106 funds can be very effective.  

Supporting local community fundraising: use your Community Newsletters to publicise events; support events in the local parks by helping the group through  the “red tape”; use your experience to help them avoid mistakes; support links to local business forums.

Provide back office support: a community group will be run by volunteers with very few resources. Can you help with back office services like printing, postage, volunteer management?

Often consultation about parks takes place with the park users and special interest groups like skateboarders or the groups that are using the MUGAs. This generally means that the views of teenage girls simply don’t get heard and leads to parks becoming more focussed on their current users and more exclusionary of those who feel that parks “aren’t for them”.

Because if these factors we would recommend an approach to consultation along the following lines:

• Specifically seek out teenage girls: work with schools and community groups that work with girls.
  

• Be cautious about using online surveys, mapping tools etc; experience indicates that this doesn’t get good buy in from teenage girls.
  

• Be clear about what is achievable: is there a specific site? What is the budget? What is the time table? Are there site specific restrictions? 
  

• Recognise the value of their time: the community will get a benefit from creating more inclusive parks- but depending on the time scales involved, individual girls may not; reward workshop participants for their time eg by using vouchers.
  

• Work with existing friendship groups if possible - conversations flow better.
  

• Don’t expect girls to be able to come to a workshop and simply tell you what they want: the chances are they have never seen a park that has been designed with their needs in mind;  they can’t conjure ideas out of thin air. Provide lots of ideas.
  

• Take time to understand what how they related to parks when younger- chances are there will be positive memories and these can be built on.
  

• Explore how they experience parks currently: what stops them using parks now; what might help change things?
  

• Make it fun-  visit the park; get creative with photos to capture the good and the bad; use big print maps, collaging and model making as part of imagining what a good public space could be.
  

• Make space for the girls to express their views without boys being present; this doesn’t mean excluding boys from the overall discussion. But it means recognising that the research is clear: the behaviour of (some) boys is likely to be a significant barrier to the enjoyment of parks and this can be easier to articulate if boys aren’t in the room.
  

• Be clear about what is going to happen next. A workshop that ends with the adults collecting up lots of bits of paper and then heading for the exits never to be heard of again is demotivating.
  

If you want to know more about our ethos of consultation please contact us on [insert contact link].

A good starting point is to identify if there are policy, planning or other documents which create barriers to more inclusive parks. Many play and park strategies perpetuate the idea that the “right” play provision for teenagers comprises skateparks, MUGAs and bike tracks; and reinforce the proposition that spaces dominated by  a minority of boys and young men must be protected.

For example in one council’s play strategy for 2021 to 2032 states that the council’s aspiration is to:

“Provide activity zones for young adults of 12+ years in all the major settlements (e.g. MUGA, skatepark, BMX track etc.) “

Using this sort of language in the document creates inevitable (if unintentional) bias in favour of provisions that will be dominated by boys and young men ie  MUGAs skateparks and BMX. 

Similarly another councils sports facility strategy states: 

“Any future developments in the borough that result in the removal of a MUGA of Ball Court should be required to replace provisions in locations that don’t have a negative impact on participation rates in the effective area.” 

‍MUGAs are dominated by boys and young men. To quote from one of the few pieces of research into the use of MUGAs they are

‘places for young men to engage in active and exuberant forms of play’. 

Sports strategies like this can create an unintentional barrier to more inclusive spaces. They can create the risk that by attaching “protected status” to spaces that are dominated by boys and young men there is little or no space or money for the needs of teenage girls and young women. 

Local Plans, Neighbourhood Plans and supplementary Planning Documents all have the potential to create an environment that encourages developers and communities to think about parks and public spaces more creatively.

A good starting point is ensuring these documents recognise the role that gender plays in how people can access space; and that teen play spaces do not currently serve all genders equally.

For many developers, including MUGAs, pitches, skatepark and BMX tracks as part of a masterplan is a safe option. Everyone has bought into the narrative that that this is the right provision for teenagers, and the rules are clear. Developers and councils can point to the Fields in Trust Beyond the 6 Acre Standard and say “box ticked”.  

As things stand, trying to create public spaces that are more welcoming to girls can seem risky. What if the planners have never even considered that skate parks,MUGAs etc are dominated by boys? What if the council just points to the Fields in Trust guidance and says “It says here you need to give us a skatepark or a MUGA”?

Local Plans,Neighbourhood Plans and supplementary Planning Documents need to be explicit that the council wants a range of outdoor facilities, to meet the needs of all teenagers, not just a minority of teenage boys; and that MUGAs skateparks andBMX tracks are not the only options. By doing this, councils can help to de-risk more creative and inclusive proposals.

‍

The PublicSector Equality Duty is a legal obligation that councils must comply with when exercising public functions, whether that is taking decisions, setting policies or providing services.  It applies to all councils from the smallest parish council to a large metropolitan district council. It applies regardless of the source of funding; for example the fact that money for a skate park may come from grants and community fundraising does not absolve the council from the need to comply with the PSED.

The PSED protects people by recognising that there are certain personal characteristics which can lead to discrimination or disadvantage within society.  These are referred to as the “protected characteristics” and include sex (referring to male/female/man/woman/boy/girl).

Where a council’s current facilities for teenagers (skate parks, fenced pitches, BMX tracks) are dominated by boys and/or there is low participation in the park by teenage  girls, girls are disadvantaged.  

As a result, the PSED requires councils to consider proactively the need to reduce this disadvantage and encourage greater participation.

The PSED requires this consideration to be done before the relevant decision is taken. It is not a box ticking done after the event.

Together with the law firm Weightmans we have produced a Q&A document about how the Equality Act and PSED apply to parks and public spaces which can be found below.

We also have some blogs which give further information here and here.

When we talk to play equipment suppliers, a common theme is their perception that tenders can often be quite restrictive. Suppliers tell us that they want to create more inclusive spaces. But often they are asked to respond to a tender that asks them to provide, for example, a MUGA with full external fencing of a particular height, entrances of a particular type, goal posts and basketball hoops as specified etc. The suppliers argue that the tender process restricts their scope to propose a more inclusive space.

This suggests that councils may want to look at their tender process: consider whether the facilities being sought are likely to benefit more boys than girls and what outcomes the council is seeking in terms of gender equality.

Councils may also want to consider asking suppliers to provide examples of work they have done that are more inclusive.  

And it is reasonable for councils to be demanding and ask to look beyond words. It is easy for suppliers to include a standard paragraph along the following lines:

“Our facilities attract users from every demographic: Boys, Girls, Men and Women, fully-able users through to those less able, including wheel chair users who are often found enjoying the facilities and interacting together in a positive manner.”

But  sometime this sort of generalised statement isn’t backed up with concrete data or examples. And we think that councils are entitled not to simply take statements like this at face value. Ask suppliers to show some data that supports their assertion that they create inclusive spaces. Challenge suppliers to show how they accommodate the needs of girls and other marginalised genders in their work. Ask them how they will show that they have delivered on an inclusive space.

‍

Gender sensitive budgeting is a process that, among other things, examines how national or local government spending benefits sexes differently; and then looks at how that spending allocation could be changed contribute to gender equality.

It is not about making sure that the same amount of money gets spent on boys and girls.  It is about adopting a process that can disclose how apparently neutral spending may exacerbate existing inequalities. In the case of parks, it is about identifying how spending on teen provision may fail to address the different needs and priorities of girls and boys.

To take a very simply example: Skateboard GBs data indicated that 85% of skateboarders are male, 15% female.  

If a council proposes to spend £300,000 on a skatepark, a reasonable gender sensitive budget assumption would be that  £45,000 of this spend would benefit girls and women; and £255,000 would benefit boys and men. Asa result the gendered nature of the benefit of the spend becomes clear in financial terms.

As noted above, gender sensitive budgeting is not about spending the same amount of men/boys and women/girls. But this sort of analysis can be very helpful in informing the discussions about what funds ought to be allocated to support facilities more attuned to the needs/wants of women and girls.

‍

At the moment, there is very little data on how teenage facilities are used, but what there is often challenges prevailing assumptions and provision.  The better the data that is available, the easier it will be to remove the barriers to creating more inclusive spaces.

Collecting data allows organisations to better understand the current situation- what is the gender breakdown of users of the facilities?  Once a council knows what the baseline is, it can measure which interventions work and which don’t to encourage a better gender mix of use.

For example, we know that MUGAs are used more by boys and young men. But the proportion matters. If the facility is being used 90% by boys and 10% by girls, then an intervention that shifts the dial to 25% girls and 75% boys has made a significant impact. But if the pre intervention position was 30% girls and 70 %boys, the intervention doesn’t look so effective.

‍