NSW KEEP WATCH @ PUBLIC POOLS PROGRAM EVALUATION PHASE 2 - Home - Royal Life … · · 2014-04-08the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program to public pools ... that allowed the same

1

A report into the findings of the Phase 2 survey to public pools in New South Wales as part of a state-wide roll out of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program.

NSW KEEP WATCH @ PUBLIC POOLS PROGRAM EVALUATION PHASE 2

www.royallifesaving.com.au

3

© 2014 Royal Life Saving Society – New South Wales

This publication is copyright. Except as expressly provided in the Copyright Act 1968 and the Copyright Amendment Act 2006, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted by any means (including electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without prior permission from Royal Life Saving Society – New South Wales.

For any enquiries concerning reproduction, contact Royal Life Saving Society - New South Wales on: Phone: (02) 9634 3700; E-mail: [email protected]

Every attempt has been made to trace and acknowledge copyright, but in some cases this may not have been possible. Royal Life Saving Society - New South Wales apologises for any accidental infringements and would welcome any information to redress the situation.

Printed copies of this document are available upon request. Please contact the Royal Life Saving Society - New South Wales:PO Box 8307Baulkham Hills BC NSW 2153Phone: (02) 9634 3700E-mail: [email protected]

Royal Life Saving Society – New South Wales acknowledges the key contributors to this report: Amy Peden and Milena Mijas and would also like to acknowledge the support of the New South Wales Government and the Royal Life Saving Society – Australia.

Funding of this project was provided by the New South Wales Government.

ABOUT ROYAL LIFE SAVING


Royal Life Saving is focused on reducing drowning and promoting healthy, active and skilled communities through innovative, reliable, evidence based advocacy; strong and effective partnerships, quality programs, products and services; underpinned by a cohesive and sustainable national organisation.

Royal Life Saving is a public benevolent institution (PBI) dedicated to reducing drowning and turning everyday people into everyday community lifesavers.

We achieve this through:• Advocacy• Education• Training• Health Promotion• Aquatic Risk Management• Community Development• Research• Sport, Leadership and Participation• International Networks

We are guided by the values of: Safety, Quality, Integrity and the Humanitarian tradition and have been serving the Australian community for over 119 years.

4 5

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Age and Sex of Respondents (n=86) ...........................................................................................................................10

Figure 2: Facility by region of NSW Phase 1 and Phase 2 ..........................................................................................................10

Figure 3: Facility by Remoteness Classification Phase 1 and Phase 2 ........................................................................................10

Figure 4: Average hours of facility operation per week (N=87)................................................................................................10

Figure 5: Annual visitation to facility during 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years .................................11

Figure 6: Total number of minor incidents that occurred at the facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years .........................................................................................................................................11

Figure 7: Rate of minor incidents per 100,000 visitations - Phase 1 and Phase 2 .....................................................................12

Figure 8: Total number of major incidents at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years .........12

Figure 9: Rate of major incidents per 100,000 visitations at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years .........................................................................................................................................12

Figure 10: Rating of supervision of children overall at facility – Phase 1 and Phase 2 ............................................................12

Figure 11: Rating of supervision of infants / toddlers aged 0-5 years at facility - Phase 1 and Phase 2 .................................13

Figure 12: Rating of supervision of children aged 6 to 10 years at facility - Phase 1 and Phase 2 .........................................13

Figure 13: Rating of supervision of children aged 11 to 14 years at facility - Phase 1 and Phase 2 .......................................13

Figure 14: Improvement in supervision of children of different age groups over the last 12 months ..................................14

Figure 15: Comfort in talking to parents / guardians about how they supervise their children at the facility – Phase 1 and Phase 2 ............................................................................................................................14

Figure 16: Keep Watch @ Public Pools signage types usefulness rating ...................................................................................15

Figure 17: All other Keep Watch @ Public Pools supporting resources usefulness rating .......................................................15

Figure 18: Commonly requested languages other than English for translation of Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources (n=51) .............................................................................................................................16

Figure 19: Commonly requested Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources to be translated into languages other than English (n=42) ..................................................................................................................................16

Figure 20: Usage of training activities in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual (n=82) .................................16

Figure 21: Usage of Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD (n=82) ..................................................................17

Figure 22: Audience (or potential audience) for Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD ...............................17

Figure 23: Frequency of screening or intended frequency of screening Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD (n=67) .................................................................................................................................................17

Table of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................................................5Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................6Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................................................................7Funding acknowledgement ...........................................................................................................................................................7

Background ....................................................................................................................................................................................8

Aims ................................................................................................................................................................................................8

Methods ..........................................................................................................................................................................................9

Facility selection .............................................................................................................................................................................9Survey development & recruitment ..............................................................................................................................................9Data cleaning & analysis ................................................................................................................................................................9

Results ...........................................................................................................................................................................................10

Demographics of respondents – Sex and age ............................................................................................................................10

Facility by region of New South Wales .......................................................................................................................................10

Facility by remoteness classification ............................................................................................................................................10

Average weekly hours of facility operation ...............................................................................................................................10

Number of annual visits during the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years ...............................................11

Total number of minor incidents that occurred at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years .....11

Rate of minor incidents per 100,000 visitations .........................................................................................................................12

Total number of major incidents that occurred at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years .....12

Rate of major incidents per 100,000 visitations at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years .....12

How would you rate supervision of children overall at the facility? ........................................................................................12

Rating of supervision of infants / toddlers aged 0-5 years at facility .......................................................................................13

Rating of supervision of children aged 6 to 10 years at facility ................................................................................................13

Rating of supervision of children aged 11 to 14 years at facility ..............................................................................................13

Respondent perceived improvement in supervision over the last 12 months .........................................................................14

Comfort in talking to parents / guardians about how they supervise their children at facility .............................................14

Usefulness of Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources received in the last 12 months ...............................................................15

Keep Watch @ Public Pools signage types ..................................................................................................................................15

All other Keep Watch @ Public Pools supporting resources ......................................................................................................15

Translation of Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources .................................................................................................................16

Usage of training activities in Keep Watch @ Public Pools information manual .....................................................................16

Usage of Keep Watch @ Public Pools lifeguard induction DVD to facility staff ......................................................................17

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................................................18

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................20

Appendix 1: Evaluation Phase 2 Survey ......................................................................................................................................22

Table of Contents

NSW KEEP WATCH @ PUBLIC POOLS PROGRAM EVALUATION PHASE 2

76

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Phase 2 survey also gathered additional information on newly developed resources such as the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual and the Lifeguard Induction DVD. Just 29% of those who received the Information Manual had made use of the training activities within the Manual, with a further 26% either having not used them or were not aware of them. As a new resource this is somewhat understandable, however Royal Life Saving should work to ensure that facility staff are aware of the existence of new resources and training activities and that both are used regularly in the professional development of facility staff as well as lifeguards.

One third of facilities who responded to Phase 2 had received and played the Lifeguard Induction DVD, however a further two thirds had either not received it or had received it and not played it prior to completing the survey. It is important to ensure that all facilities have received the DVD and are using it regularly to induct their staff into the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program.

Whilst the primary audience for the DVD was lifeguards, it was pleasing to note that respondents had also played or intended to play the DVD to other facility staff including teachers of swimming and water safety, office and administrative staff, receptionists and facility management.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Royal Life Saving Society – Australia has been promoting the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program to public pools in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland and Tasmania for a number of years. The program aims to inform parents and guardians of children of the importance of adult supervision at public swimming pools, rather than relying on lifeguards and aquatic facility staff to keep their children safe.

As part of a NSW Government Black Spots funded initiative in New South Wales, all public pools in the State were invited to join the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program and/or receive resources free of charge if their facility was already participating in the program. These facilities were surveyed as part of the first phase of a research project to determine the understanding by industry and facility patrons of supervision requirements for children of different ages at public swimming pools.

The Phase 1 survey was an online survey sent to all public pools in New South Wales. In total 232 of the 367 facilities responded to the survey (response rate 63%). The key findings of Phase 1 included that the concepts of what constitutes good supervision are well understood by respondents however further work needed to be done in explaining the concept of the need for preparedness in good supervision of children at aquatic facilities. The Phase 1 survey also highlighted the need for follow up engagement with facilities operating in areas deemed Remote and Very Remote as their experiences and needs are likely to be very different to those facilities in Major Cities.

The responses to Phase 1 constituted a baseline of data that allowed the same questions to be asked in the Phase 2 survey to evaluate changes against the baseline in the intervening 12 month period between phases.

After a period of 7 months – a second survey (Phase 2) was emailed to all 232 respondents who participated in Phase 1. In total, 87 facilities in New South Wales responded to the Phase 2 survey, representing a response rate of 37.5%. The majority of respondents were males (71%), most commonly aged between 24 and 44 years of age. Almost half (47%) of the respondents to Phase 2 were from facilities located in the Sydney region. With respect to response rates to Phase 2 within their region, the Hunter region recorded the highest response rate at 65%.

Over half (56%) of all facilities who responded to Phase 2 were from facilities in areas deemed to be Major Cities. The poorest response rate occurred among facilities in areas deemed to be Very Remote, an area that Phase 1 also identified as needing a further focus.

There appears to have been a shift downward in the rates of minor incidents with a 31% reduction in the number of facilities who experienced a minor incident rate of between 50.00 and 99.99 per 100,000 visitations and a corresponding 32% increase in the number of facilities who recorded a rate of minor incidents between 10.00 and 49.99 per 100,000 visitations.

With respect to the rate of major incidents there was a slight (8%) increase in the number of facilities who experienced a major incident rate of between 0.01 and 4.99 per 100,000 visitations. Pleasingly there was a 75% decrease in the number of facilities who experienced a rate of major incidents between 5.00 and 9.99. Higher rates of major incidents per 100,000 visitations remained largely unchanged between Phases 1 and 2.

There was a 57% increase in the number of facilities who rated supervision of children overall at their facility as excellent. Unfortunately when respondent’s perceptions of supervision of children of different age groups at their facilities were assessed, Phase 2 highlighted similar issues to Phase 1; being, as children aged, supervision by parents or guardians worsened. Just 20% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that supervision of children aged 11 to 14 years had improved in the last 12 months.

Royal Life Saving will continue to work with facilities implementing the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program to strengthen skills in enforcing the program’s rules for this age group and will continue to work to enhance community understanding of the need for supervision of children of all ages at public swimming pools.

The Phase 2 survey identified a 23% decrease in the number of respondents who stated they ‘always’ felt comfortable when talking to parents and carers about supervision at their facility. Further research needs to be conducted to determine why there has been a decrease in the period between the two surveys, whether it be a change in staff, a different person responding to the survey with different opinions on this issue or the period of the year during which the survey was administered.

The Phase 2 survey also asked respondents to identify the top three languages other than English that would be most relevant to the patrons at their facility as well as the top three resources they would benefit from having translated into these languages. The top three languages recommended for use when translating resources were Traditional Chinese, Arabic and Mandarin. Resources suggested for translation were the Lifeguard Information Cards (Card A), the Pool Rules / Entry Rules signage and additional supporting resources such as A-frames, Information Brochures and A3 signage.

• Conduct regular follow up research with facilities participating in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program. Regular follow up research to:

- Collect data on visitation rates and numbers of minor and major incidents in subsequent years to measure longer term impact of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program.

- Continue conducting surveys or gathering feedback through other means from facilities to ensure currency of information on the program and identify issues of need and where improvements can be made.

- Be conducted at different periods of the year, as data collected during the summer months may be influencing results.

- Gather further data on the issue of a reduction in comfort levels in talking to parents and guardians about supervision between Phases 1 and 2. Consideration should be given to staff turnover, variety of respondents and their opinions and a need for further training specifically focusing on the issue.

• Work towards securing funding for translation of key resources such as the Traditional Chinese, Arabic and Mandarin in languages of highest need at facilities across New South Wales such as Lifeguard Information Cards (Card A), Pool Rules / Entry Rules Signage and other supporting signage.

• Give consideration to establishing training resources for lifeguards that focus on skills in communicating with people from diverse cultural backgrounds.

• Ensure that every public pool participating in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program is aware of both the Lifeguard Induction DVD and the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual and are regularly using both resources to induct and refresh staff in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program and its requirements.

• Royal Life Saving to give consideration to developing additional training resources to improve supervision in the older age groups – specifically the 11 to 14 years age group. Consideration should also be given to putting together messages and resources that highlight the importance of supervising children of slightly older ages and why it is still an important safety concern at public swimming pools.

• Gather information periodically through the Aquatic Facility Safety Assessments (AFSAs) on usage of Keep Watch @ Public Pools supporting resources, such as signage and brochures as well as facility staff induction and use of training resources such as the Lifeguard Induction DVD and the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual.

Funding acknowledgement Royal Life Saving Society – New South Wales would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the New South Wales Government – through the Water Safety Black Spots Fund – for their valuable support.

98

BACKGROUND AIMS METHODS

Facility selection All 232 public swimming pools in New South Wales who completed the Phase 1 survey were given the opportunity to participate in the Phase 2 survey. An electronic database of facilities in New South Wales, maintained by Royal Life Saving Society – New South Wales was used to source contact details for the facilities which were then sent individual links to complete the survey through Survey Monkey, an online survey development and delivery tool.

Survey development & recruitment The content for the survey was developed by researchers from Royal Life Saving Society – Australia and Royal Life Saving Society – New South Wales. The online survey was piloted in-house before being made publicly available through Survey Monkey. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix 1 of this report.

A number of questions from the Phase 1 survey were repeated in order to measure differences against the baseline generated by the results of the first survey.

The survey was remained open for a period of 3 months from November 2013 to February 2014.

Data cleaning & analysisDe-identified survey data was downloaded from Survey Monkey and cleaned and analysed in SPSS. Some variables were coded for ease of analysis. There were no duplicate surveys to be removed from the data.

Remoteness classification of facility was determined using the postcode of the facility and ascertaining that postcode’s Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC). Region of facility was determined using the segmentation of the facilities throughout NSW as used by Royal Life Saving Society – NSW.

Where respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources their facility had received in the last 12 months (question 17), each resource was rated on a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being Extremely Useful, 3 being Neither and 5 being Not at all Useful. Respondents could also note if they had not received a particular resource. The result of this question was calculated as a percentage to determine the resources that were rated as most and least useful by respondents. This percentage was calculated by those who rated the resources as extremely useful over the total of respondents who had received and ranked that resource.

Where respondents were asked to list their top three languages and top three Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources to be translated (questions 18 and 19), an assumption on behalf of the researcher was made that these were listed in a ranked order of preference for their particular facility.

Where questions from the Phase 1 survey were repeated in Phase 2, a separate dataset was created where only those pools that completed both Phase 1 and Phase 2 were analysed and comparisons made to determine any changes over time at the facilities in the 12 months since the initial roll out of the program and supporting resources.

Where the rate of minor and major incidents per 100,000 visitations were calculated and coded into categories, only those facilities who had participated in both Phase 1 and 2 surveys and who had provided the data necessary to calculate a rate per 100,000 visitations for both major and minor incidents were included in the analysis.

Minor and Major incidents were defined as follows:

Minor Incident – A minor incident is a non-life threatening situation that requires assistance by a lifeguard or qualified staff member such as the provision of basic first aid

Major Incident – A major incident is a life-threatening situation that requires assistance by lifeguards / qualified staff member/s such as those incidents requiring hospitalisation or attendance by an emergency service.

Royal Life Saving has been promoting the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program to public pools in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland and Tasmania for a number of years. The program aims to inform parents and carers of children of the importance of adult supervision at public swimming pools rather than relying on lifeguards and aquatic facility staff to keep their children safe.

Pools who agree to participate in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program are asked to ensure facility staff undertake an induction to understand the program, its key messages and associated supporting resources. Participating pools are required to sign a policy agreeing to uphold the minimum standards of the program.

To date no comprehensive evaluation of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program has been conducted. An online survey of participating Keep Watch @ Public Pools aquatic facilities has been conducted sourcing general program feedback, however the success of this survey was limited by poor quality databases, incorrect contact details for facilities and a low response rate. Feedback on the program is also received on an ad-hoc basis through Royal Life Saving State and Territory Member Organisations.

The first phase of this evaluation, an online survey of all public pools in New South Wales opting to participate in the state-wide roll out of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program, formed the baseline measure of understanding of both staff and patrons at the particular facility about Keep Watch @ Public Pools and the importance of child supervision.

The first phase gathered survey responses from 232 aquatic facilities across New South Wales. Of note, the first phase identified concerns around the supervision of 11 to 14 year olds in aquatic facilities and a need to improve facility education on supervision rules for this upper age group as well.

This report represents the findings of the second and final phase of this Evaluation and will compare results from Phase 2 against baselines developed in Phase 1. In particular, Phase 2 will attempt to evaluate the effect of the roll out of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program on safety at aquatic facilities.

This Evaluation aims to determine the effectiveness of all aspects of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program during the NSW based roll out. Data collected from pools that are part of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program will aim to quantify the number of resources distributed, attitudes of facility staff to the program, effectiveness of training resources and the effect of the program on supervision behaviours and attitudes of parents with young children at public pools.

This second phase of the Evaluation of the NSW based roll out of Keep Watch @ Public Pools program aimed to gather data and measure against the baselines established in the Phase 1 survey on topics such as:

• Demographic information on the respondent’s age group and sex

• Operational information on the facility, such as location, hours of operation, and visitation rates

• The number of minor and major incidents that occur at the facility

• The rate of minor and major incidents per 100,000 visitations that occur at the facility

• Rating of supervision generally and of children of different age groups at the facility

• Respondent perception as to whether there had been an improvement in supervision of children from different age groups over the last 12 months at their facility

• Receipt and rating of Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources received in the 2012/13 roll out

• Preference for languages and resources to be translated into languages other than English

• Receipt and usage of the newly developed Keep Watch @ Public Pools Staff Induction materials such as the Information Manual and the Lifeguard Induction DVD

1110

RESULTS

In total, 87 facilities in New South Wales responded to the Phase 2 survey, With 232 facilities responding to the Phase 1 survey, this represents a response rate of 37.5% to the Phase 2 survey.

Demographics of respondents – Sex and age The majority of those that responded to the survey were males (71%), most commonly aged between 25 and 44 years. There was one respondent where age group was not provided. Figure 1: Age and Sex of Respondents (n=86)

Number of annual visits during the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial yearsOnly those facilities who had responded to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys results were used to analyse responses to this question. Respondents were asked to note down their annual facility visitation numbers. The number of annual visitations was then coded into one of eight categories for ease of analysis.

Facilities that experienced annual visits between 100,000 and 499,999 in the 2012-13 financial year were the category with the highest number of responses to the survey (32 facilities).

When compared to the responses received to Phase 1, the number of facilities experiencing annual visitations between 50,000 and 999,999 increased compared to the responses given in the Phase 1 survey. There was a slight drop in the number of facilities who experienced between 10,000 and 49,999 visits a year between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys. Figure 5: Annual visitation to facility during 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years

Total number of minor incidents that occurred at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial yearsFacilities were asked to document the total number of minor incidents experienced at their facility during the 2012-13 financial year (Phase 2). Just over half (58%) of all respondents experienced between 1 and 49 minor incidents across the 2012-13 financial year.

The results for Phase 2 were then compared to the results from the 2011-12 financial year (Phase 1). There was a reduction in the number of facilities that experienced between 100 to 499 minor incidents and 10 to 49. The number of pools who experienced minor incidents between 500 to 999 and 50 and 99 remained the same when Phase 1 results were compared to Phase 2. Figure 6: Total number of minor incidents that occurred at the facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years

Facility by remoteness classification Over half (56%) of all facilities who responded to Phase 2 were from facilities located in areas classified as Major Cities. A further 23% were from facilities located in Inner Regional areas. The remaining 21% were from Outer Regional and remote areas. Just one facility responded from an area deemed to be Very Remote. When Phase 2 responses by remoteness classification of facility are compared to responses to Phase 1, the poorest response rate occurred in facilities in Very Remote areas (17% response rate) followed by facilities in Outer Regional areas (19% response rate). The Major Cities remoteness classification recorded the highest response rate with 56% of facilities surveyed in Phase 1, completing a survey in Phase 2. Figure 3: Facility by Remoteness Classification Phase 1 and Phase 2

Facility by region of New South WalesAlmost half (47%) of the respondents to Phase 2 were from facilities located in the Sydney region. The Hunter region recorded the second highest number of responses accounting for 13% of all responses received. When Phase 2 responses by the region of NSW are compared to the responses received in Phase 1, the response rate is highest in the Hunter region (65% response rate), followed by the Sydney region (57% response rate), the Illawarra region (40% response rate). The Riverina region had the lowest response rate (18%). Figure 2: Facility by region of NSW Phase 1 and Phase 2

Average weekly hours of facility operation Over half (54%) of all facilities who responded to the Phase 2 survey were in operation from 50-99 hours on average per week. A further 30% operated for an average of 100 hours or more per week. Figure 4: Average hours of facility operation per week (N=87)

3

1815

17

9

69

7

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

18-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years

Male Female

88

55

72

106

49

2014

3 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Major Ci�es Inner Regional Outer Regional Remote Very Remote

Phase 1 (n=232) Phase 2 (n=87)

1

7

16

6

26

6

1

11

2

7

1412

32

710

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0-999 1,000 -9,999

10,000 -49,999

50,000 -99,999

100,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1 millionand over

Unknown


6 5

27

9

19

13

14

25

9

15

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

None 1 to 9 10 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 499 500 to 999


0-49 hours 16%

50-99 hours 54%

100+ hours 30%

17

25

3540

72

42

11 10 107

41

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Hunter Illawarra Northern Riverina Sydney Western


1312

Total number of major incidents that occurred at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial yearsRespondents to the survey were asked to document the total number of major incidents that had occurred at their facility in the 2012-13 financial year. Almost half (46%) had experienced no major incidents in the 2012-13 financial year.

The results for the 2012-13 financial year were then compared to the same facility’s results for the previous financial year (2011-12). Whilst there appeared to be an increase in the number of facilities experiencing between 1 to 3 major incidents in the 2012-13 year compared to the 2011-12 year, whilst there was a decrease in the number of facilities who experienced 10 or more major incidents in the 2012-13 financial year, compared to the previous financial year. Figure 8: Total number of major incidents at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years

Rate of major incidents per 100,000 visitations at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years Only those facilities that had provided visitation numbers and major incident numbers and had completed both Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys were included for analysis. There was a slight increase in the number of facilities that experienced a major incident rate per 100,000 visitations of between 0.01 and 4.99 in Phase 2 when compared to Phase 1. There was a slight decrease in the number of facilities who experienced a major incident rate per 100,000 visitations of between 5.00 and 9.99 in Phase 2 when compared to the results of Phase 1. Figure 9: Rate of major incidents per 100,000 visitations at facility in the 2011-12 (Phase 1) and 2012-13 (Phase 2) financial years

How would you rate supervision of children overall at the facility? Only those facilities that completed both Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys were compared for the analysis of this question. Over two-thirds (68%) of all respondents to the Phase 2 survey rated supervision of children overall at their facility as being Very Good or Excellent.

When compared to the results of Phase 1, there was a 57% increase in the number of facilities who rated supervision of children at their facility overall as Excellent. There was a slight decrease in the number of facilities who rated supervision of children overall as Very Good or Good. Figure 10: Rating of supervision of children overall at facility – Phase 1 and Phase 2

Rating of supervision of infants / toddlers aged 0-5 years at facilityJust over half (57%) of all respondents to the Phase 2 survey rated supervision of infants and toddlers aged zero to five years as being Very Good or Good at their facility. When the results of the facilities who responded to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 were compared there were decreases between Phase 1 and 2 of those facilities who rated supervision of children aged 0 to 5 as Excellent and Very Good.

There were increases between Phase 1 and Phase 2 in the number of facilities who rated supervision of children aged 0 to 5 as being Good or Fair. Figure 11: Rating of supervision of infants / toddlers aged 0-5 years at facility - Phase 1 and Phase 2

Rating of supervision of children aged 6 to 10 years at facilityAlmost all respondents (82%) to Phase 2 rated supervision by parents / guardians of children aged 6 to 10 at their facility as Good or Fair. Just 2% of respondents to Phase 2 rated supervision of children in this age group by parents and carers at their facility as Excellent.

When the results of the facilities who responded to both Phase 1 and 2 were compared, there were increases in the number of facilities who rated the supervision of children in this age group as poor and fair. There were decreases in the number of facilities who rated supervision of children in this age group as excellent of Very Good. Figure 12: Rating of supervision of children aged 6 to 10 years at facility - Phase 1 and Phase 2

Rating of supervision of children aged 11 to 14 years at facilityOver two thirds (69%) of all respondents to Phase 2 rated supervision by parents / guardians of children aged 11 to 14 years at their facility as Good or Fair. Just 1% of respondents rated supervision of children in this age group at their facility as Excellent.

When the results of the facilities who responded to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 were compared, there was a decrease in the number of facilities who rated supervision of children in this age group as Excellent of Very Good and increases in the number of facilities who rated supervision of children in this age group as Fair or Poor. The number of respondents who felt that supervision of this age group was Good, was the same in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Figure 13: Rating of supervision of children aged 11 to 14 years at facility - Phase 1 and Phase 2

Rate of minor incidents per 100,000 visitationsOnly those facilities that had provided visitation numbers and minor incident numbers and had completed both Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys were included for analysis. There was an increase in the number of facilities who experience a rate of minor incidents in the 10.00 to 49.99 category per 100,000 visitations between Phase 1 and 2. There was a decrease in the number of facilities who experienced a rate of minor incidents in the 50.00 to 99.99 and 100.00 and 499.99 per 100,000 visitations between Phase 1 and 2. Figure 7: Rate of minor incidents per 100,000 visitations - Phase 1 and Phase 2

3 2

19

1012

411

7

25

79

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Zero 0.01 - 9.99 10.00 -49.99

50.00 -99.99

100.00 -499.99

500.00 -999.99

1000.00 -4999.99


43

21

8 7

1

37

30

8

2 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

None 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 10 or more Unknown


14

37

26

6

22

35

21

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor


25 26

4

1 1

24

28

1 2 1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Zero 0.01 - 4.99 5.00 - 9.99 10.00 - 24.99 25.00 - 49.99 50.00 - 99.99


7

24

28

16

53

10

35

29

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



7

24

28

16

53

10

35

29

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



5

20

2725

324

29

36

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



1514

USEFULNESS OF KEEP WATCH @ PUBLIC POOLS RESOURCES RECEIVED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS

Respondent perceived improvement in supervision over the last 12 months Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement that parental or guardian supervision of children across the three age groups of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program had improved in the last 12 months.

Sixty two percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that supervision of infants and toddlers aged 0-4 had improved in the last 12 months. In contrast, 40% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that supervision of children aged 6 to 10 had improved in the last 12 months and just 20% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that supervision of children 11 to 14 had improved in the last 12 months. Figure 14: Improvement in supervision of children of different age groups over the last 12 months

Comfort in talking to parents / guardians about how they supervise their children at facilityRespondents were asked to evaluate / assess their comfort levels when talking to parents / guardians about how they supervise their children at their facility. If the respondent completing the survey was not the one on pool deck, they were asked to assess how comfortable they felt the facility’s lifeguards would be in talking to parents and carers about supervision at the facility.

It was pleasing to note that there was a 62% increase in the number of facilities who reported that they usually felt comfortable in talking to parents and guardians about supervision between Phases 1 and 2. Of some concern, there was a 23% decrease in the number of facilities who reported that they always felt comfortable in talking to parents and guardians about supervision between Phases 1 and 2.

Figure 15: Comfort in talking to parents / guardians about how they supervise their children at the facility – Phase 1 and Phase 2

6

44

23

7

11

33

41

9

17

48

16

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree

0-5 years (n=81) 6-10 years (n=84) 11-14 years (n=85)

11

21

43

8

34 33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Some�mes Usually Always

Phase 1 (n= 75) Phase 2 (n=75)

18 1927

913

95

37

3134

33

19

24

22

17

259

7

9

16

14

12

17

5

1

2

8

3

34

219

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Lap Signage(n=78)

A-Frames (n=62) Pool Rules /Entry Rules

Signage (A0 orA1 size) (n=69)

Car Park Signage(A0 or A1 size)

(n=52)

Toilet Signs(n=55)

Pull Up Banner(n=46)

Tie Up VinylBanner (n=43)

A3 LifeguardsAre Not

Babysi�ers /Rules Signs

(n=69)

1 - Extremely Useful 2 3 - Neutral 4 5 - Not at all Useful

Respondents to the Phase 2 survey were asked to assess the usefulness of a range of Keep Watch @ Public Pools program resources in ensuring good parent / guardian supervision of children at the facility.

All other Keep Watch @ Public Pools supporting resources Respondents were then asked to rank all other supporting Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources. The Lifeguard Information Cards (Card A) and the Wristbands were both ranked as being the most useful of the range of supporting resources with 28% of respondents rating each being Extremely Useful. The third most highly ranked supporting resource was the Information Brochure with 25% of all respondents ranking it as Extremely Useful.

6 7

19 18 1911 9

2635

2333 27

21 22

24

18 18

19

15

2016

35 4

2

7

5

2

1

103

11

1

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 - Extremely Useful 2 3 - Neutral 4 5 - Not at all Useful

Keep Watch @ Public Pools signage typesOver half (54%) of all respondents who had received the A3 signage rated it as extremely useful. The Pool Rules Entry Signage (both A0 and A1 sizes) was ranked as the second most extremely useful resource with 39% of respondents who received the resource ranking it as extremely useful. A-frames and Lap Signage were both ranked as equal third in terms of likelihood to be ranked as an extremely useful resource with 31% of respondents ranking the respective resources as extremely useful.

Figure 17: All other Keep Watch @ Public Pools supporting resources usefulness rating

Figure 16: Keep Watch @ Public Pools signage types usefulness rating

1716

Once every 3 months

9%

Once every 6 months

19%

Only for new staff 24%

Have not played it

10%

Did not receive it

37%

Translation of Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources Respondents to the Phase 2 survey were asked to document the top three languages that would be most useful in their facility to have Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources translated into. These responses were then given a weighted score, the language ranked first received three points, the language ranked second received two points and the language ranked third received a value of 1 point.

The most common language desired for translation in Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources was Traditional Chinese accruing 51 points, followed by Arabic and Mandarin. Other languages mentioned included Assyrian, Samoan, Japanese, Italian, Sudanese, Greek, German, Fijian. Figure 18: Commonly requested languages other than English for translation of Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources (n=51)

The respondents to Phase 2 were also asked to list the top three Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources they would like to see translated. These responses were also given a weighted score, the resource ranked first received three points, the resource ranked second received two points and the resource ranked third received a value of 1 point.

The most popular resource that respondents valued being translated into languages other than English was the Lifeguard Cards, followed by the Pool Rules / Entry signage. Other commonly requested resources for translation were the A-frames, Information Brochures, A3 signage and the toilet signs. Figure 19: Commonly requested Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources to be translated into languages other than English (n=42)

Usage of training activities in Keep Watch @ Public Pools information manualThe Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual was a new resource that was developed in 2012 and provided to all facilities as part of the state-wide roll out of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program. Phase 2 of the survey provided an excellent chance to evaluate this newly developed resource, in particular awareness and usage of training activities within the manual itself.

The training activities were designed as tools for facility managers to use as part of lifeguard induction or in-service training. They can be used as presented in the manual or customised to suit issues specific to the facility.

Respondents to Phase 2 were asked to state if they had used the training activities in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual. Twenty nine percent of respondents had used the training activities but a concerning 46% of respondents had received the Information Manual but had not used or were unaware of the training activities. Figure 20: Usage of training activities in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual (n=82)

Usage of Keep Watch @ Public Pools lifeguard induction DVD to facility staffThe Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD was another new resource developed in 2012 and provided to all facilities as part of the state-wide roll out of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program. Respondents were asked if they had ever played the Induction DVD to their staff. Almost one third (31%) of respondents stated they had played it to their staff with the same number having not played it. What is concerning is 39% of respondents did not received the DVD in the initial roll out. Figure 21: Usage of Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD (n=82)

Of those who had received the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Induction DVD, the main audience for the induction DVD was lifeguards. Although the main target for the DVD is lifeguards, it was pleasing to note that facilities also intended to show the DVD to additional facility staff including teachers of swimming and water safety, office and administrative staff, receptionists and facility management. Figure 22: Audience (or potential audience) for Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD

Of those who did receive the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD, respondents were asked how often they had or would play it at their facility. A pleasing 28% played or intended to play the DVD at least once every 6 months at their facility. Almost one quarter of respondents (24%) intended to use the DVD solely as an induction tool for new staff. It is pleasing that there were only 10% of respondents who had received the DVD but had yet to use it. Figure 23: Frequency of screening or intended frequency of screening Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD (n=67)

51

45

19 18

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Chinese(Tradi�onal)

Arabic Mandarin Korean Vietnamese

39

24

16 16 1613

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

LifeguardCards

Pool Rules /Entry Signs

A-frames Informa�onBrochures

A3 Signage Toilet Signs

38

15 1411 11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lifeguards Teachers ofSwimming andWater Safety

Office /Administra�ve

Staff

Recep�onists Management

Yes 29%

No 28%

Was not aware of them

18%

Did not receive the Manual

24%

Yes 31%

No 31%

Did not receive the DVD

39%

1918

Almost one third (31%) of respondents stated they had played the Induction DVD to their staff with the same number having not played it. What is concerning is 39% of respondents stated they had yet to receive the DVD. As a useful training and induction tool for the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program, the DVD should be used by all facilities as part of staff induction and regular ongoing professional development.

Of those who had screened or would have screened the DVD the primary audience was lifeguards. It was pleasing to note that other respondents also played or would consider playing the DVD to other facility staff including teachers of swimming and water safety, office and administrative staff, receptionists and management. It is important that the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program and its policies, rules and rationales are well understood and implemented and enforced by all staff at the facility for a holistic approach.

It was also pleasing to note that only 10% of those who had received the Lifeguard Induction DVD had not yet played it at the time of responding to the survey. Twenty eight percent of respondents intended to play the DVD at least once every 6 months, with almost one quarter (24%) of respondents intending to use it purely as an induction tool for new staff. Royal Life Saving staff, in their interactions with facilities participating in the program should continue to highlight the benefits of regular training and ensure that all facilities have access to both the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual and the Lifeguard Induction DVD.

There was an increase in the number of respondents to Phase 2 when compared to Phase 1 who usually felt comfortable in talking to parents and guardians about how they supervise their children at the facility. Unfortunately there was a 23% decrease in the number of respondents who stated that they ‘always’ felt comfortable in talking to parents and carers about supervision at their facility. This may be due to staff turnover, a different respondent answering the survey between Phases 1 and 2 or the period during which the survey was administered. Further research should be conducted to determine the reasons behind this reduction and strategies to combat the reduction.

The Phase 2 survey also gathered new information from questions only asked in this Phase regarding usefulness of the resources received in the past 12 months as part of the state-wide roll out of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program. A3 signage was rated as the most useful signage type. The Pool Rules / Entry Signage (both A0 and A1) were ranked as the second most useful.

With respect to the other supporting Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources, the Lifeguard Information Cards (Card A) and the Wristbands were both ranked as being the most useful with 28% of respondents ranking them as Extremely Useful. The third most highly ranked supporting resource was the Information Brochure with 25% of all respondents ranking it as Extremely Useful.

Respondents were also asked about the translation of Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources. Respondents were asked to list their top three languages that would be of most use to their facility as well as the top three resources they would like to see translated into those languages. The most commonly desired languages were Traditional Chinese, Arabic and Mandarin and the resources that were most commonly requested for translation were Lifeguard Information Cards (Card A) and the Pool Rules / Entry Rules signage, and equal third – A-frames, Information Brochures and A3 Signage.

Royal Life Saving should consider means of raising funds to ensure key resources can be communicated into the languages other than English that have registered the greatest need among the respondents to Phase 2.

The Phase 2 survey also collated information on the receipt and use of newly developed training materials such as the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual and the Lifeguard Induction DVD. Twenty nine percent of respondents had used the training activities in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual. Forty six percent of respondents either had not used the training activities or were not aware of them. As a new resource this is somewhat understandable, however Royal Life Saving must work to ensure that these resources are being used regularly by all facilities through Aquatic Facility Safety Assessments (AFSAs) and/or follow up visits with the facilities.

With respect to the rate of major incidents per 100,000 visitations, there was a slight (8%) increase in the number of facilities who experienced a major incident rate of between 0.01 to 4.99 per 100,000 visitations in the 2012-13 financial year. Pleasingly there was a 75% decrease in the number of facilities who experienced a rate of major incidents between 5.00 and 9.99. Higher rates of major incidents per 100,000 visitations remained largely unchanged between Phases 1 and 2.

Respondents were also asked to rate supervision of children overall at the facility, as well as children from each of the three age groups targeted in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program rules. Overall, when results of Phase 1 were compared to Phase 2, there was a 57% increase in the number of facilities who rated supervision of children overall at their facility as Excellent. There was a slight decrease in the number of facilities in Phase 2 who rated general child supervision as Very Good or Good when compared to the results of Phase 1, however this may be that those facilities have transitioned into the Excellent category.

When supervision of children of different age groups was evaluated, similar results to Phase 1 were reported amongst the respondents. Supervision of very young children (ages 0-5 years) was rated as most likely to be the best and then declined as the age groups in question increase, with just 1% of respondents to Phase 2 rating the supervision of children aged 11 to 14 years at their facility as being Excellent.

Unfortunately, ratings for supervision in the Good or Fair categories increased in Phase 2 when compared to Phase 1 across all three age groups. These ratings of supervision were evaluated as being the worst, 69% of respondents rated supervision of children aged 11 to 14 years at their facility as being Fair or Poor.

This mirrors trends send in the Phase 1 survey which showed that supervision by parents and carers and enforcing supervision rules of children aged 11 to 14 are the most difficult of all the age groups for facilities. Royal Life Saving will continue to work with facilities in strengthening skills in enforcing the Keep Watch @ Public Pools rules for this age group.

It was pleasing to note that 62% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that parent / guardian supervision of children aged 0 to 5 years had improved in the previous 12 months. In contrast just 20% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that supervision of children aged 11 to 14 years had improved in the previous 12 months. Royal Life Saving will also consider developing resources or messages to improve community understanding of the importance of supervision of children from all age groups when at public swimming pools.

The overall response rate to this survey (Phase 2) was disappointing at only 37.5% however this was the first time a two phase survey of participating Keep Watch @ Public Pools facilities has been attempted and the responses to both Phase 1 and 2 surveys, although limited by the response rate, do allow differences against the baseline generated in Phase 1 to be measured.

The majority of respondents to the survey were males (71%) most commonly aged between 24 and 44 years (38%). Almost half (47%) of the respondents to Phase 2 were from facilities located in the Sydney region. With respect to Phase 2 responses as a percentage response rate of the responses received to Phase 1 from reach region, the Hunter region recorded the highest response rate at (65%), followed by the Sydney region (57%) and the Illawarra region (40%).

Over half (56%) of all facilities who responded to Phase 2 were from facilities in areas deemed to be Major Cities. The poorest response rate between facilities who responded to Phase 1 and 2 occurred in facilities in Very Remote areas (17% response rate). The largest number of respondents to Phase 2 recorded annual visitations of between 100,000 and 499,999 per year (32 facilities).

When the number of minor incidents that occurred in a financial year was compared between Phases 1 and 2, there was a reduction in the number of facilities who reported between 100 and 499 and 10 and 49 minor incidents. It was pleasing to note an increase in the number of facilities who were reporting only 1 to 9 minor incidents in the 2012-13 financial year, however, overall, there does not appear to be much positive improvement in the reduction of the number of minor incidents as a result of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program state wide roll out.

When rates of minor incidents per 100,000 visitations were examined, there was a 32% increase in the number of facilities who recorded a rate of minor incidents of between 10.00 and 49.99 per 100,000 visitations. However, it was pleasing to note that there was a 31% reduction in the number of facilities who reported a minor incident rate per 100,000 visitations of between 50.00 and 999.99.

The number of major incidents recorded in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years were also compared between the facilities that responded to both surveys. There was a 43% increase in the number of facilities who experienced between 1 and 3 major incidents in the 2012-13 financial year. It does appear that the facilities surveyed have experienced a reduction in the number of major incidents reported, with a 57% decrease in the number of facilities who experienced 10 or more major incidents in the 2012-13 year compared to 2011-12. It is pleasing to note that almost half (46%) of the respondents to Phase 2 experienced no major incidents at their facility in the 2012-13 financial year.

DISCUSSION

2120

• Conduct regular follow up research with facilities participating in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program. Regular follow up research to:

- Collect data on visitation rates and numbers of minor and major incidents in subsequent years to measure longer term impact of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program.

- Continue conducting surveys or gathering feedback through other means from facilities to ensure currency of information on the program and identify issues of need and where improvements can be made.

- Be conducted at different periods of the year, as data collected during the summer months may be influencing results.

- Gather further data on the issue of a reduction in comfort levels in talking to parents and guardians about supervision between Phases 1 and 2. Consideration should be given to staff turnover, variety of respondents and their opinions and a need for further training specifically focusing on the issue.

• Work towards securing funding for translation of key resources such as the Traditional Chinese, Arabic and Mandarin in languages of highest need at facilities across New South Wales such as Lifeguard Information Cards (Card A), Pool Rules / Entry Rules Signage and other supporting signage.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Give consideration to establishing training resources for lifeguards that focus on skills in communicating with people from diverse cultural backgrounds.

• Ensure that every public pool participating in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program is aware of both the Lifeguard Induction DVD and the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual and are regularly using both resources to induct and refresh staff in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program and its requirements.

• Royal Life Saving to give consideration to developing additional training resources to improve supervision in the older age groups – specifically the 11 to 14 years age group. Consideration should also be given to putting together messages and resources that highlight the importance of supervising children of slightly older ages and why it is still an important safety concern at public swimming pools.

• Gather information periodically through the Aquatic Facility Safety Assessments (AFSAs) on usage of Keep Watch @ Public Pools supporting resources, such as signage and brochures as well as facility staff induction and use of training resources such as the Lifeguard Induction DVD and the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual.

2322

APPENDIX 1: EVALUATION PHASE 2 SURVEY

Page 1

Keep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow Up

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. This survey forms the second and final part of a pre and post evaluation of the implementation of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program to facilities in New South Wales. Royal Life Saving would appreciate if you could please fill in this quick survey only 23 short questions which should take you approximately 5 minutes. All participants that submit the completed survey will have the opportunity to enter the draw to win a Keep Watch @ Public Pools prize pack valued at over $400. If you would like to be entered into the draw, please leave your contact details in the final question. The pack includes the following resources: 2 x Pool Rules / Entry Signs (A1 size) 2 x Lap Signage 1,000 x Keep Watch @ Public Pools Wristbands 250 x Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Brochures 250 x Lifeguard Info Cards 250 x Swim School Info Cards 10 x A3 Lifeguards Are Not Babysitters / Rules Posters 2 x Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manuals 1 x Keep Watch Lifeguard Induction DVD If you are responding for more than one facility please use the generic link below to complete one survey for each facility. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NSWFollowUp The information collected in this survey will not identify individuals or individual aquatic facilities. Information gathered in this survey will be used for research purposes only. Generalised findings will be included in an Evaluation Report. This survey will close on January 31, 2014. Please complete the survey before this time to have your responses considered. We thank you in advance for providing your valuable feedback to this evaluation of the Keep Watch @ Public Pools NSW based implementation. If you have any questions about this survey please email [email protected]

1. What is the name of your facility?

2. What is the postcode of your facility?

3. What is your gender?

*55

66

Postcode of facility

Male

nmlkj

Female

nmlkj

Page 2

Keep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow Up4. What is your age group?

5. On an average week, for how many hours does the Centre operate?

6. What was the total number of visits to your Centre during the 2012/13 financial year (1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013)?

7. What was the total number of minor incidents that occurred at your facility for the 2012/13 financial year? A minor incident is a nonlifethreatening situation that requires assistance by a lifeguard or qualified staff member such as the provision of basic first aid.

8. What was the total number of major incidents that occurred at your facility for the 2012/13 financial year? A major incident is a lifethreatening situation that requires assistance by lifeguard/s or qualified staff member/s such as those incidents requiring hospitalisation or attendance by an emergency service.

9. How would you rate supervision of children overall at your facility?

Young than 18

nmlkj

18 to 24

nmlkj

25 to 34

nmlkj

35 to 44

nmlkj

45 to 54

nmlkj

55 to 64

nmlkj

65 years or over

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Keep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow Up Keep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow Up

2524


Page 3


10. How would you rate supervision by parents / guardians of infants / toddlers aged 05 years in this facility?

11. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

12. How would you rate supervision by parents / guardians of children aged 610 years?


Strongly Agree Agree Neither DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Parent / guardian supervision of infants / toddlers aged 05 years has improved in the last 12 months?

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj


Parent / guardian supervision of children aged 610 years has improved in the last 12 months?


Poor

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Page 4

Keep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow Up14. How would you rate supervision by parents / guardians of children aged 1114 years?



Parent / guardian supervision of children aged 1114 years has improved in the last 12 months?


Poor

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

2726


Page 5


16. Do you feel comfortable talking to parents / guardians about how they supervise their children at your facility? (If you are not the one on pool deck, do you feel your lifeguards are comfortable talking to parents / guardians about how they supervise their children at your facility?)

17. How would you rate the usefulness of the following resources in ensuring good parental / guardian supervision of children at your facility in the last 12 months?

1 Extremely useful

2 3 Neither 45 Not at all

usefulDid not receive

Lifeguard Induction DVD nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Keep Watch @ Public Pools Info Manual

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lap Signage nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Wristbands nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Aframes nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Pool Rules / Entry rules Signage (A0 or A1 size)


Car Park Signage (A0 or A1 size)


Information Brochure nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lifeguard Info Cards (Card A)


Swim School Info Cards (Card B)


Toilet Signs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Public Service Announcements (2CD pack)


Pull Up Banner nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Tie Up Vinyl Banner nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

A3 Lifeguards Are Not Babysitters / Rules Signs


Never

nmlkj

Sometimes

nmlkj

Usually

nmlkj

Always

nmlkj

Unsure

nmlkj

Page 6

Keep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow Up18. If Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources were to be translated, what languages other than English would be most relevant at your facility? List the top 3 languages in order below:

19. If Keep Watch @ Public Pools resources were to be translated into languages such as those mentioned above, what are the top 3 resources you would like to see translated? Please list the top 3 in order in the text boxes below:

20. Have you used the training activities in the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual?

21. Have you played the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD to your staff?

Language 1:

Language 2:

Language 3:

Resource 1:

Resource 2:

Resource 3:

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Was not aware of them

nmlkj

Did not receive the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Information Manual

nmlkj

Other (please specify)

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Did not receive the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD

nmlkj


2928

facebook.com/RoyalLifeSaving

twitter.com/royallifesaving

youtube.com/RoyalLifeSavingAust

royallifesaving.com.au

Keep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow Up

Page 7

Keep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow UpKeep Watch @ Public Pools NSW Implementation Evaluation - Follow Up22. If you have played the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD who did you show it to? If you haven't played the DVD, who would you intend to show it to?

23. If you have played the Keep Watch @ Public Pools Lifeguard Induction DVD how often do you play it? If you haven't played the DVD, how frequently would you play it?

24. Thank you for participating in this survey. If you would like to be entered into the draw to win a Keep Watch @ Public Pools Prize Pack valued at over $400 please enter your contact details below.

Thank you for completing this survey. Your feedback is extremely valuable and will go a long way towards improving the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program and making aquatic facilities safer.

Name:

Best Contact Number:

Best Contact Email Address

Lifeguards

gfedc

Teachers of Swimming and Water Safety

gfedc

Office / Administration Staff

gfedc

Receptionists

gfedc

Management

gfedc


gfedc


Once every 6 months

nmlkj

Once very 3 months

nmlkj

Only for new staff

nmlkj

Have Not Played It

nmlkj


nmlkj


30

ROYAL LIFE SAVING NSW CONTACT DETAILS:

To ensure we stay in tune with the needs of the diverse communities that make up our aquatic facilities, Royal Life Saving maintains a network of offices throughout NSW.

For more information contact:

Sydney T: 02 9634 3700

E: [email protected]

Hunter T: 02 4929 5600


Illawarra T: 02 4225 0108


Northern T: 02 6651 6266


Riverina T: 02 6921 7422


Western T: 02 6369 0679



Documents

NSW KEEP WATCH @ PUBLIC POOLS PROGRAM EVALUATION PHASE 2 - Home - Royal Life … · · 2014-04-08the Keep Watch @ Public Pools program to public pools ... that allowed the same