Our collective conversation regarding equity in aquatics has provided meaningful conversation around more diverse recruiting practices, demonstrated the need for specialized swim instruction, and framed the ongoing need for accessible facilities. But, what about the day-to-day policies that exist within our organizations that may not provide for equitable recreational water experiences?
Rarely are they intentionally discriminatory, but their origins are often biased and occasionally baseless. When we think of changes we can make as aquatics professionals towards diversity, equity, and inclusion, you’ll find solutions in the systemic ways you can dismantle inequities within facility rules and policies.
The following ten policies serve as a starting point for auditing your pool rules and procedures for equity and belonging.
Restrictive swim attire rules that preclude such basic items as tee-shirts and multipurpose workout clothes
The impact: This can limit accessibility for individuals who don’t have access to bathing suits.
The solution: Expand your swim-attire policy to include items that are water-safe — so as to avoid increasing the likelihood of water emergencies or having a negative impact on mechanical systems — but more versatile for pool goers.
Clothing and appearance policies that aim to restrict such things as baggy clothing, tattoos, piercing, artificial hair, and exposure of non-genitalia body parts
The impact: This limits inclusiveness for individuals who wear the above items. Policies such as this potentially create a biased environment that hinders cultural or individual freedoms and can lead to profiling, even if inadvertently. Prohibiting artificial hair, for instance, will mostly affect a specific demographic. Gender-based attire requirements can create issues with gender expression.
The solution: Remove all phrasing that excludes particular groups of pool goers. Also take the time to audit the intention behind each remaining appearance rule and evaluate whether it’s necessary and why.
Facility hours and programming geared to certain work hours
The impact: This can compromise equity of use. Scheduling facility hours and programs to accommodate those who work traditional business hours, for instance, can restrict use for those who follow alternative schedules. This especially can create barriers for lower-income families, where the adults are more likely to work in service or take multiple jobs. The same can occur if you schedule the bulk of your programming on days when public transportation doesn’t operate.
The solution: Audit your facility’s open hours and programming schedules to see how they serve a variety of individuals and families. Map transportation and walking routes to facilities and make notes of areas of growth. Work with local agencies to evaluate access for disabled individuals attending alone, along with other organizations who can help navigate ways to enhance the user experience.
Static fee structures
The impact: This can create financial barriers for some patrons, including those who prefer drop-in recreational opportunities.
The solution: Consider adjusting your facility’s fees during different times of the day for recreational swim, and add reduced-fee time slots that would best serve marginalized groups with historically lower attendance. Weigh the cost of drop-ins versus passes, and look for ways to provide assistance for those who can’t afford the latter. For programs and classes, audit accessibility and introduce assistance programs that can be promoted through community organizations.
Inequitable enrollment processes that favor those with quick access to computers, those who can pay in full, who speak English as a first language, etc.
The impact: This creates an uneven opportunity to enroll into programs. Some may not be available the moment registration opens up — say, at 8:00 on a Tuesday morning. Others need more time to sign up because of language barriers, or lack of access to or familiarity with computers. Some can’t pay for everything at once.
The solution: Create ghost spots that are reserved for late enrollments or scholarship recipients. You also could open the registration window early for those using assistance funds.
High bather load
The impact: Large numbers of people can provide an obstacle for neurodivergent people, decrease the feeling of emotional and physical safety for those new to aquatic settings, and further create barriers for non-English listeners and readers.
The solution: Assess your bather-load capacities and consider limiting your maximum count, or adding dedicated sensory-friendly times with fewer patrons in attendance. Even a few time slots scattered throughout your schedule can have an impact. If there’s a concern about these sessions cutting into the budget, you also can look for ways to subsidize them.
Posting policy verbiage and signage in a traditional text list
The impact: This limits information about acceptable behavior to those who can read and comprehend the rules.
The solution: Consider using a font that is neurodiverse-friendly, such as sans-serif ones, and an accessible size. Stick with non-gendered language, and remove definitions or assumptions about family compositions and what constitutes “family friendly.” Avoid jargon, analogies and figures of speech, which often are unfamiliar to those new to English. Use photos as often as you can with a variety of images of folks of different ages, sizes, and abilities, and have translations posted and available.
Habitually calling the police to handle escalated situations
The impact: This can create a contentious atmosphere that may inhibit diverse groups from patronizing your facilities.
The solution: Train your team on de-escalation techniques and how to recognize and reconcile problematic behavior and patterns. Remove protocol that defaults to calling police for chronic situations that can be resolved on-site, and reconsider “kicking out” protocol, as it may unfairly punish particular groups of folks and individuals who have less of a knowledge base about aquatic-appropriate behavior.
Rules regarding use of locker rooms and bathrooms based on gender
The impact: This decreases the sense of belonging for non-binary and trans individuals, as well as disabled folks and others who attend facilities with the assistance of others.
The solution: Remove barriers for using spaces and allow individuals to self-identify which areas they feel safe using. Train staff to offer options and handle resistance from other visitors. Consider how to make existing and new spaces non-gendered for future accessibility.
Require staff to hold certifications prior to hiring
The impact: This greatly limits your potential pool of staff and possibly restricts diversity due to financial and accessibility barriers.
The solution: Adjust readiness levels by eliminating certification expectations altogether, or create inclusive recruiting pipelines that provide free, all-ages lessons and scholarships for certification courses. You also could provide opportunities for employees to start in a non-certification job, with the potential to grow toward other roles.
