Equality Impact Assessment update

Report: 11
Date: 12 November 2009
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides members with an update of and developments in the MPS use of Equality Impact Assessments.

A. Recommendation

That Members note this report.

B. Supporting information

Brief History

1. The statutory requirement for Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) was first introduced in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and later extended under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended) and the Equality Act 2006. As a result, the EIA Policy, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Form 6119A were introduced in December 2006, which brought together the many disparate processes that were in use in the organisation at that time. The policy was brought in to solve issues around bureaucracy and the lack of corporacy and consistency. It also brought together the requirements of existing legislation and extended it across all the equality strands. The SOP includes the various stages of EIA completion, including consultation, assessment, monitoring and governance issues.

Governance

2. This report describes the two different approaches to the EIA process that arise from the developments of:

• Corporate Policy - A full list of all corporate policies, corporate EIAs and monitoring reports can be found at www.met.police.uk/foi/c_policies_and_procedures.htm.
• Non corporate policy, i.e. all other functions, policies and processes.

Corporate Policy EIAs

3. Governance of EIA policy in relation to corporate policies sits with the MPS Diversity Board. The Board provides the mechanism for accountability where there might be a problem with the completion of an EIA relating to corporate policy. The Equalities Scheme Programme Board monitors the number of corporate EIAs being completed, including their annual monitoring reports, and whether deadlines are being met.

4. The MPS Strategy and Improvement Department (SID) oversees the Policy Management Policy, which requires business groups, when drawing up new and reviewing policy, to complete:

• a workbook (including issues around, for example, Health and safety, data protection and bureaucracy - but not diversity and equality matters, which are included within the requirement for an EIA)
• a policy statement
• Standard Operating Procedures
• An EIA.

5. It is mandatory for policy writers to complete an EIA as part of this process. This provides an effective quality check for the initial commissioning and publication of EIAs, though it is not the responsibility of SID to quality assure the actual EIAs. These are passed, along with all the above documentation, to the Diversity Strategy and Co-ordination Unit (DSCU) within Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate (DCFD).

6. The DSCU currently monitors and evaluates all corporate policy EIAs through a quality assurance (QA) process and liaises closely with SID. DCFD aims, within three weeks, to feed back recommendations to policy writers either by e-mail, phone or face-to-face meetings to promote compliance as necessary. DCFD sign-off each corporate policy EIA.

7. These are overseen by the DCFD who ensure the authors reach the required standard before publication. Compliance with these arrangements has proved effective. DCFD is reviewing this situation as part of its current restructuring with a view to providing extra guidance and support to policy writers so that standards can be increased. Policy topics have included Annual Leave, Mental Health, Substance Misuse Testing, Bail Management, Stop and Search, First Aid, Equality Policy, Investigation of Crime, Criminal Justice, Sudden Death, Screen Arches, Security of MPS Estate, and Police Officer Overtime. There are currently 125 corporate policies in existence, all of which have been through the EIA process and are reviewed (and therefore quality assured by DCFD) at least every three years. The number of policies varies as new policies are developed and others are amalgamated with each other.

8. A key area upon which the QA process concentrates is consultation and involvement, which is also emphasised within the SOP. Every completed EIA includes those with whom the policy owner has consulted. These can be accesses through the same site detailed above.

9. The DCFD QA process has been particularly successful in ensuring that MPS policy is responsive to the needs and viewpoints of the community. As one of many examples, within the Crime Management Policy the updating arrangements for victims and witnesses were amended to include a ‘text phone’ facility and the availability of letters in large print and different languages.

Non-Corporate Policy EIAs

10. DCFD has a major function in liaising with Business Groups and OCUs concerning the whole equalities agenda, which includes advising on EIA completion and governance. In particular, the Diversity and Citizen Focus Advisors undertake a key supporting role concerning EIAs. In supporting boroughs the Directorate has produced EIA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that give detailed requirements for the completion of EIAs. Governance for the completion of non-corporate policy EIAs remain with OCU senior managers. The corporate monitoring and compliance of local EIAs is constantly reviewed by DCFD and will be influenced by the awaited Equality Bill, which places more emphasis on outcomes and results rather than strict compliance with a process.

Pilot of new EIA process and documentation

11. Since implementation of the policy and SOP, several issues have been identified with regards to their effectiveness. For example, the form was considered to be too time-consuming, there was a perceived lack of guidance, it was too bureaucratic and there was an ineffective non-compliance process. To remedy these issues a new policy, SOP and form have been re-designed and published on the Intranet as a three month trial due to finish on 31 October 2009. These are included at Appendices 1-3. Policy writers are directed to the new documentation and their feedback is sought via a dedicated mailbox. The pilot endeavours to be a user-friendly process that tries to avoid the duplication evident in the earlier forms. Through the introduction of a simplified tick-box screening process, the new forms gave greater clarity to whether a full EIA is required, whereas previously one major criticism was that the screening process was akin to a full EIA in itself. From early feedback received an expected outcome is that the quantity and quality of EIAs will improve as those completing them are more positively engaged in the process. On completion of the pilot, if considered an appropriate way forward, the new process and documentation will be ratified via the new governance elements of the MPS Equality and Diversity strategy 2009-13, which is to be published in December 2009. In due course the EIA process will require further review as and when the Equality Bill becomes law.

The Way Forward

12. The MPS recognises that more needs to be done to improve the broader understanding and completion of EIAs. Training is an issue.

13. There are solutions in the provision of training which the MPS has already experimented with, to varying degrees of success. E.g. external training of key groups and provision of information technology tools for training and completion of EIAs, but all of these are costly and difficult to maintain over time. A difficulty in buying in training is in ensuring that the people being trained stay long enough in the roles requiring the skill to ensure a return on any investment. With respect to an IT solution, the Greater London Authority (GLA) is developing a tool for the completion and monitoring of EIA activity but remains some time away from a wider use by GLA partners. The absence of a national package available from the National Centre for Applied Learning Technologies (NCALT) has made the MPS look at what is available elsewhere. These packages invariably have an initial cost of around £40K to purchase but are designed for use on standalone computers. Were it possible for these to be adapted for networking use, this would more likely cost an additional £100-200,000. This would include the need for annual licensing and update fees and an added problem in identifying a support contract to maintain the system over time. This continues to be an area where DCFD is working to improve the levels of corporate knowledge and understanding to establish EIAs as a core business process.

14. To this end, the solution to this is likely to lie within the workstreams to be developed as part of the governance elements of the MPS Equality and Diversity strategy. In addition, DCFD will return to the Deputy Commissioner’s Command and report directly on progress to the Deputy Commissioner as chairperson of the MPS Diversity Board.

C. Race and equality impact

Equality and diversity are the very subjects of this report. There are significant diversity implications arising from EIAs, with their emphasis on the elimination of discrimination, together with the promotion of equality of opportunity, good relations between different groups, positive attitudes towards others and the participation in public life.

D. Financial implications

Para 13 identifies a possible cost of £100-200k for the development of a network training package. Alternative solutions are being considered to minimise any financial impact. Any additional financial requirements would be subject to the normal business planning process or met from within existing budgets.

E. Legal implications

1. The statutory requirement to conduct an EIA across the race, disability and gender strands are set out in this report. The MPS EIAs however cover extended equality strands, as the MPS is committed in raising confidence by being better informed in its decision making as a result of undertaking consultation on wider issues.

2. The purpose of an EIA is designed to ensure the organisation improves the way it develops its policies and functions by making sure there is no discrimination in the way that they are designed, developed or delivered and that wherever possible, equality is promoted.

3. The Equality Bill which is expected to receive Royal Assent in 2010 will build on existing statutory duties and create a new single new public sector duty which will require public bodies to proactively eliminate discrimination, provide equality and promote good relations across a number of equality strands such as age, sexual orientation, religious or belief, pregnancy and maternity and gender reassignment. The Equality Duty will in future require public bodies to consider the needs of the diverse groups in the community when designing and delivering public services so that people can get fairer opportunities and better public services.

F. Background papers

• None

G. Contact details

Report author(s): Inspector Claire Roberts, MPS Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Abbreviations

• EIA - Equality Impact Assessments
• SOP - Standard Operating Procedures
• SID - Strategy and Improvement Department
• DSCU - Diversity Strategy and Co-ordination Unit
• DCFD - Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate
• QA - Quality Assurance
• OCUs - Operational Command Units
• GLA - Greater London Authority
• NCALT - National Centre for Applied Learning Technologies

Appendix 1: Equality Impact Assessment Policy Version

Freedom of Information Act Publication Scheme

• Protective Marking: Not Protectively Marked
• Publication Scheme: Yes
• Version: V2
• Summary: The policy provides a framework for impact assessing the development of proposals
• Branch / OCU: Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate (DCFD)
• Author: Diversity Strategy and Co-ordination Unit, DCFD
• Date created: July 2009
• Review date: December 2009

Introduction

The Equality Impact Assessment Policy provides the framework and guidance for conducting such assessments during the development of proposals.

Application

This policy applies with immediate effect.

All police officers and police staff, including the extended police family and those working voluntarily or under contract to the MPA must be aware of, and are required to comply with, all relevant MPS policy and associated procedures. In particular, these SOPs apply particularly to officers and staff in the following roles:

• Members of Management Board and Senior Management Teams
• Members of the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate
• Members of the MPS Strategy Unit
• Anyone engaged in writing proposals
• Anyone engaged in writing policy
• Operational and business planners
• Quality Assurance managers
• All those involved in the commissioning, formulation, approval, publication, implementation or review of proposals (the definition of which is included within the SOP)

N.B. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to:

• Comply with the requirements of legislation, e.g. Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Equality Act 2006, etc.
• Establish clear accountability and corporate standards for the development of proposals

Scope

This policy provides the framework for measuring the adverse and positive impact of policing proposals on communities through a structured and transparent process. Proposals include corporate and local policies, corporate change, policing and business plans. Impact assessment is an ongoing engagement, decision-making and risk assessment process, to be started early (at the initial planning or reviewing stage) and continued throughout the development of proposals.

Policy Statement

All proposals must be screened for impact and where they are relevant to equalities issues a full impact assessment must be conducted using the related form 6119A. The eight-point approach includes:

• Identification of the aim and purpose of the proposal
• Collection and consideration of information
• Carrying out of the screening process for relevance to equalities
• Deciding on whether a full impact assessment process is required
• Consultation, which may be included at any part of the process
• Assessing for impact
• Setting in place arrangements for monitoring and review
• Publishing the results of the impact assessment.

Benefits

This policy will:

• Provide a corporate framework for impact assessing proposals
• Manage the impact of proposals on the MPS and OCUs through appropriate consultation and inclusive decision-making
• Establish clear accountability and ownership
• Ensure proposals are developed in accordance with corporate and local priorities and concerns, taking into account a citizen-focused approach
• Provide a robust and defensible aid to decision-making
• Facilitate staff understanding of impact assessments and the positive outcomes sought
• Ensure legal compliance

Responsibilities

• The policy is owned and will be reviewed by the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate
• The policy will be implemented by all staff involved in the commissioning and development of proposals

Associated Documents and Policies

• MPS Equalities Scheme
• Equalities Impact Assessment Standard Operation Procedures
• Form 6119A
• Policy on the Management of Policy Development in the MPS
• Corporate Policy Workbook
• Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
• Disability Discrimination Act 2005
• Equality Act 2006

Appendix 2: EIA Standard Operating Procedure 

Introduction

These Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) set out the arrangements, guidance and form to be used when carrying out Equality Impact Assessments (EIA).

Application

These SOPs apply with immediate effect.

All police officers and police staff, including the extended police family and those working voluntarily or under contract to the MPS must be aware of, and are required to comply with, all relevant MPS policy and associated procedures.

In particular, these SOPs apply particularly to officers and staff in the following roles:

• Members of Management Board and Senior Management Teams
• Members of the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate
• Members of the MPS Strategy Unit
• Anyone engaged in writing proposals
• Anyone engaged in writing policy
• Members of policy units
• Operational and business planners
• Quality Assurance managers
• All those involved in the commissioning, formulation, approval, publication, implementation, monitoring or review of proposals (the definition of which is included within this SOP)

N.B. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

Guidance

The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (RR(A)A), the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), the Equality Act 2006, the MPS Equalities Scheme and the MPS Equality Standard for the Police Service collectively seek to eliminate discrimination and meet the positive promotion aspects of equality legislation (see below).

An EIA is a structured and transparent information gathering and decision making process, which measures the adverse and positive impact of proposals on communities or individuals, internally or externally. It seeks to establish if we treat, or will potentially treat, anyone differently either adversely or positively. It also seeks to meet the positive promotion aspects of equality legislation: equality of opportunity; good relations between groups; positive attitudes towards others; and encouraging their participation in public life.

Proposals include:

• Corporate and local policies (e.g. Mental Health Policy; Substance Misuse Testing Policy; Victim Support Policy; Work Life Balance Policy; (B)OCU Health and Safety Policies; community engagement protocols; communications strategies; etc.)
• Corporate change (e.g. Transforming HR process; MPS Domestic Violence Strategy; MPS Youth Strategy; IAG Review; Prevent strand; etc.)
• Business plans (e.g. Business Group and (B)OCU annual planning; local strategies; Olympics planning; Police Constable Foundation Training; restructuring programmes; etc.)
• Operational policing plans (e.g. pre-planned search of religious premises or a Travellers’ site; local stop and search initiatives; Operation Blunt; etc.)

An EIA should take place at the initial planning stage of a new piece of work and continued throughout the development of the proposal and at the review stage.

We need to tackle any unfairness or disadvantage to any person. Failure to assess impact could lead to legal challenge, civil actions, Employment Tribunals, public enquiries and an inability to provide the best service delivery. There are sound operational and economic reasons why we need to deliver our policing services using an approach that is truly focused upon the citizen. The involvement of others within an engagement process is key to achieving this aim.

If the proposal is a corporate policy, the Corporate Policy Workbook must also be completed and forwarded with the EIA, policy and SOP to the MPS Strategy Unit. These will then be forwarded to the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate for Quality Assurance purposes.

The Quality Assurance of all other EIAs will be conducted by local or business group QA managers. This will include the screening process, both where proposals are screened in or out, the full assessment process and the arrangements for monitoring and reviewing.

The difference, though it is accepted that both may be required, between a Community Impact Assessment (CIA) and an EIA is described as follows:

• A CIA is conducted in response to a specific incident or event; and
• An EIA is conducted as part of the planning process for a proposal or event.

EIA and CIA are deliberately separated. As examples, a murder will require a CIA to assess community impact and feed intelligence into the investigation; an EIA is required in order to assess the equalities impact of a proposal, such as the policing of a carnival.

EIA Steps to Completion

The following assessment stages, Steps 1-8 below, must be proportionate to the relevance to equalities issues; for example, major change or corporate policy will necessitate more activity than a local instruction.

Step 1 Identify the aims and purpose of the proposal

What is the desired outcome or purpose of the proposal?

Step 2 Examination of available information to make decisions on impact

Consider the following:

• What information is already known about the proposal under consideration and its potential impact?
• What current internal and external quantitative or qualitative data is available?
• Is there a need for research, engagement or consultation at this stage?

Steps 3 Screening Process

The screening process requires you to consider whether:

• People are treated or affected differently
• There are any potential community concerns
• There are further opportunities to promote equality of opportunity
• There are further opportunities to promote good relations between groups, positive attitudes towards others and their participation in public life.

This is a screening process. If one of the above could occur, a full impact assessment process is required.

Engagement with communities and individuals may be necessary to assist your understanding of the issues.

Step 4 Decide whether a full impact assessment is required

If no impact or relevance to equalities is identified, and everyone would be treated fairly, the process ends here.

Complete Page 1 and insert a three-year review date.

If a certain group of people are being treated differently, for better or worse, then complete the following steps - a full impact assessment.

Step 5 Consult / Involve / Engage relevant stakeholders

The MPS / MPA define 'Consultation' as "providing effective ways for citizens, service users and stakeholders to understand and influence decisions and policies that affect them".

The MPA / MPS define 'Engagement' as "the involvement of the public, whether as individuals or as a community, in policy or service decisions that affect them".

The Disability Rights Commission defines 'Involvement' as "An active engagement with disabled stakeholders using accessible mechanisms which must be focused, proportionate, influential and transparent. 'Involvement' requires more active engagement of disabled stakeholders than 'consultation'".

Consultation and involvement throughout the impact assessment process must be explained. Methods vary, but for involvement to be meaningful and compliant with the law, it has to involve more than, for example, e mail correspondence. Engagement is essential because people from diverse backgrounds often have different and sometimes adverse experiences of policing. It is good practice to involve recognised community leaders, but also others who are able to give frank and accurate views of the real or perceived impact of the proposal. Staff Associations (e.g. the Police Federation and MET-TUS) must be consulted on staff issues at the earliest opportunity. Staff Support Associations also offer a valuable means of engagement.

In deciding who and how to engage, consider the following:

• Who is affected by the proposal, including those implementing it?
• Which diversity strand(s) or identified group(s) have a legitimate interest?
• Which methods of engagement are likely to be the most suitable and successful?
• How will information be passed to participants?
• Are resources available to encourage participation by marginalised groups?
• Has the proposal been designed through engagement with service users?

A summary of the results of the consultation/involvement and how these have affected the proposal must be included.

Step 6 Full Impact Assessment Process

When assessing the impact of a proposal, look at the differential impact. This is where a particular group or diversity strand is likely to be affected.

It is acknowledged that identifying a group or groups and their requirements is a complex matter, which is why it is so important to engage with those who may be affected by the proposal. Make an assessment as to whether it is adverse, based upon an appraisal of the accumulated information. Whether an impact is adverse, and whether it is justified, is a question for your professional judgement. Remember, discrimination is unlawful and cannot be justified, except for Genuine Occupational Requirements; in the case of the DDA disabled persons may be treated more favourably by the provision of a reasonable adjustment. Exceptions and positive action may be lawful but have to be justified and explained.

Assess how the proposal can positively promote the following legally-required aspects: equality of opportunity; good relations between groups; positive attitudes towards others; and encouraging their participation in public life.

Also consider whether the proposal enables decisions and practices to adequately reflect the service user’s perspective. Record any amendments that have resulted from the process. Where action is not taken to address issues, this needs to be explained, for example, the benefits of amendments to a particular group may outweigh the costs to the MPS.

For the equalities strands, consider the following:

Age: Older people, children and young people, including ‘Every Child Matters’. Issues may include: opportunities for training irrespective of age or length of service completed or remaining; exclusion of younger or older members of staff from activities; pay and pension arrangements; health and safety; etc.

Disability: The MPS has adopted the Social Model of disability, which explains that people are disabled more by the barriers that society has in place than by their impairments. These barriers are:

• physical – e.g. the built environment or lack of equipment that assists disabled people;
• attitudinal - such as the negative perception of disability e.g. through stereotyping and stigma;
• organisational – e.g. the policies and procedures that discriminate or work against disabled people.

The Social Model must be considered when a proposal impacts on disabled people.

Gender: marital status: women and men; transgender, gender identity and civil partnerships, pregnancy and maternity. Issues may include: caring responsibilities; work/life balance; occupational segregation; equal pay; different clothing requirements; criteria for redeploying staff; etc.

Race: ethnicity, colour, nationality, national origins and asylum seekers. Issues may include: the impact of European Community expansion; Gypsy and Traveller considerations; language and interpretation; dietary and cultural; and differences within and between communities, etc.

Religion and belief: including faith and those with a recognised belief system or no belief. Issues may include: observance implications; cultural practices; use of language; potential tensions with other groups; exclusion due to particular beliefs; etc.

Sexual orientation: heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bi-sexual. Issues may include: incomplete self-declaration and monitoring; outing; potential tensions with other groups; confidentiality; use of language; etc.

Other issues part-time workers, public transportation users, homeless people, the socio-economically disadvantaged or other community groups not covered above.

This list is not exhaustive, but provide examples. Some issues may have an impact within several strands, for example, harassment; domestic violence; hate crime; and workforce representation.

The decision has to be made at this point to implement or reject the proposal and recorded on page 1 of the form.

Step 7 Ensure monitoring and review arrangements are put into place

How is the proposal going to be implemented and measured?

Monitoring consists of continuous scrutiny and evaluation and is not solely about the collection of data. Monitoring arrangements, including identifying the role title of the individual responsible for them, must be detailed. It must be proportionate to the importance of the proposal and its equalities implications. Using existing monitoring procedures may be appropriate. One-off proposals, such as a specific operation, would only require a post-event monitoring review. All other proposals have to be monitored at least annually. The monitoring reports need to examine outcomes - that is, the impact that the proposal, SOP and EIA have had on equalities issues.

If the monitoring and evaluation show that the implemented proposal results in greater adverse impact than predicted, or if greater opportunities for the positive promotion of diversity and equality issues arise, ensure that the issue is reviewed within the existing impact assessment. A full review, the date of which must be set on page 1, has to be conducted within three years.

As an example, under the DDA, stated arrangements must be in place to gather information on the effect of policies on disabled people. If these are not already in place, then new arrangements must be established to undertake this monitoring and explained within this section.

Step 8 Publish results, inform contributors of implementation and feedback

Corporate policy EIAs will be published by the MPS Strategy Unit on the Internet and Intranet. All other EIAs will be published by the owning (B)OCU, directorate or business group on their own Internet and Intranet sites, and will include the following documents:

• The proposal (SOPs are not currently published)
• The EIA
• Annual monitoring results (including any action which has resulted).

Publication will raise public confidence, reveal decision-making and ensure compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and equalities legislation. Publication may already be done under existing arrangements, in which case it must be linked to the published proposal. The assessment will be retained by the (B)OCU, directorate or business group for auditing locally and by the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate and Force Inspectorate.

Ensure all sections on page 1 of the form are completed.

Associated Documents and Policies

• MPS Equalities Scheme
• Equalities Impact Assessment Policy
• Policy on the Management of Policy Development in the MPS
• Corporate Policy Workbook and Guide
• Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
• Disability Discrimination Act 2005
• Equality Act 2006

Enquiries about these SOPs should be directed to the Diversity Strategy and Co-ordination Unit, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate, on 782866.

Appendix 3: EIA Form

This appendix is available as a PDF document (see Supporting Material)

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback