Equalities Impact Assessment
Highway Maintenance Policy and
Strategy (HMPS)
Date: October 2007
Version 1.0
1
Equality Impact Assessment
1. Department/Service Area
Department of Highways, Transportation and Waste Management.
Network Management Group
2. Policy being assessed
Highway Maintenance Policy & Strategy (HMPS)
2. Equality Areas Assessed
Which of the following equality areas are
being assessed: race, disability, gender,
sexual orientation, religion/faith, age.
The main issues relating to equality within the
Highway Maintenance Policy are:
1. Race - Consider Asian, Asian British,
Black, Black British, Chinese, Mixed
heritage, White British, other white ethnic
groups, e.g. eastern European, travellers.
2. Gender - Consider from point of view of
women and men
3. Disability - Consider physical and
sensory impairment, learning disabilities,
people with mental health issues
4. Age - Consider younger and older
people
5. Religion/Belief - Consider people of
different faith groups including nonbelievers.
6. Sexual orientation - Consider lesbian,
gay men, bisexual and transgender
issues
The Leicestershire HMPS will be reviewed meet
the diverse needs of the communities of
Leicestershire. Through consultation with our
stakeholders we will seek to remove obvious
barriers to services in terms of equality and
diversity either in the aim of the policy or in the
way it is delivered.
Version 1.0
2
3. Timescale of the assessment
a) What is the start date?
15th May 2007
b) What is the finish date?
31st October 2007
4. Who is involved in the EIA?
a) Please list name and areas of
responsibility
Team Manager
Asset Management Planning
Network Management
Technician
Major Transport Projects
5. Policy, procedure, service assessed
a) What is its purpose?
Version 1.0
The aim of the HMPS is to encourage coordination and consistency in the delivery of local
highway maintenance services to facilitate
sharing of developing best practice by meeting
the needs of users and the community rather
than the convenience of service providers. The
main stakeholders and beneficiaries in relation
to this policy are the residents and road users of
Leicestershire, Members of the County Council,
organisations representing different users, for
example cycling groups, and the emergency
services
One of the main objectives of the HMPS is to
encourage a focus on the needs of users and the
community and their active involvement in the
development and review of policies, priorities and
programmes.
3
The key stakeholders of this policy are:
b) Who is it for?


All road users, motorised and non-motorised
Organisations representing different users,
for example cycling groups
The county’s main bus companies and road
haulage companies
District councils within Leicestershire
Members of the County Council
Other local partnerships
Residents of Leicestershire
Business users
Emergency services
Visitors to the county








Version 1.0
4
6. Data Collection and consultation
a) What data has been collected
on different sections of the
community, e.g. on ethnic
origin, disability, gender, age,
faith/religion.
 Leicestershire County Council’s Consultation
Toolkit
b) What information is available
on the different rates of
satisfaction; take up of service,
complaints and other relevant
performance information in
relation to the different groups
of people outlined above?
 As part of an exercise to gauge public opinion
on the County Council's services for the
Highways Network Management Best Value
Review, stakeholder meetings were held in
May 2001 and October 2002. Delegates were
invited from key stakeholder groups, including
disability and ethnic minority groups.
 Local Demographic Data
 Corporate Race, Gender and Disability
Schemes
 More recently a survey asked Leicestershire
residents a series of questions about attitudes
towards transportation services to track
responses against the baseline survey
undertaken in 2006.
 Overall results are positive, with eight of ten
key satisfaction measures relating to transport
showing an improvement since 2006.
Forms of data collection:
 MORI poll
 Customer satisfaction survey
 HMS
 Highways questionnaires
c) What consultation has been
carried out .
 Highway forums
 Stakeholder meetings
 Peer reviews
d) Do the results provide data for
different sections of the
community?
 Yes
e) What other sources of
information have been used to
carry out this assessment? For
instance:
 National data (Highways C o P)
Version 1.0
5
7. Findings
a) In summary what are the main
results of the assessment?
 Generally, older residents, those with a
physical disability, or a mobility impairment
are more likely to be disadvantaged than their
sub-group counterparts.
 Survey results show that more than a third of
residents aged 45 and over are dissatisfied
with the condition of footways compared to
fewer than one in ten (8%) 16 to 24 year olds;
and two-fifths (41%) of residents with a
disability are dissatisfied with the condition of
footways compared to a quarter (24%) of
residents with no disability.
b) Which groups or individuals are
most affected
 Older residents 60+
 Those with a mobility impairment
 Those with a physical disability
c) How does this affect their access
to the service?
 Older residents 60+
Their ease of movement across the network
can be temporarily restricted.
 Those with a mobility impairment
Their ease of movement across the network
can be temporarily restricted.
 Those with a physical disability
Their ease of movement across the network
can be temporarily restricted.
Those who are visually impaired may be
disadvantaged through lack of information.
Version 1.0
6
8. Conclusions
a) Does the policy, procedure or service have an adverse impact on the
groups being assessed?
By assessing the information against all the equality areas, it is considered that
there is a low risk of specific equality needs not being identified.
However a number of specific needs have been identified, for example those of
the physically disabled. The table below details the findings.
Group
Current
policy/
services
have a
positive
impact
Ensuring
availability
Maintaining
reliability
Current
policy/
services
have a
negative
impact
No specific
issues
identified
Summarise
the
evidence to
support
your view
Service
undertaken
considers all
races
equally.
Enhancing
quality
Race
Actions
Areas for improvement
As the standard letters
informing residents of
planned highway
maintenance works are
written in English, it’s hard
to state what the impact
might be. However, there
is no evidence to suggest
that communication is not
being understood but
consultation with
respective racial groups
representing this sector of
the community may be
required.
Consult with group to
assess impact of proposed
policy changes.
Version 1.0
7
Ensuring
availability
Age
Disability
Sexual
orientation
Older
residents are
more likely to
Maintaining be affected by
reliability
policy
changes
Enhancing which relate to
quality
changes in
footway
provision and
maintenance.
Data
gathered via
the MORI
poll
Ensuring
availability
Residents with
a disability,
e.g. blind,
Maintaining wheelchairs,
reliability
etc, are more
likely to be
Enhancing affected by
quality
policy
changes
which relate to
changes
footway
provision and
maintenance.
Data
gathered via
the MORI
poll
Ensuring
availability
Service
undertaken
considers all
religions
equally.
Consult with group to
assess impact of proposed
policy changes.
Service
undertaken
considers all
religions
equally.
Consult with group to
assess impact of proposed
policy changes.
No issues
identified
Maintaining
reliability
Consult with group to
assess impact of proposed
policy changes.
Check for best practice
with other highway
authorities and implement
change where relevant and
practicable.
Include EIA appraisal as
part of policy monitoring
procedure
Consult with group to
assess impact of proposed
policy changes.
Check for best practice
with other highway
authorities and implement
change where relevant and
practicable.
Include EIA appraisal as
part of policy monitoring
procedure
Enhancing
quality
Ensuring
availability
Maintaining
Religion/Belief reliability
No issues
identified
Enhancing
quality
Version 1.0
8
Ensuring
availability
Gender
No issues
identified
Maintaining
reliability
Service
undertaken
considers
both sexes
equally.
Consult with group to
assess impact of proposed
policy changes.
Enhancing
quality
9. Actions
b) What actions will be taken to mitigate
adverse impact?
c) How will these actions result in
positive changes in future practices?
See table above
 Minimise potential gaps in data on
specific groups.
 Address the specific needs of different
groups
 Ensure any adverse impact is kept to a
minimum.
 Improve service delivery
d) What equality objectives and targets
resulting from this assessment will be
included in the next service plan?
 To increase staff awareness of equality
issues in all aspects of ‘policy’ work
10. Monitoring
a) How will the actions outlined
above be monitored?
Version 1.0
Set up a periodic monitoring system to
update the EIA and ensure, where possible,
actions identified are implemented.
9
b) Is there a need to introduce
equality monitoring systems, if so
by when?
See 10(a) in terms of how we will monitor the
proposed actions. We will examine
consultation and questionnaire responses in
terms of take-up and response rates and
work to address any identifiable underrepresentation, setting targets for
improvement if this is necessary.
11. EIA Improvement plan
Under section 6, part a – More detailed analysis of the data that has been collected either as
a part of this EIA, and the historical data that has been used to inform the assessment.
Under section 6, part c –More detailed consultation required e.g., numbers of people
involved, when the consultation was held, etc
Under section 6, part d – More detailed explanation of the outcome of research for each of
the equality strands.
Under section 7, part c – May be increase level of information, e.g. Why could people’s
ease of movement across the network be temporarily restricted?
Section 9, part d – All the actions arising from this assessment to be included in the
departmental service plan.
Section 10, part b – The monitoring processes. To be in line with corporate policy and
guidance.
General: The assessment will be published on the website and be available for public
scrutiny.
11. Authorisation
a) Name and position of officer
authorising the EIA
Version 1.0
Assistant Director
HTWM
10
12. Contact
a) Contact details of officer to
discuss EIA with if different from
section 11. above
Version 1.0
Team Manager
Asset Management Planning
11