Positive Action Measures in the European Union, Canada and U it d
advertisement
Positive Action Measures in the
European Union, Canada and
United
U it d St
States
t
and
d South
S th Africa
Af i
(PAMECUS)
Professor Uduak Archibong
University of Bradford
Collaborators
Centre
C
t for
f
Inclusion
I l i
and
d Diversity
Di
it
(CfID) team drawn from University of
Bradford University of Leicester,
Bradford,
Leicester University
of York, De Montfort University, University
of Maastricht,
Maastricht NHS Employers,
Employers University of
Johannesburg, University of KwaZulu-Natal,
York University Canada,
Canada Johns Hopkins
University
European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC)
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human
Rights (BIM)
Consortium members
Centre for Inclusion and Diversity (CfID) team Dr Karl
Atkin (University of York), Professor Carol Baxter (NHS
Employers), Professor Mark Bell (University of Leicester),
D Aliya
Dr
Ali
Darr
D
(NHS Employers/University
E
l
/U i
it off Bradford),
B df d)
Professor Mark Johnson (De Montfort University), Andy
Scally (University of Bradford) and Professor Lisa
Waddington (University of Maastricht)
European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) Tara Bedard,
Tatjana Peric and
dS
Savelina
l
Velislavova
l l
Russinova
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (BIM)
Katrin Wladasch
Non-European Country Experts
Canada
South Africa
USA
Professor Pat Bradshaw
Professor Oluyinka Adejumo
Professor Phyllis Sharps
Remit of the study
Develop a working definition of the concept of
positive action
Conduct a survey of positive action measures
currently employed in the EU and in the
EFTA/EEA states
t t
C d t a comparative
Conduct
ti
study
t d on positive
iti
action
ti
Follow
ll
up seminar
i
and
d publication
bli
i
Research Question
What role can positive action measures play in
preventing or remedying discrimination, building on
the knowledge of the existing legal framework in EU
How do policies, practices including effectiveness
and
d mechanisms
h i
for
f measuring
i
the
th impact
i
t off
positive action differ between Member States in
the European Union, and how do these compare
with Canada
Canada, United States and South Africa?
Aims of study
Exploring perceptions and understanding of positive
action
Outlining types and ranges of positive action activity
Analysing outcomes and impacts of positive action
Scope of the study
{
{
{
{
{
{
Equality grounds
covered:
A
Age
This study will seek the
views
e s of
o individuals
d dua s
responsible for designing
and implementing
Disability
positive action measures
Gender - intersections e.g. Director of Human
Resources, Equality and
with other strands
Diversity Leads and
Race with specific
Senior Managers with
focus on Roma
responsibility for equality
in public, private and
Religion
l
and
db
belief,
l f and
d third sectors
Sexual orientation
The Study Design
Definition and
Literature
Review
Survey
Comparative
study
Exploring the reality of positive action within
its real life context using multiple sources
•Policy and practice on equality and diversity
•Evidence of the effectiveness of positive action
•Portfolio of good practice examples of positive action
•Guidance for policy-makers and managers on positive action
Methodology
Literature review / development working
definition
Survey
Countries surveyed-27 EU Member States plus 2 EFTA
Countries (Iceland and Norway) and 3 non-European
countries (Canada, South Africa and United States of
America)
Response rate = 632
C
Comparative
ti
Case
C
Study
St d
EU countries - UK, Austria, the Netherlands, Ireland,
Hungary,
g y, France,, Slovakia and Sweden;;
Non-EU countries - Canada, USA and South Africa
Legal / policy analysis –
11 Countries
Consensus workshop 282
Follow-up interviews 141
Conference call
3
Findings
Context of equality and diversity
Positive action undertaken within complementary equality
framework
Monitoring and specific equal opportunities target setting
widespread
idespread
Lack of disaggregated data in key sectoral fields
Requires more than attracting diverse communities into the
organisation
Definition and understanding
of positive action
C f i
Confusion
and
d inconsistent
i
i t t tterminologies
i l i
A lack
l k off common understanding
d
t di
A clarification
l ifi ti
off th
the nature
t
and
d purpose
of positive action measures
The historical and political context of the
respective countries
Response to PAMECUS definition
Working Definition Positive Action
Proportionate
Proportionate measures undertaken with the purpose of measures undertaken with the purpose of
achieving full and effective equality in practice for members of g p
groups that are socially or economically disadvantaged, or y
y
g ,
otherwise face the consequences of past or present discrimination or disadvantage. Positive action measures are designed to achieve one or more of the following goals:
of the following goals:
• preventing or compensating for disadvantages and discrimination
• promoting substantive equality by taking into account the specific situation of members of disadvantaged groups and breaking the cycle of disadvantage associated with membership of a particular group;
• redressing under‐representation and promoting diversity in participation of all groups in social, economic, cultural and political life. Working Definition Positive Action
Influences
Influences the way in which social goods, such as the way in which social goods such as
employment, education, housing or healthcare, are allocated. Covers a wide range of measures, but, in the light of EC law, it is not viewed as including automatic and unconditional preferential treatment for women (or men) in selection for employment (e.g. quotas). Has a broader meaning in relation to disability including measures aimed at creating or maintaining provisions or g
gp
facilities for safeguarding or promoting the integration of disabled persons into the working environment. This includes preferential treatment for disabled persons, such as quotas. How do you find the definition of
Positive Action as given in this survey?
Statement
Rating
% who agree
This definition is broad enough to cover my organisation’s activities 81 ± 3.2 This definition would be easy to apply in my organisation 66 ± 4.0 Key: Strongly disagree Tend to disagree
Base
632
Neither
Tend to agree
Strongly agree
Drivers for positive action
Legislation
Altruistic reasons
Moral-ethical consideration
Business reasons
Demographic changes
Corporate social responsibility
Organisational policy
Grassroots efforts
Negative factors
Political and financial gains
Negative dynamics
Barriers to positive action
Lack of resources
Lack of senior management buy-in, continued support and
commitment
Barriers linked to legal framework:
z
z
Legal frameworks on positive action lag far behind social policy
Inconsistent application of legislative framework
Conflicting data protection arrangements in some countries
Differences among countries in implementing sanctions
Lack of awareness of the benefits of positive action
Role of the media
E l i i
Exploitation
off b
benefits
fi and
d rationale
i
l
Short-term nature of initiatives
Mistrust of authorities
S
Support
t ffor positive
iti
action
ti
Support of the wider society
Individual commitment
Support from colleagues
Leadership and senior management buy-in
Differences between all sectors in levels of
enthusiasm and implementation
Involvement of the target groups
O t
Outcomes
and
d impacts
i
t
{
{
{
Lack of systematic monitoring
Lack of robust evidence and use of ‘soft’
soft measures for impact
assessment
Effective in raising awareness of equality issues in
organisations
{
P t ti l contribution
Potential
t ib ti
tto b
business
i
success lless well
ll recognised
i d
{
Largely time limited and not seen as long term measures
{
Most likely beneficiaries = minority ethnic groups and women;
least likely beneficiaries = LGBT and disabled people.
Measures used
Networks and forums 50%
Training and leadership development 47%
Help with communication/confidence building 46%
Help with gaining further qualifications 41%
Encouraging work/life balance
Encouraging work/life balance
40%
Targeted recruitment 40%
Positive Action Training A
Areas
used
d in
i
68%
Gender 63%
Racial or ethnic origin 21%
Sexual orientation Other
Other 8%
Mentoring schemes 31%
Target setting 30%
Other
26%
Religion or belief 32%
Quotas 50%
Age O
Outreach work
h
k
Championing schemes 57%
Disability 37%
Base
456
18%
12%
5%
Intensity of positive action
measures in case study countries
Positive Action in practice (Exemplars)
EU funded ‘migrant friendly hospitals’ project
(Ireland)
Staff disability review (Ireland)
NGO teaching assistant programme (Slovakia)
Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) (South Africa)
Non-discrimination and Diversity in the Police
force (the Netherlands)
Black Leadership Initiative (UK)
Diversity and Inclusion in the postal sector (the
Netherlands)
Positive action in practice
{
{
{
Confirm
C
fi
confusion
f i
about
b
the
h scope off positive
ii
action
i
measures and overlap with other complementary measures
Diverse range of activities
Many countries focus on specific groups - a reflection of
the particular context or ‘politics’ of that country
{
Missing
g examples
p
– religion
g
and transgender
g
{
More focus on employment rather than service delivery
{
Negative consequences or backlashes such as negative
stereotypes, stigmatisation, lack of proper oversight,
d h
dishonest
behaviour
b h
and
d malpractice
l
Apartheid
Casualties
South African
Context
Affirmative
action
Casualties
Recommendations
R
Research
h on positive
iti
action
ti
Map the current situation of ‘disadvantage’ with regard to
the different fields in which positive action can be applied
Research to assist courts to establish whether a prior
situation of disadvantage justifies the use of a particular
positive action measure
Research on economic advantages of positive action
Intervention study to develop a coherent model / theory for
measuring success
A model for identification, evaluation and dissemination of
‘best practice’
Gather disaggregated data in key sectoral fields on all
grounds of discrimination.
Law and policy development
EC tto di
dialogue
l
with
ith civil
i il society
i t organisations
i ti
and
d the
th social
i l
partners
EU-level guidance on the meaning of positive action
EC anti
anti-discrimination
discrimination legislation to ensure public,
public private or
voluntary organisations engagement
Member States to revise national legislation where this prohibits
or restricts application of positive action
Whilst respecting data protection legislation, Member States to
ensure data protection legislation facilitates data collection
The EU institutions and Member States to introduce legal duties
Practice
P
ti
- European
E
and
d National
N ti
l
levels
European-level framework of understanding of positive action
measures
Public education through ‘social marketing’
Clear strategies for identifying and managing the negative
consequences
The role of the media and educational forums and networks
Minimum operating standards for positive action application
Adequate funding through national government or EU funds
Develop tools to assist organizations to establish baseline
data to facilitate positive action
Practice - Organisational level
Mainstreaming - Integral part of a wider
organisational corporate mission, workforce
planning
l
i
and
d service
i d
development
l
t
More coherent and collaborative
approach
pp
between organisations
g
Involvement of members of minority
groups design and evaluation
Publications available
EC Publication - International perspectives on
positive action measures: A comparative analysis
in the
h European Union, Canada,
d United
d States
and South Africa
PAMECUS V
Volume
l
1:
1 Synthesis
S th i reportt
PAMECUS Volume 2: Survey
y report
p
PAMECUS Volume 3: Country Report
www.bradford.ac.uk/pamecus
