Assessing impact for equality during
and beyond college regionalisation
This guidance aims to support colleges and their boards develop appropriate approaches to
assessing impact when thinking about, developing, directing and managing key changes and
decision-making processes. It should be especially helpful when considering changes that are
taking place during regionalisation.
Colleges and their boards have a responsibility to ensure that the college meets the requirements
of the Equality Act 2010, including the general duty of the public sector equality duty (PSED) which
requires colleges to have due regard to the need to:
=
eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation
=
advance equality of opportunity between people of different groups
=
foster good relations between people of different groups
The general duty is underpinned by several specific duties including a specific duty to assess the
impact of proposed new or revised policies and practices against these three needs of the general
duty. For each arm of the general duty colleges should consider impact on all of the protected
groups covered by the Equality Act 2010 (see overleaf).
Colleges and their boards must be able to demonstrate that impact assessments are carried out at
all levels of the organisation. This briefing provides a summary of the implications for them along
with actions boards and colleges should consider implementing to meet the Equality and Human
Rights Commission (EHRC)’s expectations on the arrangements and approaches to assessing
impact. An overview of the processes required to assess impact is provided along with good
practice examples and recommendations.
The PSED
The PSED covers eight protected characteristics:
=
age
=
disability
=
gender reassignment
=
pregnancy and maternity
=
race
=
religion or belief (including lack of belief)
=
sex
=
sexual orientation
The PSED also applies to marriage and civil partnership but only in respect of the requirement to
have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination in employment.
For more information on the specific duties, refer to
ECU (2012) The public sector equality duty: specific duties for Scotland
www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/the-public-sector-equality-duty-specific-duties-for-scotland
Considerations for impact assessment during regionalisation
Whether colleges are developing federated college partnerships, operating as a single college or
merging with other colleges, work will be ongoing to change and improve a wide range of policies
and practices.
The Scottish Funding Council (SFC) has sent colleges and boards guidance on embedding equality
within outcome agreements. They refer to equality as a horizontal theme which should permeate
all activity. This means that, throughout the regionalisation process, colleges need to record that
due regard has been paid to all current, ongoing and merger preparation work carried out to meet
the needs of the general duty and SFC guidance.
This evidence will assist colleges in reporting how they have developed equalities as a
mainstreaming activity as part of the Scottish specific duties and that they have taken the SFC’s
horizontal theme approach seriously.
www.sfc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Guidance/College_Outcome_Agreement_Guidance_2013-14.pdf
Colleges need to assess the impact of a policy at a local level even if it was originally developed
externally.
If a national strategy has been directed (for example 16–19 year olds being given college places as
a priority) it is the duty of colleges to continue to monitor and assess any impact once that
evidence is available. They should then use the statistical information on student participation,
retention, attainment and achievement to measure changes and trends relating to age. If analysis
reveals a potential impact upon the three needs of the general duty, further equality impact
assessment should be carried out so that colleges can consider any mitigating actions that they
might take to reduce the negative impact.
Board responsibility
Through their role of overseeing strategy, measuring progress towards outcome agreements and
scrutinising proposals for change, boards need to ensure that there is a robust approach to impact
assessment in the work they consider. They also need to demonstrate that consideration of the
evidence from impact assessments has been an integral part of their own decision-making
process.
Boards need to be confident that they have scrutinised evidence from impact assessments,
showing where needed that colleges are taking action to mitigate against negative impact or
maximising opportunities to advance equality. Evidence of justification will be needed if a legal
challenge is made.
Gloucestershire county council was challenged on its decision to close library services. As there
was no evidence of effective impact assessment or sufficient information gathering, the high court
found that decisions had been taken without the necessary due regard required by the PSED and
found the decisions unlawful on that basis. The county council were ordered to revisit their plans.
www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/kirsty-green-v-gloucestershire-county-councilothers-judgment-16112011
Oversight of cumulative effect
In the context of change and reform that colleges are currently operating in, appropriate levels of
accountability for assessing impact for equality must be in place.
In respect of merger preparation or implementation of change, for example in the work-streamed
approach being used by many colleges, it becomes critical that boards take an oversight of how
the college is collating impact assessment information and taking subsequent action. Any
individual or group making decisions on behalf of the college has the responsibility to assess
individual and cumulative effect, and boards must know that this has been done effectively.
Importantly, boards have responsibility for and are in the best position to monitor instances where
a risk of cumulative effect has been identified. For example, where individual decisions, policies,
new procedures or practices on their own, perhaps proposed by different working groups, are not
significantly detrimental but which when combined have a cumulative detrimental impact.
Boards must have confidence that:
=
they can demonstrate that the college has in place appropriate processes to undertake impact
assessment at all levels of operation
=
evidence considered includes anticipated impact, including future risk
=
they have proactively sought opportunities to mitigate adverse impact where that is identified
=
they have pursued actions to bring positive advances in equality, or to foster good relations
between people with different characteristics
=
they have identified a way of monitoring the impact of decisions and actions implemented
from an initial impact assessment and used this information to direct future impact
assessment
Guiding principles for impact assessment
By conducting an effective impact assessment a positive benefit can be realised, and a negative
one can be mitigated, assisting colleges in meeting the aims of the PSED.
An effective impact assessment should generate baseline evidence and provide an audit trail of
how this evidence has been used and analysed prior to decision-making.
An impact assessment should not be retrospectively conducted.
What decisions, policies and practices should be assessed?
Any new decisions on policies or practices must be assessed, including the impact of decisions or
policies that are outside the direct control of the college. However the specific duty to assess the
impact of policies and practices also applies to both revised policies and to existing policies.
Colleges should prioritise the review of existing policies or practices that are most likely to impact
on the PSED such as budget decisions or the withdrawal of a service.
EHRC Scotland advises that:
‘It is good practice to publish a timetable for review and revision work to take place.’
EHRC Scotland (2012) Assessing impact and the public sector
equality duty: a guide for public authorities (Scotland)
www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/Scotland/PSED_in_Scotland/assessing_impact_an
d_the_psed.doc
When college boards are taking decisions to merge, or work in a federation partnership and
initiating and approving decisions for change, the impact of those decisions on staff and students
who belong to protected characteristic groups should be considered.
Impact should be measured when:
=
developing, evaluating and reviewing policies and practices, or bringing existing policy and
practice together across several colleges as a region
=
designing, delivering and evaluating services, including education provisions
=
removing or adding courses delivered
=
commissioning and procuring services from others
=
setting the recruitment criteria for staff or board members
=
reviewing admissions policy and procedures
=
changing the location of where courses are delivered
=
reviewing and changing approaches to learning and teaching or assessment processes
=
bringing together and aligning different student support mechanisms and practices
Colleges involved in partnership working as part of change planning and implementation should
consider how collectively they are embedding impact assessment and evidence gathering, to
advance equality. This is a key objective to help demonstrate that they have had due regard to the
three needs of the general duty within their thinking and decision-making processes.
www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/Scotland/PSED_in_Scotland/assessing_impact_an
d_the_psed.doc
The impact assessment process: key stages
Step 1: screening
Conduct an initial assessment of an existing policy or decision likely to impact on equality. To
decide whether to conduct a full impact assessment, consider the following questions.
=
Is the policy area known to be problematic or have any complaints been received about it?
=
Is the policy key to promoting equality such as putting in place reasonable adjustments for
disabled applicants?
=
Has feedback or engagement with stakeholders identified a need for an equality impact
assessment on the policy?
=
Is the policy of strategic importance? All strategic policies should be analysed in terms of their
impact on equality issues.
If a policy is thought to be of no relevance to equality, this should be documented and the decision
not to conduct an equality impact assessment should be periodically reviewed. If a policy is not
prioritised for immediate impact assessment, a timeframe for when it will be looked at should be
agreed.
Screening is part of evidence-gathering, and does not fulfil the requirement to conduct impact
assessment in itself. If a potential negative impact is identified, colleges must undertake a full
impact assessment.
Given the potentially high impact of many policies on a college’s ability to meet the PSED and
specific duties, in many cases they may want to start at step 2.
Step 2: collecting and analysing data
Where a policy has, or is likely to have, a positive or negative impact on a particular group, or a
college is unsure of its impact, you will need to collect and analyse quantitative and qualitative
data by protected characteristic to understand more about the impact of the policy. For example,
does data suggest that an admissions policy poses a particular barrier to female applicants?
The data analysed should include information gathered during consultation and involvement
exercises.
Look at the data and analyse what it tells you before you implement your policy change, if no
adverse impact has been identified, proceed and record your evidence and decision.
Sometimes colleges will not have sufficient data to identify the likely impact of a policy, in which
case research or external data from for example community partners can be used.
Where no information is available, colleges should closely monitor the implementation of the
policy as this will assist them in gathering relevant evidence and help demonstrate due regard if
challenged.
Recording how evidence has been considered can demonstrate that due regard was taken at or
before the timing of a decision. This could be done, for example, through recording in minutes of
meetings what evidence was considered. This has clear implications for boards and colleges
undertaking or implementing merger, federation and regional partnership operating models.
Step 3: revising or justifying decisions
Where a policy is found to have either a positive or negative impact on a particular group it will
need to be revised or justified within the permits of the law.
If a potential negative impact is identified, this does not mean you cannot proceed with the
decision, but you should consider the scale of the impact and what actions you could reasonably
take to mitigate against the negative effect of the decision.
For example, if a college uses admissions tests for particular subject areas and they are found to
impact negatively on the admission rate of BME applicants, can the continued use of the tests be
justified? If not, what alternative methods are available to improve the final selection of
applicants? Where such tests are found to have a positive impact, and are advancing equality, can
they be used in other subject areas?
Step 4: undertaking further consultation and involvement
Where policy revisions are proposed to enhance or mitigate impact, relevant groups will need to
be consulted or involved to ensure that the revised policy is fit for purpose.
Colleges should create and publicise engagement opportunities to enable stakeholders,
particularly those from protected groups, to be informed about potential changes and contribute
evidence to influence decision-making processes.
Step 5: publishing the impact assessment results and action plans
The results of the impact assessment will need to be made publicly available. This ensures
transparency and enables public bodies to share their findings, which can reduce workload
through shared learning.
The college’s action plans do not need to be published, although doing so will aid transparency.
Colleges should provide channels for stakeholders to respond to published information.
College reports or publications should outline how effectively the college have mitigated any
adverse impact.
Step 6: monitoring
Once the revised or new policy has been implemented, it should be monitored and periodically
reviewed to ensure that it has the intended impact and is still appropriate.
Colleges should make it clear how regularly they will analyse information and publish the impact
of decisions.
If after reviewing the impact of the policy a college introduces mitigating action/s to reduce any
negative impact, it should monitor the impact of these and revise accordingly.
If the mitigating actions taken have not managed to reduce the adverse impact of the policy or
practice identified by the impact assessment, consider whether the policy needs to be revised.
Impact assessment case studies
A college (or federated group of colleges) is considering taking the decision to move a curriculum
department to a new location, to review the range and level of programmes, and consider staffing
restructures. Both staff and students from a number of protected characteristic groups would
potentially be affected.
In order to have due regard to three needs of the general duty, the college undertakes an equality
impact assessment of these potential decisions. The college considers a range of evidence to
assess the impact including:
=
statistical evidence of student participation in the department’s programmes by protected
characteristic
=
implications of programme changes by participation of staff members and students with
protected characteristics
=
disabled access and transportation links to the new location
=
evidence by protected characteristic for the potential pool of staff who could be considered
eligible for redundancy, or for new post applications
The college identifies a potential impact on the need to advance equality of opportunity for their
disabled students and staff as the access to the new building is different to the old location. To
mitigate against this the college undertakes an access audit and considers what any access
requirements or reasonable adjustments are required for disabled students and staff to access the
new location and makes arrangements to put these in place.
The college also identified that programme changes could lead to a reduction in the number of
staff required to deliver the programmes in this department, which includes a larger proportion of
BME staff than other departments. The college assesses whether there is another way to achieve
their aim of reducing the numbers of programmes without the impact on BME staff. It decides that
their aim is legitimate but that they will put in place mitigating actions to diminish any risks of
redundancy including access to retraining and an assessment of other department’s needs to see
if staff can be reallocated.
A college is considering extending parking provision for students which had previously only been
available to disabled students. The college assesses the policy against the three needs of the
general duty and in particular the need to advance equality of opportunity for different groups.
The college finds through the impact assessment that extended parking facilities will not
negatively impact on disabled students and will also have a positive impact on students with
caring responsibilities as they will be able to park closer to their classes and can leave the college
more quickly.
As a result the college decides to extend their parking available to students on a six-month trial
basis and then survey the students to review its impact on all protected groups.
To develop a consistent approach as a merged college (or federated group of colleges), the board
has decided to align the previous different admissions procedures for certain courses. A working
group is established to look at the selection methodology for arts courses. The approaches from
the merged colleges include admissions tests in the form of portfolio submission and interviews.
The working group considers stopping admissions tests in favour of interviewing candidates.
The group assesses the proposed policy against the need to promote equality of opportunity and
eliminate discrimination. It finds that admissions tests can impact negatively on the admission rate
of BME students but that interviews can be dependent on the bias of the interviewer. To minimise
bias the working group decides that a combination of portfolio submission and interviews are
appropriate. To mitigate against negative impact, staff interviewing potential students are given
training on equality and unconscious bias. The policy is reviewed after the first year’s intake and
an increase in the number of BME students and female students on the courses is noted.
A merged college is considering moving their central HR and admissions services to one location to
ensure consistency of approach and to streamline the services. Several locations have been
proposed. The merged college assesses the individual impact of moving each service to the
proposed locations against the needs of the general duty and also assesses the cumulative impact
of moving all of the services.
The colleges finds that travel time for those with caring responsibilities would increase by a large
amount for many of the staff members impacting most negatively on those with caring
responsibilities. The college looks for ways to mitigate the impact of moving services including:
=
consulting the nursery on extending opening hours to cover travel times for staff and students
picking up children from other sites after work or classes
=
working with local transport companies to improve links between the sites
=
improving communication lines with staff and students so they are aware of upcoming
changes and can make alternative arrangements for transport and childcare provision as
necessary
Learning from good practice in health and safety
Boards already understand and use risk registers, including health and safety risk
assessment.
Both the PSED and health and safety need to be embedded in change planning and this can be
safeguarded by using the risk register to highlight significant examples that need to be closely and
regularly monitored and to determine that action has been effective.
Organisations keen to develop effective impact assessment approaches can in many respects learn
from advances already made in undertaking and building capacity to undertake risk assessment
processes:
Like health and safety risk assessment and assessment for financial impact, the process of impact
assessment for equality has a cycle. The two legislative duties of health and safety and PSED
require ongoing review by those responsible, ensuring they demonstrate evidence that they are
taking mitigating action to minimise risk, identify unintended effects and monitor the results or
impact.
Like all risk assessment, impact assessment for equality is based on taking evidence into account
to identify a potential risk, for example a potential negative impact on people from protected
characteristic groups. The control aspect for equality is achieved by continuing with policies which
bring benefit or positive outcome or by taking mitigating action to reduce impact or risk. Once
decisions to adopt new policy or practice are implemented, the impact or outcome must then be
evaluated. Again based on evidence, this enables the board and colleges to see if this has helped
the college meet the specific duty as intended.
Putting impact assessment into practice during regionalisation
Colleges and boards should review the arrangements and approaches they currently have in place
for assessing impact for equality to ensure they have a robust process which is fit for purpose
during changes brought about by regionalisation.
Impact assessments should be led by the board or staff member with responsibility for the
proposed change, revision or alignment of policy and subsequent decisions as they have
ownership, accountability and experience of delivering this activity or practice.
In reviewing arrangements for assessing impact, colleges and boards need to be confident
individuals have access to support and equality advice within their process. While those
responsible for assessing impact must be responsible in that area, objectivity and scrutiny is
enhanced through the involvement of expertise in equality practice and also objectivity from a
separate college function.
Boards should be able to demonstrate that due regard was taken at the time a decision was made.
Examples of how to ensure this is in place include:
=
adopting a systematic method for considering evidence, eg across board meetings and working
or planning groups
=
an audit trail to demonstrate they have been considering this
=
developing a process to gather equality concerns and capture compound impact
=
actions are monitored for impact, intended or otherwise
=
ensure recording of impact assessment is a standard agenda item in board or workstream
meetings
The table below could be used to note discussions and initial actions in response to any issues or
positive opportunities to advance equality and foster good relations that may arise. This could
subsequently be used to monitor progress over a series of meetings and timeframe.
Only actions or discussions that are identified as relevant to the PSED need be recorded. If none
are noted, that provides evidence also. Using this simple approach means that there is an
opportunity for unscheduled or non-agenda issues to be noted.
Agenda item/
decision/discussion
point
Potential impact for
protected
characteristic groups
(note evidence
considered)
Planned action
Carried forward to
(full impact
matters arising
assessment/
(date)
consult/review
evidence, discuss issue
with relevant partners:
community planning
etc, review policy
proposal)
NB This is simply a record to help demonstrate when and where due regard to the three needs of
the general duty were taken and actions to follow. Where due regard signals a need for full
equality impact assessment, that evidence and process would need to be recorded appropriately.
Review documentation
The regulations do not prescribe what colleges’ approach to impact assessment should be.
However, colleges’ recording templates, mechanisms and tools should be reviewed to ensure they
are fit for purpose.
The following guiding principles and questions could be used when undertaking a review and
redesign of existing tools or templates.
=
Does the impact assessment tool refer to assessing impact against each of the needs of general
duty?
=
Is the impact assessment tool used before decisions are made?
=
Does it capture what impact is looked for from this change (e.g. benefit, needs of general
duty)?
=
Is there a timeframe for the change proposed?
=
Is there an analysis of risk going ahead with this change?
=
Can the recording method capture positive outcomes envisaged?
=
Does the recording capture mitigating action to be taken and by whom?
=
Does the tool enable recording a decision that there is no impact on the general duty or the
specific duties and why this is?
=
Does the template include consideration of all of the protected characteristics?
=
Does the template record evidence of consultation and involvement (or hyperlink to
evidence)?
=
Is accountability for follow up monitoring and reporting assigned with a time frame?
=
Is accountability for publishing content incorporated?
=
Is there a recording option to monitor the impact and result of change going ahead? For
example:
Option 1
Proceed – no potential identified for discrimination or adverse impact, and
all opportunities to promote equality have been taken
Option 2
Proceed with adjustments to remove barriers identified or to better
promote equality
Option 3
Continue despite having identified some potential for adverse impact or
missed opportunity to promote equality
Option 4
Stop and remove the policy or practice due to actual or potential unlawful
discrimination
Recommendations
Colleges and boards should:
=
review and if necessary redesign their arrangements and processes for assessing impact of all
they do to meet the evidence requirements of the duty
=
ensure that there is clear accountability for assessment of impact and the delivery of equality
outcomes
=
ensure that impact assessment processes now encompass consideration for all of the
protected characteristics (not only race, disability and gender) in relation to each of the three
aims of the PSED
=
ensure senior commitment to equality issues and embedding consideration of equality issues
throughout the college is equivalent to those for risk assessment or other risk registers
=
use equality outcomes to draw equality impact assessment into the mainstream work of the
college
=
ensure that all changes of policy are considered in relation to how this will help colleges fulfil
the three needs of the general duty
=
identify a range of methods for engaging those who may be most affected by policy and
practice in the design and delivery of services
=
ask searching questions of themselves and others to meet the general duty
Colleges should:
=
start impact assessment at the outset and development of changes
=
establish a team responsible for assessing impact which has expertise drawn from across
college functions
=
ensure there is equality support and advice available to those responsible for conducting
impact assessments
=
train the relevant staff and decision makers about what assessing impact is, how to conduct
them, and what they are looking for
=
consult and involve
=
when necessary, consider mitigating action
=
ensure impact is explicitly considered at or before the decision point
=
monitor and review
=
publish accessibly both in manner and location
Further information
=
ECU (2010) Equality in restructuring and redundancy
www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-in-restructuring-and-redundancy
=
ECU (2012) Equality through procurement in further and higher education
www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-through-procurement-fe-and-he
=
EHRC (2012) Equality Act 2010: technical guidance on further and higher education
www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance//information-for-advisers/equality-actcodes-of-practice
=
Scottish Government (online resource) Equality and diversity impact assessment toolkit
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20687/52425
=
Welsh Assembly Government (2010) Inclusive policy making guidance
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/equality/publications/ipmguide2/?lang=en