5.Lessons Learned 19

EvaluationoftheImprovingEqualityOutcomesProjectEqualityandHumanRightsCommissionScotland

FinalReportFebruary2015

2 Myrtle Park, GlasgowG428UQ

t:01414243765

Contents

ExecutiveSummary...... i

1.Introduction...... 1

2.Context...... 3

3.KeyFindings...... 6

4.Conclusions...... 16

5.Lessons Learned……………………………………………19

Appendices

Appendix1: DiscussionGuide

Appendix2: OnlineSurveyQuestionnaire

ExecutiveSummary Introduction

1.TheEqualityandHumanRights Commission(EHRC)commissionedan evaluationof theirImprovingEqualityOutcomesProject –aprogrammeof directsupportto46public authorities whoseequalityoutcomes werejudged tobelikelytobenefitfromsomesupportfromtheEHRC toimprovethem.

2.Ourevaluationfocusedonassessingtheoverall effectiveness ofthesupport programmefromtheperspectiveof participants.This reportpresents the views andexperiences ofa rangeof authorities that participatedintheprogramme. It alsosets outthefindings andconclusionsfromourevaluation, alongwiththekeylearningpointsthat haveemergedfromthis.

3.Theevaluationinvolvedthreemainstages:

•adesktop reviewofexisting information;

•anonlinesurveyofparticipatingauthorities–wereceived27survey responses (59% of participatingauthorities);and

•telephoneinterviewswith14participatingauthorities.

Experience ofsupport

4.Theopportunitytoget individual structuredfeedbackfromEHRC was seento bethemosthelpfulformof support,particularlyforsmallerauthorities –with 80% of thoserespondingtothesurveysayingthat this was ‘helpful’or ‘very helpful’. Manysaidthat theywelcomedthetailoredfeedback thatthey receivedfromEHRC, whetherthiswasface-to-face,byphoneoremail and thatthis hadhelpedto informtheir revisedequalityoutcomes.

5.However, anumberof authorities saidthat this typeof feedbackshouldhave beenprovidedatamuchearlierstage–muchclosertothetimeof publication oftheequalityoutcomes inApril 2013.

6.Well overhalf ofrespondents saidthat theself assessment tool hadbeen ‘helpful’ or ‘veryhelpful’ andhadprovidedagoodstep-by-stepguide, as well as useful examples of goodpractice.Asmall minoritysaidthattheself assessmenttool was complexanddifficult touse.

7.Authorities were moreambivalentabouttheusefulness of theintroductory seminar. Manyfeltthat it was not relevanttothemorthatit was toogeneral anddidnotprovidespecificfeedbackon individual outcomesandhowto improvethem.Others questionedtherationaleforbringing lots of different organisationstogetherat oneevent, suggestingthatamoretargetedand tailoredapproachshouldhavebeentaken,bringingtogethersmallergroups of similartypes of authorities.

8.Manyauthorities wereverypositiveaboutthesupport that theyhad received fromEHRC staff, sayingthat this hadbeen ‘constructive’ and‘helpful’. Feedback was generallyfelt tohavebeenhandledwell andhadstruck the right balance.

Impact ofsupport

9.Thesupportseems tohavehad limitedadditional impact oneither‘changing attitudes’ or ‘strategic involvement’ withinorganisations, withmanyauthorities statingthat theyalreadyhad‘buy-in’ at seniormanagementandboardlevel.

10.Interms of ‘engagement’ and‘joint working’, theoverall impact ofthesupport seemedtohavebeenmodest, withmanyauthorities sayingthattheyalready hadappropriateprocesses inplace.

11.Incontrast, itwas clearthatthesupporthadapositiveimpact inhelping authorities todevelopandimprovetheirevidencebases. However, for many authorities, this was still ‘work inprogress’ andmorework was requiredtofill thegapsinevidence,particularlyat the locallevel. This was particularlytrue ofsmallerauthorities.

Equalityoutcomes

12.Almosthalf theauthorities saidthatthesupport theyhad receivedfromEHRC hadhelped‘a lot’ withtherewordingoftheirequalityoutcomes, andthat gettingaccess togoodpracticeexampleshadimprovedtheirunderstandingof what was required.

13.Anumberof authorities saidthattherewas nowagreaterfocusonoutcomes ratherthanoutputs. Others saidthat theywerenowcleareronhowthey would measureprogress against theiroutcomes–althoughsomesaidthat theystill hadmoretodoonthis.

Growing confidence

14.Thepeopleparticipating intheproject self-assessedtheirconfidencein relationtoeightelements of developingequalityoutcomesbeforeandafter their involvement intheproject.Theyscoredeachelement out of10–with thehigherscores equatingtogreaterconfidence.Therewas asubstantial increaseinconfidence–fromanaverageof 5.3(out of 10)beforeto7.8after theproject.

Lessonslearned

15.Thetimingof feedbackwas seentobecritical for mostauthorities.This had beenaffectedonthis occasionbytherequirementforScottishMinisters to publishtheir report ontheduties.Followingfuturedeadlines, EHRCshould seek toprovidefeedback toallauthorities asearlyas possible,whetherthis is face-to-face,byphoneorbyemail.

16.It was clearfromourevaluationthat ‘onetoone’ support was the most effectiveformof support, althoughit was recognisedthat inpracticalterms it might bedifficulttoprovidethis typeofsupport ona regularbasistoall public authorities.

17.EHRC couldconsidermoreproportionateandtargetedways ofdealingwith, andsupportingdifferent types andsizes of organisations,particularlysmaller organisations.

18.Thereappears tobeaperceiveddisconnectforauthorities thatareremote fromthecentralbelt.EHRC couldconsidermethods ofimproving connections withtheseorganisationstoensurethat theyhavegreateraccess toarangeof goodpractice.

19.Performance measurement is achallenge, particularlyforsmaller organisations. Thismight beanareawheretailoredtraining, support and guidancewouldbebeneficial infuture.

1|Introduction

About thisreport

1.1InOctober2014, theEqualityandHumanRights Commission(EHRC) commissionedanevaluationofits ImprovingEqualityOutcomes Project – aprogrammeof direct supportto46public authorities whoseequality outcomes werejudgedtobelikelytobenefitfromsomesupportfromthe EHRC toimprovethem.

1.2Ourevaluationfocusedonassessingtheoverall effectiveness ofthesupport programmefromtheperspectiveof participants.This reportpresents the views andexperiences ofa rangeof supportedauthoritiesthat participatedin theprogramme.It alsosets out thefindings andconclusionsfromour evaluation,alongwithkeylearningpointsthat haveemergedfromthis. It shouldbenotedthat this evaluationdidnot reviewtheamendedoutcomesto assess thechangesbrought about bythis work, as EHRC carriedout afull assessment of the revisedoutcomes.

Method

1.3Theevaluationinvolvedthreemainstages:

•Desktop reviewofexisting information –EHRC heldarangeof informationaboutthe46supportedauthoritiesthatparticipatedinthe support programme.This includedself-assessmentforms which participatingpublic authorities wereaskedtocompletebeforeandafter receivingsupport andwhichindicatedtheirconfidenceinrelationtoa numberofindicators.

•Onlinesurveyofsupported authorities–Werananonlinesurveyof supportedauthorities.Thesurvey was distributedtoall of the46 supportedauthorities.Surveyresponses werereceivedfrom27 authorities (59% of participatingauthorities).

•Telephoneinterviewswith supported authorities–Asfollow-uptothe onlinesurvey,weheld interviewswith14supportedauthorities selected fromthesurveytoexploretheirexperiences inmoredetail.This included a mix ofauthorities ofdifferent types andsizesfromacrossScotland, with variedexperienceanduseof thesupport, andalsowithdifferent challenges.

1.4It is important tonotethat weagreedwithparticipantsthat wewouldnot attributeanycomments tothemortheirauthorities.Wethereforehavenot identifiedtheauthorities (or individuals) involvedinthis research.

1.5Inaddition, theevaluationis qualitative.Whileit provides richinformation about people’s views,attitudesandbehaviours, theseviews aresubjective andbasedontheirownexperiencesandinterpretationof events.Thereport does includeunattributedverbatimquotes, todemonstratekeypoints.These havebeencarefullyselectedtodemonstrateandprovideaflavourofviews – but theyarenot intendedtosummariseall views.

1.6Of the46participatingauthorities, 36providedequalityoutcomes which EHRC believewill improvetheseauthorities’abilityto measurethechanges thattheybringaboutforprotectedgroups. Inasmall numberofcases, the focus ofimprovementwas onnewsupportingevidence, suchasmanagement frameworks or measurement criteriaframeworks, ratherthantheoutcomes themselves.

2|Context

Introduction

2.1This chapterbrieflysummarises thecontext inwhichthis researchwas undertakensettingoutthegeneral andspecific dutieswhichpublic authorities inScotlandarerequiredtomeet interms of equalityandemployment, and alsoprogress thathasbeenmadesincepublic authorities inScotland publishedtheirfirstmainstreaming reportsandequalityoutcomes inApril 2013.

TheEqualityAct2010

2.2Themajority of the EqualityAct 2010came intoforceon1October2010. UndertheAct, current lawinrelationtoequalityhas beenharmonised, simplifiedand strengthened.Itaims toprotect peoplefromdiscriminatorytreatment and promoteafairand moreequal society.

2.3TheEqualityAct 2010sets out aPublic SectorEqualityDuty (the equalityduty). It came intoforceon5April 2011.Underthisduty,apublic bodymust givedueregardtotheneedto:

•eliminatediscrimination, harassmentandvictimisation;

•advanceequalityof opportunitybetweenpeoplewhoshareaprotected characteristic andthosewhodonot; and

•fostergoodrelations betweenpeoplewhoshareaprotected characteristic andthosewhodonot.

2.4Theeightprotectedcharacteristics areage, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancyand maternity, race, religionandbelief, sexandsexual orientation.

2.5TheActcovers thewholeof GreatBritain.However, therearealsospecific dutiesthat are designed to help bodiesmeet thegeneral duties.ScottishMinisters haveset specific dutiesfor Scottish listed authorities whilstthoseinEnglandand inWales are different.Theseare discussedbelow.

TheScottish Specific Duties

2.6TheSpecific DutiesinScotlandwerepassed inMarch2012,throughthe EqualityAct 2010(Specific Duties) (Scotland)Regulations2012andcame intoforceon27May2012.

2.7TheRegulations list allpublicauthorities thataresubject tothespecific duties (referredtoas ‘listedauthorities’).As at1April 2014therewere239public authorities listedasbeingcoveredbythespecific dutiesunderthepublic sectorequalityduty.

2.8Insummary, thespecific duties requirelistedauthorities to:

•produceareportontheireffortstomeet theequalityduty;

•publishaset of equalityoutcomes, andrecordtheirprogress inmeeting theseoutcomes;

•reviewandassessanynewpolicies orpractices toensuretheymeetthe equalityduty and make arrangements to review existing policies;

•gatherandusework forcerelatedinformationtoadvanceequality;

•wherealistedauthorityhas 150ormoreemployees, publishinformation onpay gaps betweenmenandwomen;

•wherealistedauthorityhas 150ormoreemployees, publishastatement coveringtheirequal paypolicyandspecific informationonoccupational segregation;

•considerequalityintheirprocurementpractices; and

•publishtheaboveinformationinawaythat makes itaccessibletoall members ofthepublic.

Improving EqualityOutcomesProject

2.9Listedauthorities wererequiredtopublishtheirfirstmainstreaming reports andequalityoutcomesby30April 2013. In2013/14theEHRC carriedouta project calledMeasuring Up?1tomonitorhow well public authoritiesin Scotlandhadmet thePublic SectorEqualityDutyspecificduties.This project covered259public authorities.

2.10TheEHRCfoundthatmanypublic authoritieshadfailedto measureupfullyto thedetail ofthespecific dutyrequirements. Only1in3hadpublishedrobust equalityoutcomes thatwereclearand measurable. Manyhadproduced equalityoutcomes thatmadeitdifficultforthemtoreport effectivelyontheirprogress byApril 2015,asrequired.

2.11InDecember2013,aspart of theirown specific duty, ScottishMinisters publishedtheir proposals2toenablepublic authorities tobetterperformtheirPublic Sector EqualityDuties.Theseproposalshadbeeninformedbytheexperiences of thepublic authorities in respondingtothespecific dutiesat thattime.

1EHRC-MeasuringUp?Report3:MonitoringPublicAuthoritiesPerformanceoftheScottishSpecificDuties–September2013

2ScottishGovernment–ScottishMinisters’proposalstoenablethebetterperformanceofthePublicSectorEqualityDuty2013-2017–December2013

2.12Inresponsetothe Measuring Upexercise, andtakingaccount of Scottish Ministers’ proposalsfor improvingperformanceagainsttheequalityduties,the EHRC committedto work inpartnershipwithScottishGovernment tosupport improvingtheperformanceof public authorities inrelationtothePublic Sector EqualityDuty. InJune2014, theEHRC launchedaprogrammeof direct supportfor46authorities whoseequalityoutcomeswerejudgedasmost likely tobenefitfromimprovement.Theprogramme involvedacombinationof seminars, peersupport, dedicatedsupportfromEHRC staff andaself- assessmenttool. Followingparticipationinthis programme,theparticipating authorities agreedtoproduce renewedequalityoutcomes inOctober 2014.

3|KeyFindings

Introduction

3.1This chaptersets out thekeyfindings gatheredfromtheviews expressedby theauthorities thatparticipated intheEHRC’s ImprovingEqualityOutcomes Project. Theseviewsweregatheredthroughacombinationof anonline survey, andfollow-uptelephone interviewswithselectedauthorities.

Experience ofsupport

3.2Participatingauthorities wereaskedabout thedifferenttypes ofsupport that theyhad receivedfromEHRC as part of thesupport programme.

Structured support

3.3Overfourfifths of authorities saidthattheindividual structuredfeedback that theyhad receivedfromEHRC hadbeeneither ‘helpful’ or ‘veryhelpful’. Many [14]authorities saidthat theywelcomedtheopportunity ofgettingtailored feedbackfromEHRC,whetherthis wasface-to-face,byphoneoremail.They felt that this hadhelpedtoinformtheir revisedequalityoutcomes.Somesaid thatthis approachhadallowedthemtodiscuss issues that werespecific to theirauthorities.However, anumberofauthorities saidthat theywouldhave welcomedthis typeoffeedback at a muchearlierstage–muchclosertothe timeofpublicationoftheequalityoutcomes inApril 2013.Asaresult steps hadbeentakenbysomeauthorities todevelopactionplansandperformance management systemsbasedonoutcomesthat subsequentlyrequiredtobe amended.

“Theonetoonefeedback was theonlyplacewherewelearnt what the specific issues relatingtoouroutcomes were.”

(Participatingauthority)

“Wehadavery goodpositivediscussionabout ourspecificdocuments. Giventhecircumstances, [EHRC staff]havedoneexceptionallywell. They playedablinder.”

(Participatingauthority)

Selfassessment tool

3.4Well overhalf ofrespondents saidthat theself assessment tool hadbeen either ‘helpful’or ‘very helpful’. Oneauthority commentedthat ithadprovided agood‘step-by-step’ guide,as well as usefulexamples ofgoodpractice.

3.5Incontrast,asmallminorityof authorities [2]saidthat theselfassessmenttool hadnotbeenhelpful.Themaincriticism madebytheseauthoritieswas that it was complexanddifficult touse.Oneauthoritysaidthatit hadlimitedvalueto them, astheyhadonlybeenrequiredtomake minimal changestotheir outcomes. Anumberofauthorities saidthattheyhadn’t useditat all.

“TheSelf AssessmentTool was difficult touse: what was it gettingat, what informationwas it wantingfromus?”

(Participatingauthority)

Briefing pack

3.6Twothirds of authorities saidthatthebriefingpack informationhadbeeneither ‘helpful’ or ‘veryhelpful’, butdidnotmakeanyfurthercomments inrelationto thepack.

Introductoryseminar

3.7Overtwofifths of authorities saidthattheintroductoryseminarhadbeeneither ‘helpful’ or ‘veryhelpful’. Oneauthoritycommentedthat ithadprovidedan opportunitytonetwork withcolleaguesfromotherauthoritiesandtodiscuss commonissuesabouttheequalityoutcomes.

3.8However, just overaquarterof authoritiesfeltthattheintroductoryseminar was ‘not helpful’. Manyoftheseauthorities felt that theseminarwas eithernot relevant tothem,orthat it was toogeneralanddidnot providespecific feedbackonindividualoutcomesandhowtoimprovethem.

“This gotpeopleoff onthewrongfoot,as theywerenot surewhat theyshould beaimingfor.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.9Therewas strongagreementacross authorities that it wouldhavebeenmore beneficial if feedback hadbeenprovidedtoindividual authorities inadvanceof theintroductoryseminar. Onerespondentcommentedthat thegapbetween submittingtheiroriginal outcomestoEHRC andgettinganykindof adviceor feedbackfromEHRC hadbeentoolong–withfeedbackonlybeingprovided 14months afterpublicationoftheequalityoutcomes.Inaddition,others questionedtherationaleof bringing lots ofverydifferent authorities together, suggestingthat it wouldhavebeenbetterandmoremeaningful ifsmaller workshops ordiscussiongroupshadbeenorganisedforsimilartypes of authorities.

“Wespentadaywonderingwhat wehaddonewrong. It wouldhavebeen morehelpful tohavefocusedonwhatneededtochange.”

(Participatingauthority)

“Theanalysis of theoriginal outcomesshouldhavebeenmadeavailabletous beforetheseminarforit tohaveanyreal purpose.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.10Onerespondent based inaremotelocation inScotlandhighlightedthe problemof accessibility, statingthat itwas not possibletoattendtheseminar inGlasgowduetotimeandcost constraints,andthat avideoconference facilityshouldhavebeenavailableforauthorities that werenotbasedinthe central belt.

3.11Asmall numberof authorities addedthattherewerenotenoughexamples of goodpracticegivenattheseminarthat wererelevant tosmaller, more specialist authorities,forexample,licensingboards or regional transport partnerships.

3.12Others commentedthat thetimingof theevent was not good, withsomeofthe joint valuationboard’scommentingthat theyweretiedupwithupdatingtheir electoral registers beforetheIndependence Referendum.

Whatworked best

3.13Participatingauthorities wereaskedinthetelephoneinterviews about theone thingabouttheprojectthathadmadethegreatestpositiveimpact.Their responses aresummarisedbelow:

•Theopportunitytogettailored‘onetoone’feedbackfromEHRC [4].

•It helpedtoincreaseawareness oftheboththeequalitiesduties and equalityoutcomes [2].

•ThefeedbackfromEHRC was handledwell –theirapproachwas about ‘assisting’ not ‘punishing’ [2].

•Thechancetoreflect andreview wheretheywerecomparedtoother authorities [2].

•Gettingaccess toexamples ofgoodpractice[2].

“This was anewprocess forsomeof us, whowerenot usedtosetting outcomes.Wethought that wehad met therequirements until wesawsome oftheexamples ofgoodpractice.”

(Participatingauthority)

What didn’twork

3.14Participatingauthorities werealsoaskedduringthetelephoneinterviews about theonethingthat EHRC couldhavedonedifferentlytoachievegreater impactfromtheproject.Their responses aresummarisedbelow:

•Guidanceandsupportshouldhavebeenavailableat thefirst iterationof theprocess,preferablyinadvanceof theoriginal April 2013deadline.

•EHRC shouldhavebeenmoreproactive-thesupportprocess should havestartedearlier–June2014was alreadytoolate.

•EHRC shouldhavetakena moretargetedandproportionateapproachto providingsupport,particularlyforsmallerauthorities suchas regional transportauthoritiesandlicensingboards.

•It wouldhavebeenbettertohavehadseparateseminars/workshops for similartypes of authorities.

•Thereshouldhavebeenmoreexamples ofgoodpracticerelevantto smallerauthorities.

•Betteruseshouldhavebeenmadeof existinggroups andnetworks for theprovisionofadviceandsupport.

•EHRC shouldissuetemplatesforauthoritiestouse–togetmore consistencyinapproaches.

•Access tovideoconferencingfacilitiesforauthorities thatare geographicallyremotefromthecentralbelt.

•Moreflexibilityinannual cycleforoutcomes –theApril toMarchcycle doesnotwork forallauthorities.

•MorefrequentdialoguebetweenEHRC andpublic authorities.

“As ajointlicensingboard, wearequitedifferentfromotherpublic bodies– wedon’t employstaff andwedon’tprovideservices.”

(Participatingauthority)

“As aresult of beingpart of theproject, wefeel that wehavehadtogobeyond what was requiredofsimilarorganisations.”

(Participatingauthority)

“Peoplewerekeentoaddress issues that EHRC hadidentifiedintheJune Seminar, but things seemedtodragout abit,as EHRC resources wereunder pressure.”

(Participatingauthority)

General comments

3.15Afewauthorities expressedtheirviews ontheImprovingEqualityOutcomes Project asawhole.Theseviewsweresplit, withsomewelcomingtheproject andthedifferenttypes ofsupportprovidedbytheEHRC.Oneauthority commentedthat they hadprovidedadditionalsupporting informationtoEHRC (aperformanceframeworkwhichtheyhadnot previouslypublished)andwere not requiredtoamendtheiroriginal equalityoutcomes. Nevertheless, theyhad foundit worthwhileparticipating intheproject,evenalthoughit was justfora short while, as ithadhelpedtoboost confidencelevels.

“Thewholeprocesswas helpful inguidingustoreviewouroutcomes.”

(Participatingauthority)

“ThefeedbackfromEHRCwas positive, andI was abletoreport this back to thecouncil andthis helpedtoaddresssomeinternal concerns aboutbeing ‘called-in’ bytheEHRC inthefirst place.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.16However, othersfelt that theprocess was ‘frustrating’ and‘drawnout’ and couldhavebeenmuchsimpler,andcarriedout atanearlierstage.

“Therewas littlethat was positive–itwas afrustratingprocess.”

(Participatingauthority)

“Individual support,acoupleofindividual conversations andageneral email couldhavereplacedtheentireprocess.”

(Participatingauthority)

“Theproject was implementedtoolate, whenmost organisations hadspent overayearprogressingactionplans tomeettheiroutcomes.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.17Manyauthorities spokehighlyof thesupportthattheyhadreceivedfromstaff withinEHRC statingthat it hadbeen‘constructive’ and‘helpful’.Somesaid thattheyreallylikedEHRC’s approach, as itstruck the right balancebetween providingadviceandsupport, andlettingpeopleget onwiththejob.

3.18However, oneauthoritycommentedthatthefeedback theyhadbeengiven was ‘unhelpful’,andhadcoveredthings thatwerealreadyincludedwithintheir mainstreaming report.Theirfeelingwas thatthefocus oftheexercisewas on achievingcompliance,andtickingtheright boxes, ratherthanseekingto make areal difference.

Impact ofsupport

3.19Supportedauthoritieswereaskedwhat impact thesupport theyhad received hadhadontheirauthorities.

Changing attitudes

3.20Just underafifthof authorities saidthat thesupport hadhad‘alot’ ofimpact in helpingtochangeattitudes withintheirauthorities. Butjustoverhalfsaidthat it had ‘alittle’ impact.Some[3] saidthatas a result of theirparticipationinthe project andthe involvement of EHRC, thishadensuredthat greaterpriority was giventothe revisedoutcomes.

“Beingpart of theproject providedanopportunitytopublicisewhat theywere doingtosupport theequalities agendaandhowthis impactedondifferentPC groups.”

(Participatingauthority)

Strategicinvolvement

3.21Afifthof authorities saidthat thesupport hadhad‘alot’ of impactonstrategic involvementwithintheirauthorities, withtwofifths saying it hadhad‘alittle’ impact. Manyauthorities saidthat therewas alreadybuy-inat senior managementandboardlevel, andthishadnot reallychangedasa result of supportfromEHRC.Whilst somesaidthat it hadhelpedtoraiseawareness withintheirauthorities,others saidthat ithadallowedamorestrategic overviewtobetakenthatensuredbuy-intotheequalitiesagenda.

“It haspromptedanawarenessat DirectorandBoardlevel of theneedto reviewandhaveinplaceappropriateequalityoutcomes.”

(Participatingauthority)

Engagement

3.22Aquarterof authoritiessaidthatthesupport had‘alot’ of impacton engagement withkeystakeholders.Whereashalf ofauthorities said it had had‘alittle’ impact. Manysaidthat theywerealreadycommittedtoengaging withkeystakeholders internallyandexternally, andthat thesearrangements hadbeeninplacewhentheyproducedtheirfirst set out outcomes.Asmall number[2] saidthattheyhadsought to involveawider rangeof stakeholders or link inwithexistingnetworks, followingthesupport andfeedbacktheyhad receivedfromEHRC.

3.23Others saidthat theywouldensurethat all stakeholders, includingstaff, were coveredinfutureconsultationandengagement processes.

“This was the real positivefromthesecond iteration.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.24Well overaquarterof authorities saidthat thesupporthadhad‘alot’ ofimpact onjoint working. Thesamenumbersaidthatit hadhad‘a little’ impact. Many saidthat their jointworkingprocessesandstructures werealreadyinplace andwell established, andthatthis hadnotreallybeenaffectedbythesupport fromEHRC.Oneauthoritycommentedthat theEHRC supporthadhelpedto finetuneexistingarrangements.

Better evidence

3.25Anumberof authorities [5] saidthattheyhadtriedtodeveloptheirevidence base,butforsomethis was achallenge,partlyduetoresourcesandalsothe availabilityofrobust dataatalocal level. Afewsaidthat this was still ‘work in progress’ andmorework was requiredtofill someof thegaps,andtodevelop amorecomprehensiveevidencebase.

“Wetriedtopull inevidencetosupport thedevelopment of ouroutcomes,but local evidenceishardtocomeby.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.26Otherauthorities [5] saidthat theyhadmadebetteruseoftheirexisting evidence, bymaking relevant links totheirequalityoutcomes.Althoughsome notedthatmorework wouldberequiredtodevelopthisfurther.

“Wearenowabletopresentaclearerpictureofwherewewere,wherewe arenowandwhereweareheading.”

(Participatingauthority)

“Wedidamorethoroughjobwithwhat wehad.”

(Participatingauthority)

Confidencelevels

3.27Inthesurvey, overthreequarters of authorities saidthatthesupporttheyhad receivedfromEHRC hadhelpedtoboost theirconfidence.Someof these authorities saidthat ithadreassuredthemthat what theyweredoingwas right, andthattheywerenowcleareronhowtodevelopfocusedand measurableoutcomes.Others saidthattheyhadabetterunderstandingof EHRC’s requirementsandoftheirdutiesmoregenerally.

“Thefeedback andassistancefromEHRC has proveduseful interms of developingamoreappropriatestructureandcontent ofourOutcomes document.”

(Participatingauthority)

“It helpsus knowthatwhat weareproducingmeets bestpracticeand legislativeaims.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.28However, asmallminorityofauthorities[3]didnotfeel that thesupport had boostedtheirconfidence. Oneauthoritysaidthatthewaythat thesupport had beendeliveredhadactuallyunderminedtheirconfidence.

“Wearestill confused.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.29Inaddition, theEHRCaskedparticipants tocompleteasimple‘scorecard’ to indicateonascaleof 1to10howconfident theyfeltaboutaseries of eight statements.At thestart oftheproject,37participating individuals completeda confidencescorecard.At theendof theproject, 12participants completedthe scorecard.Wehaveanalysedthechanges inaverageconfidencebeforeand after involvementintheproject.Table3.1clearlyshows that therehas beena significantincrease intheaveragelevel ofconfidence.

3.30Across all confidenceindicators, theaverageconfidencehas grownfrom5.3 to7.8.Inaddition,therewas asignificantly greateraverageconfidencelevel foreachof theeightindividual confidence indicators.Thelowest average scorebeforewas 4.2,whilethelowest confidencescoreafterwas 6.9.This feedbackfromparticipants suggests thattheproject hadastrong impacton thelevels of confidenceof participants.

Equalityoutcomes

3.31Participatingauthorities werealsoaskedinthetelephoneinterviewsabout the impact of thesupport ontheiroutcomes, andalsotheirprocessesfor developingoutcomes.

Impact on wording

3.32Just underhalf oftheauthorities saidthatthesupport that theyhad received fromEHRC hadhelped‘alot’ withtherewordingof theiroutcomes.Some sayingthat theiroutcomeshadchangedsignificantly[3] andothers[4] said that ithadledtominoradjustments.

“I hadtogoback tothedrawingboardandreviewourapproach.”

(Participatingauthority)

“Theoutcomesareclearerandbetter,andwearecleareronwherewego next.”

(Participatingauthority)

“Wefeel therevisedoutcomesbetter reflect thework wearedoingthanksto theguidancewereceived.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.33Inthemain,authoritiescommentedpositively onthesupportfromEHRC sayingthat it hadbeen ‘constructive’, ‘helpful’ and ‘plainspoken’.Afewsaid that gettingaccesstoexamples ofgoodpracticehadhelpedthemto understandwhat was required. However, oneauthoritymadethepoint that theexamplesprovidedbyEHRCwerenotalways relevant tosmaller authorities.

3.34Inaddition, authorities[4] saidthat thesupportfromtheEHRC hadhelpedto:

•increasetheirawareness ofequalities andtheequalities dutiesmore generally;

•ensurethat theiroutcomes werebetteralignedtotheiroverall strategy; or

•boosttheirconfidence.

3.35Afewrespondents [2]whoprovidedservices totheir local licensingboards saidthat ithadpromptedthemtoseekexpertinputandsupportfromtheirown council’s Equalities Officer.

“I wishI haddonethisat theoutset, ratherthangoing it alone.”

(Participatingauthority)

3.36Incontrast,asmall numberof authorities [3]saidthat therehadbeenno real change.Inparticular, twoeducationauthorities saidthat intheend,theydid not changetheiroutcomes,butinsteadhadprovidedadditional supporting informationtoEHRC that linkedtheirequalityoutcomes topreviously unpublishedperformancemanagementframeworks.

3.37Oneauthorityfelt quitestronglythat asaresult ofthefeedbackthat theyhad receivedfromEHRC, their revisedoutcomeswerenow‘toogeneral’ and ‘worse’ thantheiroriginal ones.

Other keydifferences

3.38Anumberof authorities [8] saidthattherewas nowagreaterfocuson outcomes, ratherthanoutputs.Threeauthorities saidthat theyhadfewer outcomesthanbeforeandthreesaidthat theyhadmore.Arelativelysmall numberofauthorities [5] saidthat theiroutcomes coveredalargernumberof protectedgroups. Importantly, manyauthorities [9]saidthat theywereclearer onhowtheywill measureprogress against outcomes.Althoughsomeof thesecommentedthatthis was still ‘work inprogress’ andthatdevelopinga robustevidencebasewas achallengethat requiredmoresupport.

“I believeour revisedoutcomesaremuch moreevidencebasedandI am hopeful thattheycanbeimprovedfurtherasweget smarterwithinvolving groups as part of thedevelopment ofoutcomes atanearlierstage.”

(Participatingauthority)

“Weare inabetterplaceandshouldbe moreabletomeasureprogress.”

(Participatingauthority)

Impact on processes

3.39Therewas agreementacross allauthorities that thesupportfromEHRC had helpedto improvetheirprocessesfordevelopingequalityoutcomes.With morethanhalfof authorities sayingthat ithadhelped‘alot’.

3.40Someauthorities saidthatas aresult of thefeedback andengagement with EHRC, theywerenow cleareronwhat was expectedof them, andthis had helpedtopoint themintheright direction.Oneauthoritybelievedthat EHRC’s ownviews ofoutcomes hadevolvedsincetheinitial outcomeswere developed in2013. Oneauthoritysaidthat EHRC’s involvement hadhelped to‘addweight’ tothechanges thatwererequiredwithintheirauthority.

3.41However, afewauthorities commentedthatitwouldhavebeenmore beneficial tohavehadtheadviceatanearlierstage, andthat guidanceshould havebeenmoretailoredtosuit theneeds of differenttypes of authorities,for example,authorities that donot deliverservices ordeal withthepublic.

3.42Asmall numberalsofelt thattheprocess of providingsupport took toolong andwas needlesslydrawnout, suggestingthat it wouldhavebeenbetter if EHRC hadmadedirect contact withauthorities at theoutset,providing individual feedbackandtailoredsupportas required.

Futuresupport

3.43Participatingauthorities wereaskedinthetelephoneinterviews about other types ofsupport thatmight helpthemdeveloptheirequalityoutcomes in future.Anumberofsuggestions were made including:

•Access to moreregular, timelyandtailoredfeedback, ‘onetoone’ support andadvice, andhavinganamedEHRC contact.

•Settingupageneral helpdeskservicetoprovideinformaladviceand support, backedupwithmoretargetedsupport forsmallerauthorities with limitedaccess to‘in-house’ equalitiesexpertise.

•Adoptingamoreproportionateapproachtodealingwithdifferenttypes andsizes of public bodies, particularlysmallerauthorities.

•Providingaccess to moreexamples of relevant goodpractice.

•Developingmoredetailedguidanceonforexample,performance monitoringand reporting; howtoengagewithequality groups.

•Usingstandardtemplatesforequalityoutcomes andequalityperformance measures,toensuregreaterconsistency, transparencyandcompliance.

•Greaterconsistencyandtransparencyintheappraisalof equality outcomes.

•Moreopportunitiesforworkshops andnetworkingopportunities (faceto faceandvirtual)toshareexperiencesanddisseminategoodpracticeand lessons learned–makemoreuseof existingnetworks suchasSOLACE, JusticeEqualityandDiversityNetwork, orthe NDPBEqualities Forum.

•Morefocuson raisingawareness andsecuring ‘buy-in’ at senior management level.

Other comments

3.44Asmall numberof authoritiesmadeadditional commentsandsuggestions about theImprovingEqualityOutcomesProject inthetelephoneinterviews:

•Oneauthorityfeltthat theEHRC didnotfullyunderstandtheroleof some authorities,forexample, licensingboards.

•Oneauthorityfeltthat theEHRC shouldhaveahigherprofile inthenorth ofScotland.

•Asmall numberof authorities [2]foundit difficult inpracticetoget the necessaryinternal approvals inadvanceof thedeadlineforsubmitting their revisedoutcomes.

4|Conclusions

Introduction

4.1This chaptersets out themainconclusionsfromourevaluation.

Experience ofsupport

•It was clearfromthefeedback thataccess toindividual, structured feedback was seentobethemosthelpfulformof supportprovidedby EHRC as part oftheproject.This was welcomedbyasubstantialmajority ofauthorities, particularlythesmallerones, as it helpedtoclarifywhat was requiredtoimproveanddeveloprevisedequalityoutcomes.

•Thetimingof feedbackandsupport was seentobecritical – many commentedthat this shouldhavehappenedat amuchearlierstage, whichwouldhaveenabledauthorities tomakethenecessary improvementsmorequickly.

•Access togoodpracticeexamples intheself assessmenttool hadalso helpedmanyauthorities, althoughsomeof thesmallerauthorities suggestedthereshouldbeabroader rangeof examples ofgoodpractice that wererelevant todifferenttypes andsizes ofauthorities.

•Therewas afeelingthat EHRC shouldhaveadoptedamore proportionateandtailoredapproachtowardssomeof thesmaller authorities,forexample, licensingboardsandregional transport partnerships, astheseauthorities hadlimited resources andoftendidnot havedirect access toequalities expertise.

•Overall, thevast majorityof authorities wereverypositiveaboutthe ‘constructive’ and ‘helpful’ support thatthey hadreceivedfromEHRC.

Impact ofsupport

•Thesupportseemedtohavehadlimited impact interms of‘changing attitudes’ or increasing ‘strategic involvement’.Withmanyauthorities statingthat theequalities agendawas alreadyapriorityforthem,andthat theyalreadyhadseniormanagementandboardlevel ‘buy-in’ tothis.

•Similarly, interms of‘engagement’ and‘jointworking’, theoverall impact ofthesupport seemedtohavebeenrelatively modest,with many authorities sayingthattheyalreadyhadappropriateprocesses inplace.

•It was clearthat thesupporthadhadapositiveimpact inhelping authorities todevelopandimprovetheirevidencebases. However, for many, particularlythesmallerauthorities, this was still ‘work inprogress’ - andmorework was requiredtofill thegaps inevidence,particularly at the local level.

Equalityoutcomes

•Asignificant numberof authorities saidthat thesupportfromEHRC had helpedto improvetheirequalityoutcomesandthat their revisedoutcomes werenowclearerandmoremeaningful.

•Forothers, thefocus was on linkingtheiroutcomestoperformance managementframeworks andanumberof authorities saidthatthey were nowcleareronhowthey wouldmeasureprogress against outcomes.