Equality Screening and Impact Assessment form
INTRODUCTORY GUIDANCE TO EQUALITY SCREENING AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Recruitment and Selection Policy
What is it?Equality screening and impact assessment helps us consider the effect of our policies and practices[1]on different people. It helps us minimise negative impact and potential discrimination and promote opportunities to advance equality, inclusion and good relations between different groups of people.
There are two main elements to equality screening and impact assessment. Firstly a set of equality screening questions are reviewed. These questions help determine whether the policy is relevant to equality and whether it needs to go through an equality impact assessment. The second element, if required, is the equality impact assessment meeting. This is where a panel of people review the proposed policy, particularly thinking about its impact on different groups of people, trying to identify and counter any potential negative impact and promote any opportunities to enhance equality. The panel suggests actions for the policy owner to adopt.
Why do we do it?The process helps us improve our policies and build equality into our work. Equality screening and impact assessment helps us consider the potential impact of what we do on different groups who are susceptible to unjustified discrimination, some of whom are legally protected against this, whether by UK or other law. It helps us demonstrate that we have proactively considered equality when developing our policies.
When should we do it? Assessing the impact on equality should start early in the policy development process, or at the early stage of a review. Assessing the impact on equality should be ongoing rather than a one-off exercise, because circumstances change over time, so equality considerations should be taken into account both as the policy is developed and also as it is implemented. The guidance here is to help assess the impact on equality before the policy is implemented.
It takes some time to properly set up an equality impact assessment meeting if one is needed, so the equality screening questions should be considered as early as possible once the policy is drafted. If an equality impact assessment is required it will take a little time to identify a chair, a note-taker, a diverse panel and to set up the meeting arrangements. In addition once the meeting has taken place there are likely to be actions to be implemented before the policy is launched. All this needs to be considered when determining the best time to address equality screening and impact assessment.
When we are implementing a policy that has been developed elsewhere, for example by a government department, or by a partner organisation we also need to assess the impact on equality. Although responsibility for the policy itself rests with the organisation that developed it, we may have choices in how it is implemented that can help eliminate potential discrimination and promote equality, inclusion and good relations.
How do we do it? Consider the purpose of the policy, the context in which it will operate, who it should benefit and what results are intended from it. Reflect on its potential impact on people with different equality categories and think about which aspects of the policy, if any, are most relevant to equality. Answer the equality screening questions to determine whether an equality impact assessment meeting is necessary.
Identify someone to chair the equality impact assessment panel meeting, if one is necessary, and someone to take the notes. The chair and note-taker play a crucial role and specific guidance has been developed to support them (guidance for Chairs; guidance for Note-takers). A diverse panel should be approached, including a range of colleagues from different teams/departments/countries/regions as appropriate, some of whom should be directly involved in or impacted by the policy. Panel members should be sent the part-completed ESIA form and the policy documents, giving them at least a full week to read them and prepare for the meeting.
We particularly focus on the following equality categories (many of which are protected by equality legislation in the UK and beyond): age, dependant responsibilities (with or without), disability, gender including transgender, marital status/civil partnership, political opinion, pregnancy and maternity, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief and sexual orientation. Invariably there are other areas to consider including full-time/part-time working, geographical location, tribe/caste/clan or language, dependent on the country. We also review what is being proposed against the organisation’s values (creativity, integrity, mutuality, professionalism and valuing people).
After the meeting the action points identified by the panel are reviewed by the policy owner and implemented as appropriate. The policy owner confirms implementation of the action points (and outlines a justification for any action points that won’t be taken forward) and then signs off and sends the completed form to .
Northern Ireland
There is particular legislation in Northern Ireland which requires a more detailed process of equality screening and impact assessment for policies that are deemed to have high relevance to equality. This includes external consultation with relevant contacts and organisations. Given this, there is a need to confirm whether the proposed policy affects anyone in Northern Ireland. If it does, all parts of the form need to be completed and the guidance atAnnex A must be read and followed.
EQUALITY SCREENING
POLICY[2]DETAILS – Please complete
Title of policy / Recruitment and Selection PolicyName of policy owner / Matt Anderson
Intended implementation date / November 2016
BACKGROUND - Provide brief background information about the policy, or change to it. Include rationale, intended beneficiaries and expected outcomes.
(Use as much space as you wish, the text box below will expand as you enter information).
The relative lack of investment in areas of our corporate infrastructure during the years of rapid growth, combined with the rapidly changing global and internal operating context, continue to create challenges across all elements of the organisation and this remains a priority area. The review of our recruitment and selection policy is one part of this much wider programme.
The aim is to provide greater clarityand a re-articulation of recruitment standards through a more accessible recruitment policy and simpler more efficient processes and guidance. Feedback suggests there are concerns that recruitment policy and processes are cumbersome and it is difficult for managers to understand the value of some elements of the process, consequently there is a lack of consistency in how the policy is applied.
This is a restating of our current policy, with some changes. The full policy is being presented for ESIA to ensure that all aspects have been considered from an EDI perspective and to capture any elements of the policy that may not have been previously screened.
The policy maintains the principles of a commitment to advertising jobs, selecting against openly advertised criteria, robust shortlisting and interviewing and requiring all those involved in the process to have undertaken the requisite training. It also incorporates statements which previously appeared elsewhere but were not in the body of the policy e.g. our commitment to offer interviews to candidates with a disability who meet the minimum advertised criteria.
The changes proposed are predominately process changes but policy changes are also proposed, both will have significant impact.
The key changes are:
- Eligibility to apply for roles – staff will not be eligible to apply for roles until they have completed one year in their current role. Where the duration of the role/assignment is one year or less, they may apply up to 3 months before the role is due to end.
- Shortlisting – we are proposing to strengthen and professionalise our approach to how applicants are currently shortlisted. Shortlisting will be undertaken by Equality trained, professional resourcing consultants, together with the recruiting manager (or nominated individual). This will ensure compliance, objectivity and rigour.
- Application form – Our application form is not easily understood or familiar in a number of the countries in which we operate. Also, increasingly there is the expectation that applicants can adapt their curriculum vitae and submit with a covering letter. This is the approach the current application form has tried to mimic. We would like to simplify further and pilot an adapted form, more closely resembling curriculum vitae in East Asia, for whom the application is a particular issue.
Isan equality impact assessment required?
To determine this, please answer the following by ticking yes, no or not sure:
Is the policy potentially significant in terms of its anticipated impact on employees, or customers/clients/audiences, or the wider community? / x
Is it a major policy, significantly affecting how programmes/services/functions are delivered? / x
Might the policy affect people in particular equality categories in a different way? / x
Are the potential equality impacts unknown? / x
Does the policy have the possibility to support or detract from our efforts to promote the inclusion of people from under-represented groups? / x
Will the policy have an impact on anyone in Northern Ireland? / x
Total responses Yes/No/Not sure / 5
DECIDING IF AN EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT IS NECESSARY
If all the answers to the questions above are ‘no’ then an equality impact assessment is not needed.
Please move to the ‘Record of decision’ section below.
If there are any ‘yes’ responses then an equality impact assessment is necessary.
Please move to the ‘Record of decision’ section below.
If there are no ‘yes’ responses but there are any ‘not sure’ responses then please discuss next steps further with the Regional Diversity Lead or with the Diversity Unit, who will help you decide if an equality impact assessment is necessary. Examples of situations where it is not necessary to carry out an equality impact assessment include:
- Producing a team newsletter
- Changing the time of a meeting
- Planning an internal event
In these instances relevant equality issues should still be considered, but there is no need to carry out an equality impact assessment.
RECORD OF DECISION
I confirm an equality impact assessment is required
Policy Owner: Matt Anderson Global Head of Resourcing
Date: ______16.09.16______
Note 1: If an equality impact assessment is required, please complete questions 1-3 in the following section and send this part-completed form to the panel along with any relevant background documentation about the policy at least one full week prior to the EIA meeting. This should include the draft policy and any supporting data or relevant papers.
Note 2: If an equality impact assessment is not required, please send this screening section of the form to.
EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PART A:This section is to be completed before the EIA panel meeting and sent at least
one week in advance to the panel along with the policy and other relevant documents.
(Take as much space as required under each heading below)
- Please summarise the purpose of the policy, the context in which it will operate, who it should benefit and what results are intended from it.
The Recruitment and Selection policy is intended to set the global standards for and expectations of all involved in recruiting to the British Council. The standards ensure we do not intentionally or otherwise restrict opportunities for those wanting to work for us but also that we are clear in articulating our requirements so that we can make objective decisions. The policy is a key component in supporting and enabling our EDI strategy
- Please explain any aspects of the policy you’ve been able to identify that are relevant to equality. This will contribute to the equality-focused discussion the panel will have.
All aspects of the policy have an equality dimension. We feel, however that since this is a re-statement and articulation of the current policy we would like to focus the discussion on the key areas of change:
Shortlisting – we are proposing that a trained recruiter prepares a shortlist based on the essential and desirable criteria in the role profile, candidates for interview would then be confirmed with the hiring manager. This will impact on the diversity of the panel make up which we feel is mitigated by the professional standards and objectivity they will bring to the process.
Application Form – we recognise that the removal of an application format brings inconsistency of information so would like to test a format which is far simpler but catches key information in a consistent format.
- Please outline any equality-related supporting data that should be considered. This could include consultation with Trades Union Side or staff associations, equality monitoring data, responses from staff surveys or client feedback exercises, external demographic and benchmarking data or other relevant internal or external material.
Customer Feedback:
Voice of the Customer workshops & interviews were conducted with 141 Hiring Managers and candidates/joiners, from 17 countries. These captured 110 pain points across the recruitment process, a survey also found that 54% of respondents where either unsatisfied or slightly unsatisfied with their experience of recruitment. Key themes were inconsistency and lack of clarity on who does what. Panel interviews were strongly supported, but managers were concerned that they lacked skill at interviews and may not get the best out of candidates. Setting of relevant and appropriate questions was also a common theme as was ensuring interview arrangements were made effectively. Candidate feedback included the usability and length of application forms, particularly compared to use of CVs and sub-optimum on-boarding experiences, in particular a question was raised around whether we make required adjustments for joiners within a reasonable timeframe. The enhanced process aims to address some of these concerns and make improvements in specific areas.
Staff Survey
At the time of the last all staff survey, globally, 62% of staff felt that the British Council’s recruitment policy and procedures are fair and transparent and 61% felt management applied them. This was a reversal of the percentages for 2012. There is no recent data. However, this would support a need to give more clarity on our policy and strengthen compliance.
UK Equal Opportunities monitoring data
Our UK monitoring data illustrates the impact of our recruitment and selection practices and the areas in which we might want to focus in ensuring we address any gaps in awareness and capability. The proposed approach of ensuring professional management of shortlisting is a positive means of lifting capability and standards.We alsointend to more regularly report on EDI data within the recruitment process, analysing our performance and impacts of any changes
Equality targets
There has been some progress towards the gender and disability equality targets for 2016, however no progress towards the ethnicity target at senior level, and in fact the percentage of minority ethnic staff at that level has decreased.
Table 1 Progress towards the 2016 equality targets
Category / At 31.3.11 / At 31.3.12 / At 31.3.13 / At 31.3.14 / At 31.3.15 / 2016
target
Senior level
Minority ethnic / 7.4% / 7.1% / 5.2% / 3.3% / 1.6% / 13%
Women / 27.8% / 28.6% / 32.8% / 31.7% / 36% / 40%
Disabled / 0% / 0% / 0% / 1.7% / 3.1% / 4%
Overall
Disabled staff / 3.0% / 2.9% / 2.9% / 2.5% / 2.7% / 4%
Recruitment
The data below is based on a report on the recruitment for UK contracted posts that took place during the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. In terms of the equality areas the position has not changed significantly. It covers internal and external recruitment, batch exercises and internships. The equality areas of ethnicity, gender, disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation are reviewed, from the application stage through to offers made and success rates.
Minority Ethnic Staff
For all external recruitment, the success rate for minority ethnic candidates was lower than for white candidates.
For all internal recruitment, the success rate for minority ethnic staff was lower than for white staff.
Combined data for external and internal recruitment at each payband shows a higher success rate for white candidates than minority ethnic, with the exception of payband 4.
The Equality data for 2015/16 shows a direct correlation between ethnicity and payband. The higher the payband the lower the percentage of minority ethnic staff, ranging from 41.7% at payband 4 through to 4.1% at senior level.
It also recommends a review the recruitment data for minority ethnic candidates specifically as to the relatively highpercentage of candidates and the decrease in their percentage at the offer stage.
Gender
For all external recruitment, the success rate for women was slightly higher than for men.
For all internal recruitment, the success rates for men and women were overall reasonably balanced.
Combined data for external and internal recruitment shows that female candidates were more successful than males, with the exception of payband 4.
Women are 55% of UK contracted staff.
Disability
For all external recruitment, the success rate for disabled candidates, although small numbers, was slightly higher than for non-disabled candidates.
For all internal recruitment, the success rate for disabled candidates, although again small numbers, was higher than for non-disabled candidates.
Combined data for the external and internal recruitment shows that, overall, disabled and non-disabled candidates had broadly equal success rates. In some instances the percentages imply a difference, however the numbers of disabled candidates were very small. The exceptions were senior broadband[3], where no disabled candidates were successful and payband 6 where disabled candidates had a lower success rate than non-disabled candidates.
In 2015/16The percentage of disabled staff continues to be low, in keeping with previous years, this year at 2.8%.
Age
For all external recruitment, those in the 36-45 age group had the highest success rate,followed by those in the 26-35 age group.
For all internal recruitment, those in the age group 36-45 had a higher success rate than other age groups and those in the 46-55 group the lowest.
Combined data for external and internal recruitment shows that, overall, success rates varied. However, although numbers were small at the older age groups, the most notable point is that candidates aged above 65 were only successful at payband 4 (and this was a very small number of people).
PART B: This section captures the notes of the Equality Impact Assessment panel meeting.