Are we open to you? Assessing the impact of policy decisions on people from different racial groups

Transcription

1 Are we open to you? Assessing the impact of policy decisions on people from different racial groups Public consultation 1 May July 2006 Report reference : 07 Department : Human Resources

2 HUMAN RESOURCES (HR) Race Equality Impact Assessment Screening Outcomes March 2006 The mission of the HR Division is to facilitate the University s success through people. Its purpose is to enable the University to deliver its strategic objectives and operational plans through implementation of the University s HR strategy and staff development strategy. The division aims to enhance the capability and capacity of all staff in an environment that encourages and values the contributions of individuals towards achievement of the University s strategic goals. One of the HR Strategy s key priorities is to create a community in which individuals are valued, and treated solely on the basis of their merits, where respect for individuals is paramount, and which is open to and representative of all sections of the community. The intention is to provide development, employment policies, procedures and guides in order to set best standards of equality and diversity practice. SCREENING OF POLICIES A screening process has been carried out for all the policies listed in the action plan. In almost all cases monitoring and data collection will feature on an ongoing basis. The initial screening process indicated that three policies requiring a full impact assessment at this stage. These are: recruitment and selection, staff development and pay and rewards. s on recruitment and selection and pay and rewards will be carried out during Impact assessment on staff development will be carried out by the end of 2007, following a staff survey on access to staff training and development and its effectiveness. In the meantime systems will be put in place to gather feedback and relevant monitoring data. POLICIES WHICH ARE OF HIGH RELEVANCE TO THE THREE DUTIES OF THE RACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT 2002 POLICY TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION (INTENDED OR UNINTENDED) X TO PROMOTE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY Pay and Rewards Recruitment and X X X Selection Staff Development X X X TO PROMOTE GOOD RACE RELATIONS Monitoring will also continue for other HR policies. Responsibility for monitoring is identified in the action plan. CONSULTATION Feedback to the HR Division by managers and staff in respect of adverse impact is encouraged and considered on an ongoing basis (e.g. job applicants are informed in the application pack for posts that they can report any comments or concerns about 1

3 the recruitment process to HR for investigation). HR staff will also look for any potential or actual adverse impact of staffing policies. There is also a feedback button on the HR Intranet site welcoming feedback from staff on staffing policies and procedures and the way they operate. It also invites all staff to raise any concerns about possible adverse impact of policies and procedures. Campus Unions are consulted on any new policies and changes to existing policies. Over the past few years a number of informal groups of BME staff have met and on occasion have been called together for specific purposes, for example for consultation during the development of the University s race equality strategy. Recently a framework for encouraging and supporting self-organised staff support groups/networks has been developed and we are hoping that groups may be interested in becoming involved in consultation and feedback to the University on staffing matters. In addition, we are now publishing the findings of our screening exercise and our action plan and we welcome feedback to inform our further work in this area. March

4 Equality Impact Assessment Outcomes and Action Plan Template Unit/Faculty/Department: HR Division Equality group: Race Date completed plan: March 2006 Lead Responsibility: Director, Human Resources Screened Pay and rewards (salary structure, cost of living increases, special awards, additional incrementation and discretionary points) Outcome and level of relevance (H M or L) to be high. required (potential for adverse impact). Actions Proposed Timescale Responsibility Take action following the staff survey: a. Review results of rewards audit when available. b. Carry out pay audit (annually) and address any issues arising Review and revise guidance and criteria on discretionary payments following results of audit. During Next audit by end Undertake a review of contribution-based pay involving consultation with unions. Undertake full impact assessment on pay and rewards: a. Collect data b. Analyse data 3

5 Set up a system to analyse special awards, discretionary points and additional increments by ethnicity for future impact assessments. During 2006 Continue to research and benchmark good practice externally. Probationary policy and procedures for support, research, academicrelated, and academic staff and print workers. to be high. Continue to monitor feedback from staff, managers and HR staff. Analyse statistics on non-confirmation of probation by ethnicity. not required (unless data suggests adverse impact). Analyse information on resignations during the probationary period by ethnicity. Analyse probations that are extended by ethnicity. Job grading (all categories of staff) to be low (little evidence to suggest adverse impact). not required. Continue to monitor 4

6 Leave policies Continue to research and benchmark good practice externally. to be low (little evidence to suggest adverse impact). not required. Undertake spot check of how policies are implemented in units. Amend annual leave policies to take into consideration staff asking for blocks of leave to go abroad and care for sick relatives or visit religious sites. By end of 2006 Bullying and Harassment policy Continue to research and benchmark good practice externally. to be medium. not required at this stage. Monitor feedback from HR/Staff/Managers via feedback button. Analyse issues raised by ethnicity annually (new monitoring form introduced from July 2005 includes this information). Regularly remind HR staff, Bullying & Harassment Advisers, TU representatives, managers of the need to complete monitoring forms. July/August July/August

7 Recruitment and Selection Guide to be high. required (potential for adverse impact). Gather and analyse staff profile data. Obtain and review management information on applicant monitoring by ethnicity from PIMS, including applicants, applicants shortlisted, appointed. Include outcomes from process review on recruitment and selection. April 2006 By June 2006 By November Gather and consider relevant benchmark data from other HEI s. By August 2006 Consult HOUs and staff for feedback on operation of the policy. By November 2006 Finalise and publish results of full impact assessment. By December 2006 Continue to monitor good practice and Review University actions to promote diversity. By December 2006 Psychometric testing policy Consult HOU s for feedback on operation of the policy. to be low (little evidence Check whether recommendations put forward by Annette Forster on the use of By June

8 to suggest adverse impact). psychometric testing have any implications for race. not required. Investigate feasibility of obtaining and reviewing management information on applicant monitoring by ethnicity further analysed by those applicants that have undertaken psychometric tests. By June 2006 Investigate feasibility of obtaining and analysing data where psychometric tests have been used for staff development purposes. By April 2006 Continue to monitor good practice and Disciplinary procedures for support staff and academic and academic-related staff and capability procedures for support staff. to be high. not required (unless data suggests adverse impact). Continue to monitor good practice and Gather and review data annually on staff who have disciplinary action taken against them. By April

9 Grievance procedures for support staff and academic and academic-related staff to be high. Continue to monitor good practice and Gather and consider data on grievances by ethnicity. By April 2006 Redundancy and redeployment policies (including re-allocation of duties) not required (unless data suggests adverse impact). to be low. not required. Continue to monitor good practice and Gather and analyse data on redundancies (including fixed term contracts) and redeployment. Payment and expenses, travel and subsistence schemes, remuneration policies to be low. No issues identified, however will continue to monitor good practice and not required. 8

10 Terms and conditions of service for academic, academic-related, research, and support staff and house agreement for print workers to be low (no evidence to suggest adverse impact). not required No issues identified, however will continue to monitor good practice and Code of good practice on the employment of disabled people to be low (no evidence to suggest adverse impact). Continue to monitor good practice and Undertake applicant monitoring by ethnicity and disability (see section on recruitment and selection guide). By June not required Analyse staff profile by disability and ethnicity. By June 2006 Investigate availability of benchmark information on disability and ethnicity from National Employers Forum on Disability, MK Employers Network on Disability, Disability Rights Commission and other HEIs. By April 2006 Obtain guidance and information from relevant groups on any possible issues (those mentioned above). By April 2006 Add standard statement requesting 9

11 feedback on the operation of the policy next time the policy is reviewed. The purpose of requesting the feedback is to assess any adverse impact of the policy on different groups of staff. When is next reviewed. Research of appropriate websites (e.g. DRC and CRE) and attendance at appropriate training events/conferences. Continued involvement with MK Employers Network On Disability and Employers Forum on Disability to increase awareness of any specific issues affecting BME groups. Health and Safety Continue to monitor data, good practice and Head of HR for Support Services to be low (no evidence to suggest adverse impact). not required. Smoking N/A to be low. 10

12 not required Appraisal and performance reviews to be high. Consult HOUs for feedback on operation of the policy. Continue to monitor good practice and not required (unless data suggests adverse impact). Obtain and review management information on those who have been appraised by ethnicity from The Learning Management System (LMS) and from staff surveys. July 2006 Include a statement encouraging feedback on adverse impact on the individuals guidance documentation (similar to the one on the B&H ). By June 2006 Gather and analyse staff profile data by ethnicity from the placement scheme. Staff Development to be high. required (potential for Obtain and review management information on access to training and number of training days taken by ethnicity from The Learning Management System (LMS), after 1 year. Include a statement encouraging feedback on adverse impact on the policy document (similar to the one on the B&H ). July 2006 At next revision of the policy 11

13 adverse impact). Investigate adding the question was the training need identified in your appraisal? to training application forms. April 2006 Investigate changing course feedback forms to include EO monitoring data and analyse this periodically. Also Include a statement encouraging feedback on adverse impact on the course feedback form (similar to the one on the B&H ). August 2006 Undertake staff survey on access to staff training and development and its effectiveness. By June 2007 Complete full impact assessment By end 2007 HR Strategy is equality high. not required at this level but see individual policies. See individual policies. 12

14 The Employment of Consultants is equality high. Investigate the possibility of setting up further systems to collect data on people appointed to consultancy contracts. Also to include methods of encouraging the completion of this equal opportunities data. not indicated at this stage. However, we need to consider how relevant data can be gathered (potential for adverse impact). 13