Public Sector Equality Duty Implementation of Scottish Specific Duties: Views from public authorities

Chapter 1 Introduction

About this report

1.1 This report explores the experiences of public authorities in Scotland in approaching their Public Sector Equality Duties. It presents views gathered from a range of public authorities about what they have learnt from their implementation of the Scottish specific duties, focusing on:

• the processes that they have put in place;
• the barriers they faced (and how they overcame these);
• areas in which additional support could assist in overcoming any remaining barriers; and
• a broad understanding of the perceived costs and benefits of implementing the equality duties.

1.2 The Scottish Government appointed us in September 2013 to undertake this work to help inform Scottish Ministers, as they prepare to meet the Scottish Ministers' Duty to publish proposals for activity to enable better performance of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Method

1.3 This research was undertaken by means of in depth telephone interviews. We undertook one to one telephone interviews with a stratified sample of 69 listed authorities^[1] agreed with the Scottish Government. This represents one third (34%) of the listed authorities in Scotland (that were included in this study).

1.4 We initially aimed to involve 65 listed authorities in the research. We developed a sample of listed authorities to invite to participate in the research. In developing the sample, we ensured that it was proportionate to the type, staff size, and geography of the authorities.

1.5 The sample was developed from the 251 listed authorities in Scotland, produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission^[2]. It was agreed that education authorities should be excluded from this sample. This reduced the number of listed authorities to 219. It was also agreed that the list should be updated to reflect the mergers of further education colleges which had taken place since May 2013, when the list was produced. This further reduced the number of listed authorities to 202.

1.6 We sampled a higher number of authorities than required, to allow for non participation. We issued two rounds of invitations to participate, with a total of 92 authorities invited to take part in the research. Our second round of invitations was targeted at the larger public authorities (local authorities and NHS Boards). We also targeted categories of authority which had been least likely to respond to the initial invitations to participate.

1.7 Of the 92 authorities invited to participate, 69 took part in the research. Overall, only three listed authorities specifically declined to participate in the research.

1.8 A breakdown of the different types of authorities interviewed and the number of authorities in each group is provided in the table below.

Table 1.1: Listed authorities included in the sample

Sector	Total listed authorities	Number interviewed	Percentage interviewed
NHS
Health Boards	21	11	52%
Local Government
Local Authorities	32	16	50%
Joint Boards	11	2	18%
Licensing Authorities	34	9	26%
Total Local Government	77	27	35%
Educational Bodies
Grant Aided Schools	8	2	25%
Further and Higher Education	45	12	27%
Total Educational Bodies	53	14	26%
Other Bodies
Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)	23	8	35%
Community Justice Authorities	8	1	13%
Transport Partnerships	8	2	25%
National Parks	2	2	100%
Enterprise Agencies	2	1	50%
Scottish Administration[3]	4	1	25%
Police and Fire	4	2	50%
Total Other Bodies	51	17	33%
Total	202	69	34%

1.9 The interviews explored detailed experiences in relation to:

• the production of equality outcomes; and
• the production of employee information by protected characteristic.

1.10 The interviews focused on experiences, attitudes and views about the process of meeting the specific duties. The interviews followed a semi-structured discussion guide. A copy of the discussion guide is included as Appendix One.

1.11 We asked the key contact in each authority whether we should speak to the same individual about the production of equality outcomes and employee information, or whether we should speak to separate lead individuals. In most instances, we were advised to speak with a single member of staff - normally the equality or policy officer - about the production of both the equality outcomes and the employee information. In other instances we interviewed separate members of staff who led on each aspect. In one large national organisation we interviewed three individuals. In a small number of cases we spoke only to the individual responsible for producing equality outcomes, due to the individual responsible for employee information not being available within the study timescales.

Table 1.2: Interviews undertaken

Sector	Listed authorities interviewed	Equality outcomes interviews	Employee information interviews
NHS
Health Boards	11	11	11
Local Government
Local Authorities	16	16	13
Joint Boards	2	2	2
Licensing Authorities	9	9	9
Educational Bodies
Grant Aided Schools	2	2	2
Further and Higher Education	12	12	12
Other Bodies
Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)	8	8	7
Community Justice Authorities	1	1	1
Transport Partnerships	2	2	2
National Parks	2	2	1
Enterprise Agencies	1	1	1
Scottish Administration	1	1	1
Police and Fire	2	2	2
Totals	69	69	64

1.12 Detailed notes were written up using a standard template following each interview. We undertook a detailed analysis of the information gathered from the telephone interviews, drawing out particular themes for equality outcomes and employee information. We did this using a system of manual thematic coding, focusing on:

• the extent of evidence and engagement with service users, equality groups and staff in the development of outcomes;
• the barriers and enablers to performing the equality duties;
• what would have helped to overcome the identified barriers; and
• perceived resources deployed in meeting the equality duties and the benefits that have accrued as a result (or are expected to accrue in the longer term).

Notes on methodology

1.13 This research provides an overview of the experience of listed authorities in meeting the specific equality duties. It is rich, qualitative research which provides an in depth understanding of experiences, attitudes and views - particularly barriers, challenges and success factors.

1.14 The research was undertaken on a completely anonymous basis. We therefore do not identify the organisations (or individuals) involved in this research. We have consolidated reporting categories into relatively large groupings to avoid identification of individual organisations. It is important to note, however, that within these large groupings there were different experiences and views. Where possible, we have highlighted these without identifying individual organisations or threatening anonymity.

1.15 In determining the reporting groups, the listed authorities within the Police and Fire and Scottish Administration categories were included within a larger category of Other Bodies. This was to protect anonymity of the small number of authorities involved, rather than due to any suggestion that these are not distinctive organisations.

1.16 Throughout the report, we use verbatim quotes to demonstrate participant views in their own words. To preserve anonymity, these quotes are simply attributed to the type of authority by reporting group.

1.17 We also highlight a number of boxed examples of different approaches. These have been approved by the organisations concerned, and consent has been provided to identify the organisation in this instance. These boxed examples are the only place where individual organisations are identified.

1.18 It is important to note that the examples are intended to provide a flavour of different approaches, and are not suggestions of best practice. There are many different examples that could have been selected. There will be many other authorities that have taken similar approaches, but are not profiled in the report.

Note on the equality duties

1.19 The UK Government's Equality Act 2010 introduced a Public Sector Equality Duty which came into force in April 2011. This is often referred to as 'the general duty'. Under the Public Sector Equality Duty, public authorities must have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct that is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic^[4] and those who do not.

1.20 The Act enables Scottish Ministers to impose duties on listed public authorities, for the purpose of improving performance of the general duty. Scottish Specific Duties came into force on 27 May 2012, and provide a new framework to:

• publish a set of Equality Outcomes by the end of April 2013 and report on progress;
• report by the end of April 2013 on how they are integrating the equality duty into core business activities;
• undertake equality impact assessment of new policies and practices;
• gather and use employee information on equality and diversity and publish the results of this by end April 2013;
• consider equality within public procurement, where relevant and proportionate; and
• publish their gender pay gap and an equal pay statement (if they have over 150 employees).

1.21 The specific duties also require Scottish Ministers to set out proposals to assist Scottish public authorities to better perform the general duty. This is referred to as the Scottish Ministers' Duty. The deadline for publication of these proposals is December 2013.

1.22 To assist Ministers in developing these proposals, Scottish Government has commissioned this research to explore the experiences of authorities in Scotland in implementing the new duties.

Note on terminology

1.23 Throughout this report we have used the term 'authorities' to refer to the public bodies which were involved in this research.