Hi Penny,

Thanks for your comment and my response is that the reason you did not
seem to find the words "Impact Assessment"(IA) in my reminder is because
I did not use those particular words. I used other words to refer to IA
requirements and in so doing I sought to show it as the mainstream
activity that it is meant to be, if it is to continuously inform
institutional practice accordingly.

Impact Assessment is intended to enable us to mainstream race equality
and all E&D in what we do when we do it, as part of our everyday
functioning. I think this message is explicitly implicit throughout what
I said in my reminder, especially paragraph 5, where I refer to ".....
the spirit of the E&D requirements, especially the RRAA....."  

As I point out below, anti-unlawful discriminatory institutional
functioning is what impact assessment is and also is about. In other
words, our institutions are now required to implement our relevant
functions according to particular institutional and therefore individual
responsibilities, accountabilities and liabilities. The training and
support needs of those individuals (Governors, staff, students and
partners) who are and should be involved in implementing our relevant
functions, are expected to have been established, through meaningful
communication and consultation and  addressed accordingly. 

This is what vicarious liability is about.

Institutions are then required to find out (through the incorporation of
the three IA stages into all their relevant functions) what type of
impact their functioning is having, on their employees, service users
and other partners, by racial group. (Which is where our anti-harassment
and bullying policies, contacts or champions will be involved in dealing
with any inequality issues??) 

If anyone who is connected to our institutional functioning is found to
be causing or suffering negative impact, based on monitoring and/or any
other  evidence obtained, then appropriate (reasonable and practicable)
action will need to be seen to be taken and the institution will need to
publish, annually, what it would have done, what else it is doing and
what it intends to do as a result. 

This is what the burden of proof is about. We will then have evidence to
show, if necessary, how our functioning is based on the spirit of E&D
statutory requirements. We would also be able to show that given our
operational environment, we are doing our best to implement
institutional practice on a  reasonable and practicable basis.

This is where institutional policies, procedures, processes and
therefore practice implementation, are impact assessed, reviewed and
appropriate action taken. Resultant action might also mean more staff
training, depending on whatever evidence is available and what answers
any data analyses yield, relative to staff needs.







This is what the whole issue of anti-unlawful institutional
discriminatory practice is about and in my view, what the
anti-harassment and bullying policies/contacts/champions/initiatives
should be all about. This is why I said what I did in the last paragraph
of my reminder.

Really, if any institution is taking this holistic approach towards its
daily practice, through all its relevant functions, then it does not
need to do much more to conduct IA.

With all the above in mind, I would like to point out where, in my
reminder, I took IA into account. Since you have made your comment to
the Jiscmail, I think I need to respond to everyone as well, just in
case other colleagues are also wondering where IA comes into it.

As I pointed out in the first paragraph above, IA underpins the whole of
my reminder statement as follows:

First paragraph....I am actually referring to IA by mentioning "the E&D
statutory requirements, especially the RRAA General and Specific Duties"
IA is the major Specific Duty, which links the other Specific Duties of
Monitoring and Publishing. Unless institutional functioning is seen to
be incorporating IA in a particular manner, institutional practice will
not be able to show through reasonable evidence, how it is responding to
the three elements of the General Duty. 

I would like to refer you to the recent CRE national investigation into
all the UK Police Forces, relative to their responses to the RRAA
requirements. 
All, except one, were found to be falling short of statutory
requirements because their Race Equality Schemes (ours are Policies)
were found to be woefully lacking in enabling institutional functioning
to respond accordingly, hence what I said in the first paragraph of my
reminder.

The second paragraph refers to the institutional statutory
responsibilities, accountabilities and liabilities under the burden of
proof and vicarious liability requirements. These require that in all
the relevant functions, our institutions show reasonable evidence of
what we have done, who we have done it with and to, when we have done
it, why we have done it, what the outcomes were and what we are now
going to do, as result of those outcomes. 

Again any justifying evidence, if it is to be deemed reasonable, can
only be obtained through IA, because I do not think that any institution
would invest resources in taking appropriate follow on action unless
there was reasonable evidence for the need to do so.

The third paragraph refers to the use of the RRAA Template for
institutions to respond to E&D requirements. Again this is about the
General and Specific Duties, of which IA is the core. In the same
paragraph I refer to anti-racist institutional functioning needing to
link to all the institution's race equality relevant functions. This can
only be achieved through IA because that is how we find out what needs
to be done why and how, in order to ensure race equality based
institutional practice.






The fourth paragraph refers to staff and student needs being established
and supported appropriately. Again this can only be accomplished through
IA.


The fifth paragraph refers to institutional functioning that is
"....seen to embody the spirit of the E&D requirements, particularly the
RRAA, by those with particular needs....." Again this can only be
achieved through IA. I cannot think of any other way this could be
achieved, relative to statutory requirements.


I do not think there is need for me to go onto the suggested questions
in my reminder statement because I think you can see my point. 

Maybe a further point to make is that because of my past experience from
working for the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) and the Commission for
Race Equality (CRE), I have realized that Impact Assessments are the
biggest challenge that all sector institutions have and are continuing
to struggle with. IA is also the main Specific Duty that institutional
functioning will need to be seen to incorporate, if it is to respond
appropriately to the General Duty or other E&D requirements, for that
matter. 

For this reason, we have developed a tried and tested Electronic Tool,
in the form of a CD Roam that can guide, assist and enable institutions
to undertake IA according to the E&D requirements, particularly those of
the RRAA. Through staff training and/or support, we can work together to
address effectively, particular institutional IA needs. 

Therefore if any colleagues feel they can use further advice,
assistance, or training support with implementing Impact Assessments
into their relevant functions, they should feel free to get in touch
with me.     

More comments, suggestions, requests etc are welcome, as usual.

Regards
Mannie.


































-----Original Message-----
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Penny Alder
Sent: 07 September 2004 13:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: harassment and bullying policy/contacts

HE Administrators equal opportunities list
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Maybe a further reminder is that whatever policies, procedures and/or
>processes that we formulate, from an institutional point of view, will
>need to be implemented under the Equality and Diversity statutory
>requirements, especially the RRAA General and Specific Duties.
>
>Perhaps the hardest driving statutory requirements that we need to pay
>the closest attention to are those of the burden of proof and vicarious
>liability, on the institution.
>
>If we continue to use the RRAA as a template for our institutional
>responses to E&D requirements, anti-racist functioning (racial
>harassment and bullying are forms of racism) will need to be
>evidentially linked to all those institutional functions that are
deemed
>to be race equality relevant.
>
>Staff and student needs, within those functions, will need to be
>established and appropriately supported. Those of us who are setting up
>groups of colleagues to advise and assist the institution with
>anti-racist functioning, as part of implementing the institutional E&D
>response, will need to be minded as to how best to do this, taking all
>the staff, student and other partners' needs into account, as described
>above.
>
>Otherwise we might set up some very well intentioned structures, but
>unless they are seen to embody the spirit of the E&D requirements,
>especially the RRAA and seen to be so, especially by those who have
>particular needs that have to be addressed accordingly, then we might
>just be condoning unlawful institutional discriminatory practice,
>unwittingly, but unlawfully nonetheless.
>
>So some questions (for there are many that could be asked)that we might
>ask ourselves and seek to answer adequately, as we set up the
>Contacts/Champions Groups are:
>
>1.  What are the requirements that we should respond to, from an
>institutional, therefore individual (Governors, all staff, students and
>other partners') need point of view. Here we need to consider all the
>E&D legislative requirements, to their appropriate depth, especially
the
>RRAA being the most demanding of them all)
>
>2.  What are the institutional and therefore individual,
>responsibilities, accountabilities and consequences involved and how
>should they be practically acknowledged.
>
>3.  Who (internally and/or externally) will need to be involved, why,
>when and how, in setting up these structures and therefore how should
>they be set up in order to reflect the required level of institutional
>functioning.
>
>4.  What are the issues for and therefore the needs of, all those
>involved,(especially of those we expect to be institutional contacts
>and/or champions)and how should they be established and supported, in
>order to ensure the most reasonable and practicable institutional
>response. This raises the question of communication, consultation and
>training. If training is necessary who should do it, why and therefore
>how.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>5.  How does the institutional response chime with institutional E&D
>policies and Action Plans under the common Vision, Mission, Aims and
>Objectives.
>
>
>
>As you can see, institutional anti- harassment/bullying functioning, in
>its various forms, needs to be core to how our institutions respond to
>E&D requirements, in order to ensure that good institutional practice
>accrues to all who work and learn in or do business with our
>institutions.
>
>As such, it cannot happen in a vacuum and will need to be linked
>appropriately, to all the other "bigger picture" areas of relevance,
>within institutional practice. Otherwise it will, at best, raise false
>expectations in those who might suffer unlawful institutional
>discriminatory practice and at worst unwittingly make the institution
>and certain individuals, potentially complicit in the commission of
>those unlawful discriminatory acts.
>
>Comments, suggestions etc are always welcome, as usual.

I looked all the way through your reminder for the words 'Impact' and
'Assessment' Mannie but couldn't find them!

Penny

Penny Alder
Equality and Diversity Advisor
Personnel Dept

The Surrey Institute of Art and Design University College
Falkner Road
Farnham
Surrey
GU9 7DS

Tel: 01252 892997
Fax: 01252 892680
email: [log in to unmask]

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
necessarily those of the Surrey Institute.  This message may contain
confidential information and will be protected by copyright.  If you
receive it in error please notify us, delete it and do not make use of
it,
or copy it.  Any reply may be read by the recipient to whom you send it
and others within the Surrey Institute.

Although we aim to use efficient virus checking procedures the Surrey
Institute accepts no liability for viruses and recipients should use
their
own virus checking procedures. 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager at Trinity Development immediately on +44 (0)191 350 6538 quoting the name of the sender and the addressee and then delete it from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.