Hi Steph,

I found the Scottish Guidance on this very useful. (It is on the EOC legacy site)

At Plymouth I have thought about this very hard and it is an area which interests me particularly in terms of how each approach (single /multiple) might support the furthering of E&D at a strategic level inside our HEI. There are a number of reasons why I envisage an SES for us in the future but why, for the meantime, I feel we are much better with three separate Schemes.

Here we have learnt much from the development of each Scheme which has then informed the next and will then inform the review of the first (RE) etc. Each HEI will be different and I feel that the issue of whether to have three schemes or one is not just about covering the legislative bases but also about which approach might best further the promotion and implementation of E&D within the HEI, crucially ensuring commitment of the leadership as well as the involvement of a wide diversity of staff and students.

There seem to me to be clear advantages to producing an SES in the future, but also in delaying for some time for a number of reasons. Below I have given some of the reasons from my point of view and also tried to give some short explanations of our context which has informed this, however I feel that this could be relevant to other HEIs as well.

A process of production and development of three individual Schemes, which closely addresses the general and specific duties of each duty, facilitates a clear focus on the particular and also very different issues for each strand. It also assists the agreement and development of the exact outcomes needed for each whilst providing a very useful learning process as each Scheme's development can inform the next - a gradual "levelling up" in fact. You could refer to our website (http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/equality ) to see the detail that we have gone for in our initial action plans - the merging of these would produce a massive Scheme at this stage!

The issue of "levelling up", which I think is needed for an SES, is thus addressed and implemented across time. I have heard external speakers (to HEIs) refer to this issue as a consideration within the development of SESs and suggest that all strands need to come up to all /  the highest requirements for each duty in an SES. For example by involving, not just consulting people, by monitoring more extensively and by setting outcome, not just process based, objectives etc. It has also been suggested that the SES approach might therefore require more resources.

We have not overlooked the potential of the impact of multiple identities - I don't think it is essential to have an SES to do this. Our impact assessment toolkit and formal IA procedures address all 6 strands so they are all brought together there. As we roll out the formal procedure and online toolkit this will raise awareness of the issues of all strands and will also facilitate the assessment and consideration of any impact of multiple identities.

The development of each Scheme over time has allowed our institution to focus on race, disability and gender separately and this has done a very great deal to raise awareness and understanding of the different, as well as common, issues surrounding each strand.  Importantly this has included the senior management / leadership team and Board of Governors. As a result we have very good buy-in from them and have embedded the achievement of the Schemes' aims and actions into the annual strategic business planning process. I don't think this would have happened at our HEI faced with a single document covering three or all six strands at once.
A significant time lapse before the Schemes are brought together will thus allows time for culture change, understanding and awareness to be raised for each positive duty and for this to continue to develop through implementation, monitoring and separate reporting processes.
This approach is supporting the highly mainstreaming-centred approach to E&D at Plymouth in which a major role of the small E&D unit is one of internal consultancy.

Whilst it might be recommended to address all 6 strands in an SES there are still very different legal requirements for each and failure to level up all strands when included within an SES could potentially serve to emphasise the hierarchical differences reflected by the law. (Of course it remains to be seen what will happen here in the SEAct) - I am not saying here that we should only do what is in the law and not go for good / best practice but this approach has to be seen from other perspectives than that of equality specialists / enthusiasts. Our leaders, governors and staff have been required to make very many significant changes in the area of equality and diversity over a relatively short period of time and there is, to me, a very clear case for introducing change over time in a way that non-specialists can understand and take on board. The phased introduction of three Schemes has helped that to happen by addressing each area one at a time. All six strands will be addressed in a revised, overarching equality and diversity policy in the next academic year which will once again bring E&D policy, including the associated actions which we have implemented for the three non-positive strands, before chancellery / governors.

Each positive duty Scheme now has a sub-committee of the E&D committee which focuses on the implementation, monitoring, reporting and review of the Schemes. Each has reps across all faculties and support departments who are responsible for reporting on action plan progress in their areas and acting as a two way person for information and issues to be discussed. Their reports have to be signed off by their Dean or Divisional Director which has not only helped to empower reps who may not always have senior positions, but has also offered an opportunity of timely support to Deans and Directors when embedding the positive duties within their strategic business plans.

As we have developed each Scheme we have also involved staff and students first through consultation and then as general, rather than representative, committee members with totally different people coming forward depending on the strand in question. I am sure that this has meant that we have involved far more people who have come forward as a result of a particular strand interest. This is a process which we have seen develop over time on the Race Equality Committee, which is now chaired by a senior black member of staff, where the participation of ethnic minority staff and students has grown with the confidence in the genuine commitment of the university to improving race equality. Introducing a co-opting element for that committee has meant that it can invite BME staff to join it, which has accelerated the representation of minority ethnic staff.

Similarly we have permanently involved disabled people as general members in that sub committee and we will continue to grow and develop that participation and we were able to build on the involvement of representatives on the existing, well-developed SENDA strategy committee, with its emphasis on Learning and Teaching, and extend its brief and membership.

With the focus on the development of the Gender Equality Scheme quite different people came forward to join in the consultation and / or the subsequent formation of a Gender Equality Committee.

This successful process of involvement and consultation would not have been impossible to manage and implement with our E&D human resources had we tried to do three strands, let alone six, at once. Now this has been developed one at a time we can manage this and develop its effectiveness. How the successful consultation, involvement and related committee structures may be affected if we adopt an SES in the future and will need very careful consideration and consultation itself.

To summarise, I think a multiple Scheme approach has worked well for us in developing highly detailed initial Schemes, in promoting cultural change and in involving leadership, management, staff, students, unions and stakeholders. As we now review the original RE Scheme (Policy) for the second time we are beginning to see a reduction in the actions needed as we have embedded and mainstreamed past actions into the formal processes. Three or six years hence, for example, the very detailed, long, first action plans that we have developed for Gender and Disability will become smaller as actions are implemented and formally embedded into what we do and the way that we do it - that may be a good time for us to consider merging the Schemes.

A time lapse before introducing an SES will also allow for the Single Equality Bill legislation to be decided and actually implemented. All protected strands could be brought together once equality legislation is clearer and we have embedded the positive duties.

Best wishes,

Mel

Mel Landells
Head of Equality and Diversity
Secretariat
University of Plymouth
01752 233973

Melanie Landells
Head of Equality and Diversity
Secretariat
University of Plymouth
PL4 8AA
01752 233973
________________________________________
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steph Millar [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 05 October 2007 12:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: single equality schemes

Hello all,
I'm looking into the use of single equality schemes and policies.

I'm a development officer supporting colleges and universites with equality
in Scotland, and we're exploring ways forward, bearing in mind the EHRC and
a likely single equality act.  I've also been exploring the use of single
schemes in the public and private sectors to see what's happening more
widely.  Would any one be prepared to share with me their single scheme or
reasoning behind why they have one (or have decided not to have one)?
Thanks, in advance, for your help.

Steph

Stephanie Millar
Development Officer
Equality Forward
Argyll Court
Castle Business Park
Stirling
FK9 4TY

T:  01786 892 026
M:  07920 563248
E:  [log in to unmask]
W:  www.equalityforwardscotland.ac.uk