2. Legal Basis of Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs)  Requirement in Scotland under Equality Act 2010 to:  Assess the impact of applying a new or revised policy/ practice against the needs of the general equality duty (note: this includes updates, amendments and decisions too).  Consider evidence relating to people across protected characteristic (PCs).  Take account of these findings.  Review and revise to ensure compliance with the general equality duty.  Publish results within a reasonable period.

3. EQIAs and General Equality Duty  A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by the Act; * b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. * With the exception of marriage & civil partnership, all protected characteristics are subject to the full duty. The duty also covers marriage & civil partnerships for section a) in employment only.

4. Key Evidence Considerations when Conducting EQIAs  Although data sources have improved considerably, there are monitoring and benchmarking challenges:  Gender reassignment and sexual orientation are not included in Scottish Census 2011; only estimates are available.  SFC does not require Colleges to monitor gender reassignment; however your College might collect this.  SFC makes the monitoring of religion, but not belief, and sexual orientation voluntary; however your College might collect this.

5. Key Evidence Considerations when Conducting EQIAs  Although data sources have improved considerably, there are monitoring and benchmarking challenges:  SFC disability fields do not include the “Learning Disability (for example Down’s Syndrome)” Census field.  Issues with age ranges across data sources, e.g. 16 to 19, 20 to 24 vs 16 to 20, 21 to 25.  “White” and “BME” ethnic fields do not account for “UK White”, “Other White” and “BME” groups.  Issues with clarity of definitions in relation to Plain English, additional support needs, or international students, e.g. “heterosexual”.

6. Equality Impact Assessments: Our Procedure Expected Outcomes and Potential Impact Expected Outcomes and Potential Impacts Consider Relevant Evidence Consider Alternatives and Mitigation Compliance with General Equality Duty Involvement of Groups Representing PCs Making a Decision Taking Action and Monitoring

7. Equality Impact Assessment of Admissions  Competitive process - 24,000 applicants for 6,000 full time places.  Consistent application process - Entry Requirements, Selection Criteria and Interviews.  Customer base - 9 Protected Characteristics

8. Method  Cross College Working Group. Student Association Teaching staff Marketing Team Equalities Staff Quality/Performance Student Funding Admissions Team Learning Support Core Skills Staff ECU  Pre Application Marketing Materials Entry Qualifications Selection Criteria Advice and Guidance Course Content  Applicant Selection Interview Structure Interview Assessments Scoring Methods Feedback

10. Findings - Age  Applications from under 16s discouraged.  Issues around safeguarding.  Legitimate legislation i.e. use of chemicals in hairdressing industry.  Applications from ‘mature’ applicants without entry qualifications accepted.  Being ‘mature’ is not a criteria.  Having relevant life or work experience is the important factor.  How can this be evidenced?  Requirement for references mentioned School i.e. PE Teacher.  References from School not applicable after a certain age.  Create a barrier if School experience not good.

11. Recommendations  Remove any direct or indirect references to age.  Publish the minimum level entry criteria for all.  Consider the need for a reference and what it adds.  Selection criteria should be publish together with information on how this can be evidence by the applicant (this is in addition to entry criteria).

12. Findings - Disability Glasgow City Council 21% Scottish Census 19% College Enrolments 14% College Offers 11% College Applications 9% Faculties  Creative Ind 12%  Education and Society 10%  Leisure and Lifestyle 9%  Business 7%  Build, Eng, Energy 7%

13. Findings and Recommendations- Disability  Full time attendance not feasible  Alternative modes.  Varying Access Points.  Positive images and case studies in marketing materials in areas such as sport and hair and beauty.  Avoid tokenism.  Consider current student testimonials.  Consider the need for references and what this adds.  Possible undetected disability/learning difficulty in the past could impact disproportionately in the requirement to provide references.

14. Findings – Race (Ethnicity) Faculties  Business 12%  Build, Eng, Energy 9%  Education and Society 9%  Leisure and Lifestyle 6%  Creative Ind 4% Glasgow City Council 12% College Applications 9% College Offers 8% College Enrolments 8% Scottish Census 4%

15. Findings and Recommendations – Race (Ethnicity)  Selection Criteria.  Is there an opportunity for different cultures to evidence ability.  Consider the need for references and what this adds.  Might pose a barrier for those with ‘new’ residency status.  Course levels and entry qualifications should be referenced to the SCQF to assist with mapping and comparison of overseas qualifications.

16. Recurring Themes  References.  Do they create barriers?  Ask - Who? What? Why?  Create a reference template – standardise.  The range of selection elements require robust scoring and weighting.  Qualifications.  Interview performance.  Selection criteria.  References.  Need for a consistent interview experience - training.  Meaningful feedback to applicants.

17. Benefits  Provides an evidence based frame work for questioning current practice and introducing improvements.  Highlights areas of tension within strategies i.e. Performance Indicators vs Access & Inclusion. Facilitates discussion.  Recurring themes are ‘quick wins’ which can lead to substantial improvements in processes.  A range of intangible benefits. Improved awareness and understanding of protected characteristics.