1. Single Equality Schemes: opportunities, challenges and questions Paul Crofts Equality and Diversity Advisor The University of Northampton

2. Background: who am I? –Background in race equality work (Northamptonshire REC) for previous 25+ years –Founder member of the Discrimination Law Association and first Development Officer –E&D Officer/Advisor at University of Northampton since 2004 –Currently part of a unit including an E&D Officer (Staff) –On arrival at the university first major project was to review the “Equal Opportunities” policy (as it was then called) and the recently (2003) adopted Race Equality Policy (in effect a “scheme”/action plan, rather than a policy!)

3. Singe Equality Schemes: opportunities, challenges and questions During 2004 we agreed that we move towards: –adopting a unified and overarching E&D Policy (adopted in 2005) –as part of the review of the Race Policy (Scheme), we would move towards drawing up an overarching, single, Equality Scheme (SES) and Action Plan (adopted 2006 – running until 2010) covering all equality strands –The scheme would have both overarching/common elements and strand specific actions/focus

4. Opportunities (1) In 2004 we already knew that legal requirements to have a gender and disability equality scheme (in addition the current race “policy”) were on the horizon. We saw this as an opportunity to consolidate all equality strands (including sexual orientation, religion & belief and age) into a single equality scheme. New Equality Bill likely to extend the statutory duty to all existing equality strands and add a few more. Many of the legal principles, duties and definitions pertaining to the different equality strands were likely to be very similar, if not the same. It enabled us to potentially incorporate cross-strand activities (e.g. look at issues related disabled ethnic minority students).

5. Opportunities (2) Many aspects of E&D work naturally “cut across” all equality strands: –basic training in E&D –equality impact assessments/screenings –production and analysis of monitoring data across all main strands (for students this was: age, race/ethnicity, gender, disability) –awareness raising initiatives e.g. our equality & diversity week –harassment policy and procedures (dignity at work and study) –our E&D Research Group/Diversity Champions Group

6. Opportunities (3) Practical things - like all “schemes” in one place and in one document. We (at that time – now been changed) established a new Equality & Diversity Committee (reporting to Senate/Governors) and an Equality and Diversity Action Group (responsible for implementation). “Politically” it was important to “unite” all the equality strands, as often there are temptations to play off one strand against another or develop hierarchies of inequality. With one, overarching, scheme it becomes administratively easier to monitor and evaluate and to “fit” it into the rhythm of university life. Having three (or more) schemes that were being separately evaluated and monitored, possibly at different times during the year or in different years) would probably have caused a great deal of confusion. It is easier to see how each strand is being tackled - more transparent as to the issues, resources and action that each strand is receiving (or not, as the case may be!).

7. Challenges (1) Since adopting our overarching E&D Policy (in 2005) and a Single Equality Scheme and Action Plan (in 2006 running until 2010) it is apparent that there were (and remain) a number of challenges and problems with a SES. At the time there were concerns about the contradictory advice that was emanating from the three Commissions (DRC/CRE/EOC). The latter two seemed relatively unconcerned about SES. However the DRC seemed quite hostile – at least initially. I advised that we go ahead with a SES in any event; so long as we met the requirements of the emerging statutory duties for gender and disability (and the existing duties around race), there was likely to be little or no comeback. Since the formation of the unified EHRC these concerns have, to all intents and purposes, disappeared 9although it emerges from time to time).

8. Challenges (2) Initially there was a degree of confusion: –when the requirement to have a disability equality scheme came into effect, I kept on being asked the question “where is our disability equality scheme?”. –Interestingly this question was not asked in relation to race and gender. –I think this confusion has now been overcome. We consulted widely when adopting both the E&D Policy and the Equality Scheme and Action Plan – but have been less than successful in involving people since (particularly “communities of interest” – disabled people; ethnic minorities, etc.) in on-going evaluation, monitoring and review. Is this a problem of a SES or is it a wider problem?

9. Challenges (3) Whilst theoretically a SES makes it easier to identify cross- strand issues, in reality this has not happened and we remain (currently) wedded to separate strands, albeit we now “see” them together in a single document. Translating the Scheme into action – still questions of ownership and management commitment to implementing the scheme; although I think this may have been even more problematic if we had had separate schemes. There are imbalances in the priority given to different equality strands. This is now much more transparent, but we have not been successful in changing it.

10. Questions How do we determine priorities within an ever-increasing and complex equality agenda? Disability issues (in respect of students) “dominates” the strand-specific areas of the action plan. Does this reflect current priorities and imperatives in HE? Or does it reflect the fact that disability issues are easier to “see”, understand and empathise with? Why are race and gender issues seen as less important? Where does religion & belief, sexual orientation and age fit? Is it administratively and bureaucratically more convenient, but less effective in actually delivering equality outcomes and involving people who are more likely to be interested in their specific strands? Is it resulting in less focused activity as we try to do everything? We seem to be better at delivering in those areas where there is commonality across the strands (E&D training, EIAs, etc.,) than within strand-specific areas (except for disability!).

11. Conclusion: the future…. and more questions Is a SES too much for people to handle, “own” or identify with? Do we need to be SMARTer rather than try to do everything across all strands; do we need to be more sophisticated in deciding on priorities - based on evidence of actual inequality, discrimination and need? Currently our SES includes six equality strands. Equality Bill will extend statutory duties from three equality areas to six (nine?) areas. Is there not therefore an overwhelming logic to having a SES? Why not also merge E&D with the Widening Participation (WP) agenda, so that social class issues are also part of an integrated equality project? The Equality Bill suggests this, although any new statutory duty will not apply to universities. Will the “normal” cycle set in over time of moving from “single” to “separate” and back again over time? (as we also seem to move continually from “specialists” to “generalists” and back again, or “separate” to “integrated” and back again?) Does it really matter, so long as we focus on agreed equality outcomes and actually deliver on them?