CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EQUALITY DUTYIntroduction
The equality duty was established by the 2010 Equality Act and enforced in 2011 to replace the gender, race, and disability equality duties. The general equality duty requires public officials to advance opportunity equality, eradicate discrimination, and cultivate good relations (Kumra, Manfredi, and Vickers, 2012). This duty is established in section 149 of the Equality Act, and it covers characteristics such as age, race, sexual orientation, gender, pregnancy and maternity, disability, gender reassignment, and religion or belief. Civil partnerships and marriages are also covered under the eradication of discrimination requirement (Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), 2015). This paper provides an assessment of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), including the levels of implementation, factors affecting successful implementation and barriers to the implementation.
Implementation of the Equality Duty
The PSED applies in Wales, England, and Scotland, and it consists of specific and general duty. The Equality and Human Rights Commission implement the equality duty. Some of the bodies that are required to fulfil the general equality duty include organizations that carry out public functions, including local authorities, health, government departments, transport, armed forces, and policing institutions (Butler, 2016). Moreover, private institutions, which perform some public functions, are covered by the duty concerning those functions only. The specific duties obligate public bodies to set objectives that they deem necessary for the achievement of the general duty, as well as to publish information proving their compliance (Government Equalities Office, 2011). In Wales and Scotland, the specific duties apply to non-devolved powers, while in England, they pertain to public authorities (Michael Rubenstein Publishing, 2012).
According to Hepple (2010), the PSED is a great achievement towards the recognition of the rights of more disadvantaged groups, as well as the extension of the law to address both acts of direct and indirect harassment and discrimination. The duty recognizes the meaning of equality not just as the identical treatment, but the accommodation of differences.
According to Arthur, Mitchell, Graham and Beninger (2013), there are differences among organizations regarding their levels of equality duty awareness, understanding, engagement, and willingness to address issues of equality in their work. These differences are as a result of the organizations’ perceived relevance of equality to their work, leadership attitudes, and experience of these issues. Most organizations considering implementing the equality duty are those that work with service users directly. The levels of implementation of equality duty among organizations also vary. Some companies exceed the compliance requirements while others meet them proportionately. Other organizations do not meet the compliance requirements (Arthur et al., 2013).
Organizations that exceed the compliance expectations are afraid of litigation risks, or they perceive equality duty as suitable for their goals. These organizations have set several quality objectives, which they are not always able to manage. They also gather and publish large amounts of information, and at times, they have no clear focus on the data needed for compliance with equality duty or for improvement of planning which affects protected groups. Moreover, firms that exceed compliance requirements engage in equality training promotion of opportunities for equality, and infrastructure which are not always linked to the available resources. They also continue to use complex impact assessments of equality when making most decisions. Additionally, they include a statement of the equality duty’s requirements during procurement, but they do not consider what a proportional reply would be regarding the quantity of information that will be submitted as proof of compliance by the contractors (Arthur et al., 2013).
The organizations that exceed the compliance requirements in the implementation of equality duty do so for several reasons. Some of the organizations were involved in the equalities work before the equality duty was enforced, and therefore, they continued with these activities. Other organizations believe that commitment to equality is in line with their ethos. Other organizations such as local authorities and university faculties are of the opinion that one equality objective is not enough to promote equality effectively. Therefore, they want to exceed the minimum compliance requirements. Other organizations exceed the required implementation obligations because of the ambiguities surrounding the equality duty. Therefore, they do so because of the fear of legal consequences (Arthur et al., 2013).
The organizations that do not meet the compliance requirements engage poorly with the equality duty and their efforts to foster equality. Some of them are unaware of the advantages of implementing equality to their businesses. The poor engagement is a result of the failure to comprehend the duty. Others did not have sufficient resources to implement it. Additionally, others are driven by the motive of merely meeting the minimum conditions to avoid legal problems. Thus, their engagement with the equality duty is low (Arthur et al., 2013).
The compliance of other organizations with the equality duty is medium. These organizations’ level of compliance lies between those that surpass their obligations and those that fail to meet them. These organizations received advice from sensible experts regarding the implementation of the equality duty principles. Most of them also had an equalities infrastructure and the employees received relevant training to be able to implement the equality duty correctly. Members of such organizations were also committed to fairness and adopted a proactive approach to the equality duty issues. They also linked the equality duty requirements to the objectives of the organization instead of addressing them separately. Equality duty objectives were also incorporated into daily practices (Arthur et al., 2013).
Similarly, an assessment of the public authorities’ execution of the specific duty in England by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (2012) showed varying implementation levels. Half of the public authorities had published user and staff equality information. Approximately 78 percent met the requirements partially because they published information on either the users or staff. Police forces and probation services performed well in publishing user and staff information. Conversely, the worst performance was by National Health Service commissioners and national organizations at 36 percent and 25 percent respectively. Approximately six percent of the public authorities did not publish any equality information (EHRC, 2012).
Numerous organizations in the UK have implemented the PSED. Even though organizations in England are no longer obligated to conduct impact assessments due to the problem of bureaucracy, several companies continue with this practice. These organizations utilize these assessments to evaluate their practices and policies. Examples of such organizations include the Imperial College London and General Housing Association (Michael Rubenstein Publishing, 2012). The Open University also conducts similar assessments referred to as equality analysis. In the implementation of the duty, some organizations have embraced a positive data collection approach. Organizations such as Genesis Housing Association are of the opinion that the duty has enhanced their data collection. On the other hand, Cornwall County Council benefited from the data collection as quantitative and qualitative gaps were revealed in the process. Through the collection of equality information, several organizations realized the need to increase the rates of disclosure by their employees. For instance, Imperial College London adopted strategies to promote the disclosure of disabilities, while Crown Prosecution Service, Genesis Housing Association, and University of Chichester focused on increasing sexual orientation disclosure (Michael Rubenstein Publishing, 2012).
In Scotland, public bodies such as Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) have implemented the PSED. HIS fulfils the compliance requirements of the PSED by reporting on their implementation of the specific duties including equality outcomes, equality impact assessments, and information on employment, and the gender pay gap (HIS, 2015). Risk Management Authority (RMA), another public body in Scotland, has implemented the equality duty and it has covered all the protected characteristics. After the implementation of the duty, RMA has achieved numerous outcomes. One of them is the increased availability of equalities information to the risk assessors. The organization has also achieved best practice in the risk assessment. Also, they have provided more work opportunities for the young people. Moreover, barriers in training, recruitment and promotion are nonexistent. There is also more awareness regarding diversity and equality by the staff (RMA, 2015).
In Wales, there was no evidence of under-compliance levels below or above that required by the duty. Progress had been made in supporting equality duty implementation. For instance, equality objectives had been established by all the listed bodies and were undergoing implementation (Mitchell, Beninger, Rahim and Morrell, 2014). Furthermore, there was better engagement with the users and equality impact assessments were widely utilized to enhance service delivery. The staff members were also trained to improve their knowledge of the PSED. Organizations were also fulfilling the three facets of the general duty. Further, progress was noted in addressing protected characteristics such as disability, age, sexual orientation, sex, and race. However, there was little progress regarding characteristics such as religion and gender reassignment. An analysis of the implementation progress by sector in Wales showed that more progress was made in health, government, and education (Mitchell et al., 2014).
Despite the reports claiming that equality duty has brought about several benefits for organizations, the Government Equalities Office (2013) argues that after the implementation of the equality duty, it is not working as planned by the governments. The duty was implemented by different governments to fulfil aims such as to simplify previous duties and cover the other protected characteristics, minimize bureaucracy, and to be focused on outcomes. However, even though there are indications of progress towards the simplification of previous duties, this aim has not been fully met. Furthermore, in some cases, the equality duty is perceived as having increased paperwork and bureaucracy instead of minimizing it. Besides, reports on the progress of equality duty consist of generalized benefits as opposed to substantial evidence of improved outcomes after implementation. Stephenson (2014) also asserts that despite the numerous reports citing the benefits of PSED, the substantial evidence in support of these claims is limited.
Factors Affecting Equality Duty Implementation
Some organizations are more committed to the implementation of equality duty because they believe that diversity, inclusion, and equality embody their ethos. Therefore, going against the equality duty is akin to violating their organizational ethos. Conversely, in other organizations, the senior leadership is not committed to equality, and as a result, compliance with the duty is low (Arthur et al., 2013).
According to Mitchell et al. (2014), several factors facilitated the success of equality duty implementation in Wales. One of them is the existence of strong organizational ethos in line with inclusivity and equality, which were supported by senior leadership. High knowledge levels regarding the PSED also facilitated successful implementation. Other factors include sufficient resources and high levels of ownership of the agenda in organizations. Arthur et al. (2013) also found that organizations with a developed infrastructure of equalities such as established networks, good governance, and workplace champions are more confident of their compliance with the equality duty. The available resources also determine organizations’ compliance with equality duty. Reduced resources as a result of budget cuts make it difficult for institutions to prioritise issues of equality (Arthur et al., 2013).
Successful implementation also depends on the knowledge levels regarding the equality duty and equalities issues. In organizations where senior leaders lack a proper understanding of equality duty, and do not believe it is beneficial to their business, implementation is likely to be affected negatively (Arthur et al., 2013).
Barriers to Effective Implementation
Regarding compliance with the specific duties, one of the challenges to implementation is data collection. Some groups are unwilling to provide data due to fears regarding confidentiality and disclosure. Similarly, the staff gathering the data may feel embarrassed when inquiring about issues such as sexual orientation (Arthur et al., 2013).
Confusion regarding the data that is most useful for collection and publication to enable organizations to be compared regarding their commitment to equality issues is another challenge (Arthur et al., 2013).
Additionally, the perceptions of organizations regarding the legal requirements of the equality duty affect implementation. Some organizations implement the duty because of the fear of the legal threat. Others believe the legal threat of noncompliance is not significant due to the lack of knowledge about the penalties and consequences for not complying (Arthur et al., 2013).
Conclusion
This discussion has analyzed the equality duty, which covers characteristics such as age, race, sexual orientation, gender, pregnancy and maternity, disability, gender reassignment, and religion or belief. In the UK, there are varying levels of implementation of equality duty among organizations. Some organizations exceed the compliance requirements, others meet them proportionately, and some do not fulfil these obligations. Organizations in different sectors in Wales, England, and Scotland have adopted the PSED, and there are reports of positive outcomes. However, there are claims that implementing the PSED is not beneficial to organizations. Some of the factors affecting equality duty implementation include alignment of equality with their ethos, the commitment of senior leadership, high knowledge levels regarding the PSED, sufficient resources, high levels of ownership, and developed infrastructure. Barriers hindering equality duty implementation include issues surrounding data collection such as unwillingness to provide or collect data, confusion regarding useful data, and the perceptions of organizations regarding the legal requirements. Therefore, the PSED continues to be implemented in different organizations in the UK, but there are conflicting opinions regarding its success and benefits. Therefore, further assessments need to be conducted to find out the progress of the PSED so far, including its impact on organizations.
References
Arthur, S., Mitchell, M., Graham, J., and Beninger, K. 2013. Views and experiences of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237200/PSED_Revised_Report_Final_030913_-_FINAL.PDF [Accessed 19 February 2016].
Butler, M., 2016. Equality and anti-discrimination law: the Equality Act 2010 and other anti-discrimination protections. London: Spiramus Press Ltd.
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). 2012. Publishing equality information: Commitment, engagement and transparency: Assessment of public authorities’ implementation of the specific duty to publish equality information. [Online] Available at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/PSD/publishing_equality_information_final.pdf [Accessed 19 February 2016].
Equality and Human Rights Commission. 2015. What is the equality duty? [Online] Available at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/public-sector-providers/public-sector-equality-duty/what-equality-duty [Accessed 19 February 2016].
Government Equalities Office. 2011. Equality Act 2010: Specific duties to support the equality duty. What do I need to know? A quick start guide for public sector organisations. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85049/specific-duties.pdf [Accessed 19 February 2016].
Government Equalities Office. 2013. Review of the public sector equality duty: Report of the Independent Steering Group. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237194/Review_of_the_Public_Sector_Equality_Duty_by_the_Independent_Steering_Group.pdf [Accessed 19 February 2016].
Health Improvement Scotland (HIS). 2015. Public Sector Equality Duty progress report. [Online] Available at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiWgqXfiIPLAhVIbxQKHQK1AQ0QFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthcareimprovementscotland.org%2Fhis%2Fidoc.ashx%3Fdocid%3Db840e2f8-d4c7-4ee3-997b-63dfcb4dfda1%26version%3D-1&usg=AFQjCNGosoCQG7VHPEfR_FwuZoj8R-nFhQ&sig2=3c64zppx1M3csF9wKxJ32A&bvm=bv.114733917,d.d24 [Accessed 19 February 2016].
Hepple, B., 2010. The new single equality act in Britain. The Equal Rights Review, 5, pp.11-24.
Kumra, S., Manfredi, S. and Vickers, L., 2012. Managing equality and diversity: theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michael Rubenstein Publishing. 2012. Implementing the new public sector equality duty. Equal Opportunities Review, 225. [Online] Available at: http://www.rubensteinpublishing.com/default.aspx?id=1169103 [Accessed 19 February 2016].
Mitchell, M., Beninger, K., Rahim, N., and Morrell, G. 2014. Review of the public sector equality duty (PSED) in Wales: Executive summary. [Online] Available at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/Review_of_PSED_in_Wales_Ex_Sum_english.pdf [Accessed 19 February 2016].
Risk Management Authority (RMA). 2015. Equality Duty progress report. [Online] Available at: http://www.rmascotland.gov.uk/files/4714/3022/8050/Equality_Duty_Progress_Report_April_2015.pdf [Accessed 19 February 2016].
Stephenson, M.A., 2014. Misrepresentation and omission – An analysis of the review of the Public Sector Equality Duty. The Political Quarterly, 85(1), pp.75-80.