Dr. Marc Verlot Foresight Director Equality and Human Rights Commission

1. Making a difference.A user's view on the impact of research in improving equality and human rights. Dr. Marc Verlot Foresight Director Equality and Human Rights Commission marc.verlot@equalityhumanrights.com

2. My take on the matter • Research is essential to make a tangible and lasting difference on equality and human rights • Good communication of findings necessary but by no means sufficient • Need to set out what impact it aspires (and why) • Has consequences for framing for the research questions, research programming and planning of research units and funders

3. My perspective • Funder and user of research to build an objective evidence base • Working for a regulator: appropriate, proportionate and effective interventions in public and private sector • To eliminate discrimination, reduce inequality, protect human rights and build good relations to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to participate in society.

4. Content • What is impact ? • How does the EHRC see impact ? • Case study – Stop and Think • Points for discussion

5. What is Impact • Musings from the RSA: • Matthew Taylor blogs • Common worries: causation and time lag • Reach, Engagement, Involvement, Transformation • Makes sense, easily applicable • Risks running out of steam towards Transformation • Need to see it as a climbing a ladder: what goes up, must come down.

6. Impact in the EHRC • Piloting an approach • Seeks a 5 year horizon and works back to 3 and 1 years • Includes social impact, institutional outcomes, input and resources

8. Causal –impact approach Specification of risk/problem and initial assessment NB an initial broad assessment of costs, benefits, and public interest is required for the initial assessment Impact assessment for final option appraisal and evaluation Key component or driver Promising approaches Changes needed from institutions Regulatory approach by EHRC Alert of problem or risk Intended impacts on society over 5 - 3 -1 Years (qualitative & numerical) Identify what policy /practice changes by institutions is required over 5-3-1 years Identify potential impact of EHRC on this over 5-3-1 years Identify EHRC activities and resources required to achieve this over 5-3-1 yearsI

9. Problem- Aim -Impact Problem • Ethnic minorities stopped and searched much more by the police (Pace code A, excludes antiterrorism S&S powers) – approx. 1 million S&S a year ! • High disproportionality indicates contravening equality and human rights legislation and damaging good relations. • Aim of project: ensure police use S&S powers proportionally and effectively to all - change underlying stereotyping towards ethnic minorities • Intended impact: police forces are able to evidence and communicate effective use of S&S and/or reduce ethnic minority disprop. substantially in line with best practice outcomes 9

10. Trends over time inDisproportionality ratios

11. What’s happened? • 1984: S&S power introduced • c.1990: concerns raised in Parliament • 1997/8: official S&S figures confirm disprop.: black:white = 7.3:1 and Asian:white = 2.4:1 • 1999: Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report puts S& problem on political agenda – first Gov. action plan - 1998/99b:w = 5.9:1 and A:w = 2.1:1 • 2001: Policing within the scope of the RRA; 2001/2b:w = 6.6:1 and A:w = 2.1:1 • 2002: Home Office sets up S & S Delivery Board and Action Team as figures got worse: 2002/3: b:w = 8.2:1 and A:w = 2.7:1. • 2003: CRE starts FI on police employment -'Secret Policeman' broadcasted 11

12. What’s happened? - 2 • 2005: CRE concludes FI and serves police forces compliance notices. • 2007: Pilots show decline in disprop. • 2009: Next Steps launched -uptake limited. • 2010: Stop & Think published • 2011: EHRC signs binding agreements with 2 forces and monitors 3 forces closely. • Early results 2011- small drop but within margin of error) 12

13. Who’s done what? 13

14. Where are the gaps? • Good practice examples where decreasing S&S rates go hand in hand with effective crime reduction • Examples of effective communication between police and community groups to support focussed S&S actions • An overall plan to transfer learning to all forces • Non political leadership to see through emerging change – EHRC in collaboration with ACPO? • Ownership by HO Sec of State 14

15. What are the opportunities and risks? Opportunities • The Next Steps change programme provides – if continued and evaluated – an excellent vehicle to transfer learning to all police forces • Collaborating with UKSA inspectorate to ensure fair S&S at borders • Stop and Think can provide operational inroads into the police to develop collaborative work in other areas such as rape rates Risks • Discourse around cutting red tape is being used to question need for rigorous monitoring and working with targets to reduce disproportionality • The removal of the Commission’s good relations mandate could narrow the Commission’s scope and leave out the fundamental issue of tackling racial stereotyping within the police 15

16. What was essential, what can we learn ? - 1 External • Availability of long term core data crucial • Cooperate first: allegiances and credibility. • Influence environment (leadership) and build on drivers – e.g. attitudinal change Internal organisation • Build up expertise and provide continuity: quick fixes don’t always work with discrimination - “because it is systemic, stupid !” to paraphrase 16

17. What was essential, what can we learn ? - 2 • Gather diverse team with complementary skills – matrix working and end-to-end regulation • Team leader to set out direction, co-ordinate all strengths, and ensure we punch above our weight as we downsize. • SMT –lead acting as internal advocate Approach • Aim to win the war, not the battle; commit to the long haul and follow through. • Draw on all levers – EU, UN as well as domestic legislation. • Try direct and indirect approaches: tackle the context: tackle the issue; tackle for all; tackle for 1. 17

18. What was essential, what can we learn ? - 3 • Master strengths and weaknesses of evidence base thoroughly - tackle head on. • Combine data, research, theory and promising practice. • Draw in best academics and lawyers and work with them. • Try out approaches, step back, try something else, take risks, be creative. • Compare performance and challenge differences . 18

20. Turning assumptions into verifiable hypotheses

21. The influence of research • At the level of input • Data analysis • Critical framing of the issues • Theorisation – different angles • At the level of application • Provided critical summary of insights • Provided technical expertise • Provided consultancy • At the level of follow up • Link between institutional change and societal impact • What is missing?; scrutiny role, evaluation

22. Points for discussion- Research • Situate your research – socially, economically, institutionally, ... • Think through the difference your research can make • Sharpen your research questions • Spell out what your ambitions are in terms of impact – don’t be shy • Avoid turning this into a bureaucratic exercise at all cost

23. Points for discussion - Management • Outreach too often a limited after thought • Provide examples of where the research group made a difference, why and how • Build consultation with potential users into resourcing and timing • Explore options for follow through early on