Measuring equality improvement processes

1. Measuring equality improvement processes • Equality and Social Inclusion • 2nd Feb 2006 • Julian Clarke • Centre for Local Policy Studies • clarkej@edgehill.ac.uk

2. Continuous equality improvement • Equality objectives and targets (performance indicators) • Levels of improvement that sum the achievement of specific objectives into a coherent assessment or measurement of the performance of a whole authority.

3. ESLG: the Levels • Level 1 Commitment • Level 2 Assessment and consultation • Level 3 Equality objectives & targets • Level 4 Information & monitoring • Level 5 Achieving and reviewing outcomes

4. monitoring review objectives engagement commitment

5. ESLG Levels and Scrutiny • At Level One an authority is asked commit to the development of an external stakeholder/user group scrutiny capacity. • At Level Two an authority shouldengage with external stakeholders to help it reflect on its equality consultation • To achieve Level Three an authority should have its stakeholder/user group working effectively so that their views on impact assessment and objective and target setting feed into those processes

6. ESLG Levels and Scrutiny • Authorities working at Level 4 will be using stakeholder scrutiny as a means of testing the monitoring and measurement systems • At Level Five a continuous process of user scrutiny of local authority action will have been developed. Scrutiny group activity will have become embedded and constitute a deliberative process that sits alongside representative processes

7. Questions: structure and organisation • What resources are required to set up an effective scrutiny system? • Do stakeholder/user groups have the capacity to critically engage with the processes that develop under ESLG. • What voluntary groups should be represented in a stakeholder/user group? • What should be the terms of reference of stakeholder/user scrutiny groups?

8. Questions: Internal debate • Is there a common understanding of equality improvement throughout the authority? Does the scrutiny group share this understanding? • Are there likely to be competing equality priorities? • Will there be contradictory equality demands? It cannot be assumed that all equality interests are compatible

9. Other issues • A perceived threat to local authority officer professional status? • a perceived threat to the authority of elected members • Scrutiny group be co-opted or ‘institutionalised’ by the local authority