Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service

Formal Assessment as against the

Equality Standard for Local Government

Assessor:

Doug Feery

November 2007.

Contents:

Page

1.0 Executive summary

1.1 This summary is based upon the findings of a formal assessment carried out for Hampshire Fire and Rescue Services (`HFRS') with regard to the organisation's progress in implementing the Equality Standard for Local Government (the standard) and related statutory duties in respect of equality.

1.2 The governing body of the service is Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority. This is comprised of elected members from Hampshire County Council (19), Portsmouth City Council (3) and Southampton City Council (3).

1.3 Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority is a combined authority which serves a population of 1,653,500 and covers an area of 3770 km² making it the seventh largest fire and rescue authority in the United Kingdom. It is the largest of all the county and combined fire authorities.

1.4 The service has been structured (operational April 2007) with a view to ensuring corporate aims can be achieved. To this end there are four directorates; Service Delivery; Strategic Projects and Specialist Response; and Corporate Services and Human Resources.

1.5 As regards the standard, then in summary there are three distinct features. Firstly, the Standard places emphasis on the importance of equality & diversity practice not just in employment, but also as an essential part of delivering quality services and access to those services for the whole community. Secondly, the standard is specifically designed for managing and improving performance in equality & diversity for the whole organisation right through from ambition, leadership and resource management to service delivery outcomes. Thirdly, the standard supports an evidence based improvement framework.

1.6 The standard is set out as five levels of achievement:

Level 1: Commitment to a comprehensive equality policy

Level 2: Assessment and community engagement

Level 3: Setting equality objectives and targets

Level 4: Information systems and monitoring against targets

Level 5: Achieving and reviewing outcomes

1.7 In addition, the standard works across four substantive `cross-cutting' areas or themes, which are:

_ Leadership and corporate commitment

_ Community engagement and accountability

_ Service delivery and customer care

_ Employment and training

1.8 Responsibility for equality and diversity is located in the Corporate Services and Human Resources directorate. An equality and diversity team, which includes an equalities trainer, led by a equality and diversity manager is in place to progress the authority's equality programme. A specialist post of Equality and Diversity Advisor, with a reporting line direct to the director of HR, is also located in the function.

1.9 The Local Diversity Group (LDG) provides the link between equality activity at a corporate and functional level The remit of the LDG includes monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the corporate equality strategy and providing a scrutiny function for equality impact assessments. It is tasked via the corporate equality scheme with providing progress reports and monitoring information to inform corporate decision making and sharing information from consultation. The group reports to the workforce planning group and is chaired by the Deputy Chief Officer/Director of Service Delivery.

1.10 The authority's commitment to equality and diversity is established explicitly in the IRMP, which defines both as core values. This articulated commitment is supported by the existence of a corporate equality policy and corporate equality strategy which incorporates the statutory race, disability and gender schemes.

1.11 It is important to note that the authority came to the attention of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in 2005 concerning the legal compliance under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. Non compliance was to be found in the organisation not progressing it's positive duty, but more critically, not having an understanding of what such progress would look like.

1.12 The senior officers are to be commended for their response to this situation and in using this as a catalyst for progressing the equality and diversity activity under the business case of service improvement. With visible senior management lead and the identification of resources to develop capacity a variety of initiatives have been put in place to move the organisation away from non compliance, but more critically, to progressing the equality and diversity agenda in the context of good business sense.

1.13 The evidence presented to the assessment demonstrates a senior level commitment to the equality and diversity agenda and drive to realise related service improvement which is supported throughout the organisation. There is a clear commitment to implementing the standard and meeting the requirements of current equality legislation.

1.14 The judgement from the assessment is that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service has achieved level 2 of the Equality Standard for Local Government and can evidence a claim to level 3 in some areas.

1.15 The assessor's findings also draw out the improvements required in critical areas of the standard in order to consolidate and sustain the achievements at level 2 and progress the Service to a substantive claim at level 3. The report identifies and sets out these issues in some detail. They are:

o Elected members - Need to develop members understanding of the business case for progressing the equalities agenda. HFRS should seek to raise awareness of equalities across the six strands and develop capacity as regards to overview and scrutiny responsibilities.

o Performance management - HFRS should ensure that the performance management of equality and diversity is fed from the operational areas rather than rely on judgements from the equality team to inform performance monitoring. Further, the inclusion of equality related activity varies across the section plans and does not appear to be an explicit requirement of the service planning process.

o Procurement -There is no explicit reference to the need for equality considerations in the contracting process. This implies that external contractors maybe unaware of the equality commitments made by the service, HFRS should ensure that procurement systems support the commitments made by the Service and that contracts can be monitored and managed to this end.

o Equality impact assessment - There needs to be a robust review of the reporting of progress in respect of impact assessments. This needs to link to the timetable established, not least as targets and completion dates are out of line in the progress reports supplied suggesting that failure to progress impact assessments is not routinely challenged. Other specific measures to strengthen the approach to equality impact assessments include:

a. Review the need for two reporting bodies for impact assessment in order to streamline and mainstream the process.

b. While impact assessments have been carried out, none of these extended beyond a partial assessment. Nevertheless, evidence from the assessment suggests a lack of challenge to the assessments produced. HFRS should develop a challenge mechanism for impact assessments to ensure a consistent standard of assessment is attained leading to practical action rather than a desktop exercise.

c. Review the capacity of the LDG to carry out the scrutiny role and provide a clear brief as to their role in critical challenge of impact assessments. They should also be developed to undertake an effective scrutiny role.

d. Review the training and guidance material for impact assessments to ensure that officers responsible for carrying them out are considering the full range of equality impacts. This also needs to ensure that the current bias in impact assessments towards race and disability is re-balanced. The systematic use of baseline information to inform impact assessments also needs to be addressed.

1.16 In terms of assessing progress in meeting the standard and in relation to the cross cutting themes, we offer Hampshire FRS following advice:

o Self assessment - The service is currently weak in respect of a robust self assessment framework for establishing an understanding on a section by section basis of what progress has been made, and to what level, in respect of the levels of the standard. Once such a framework is established, the service should seek to ensure that there is a mechanism for quality assuring these assessments / reports so that there is consistency, and that there should also be in-built a level of internal and external critical challenge. This activity would support the attainment of the corporate goal to mainstream equalities into service delivery.

o Consultation and community engagement - The service needs to ensure that consultation is embedded in the service planning and equality impact processes. The assessment reveals that the service has done much to make links with such groups, however some of the evidence suggests that this area could be further developed so that groups are much more engaged in a two-way process with the service. Evidence from the assessment suggests groups are informed rather than engaged.

o Employment and training - Concerns were expressed, during the focus group meetings, that the current policy and practice around equalities may be restricting any meaningful discussions about the problems that are being encountered by staff engaging with different communities. This is most likely to be a perception rather than reality, and points to a communication issue. HFRS has clearly made good progress in engaging with staff on some difficult issues, and this is an area that would benefit from further engagement, training and development of staff. It has to be said, that the assessment found that, nonetheless, staff at both operational and non-operational levels were highly committed to the principles of equality and agreed that the service was moving in the right direction. This summary points to an underlying feeling that employees generally feel that they would like more involvement and put their views across, but feel unable at the current time to do so.

2.0 The Equality Standard For Local Government : background and

summary

2.1 The Equality Standard for Local Government (`the standard') was introduced as a best value performance indicator for local government in 2002. This indicator, BVPI 2 (a), replaced the Commission for Racial Equality's (CRE) `Race Equality Means Quality' indicator and broadened the scope of equality monitoring to include gender and disability as well as race. The standard was reviewed and revised in May 2007 and further updated in October 2007 to reflect legal and policy developments for equality; in particular with regards to gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age and religion & faith or belief.

2.2 In summary there are three distinct features of the standard. Firstly, the standard places emphasis on the importance of equality & diversity practice not just in employment, but also as an essential part of delivering quality services and access to those services for the whole community. Secondly, the standard is specifically designed for managing and improving performance in equality & diversity for the whole organisation right through from ambition, leadership and resource management to service delivery outcomes. Thirdly, the standard supports an evidence based improvement framework.

2.3 The standard places a strong emphasis on establishing a corporate approach within the organisation and provides a framework for:

_ The systematic mainstreaming of equality & diversity, through a performance and service planning framework.

_ Meeting obligations under anti-discrimination laws and practice.

_ Supporting the integration of equality & diversity objectives into the performance indicator process.

_ Tackling institutional discrimination and encouraging the development of anti-discrimination policy and practice.

_ Showing real improvements in services and employment equality over time i.e. service based outcomes.

2.4 The standard is set out as five levels of achievement:

Level 1: Commitment to a comprehensive equality policy

Level 2: Assessment and community engagement

Level 3: Setting equality objectives and targets

Level 4: Information systems and monitoring against targets

Level 5: Achieving and reviewing outcomes

2.5 In addition, the standard works across four substantive `cross-cutting' areas or themes, which are:

_ Leadership & corporate commitment

_ Community engagement & accountability

_ Service delivery & customer care

_ Employment and training

2.6 The first task is to get the infrastructure in place and the guidance in support of the standard sets out a level by level checklist for progressing this. Particular note should be made of the caution given in the guidance which states that it will take time, resources and commitment to establish this infrastructure and local authorities (and this includes fire and rescue services) will move at different rates. The requirement is however, that the organisation will move forward as a whole and for this reason it is important that progress through the levels of the standard is monitored and audited at both corporate and service level. The assessment framework relies on a strong evidential base and is outcome focused. Successful implementation of the standard will require a partnership approach between the organisation and the community, and the importance of the organisation's leadership role in this is emphasised.

3.0 Assessment process

3.1 The following report is based on the findings of a formal assessment carried out for Hampshire Fire and Rescue Services (HFRS), to provide a base line diagnostic as to their position as against the levels of the standard.

3.2 The report has two purposes. The first is outlined above and to meet this aim the report sets out the methodology used in the assessment and presents the findings of the assessment in relation to level of the standard that the F&RS is progressing. The second is to provide qualitative comments and recommendations, in order to provide critical support to consolidate current achievements and progress to the next level.

4.0 Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service: local context

4.1 The Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority is a combined authority which serves a population of 1,653,500 and covers an area of 3770 km² making it the seventh largest fire and rescue authority in the United Kingdom. It is the largest of all the county and combined fire authorities.

4.2 Hampshire county is large and relatively prosperous with a mix of rural and urban areas, including Portsmouth, Southampton and the New Forest. According to the current Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) ethnic minority groups account for 3.27per cent of the population.

4.3 The authority's governing body is comprised of 19 elected members from Hampshire County Council, 3 elected members from Portsmouth City Council and 3 elected members from Southampton City Council.

4.4 52 fire stations and 783 whole-time fire-fighters, 713 retained fire-fighters, 41 control room staff and 306 other support personnel deliver the fire service under the management of the Chief Fire Officer. The authority has recently been re-organised following a review of it's structure carried out with the aim of ensuring corporate aims can be achieved. The new management structure has been operational since April 2007 and is comprised of four new directorates; Service Delivery; Strategic Projects and Specialist Response; and Corporate Services and Human Resources.

4.5 Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service - the equality context

4.6 Responsibility for equality and diversity is located within the Human Resources directorate. An equality and diversity team, which includes an equalities trainer, led by a equality and diversity manager is in place to progress the authority's equality programme. A specialist post of Equality and Diversity Advisor with a reporting line direct to the director of HR is also located in the function.

4.7 The link between corporate and function level equality activity is provided by the Local Diversity Group (LDG). The group is intended to comprise of elected members, in addition to senior management team members, senior officers and external representatives. The remit of the LDG includes monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the corporate equality strategy and providing a scrutiny function for equality impact assessments. It is tasked via the corporate equality scheme with providing progress reports and monitoring information to inform corporate decision making and sharing information from consultation. The group reports to the workforce planning group and is chaired by the Deputy Chief Officer/Director of Service Delivery.

4.8 HFRS has set out it's strategic ambitions within it's IRMP. To achieve the corporate vision to `Make Hampshire Safer' the authority has established the following corporate aims 2007/2010:

_ Reduce deaths and injuries from accidental fires by 20per cent by 2010 (from 5 year average 2001-2006)

_ Reduce the number of deliberate fires by 20per cent by 2010 (from 5 year average 1994-1999)

_ Reduce the number of fires by 20per cent by 2010 (from 5 year average 1994-1999)

_ Work with others to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the road by 40per cent by 2010 (from 5 year average 1994-1999)

_ Be in the top 10 fire and rescue services in the country by 2010 (measured by 10 key performance indicators).

4.9 The authority's commitment to equality and diversity is established explicitly in the IRMP, which defines both as core values. This articulated commitment is supported by the existence of a corporate equality policy and corporate equality strategy which incorporates the statutory Race, Disability and Gender schemes. The IRMP sets out the development of the organisation towards the core values, and highlights improved service delivery as based on the implementation of the policy and plan and attainment of Levels 2 and 3 of the Equality Standard for Local Government by April and October 2007 respectively.

4.10 The authority came to the attention of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in 2005 concerning the legal compliance of the arrangements in place to progress the authority's duties introduced under to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. Non compliance was to be found in the organisation not progressing it positive duty, but more critically, not having an understanding of what such progress would look like.

4.11 The CRE intervention in 2005 provided a catalyst for progressing the equality and diversity activity under the business case of service improvement. Prior to this intervention the profile of equalities was under-developed and progress limited. With visible senior management lead and the identification of resources to develop capacity a variety of initiatives have been put in place to move the organisation away from non compliance, but more critically, to progressing the equality and diversity agenda in the context of good business sense.

4.12 The evidence presented for the assessment demonstrates a senior level commitment to the equality and diversity agenda and drive to realise related service improvement which is supported throughout the organisation. There is a clear commitment to implementing the standard and meeting the requirements of current equality legislation.

4.13 A steering group - the Local Diversity Group (LDG)- is in place tasked with progressing HFRS's activity as related to the equality agenda and in particular as related to the monitoring and implementation of the corporate equality policy and equality strategy. The service has established a framework for equality impact assessments and is it widely understood that they are to be used to support objective and target setting. Concerns regarding the current system's capacity to perform this role have been recognised by officers. This point is explored below.

5.0 Structure and layout of assessment (methodology)

5.1 The formal assessment is comprised of 3 interrelated parts:

1. Examination of self assessment and corporate documents (where provided) for completeness and consistency with the criteria in place for achievement of each level of the standard.

2. Interviews with a range of staff, members and relevant partners and interest groups.

3. Cross reference of the above for consistency.

5.2 As part of the interview stage of the assessment interviews took place with:

· individual elected members

· managers and officers

· focus groups with operational staff

· employee representatives

· external stakeholders.

5.3 Where they existed and where possible, meetings were also held with representatives from the disability, race and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organisations that have had contact or that have been involved in consultation exercises carried out by HFRS.

5.4 The assessment report is structured in the following way:

_ An examination of the evidence is made against each of the substantive areas of the standard and these are set out in summary format where HFRS has met the requirements.

_ The assessment identifies areas for improvement under each of the headings.

_ The comments and recommendations from the focus groups have been included where we felt this added value.

6.0 Summary of findings

6.1 The judgement from the assessment is that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service has achieved level 2 of the Equality Standard for Local Government and can evidence a claim to level 3 in some areas.

6.2 The assessor's findings also draw out where improvements are required in critical areas in order to consolidate and sustain the achievements at level 2 and progress the Service to a substantive claim at level 3. The report identifies and sets out these issues in some detail below.

7.0 Formal assessment

7.1 The documentary evidence shows that HFRS has achieved levels 1 and 2 of the standard. However improvements are required in critical areas in order to substantiate and consolidate this achievement. This judgement is substantiated by the following factors:

Level 1

_ A clear commitment to progressing the equality and diversity agenda and progressing through the levels of the standard is in place at Chief Officer, senior management and staff levels.

_ Elected members also demonstrate commitment to the equality and diversity agenda.

_ Equality and diversity are Core Values and this is clearly communicated across the organisation.

_ Resources have been identified to develop the capacity to manage and improve equality practices at corporate and service level and there presents a genuine commitment to establishing and utilising effective systems for this purpose.

_ Training and supporting information for staff has been developed and disseminated. Training is both general to the equalities agenda and specific to certain areas e.g. disability and cultural awareness.

_ Equality action planning and target setting is evident

_ A clear commitment to Equality Impact Assessment supported by training provision is evident.

_ A Corporate Equality Policy is in place supported by an Equality and Diversity Strategy that incorporates the Service's Race, Disability and Gender Equality Schemes. Use of consultation for the development of aspects of this is clear.

_ A steering group has been established with the specific remit to progress the equality agenda within HFRS by monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the Corporate Equality Strategy. Managers are responsible for linking the activities of their function to the Local Diversity Group.

7.2. Level 2

Summary points to identify where/how the authority has met

requirements of level 2

_ There is engagement in Equality Impact Assessments which covers the six equality strands across service areas.

_ External stakeholder groups are involved in the equality & diversity process albeit their remit is in respect of engagement, as opposed to being informed needs to be reviewed

_ Targets and equality objectives, including those for recruitment, have been established and resources to achieve them identified.

_ An equal pay review has taken place and a workforce strategy is in place.

_ HFRS has established a number of forums to facilitate stakeholder engagement in consultation; information sharing and debate of issues related to equality and diversity. Of note is the Fairness and Dignity Forum, which is attended by elected members, managers, frontline staff and members of the community. Open discussion is evident on equality related activity and proposed initiatives and efforts are made to ensure fair representation. The meetings proceedings are reported to the Human Resources Committee.

_ HFRS actively facilitates stakeholder engagement via outreach workers events and targeted publicity. The Service is open about the issues that it faces and uses the channels established to engage with stakeholders regarding service delivery (this is the existence of the O/R workers/ forums and staff newsletters).

7.3 At level 3 the standard requires a local authority to have:

_ Implemented a strategy for participation of designated community, staff and stakeholder groups in setting objectives of employment and service delivery.

_ Set equality objectives across the authority for race, gender and disability for employment, pay and service delivery based on impact assessments and participation strategy.

_ Set, by March 2009, equality objectives across the authority for sexual orientation, age, religion or belief for employment, pay and service delivery based on impact assessment and participation strategy.

_ Translated equality objectives into action plans with specific targets.

_ Begun developing information and monitoring systems that allow it to

_ assess progress in achieving targets.

_ Started action to achieve targets.

_ Verified progress through self assessment and scrutiny and been validated externally through an accredited assessor.

7.4 These general activities and developments translate into specific action in the four substantive areas of the standard as detailed from point 7.5 onwards:

7.5 Leadership and corporate commitment

a) Requirement: Ensure consistency of Corporate Equality Scheme with statutory equality schemes: HFRS demonstrated -

_ The Corporate Equality Strategy incorporates the Race, Disability and Gender Equality Schemes. It appears that the Race Equality Scheme establishes the prioritisation of services for EIA for the other schemes.

Areas for Improvement:

_ Dates are not attached to the EIA schedule making it difficult to determine when the associated assessment should have taken place. Performance management may therefore be an issue and it is unclear how assessments for the other duties will be scheduled if the area has already been assessed in line with the schedule for race equality - would high priority areas have to wait until the 3 year cycle began again ?

_ The Strategy appears to be comprised of every document relating to equality and diversity across the authority, this gives the impression of a continual bolt on approach rather than an integrated strategy and plan that is regularly reviewed to ensure currency and consistency of information. Currently, there is some misalignment in the targets identified e.g. In the policy guidance on positive action (36/144) a disability recruitment target of 3% is established but a baseline and target date is not defined, Within the DES (which is included as a `consultation draft') the baseline of disabled employees is established as 2%. Under `employment arrangements' (69/144) the target for recruitment is established as 3.5% by 2010, but in the action plan the target referred to is 4% by 2012 (73/144). (aligns to the DES h/c 30/54 and 36/54 respectively). Similarly training targets moves variously between 2005/06 and 07. As this is the principal planning document and focus for the monitoring, review and implementation activity (as regards to the LDG steering group) it is suggested that the strategy is reviewed and streamlined for consistency to ensure activity is aligned and current to facilitate effective performance management.

b) Requirement: Develop a system and timetable for reporting the results of impact assessments: HFRS demonstrated -

_ The Corporate Equality Strategy establishes that the Equality and Diversity Advisor and LDG are responsible for overseeing the EIA process and checking that all decisions or changes to policy and procedures have been subject to the EIA process. The ToR for the LDG supports this by clearly stating the scrutiny role for the equality impact assessment programmes for all functions.

_ A system for reporting progress of impact assessments against an existing timetable is evident in the material provided. A traffic light system is used to indicate rate of completion.

_ Impact assessments are clearly taking place across the service and are supported by training and guidance..

_ The service is clearly aware of the limitations of the current performance management arrangements for impact assessments and provided for a review (September 2007) in the HR and Training medium term plan.

Areas for Improvement:

_ HFRS should ensure that recommendations of the review are received by the LDG and progressed appropriately.

_ HFRS must develop the processes linked to equality impact assessment as there is inconsistent challenge and interrogation of the screening and completion process. The structures to support review and challenge i.e. the scrutiny role must be developed to facilitate the target setting role.

_ Whilst the LDG and Equality Advisor are formally established as the bodies to which impact assessments are to be reported, it is not clear whether service areas are required to produce reports as against the timetable established. Targets and completion dates are out of line in the progress reports supplied suggesting that failure to progress impact assessments is not routinely challenged.

_ The rationale for having two reporting bodies for impact assessments is unclear and the service may wish to review this in terms of streamlining and ensuring the ability to mainstream the process.

_ Concerns are raised as regards to the robustness of the reporting and monitoring system by the note in the corporate services progress report that an assessment cannot be found.

_ Whilst feedback in the interviews suggested that impact assessments have been fully carried out across service areas, none of the assessments provided extend beyond a partial assessment. In the absence of provision of a full assessment and given the fact that the material provided suggests that templates exist for initial screening and partial assessment only, the possibility that services are not aware of the full extent of the assessment requirements cannot be dismissed and needs to be rigorously explored.

_ Notwithstanding the above the evidence suggests a lack of challenge to the assessments produced (by virtue of the fact that reports that indicate the necessity for a full assessment do not appear to lead to one - Service Delivery Emergency Response). HFRS should develop overview and scrutiny capacity to ensure a consistent standard of assessments is attained leading to practical action rather than a desktop exercise. The capacity of the LDG to carry out the scrutiny role assigned should be reviewed and they should be given a clear brief as to their role in critical challenge of impact assessments. They should also be developed to undertake an effective scrutiny role.

_ HFRS should review the training and guidance material for impact assessments to ensure that officers responsible for carrying them out are considering the full range of equality impacts. Feedback suggests that the current format is unhelpful and has the potential to generate resentment and a tick-box approach.

_ The impact assessments reviewed suggest a bias toward race and disability and a limited understanding of what impacts may be experienced by the different equality groups. Systematic use of baseline information and consultation is not evident.

_ Where no impact is identified, it is not clear whether this is from the absence of information, which is most likely given that HFRS has not historically captured data in respect of all of the new equality strands, and therefore whilst there may be no information to highlight that there is no impact, the situation exists whereby `we don't know what we don't know.' Therefore, as a minimum from a large number of the impact assessments, there should have been identified an absence of information that should have triggered the need to review current categories within data collection / information systems.

c) Requirement: Ensure that all departments and service areas set targets based on equality objectives devised through completed impact assessments and participation of designated community, staff and stakeholder groups : HFRS demonstrated -

_ The IRMP establishes a clear commitment to implementing the Corporate Equality Policy, progressing the standard and developing service improvements based on equality impact assessment. Service plans reflect commitment to the Core Values.

_ Equality objectives linked to the equality strategy and equality schemes are in place in some service plans.

_ Feedback in the interviews confirms a high level of awareness of the equality and diversity agenda and activity that was ongoing to support this.

_ The service has a variety of stakeholder forums in place used to inform service planning and actively tries to ensure appropriate representation.

_ Targets based on equality objectives have been established within the Corporate Equality Strategy and are evident in some service plans.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The inclusion of equality related activity varies across the section plans and does not appear to be an explicit requirement of the service planning process. To ensure that services are aware of the activity that they are required to undertake and in order to facilitate performance management a clear line linking the IRMP, Equality Strategy and service plans must be established.

_ Whilst the feedback in the interviews demonstrated a high level of awareness as related to equality and diversity, there was in comparison a fairly limited appreciation of the activity required as regards to progressing the standard. HFRS must implement a system of departmental self assessment as against the requirements of the standard to develop service level understanding, ownership and accountability as regards to the action that must be taken. The results of the assessment will need to be built into service plans to provide the capacity for performance management.

_ Whilst it is clear that services are aware that impact assessments are to inform service development it is not clear how they are used to generate objectives and targets and how these are linked to the business planning process. Feedback from the interviews supports this view and it is suggested that if officers cannot see the `business case' for the assessments `buy-in' will be limited.

_ HFRS should develop a process for systematic overview and scrutiny of assessments to support the impact assessment process and ensure that the forums utilised for this role are able to carry it out effectively. Representatives from the various equality forums indicated that this would be a welcomed development noting current capacity issues as regards to ability to take on a more engaged role. The position reflected from the stakeholders is that they are informed about developments but that they are not engaged in order to really effect challenge and change.

d) Requirement: Equality objectives and targets for sexual orientation, age, religion and belief to be set by March 2009: HFRS demonstrated -

_ There is clear recognition of the need to ensure services are delivered with reference to the equality strands of sexual orientation, age, and religion and belief.

_ HFRS equality scheme explicitly refers to eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation, age, and religion/belief or religious belief and these areas are covered in the initial and partial EIA templates reviewed.

_ Employees demonstrate a keenness to learn about the needs of the different equality groups and training has been developed to respond to this (ref - cultural awareness training).

_ The workforce strategy reflects the commitment to developing a workforce that reflects the community. Whilst the focus of this activity leans towards gender and ethnic minorities there is recognition of the impact of changes to, for example, retirement ages.

_ The HR and Training Medium Term plan reflects awareness of legislative changes and has proactively scheduled targets for reviewing service orders based on changes proposed by the commission for Equality and Human Rights

_ The Gender Equality Scheme pays specific reference to addressing the needs of transgendered employees and targets in the action plan reflect this commitment in terms of developing partnerships with relevant organisations.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The undertakings by the authority are not clearly linked to operational activity, for example, whilst the Equality Strategy refers to a policy on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people that explicitly notes the commitment to `ensuring that recruitment and selection is carried out fairly and consistently in accordance with our procedures, standards and best practice. Changes to the draft Service Order 1.1 on recruitment appear only to reflect developments as regards to age legislation. Efforts to mainstream equalities and take a holistic view of service review and development will be undermined if the linkage to the strategy and the commitment to the six equality strands is not clear and challenged where insufficient.

_ The limitations of the current impact assessment process referred to elsewhere will need remedying before the authority can be confident that it will be able to effectively identify and address the needs of members of the equality groups outlined above.

e) Requirement: Establish corporate guidelines for information gathering and equality monitoring: HFRS demonstrated -

_ The Service has established baseline information concerning the demographic profile of the areas and operational officers demonstrated a well developed knowledge of the profile of the communities in their `patch'.

_ The Equality Strategy and Impact assessment guidance covers information gathering and linkages are made between this and equality monitoring.

_ There is ongoing activity to develop the performance management framework and information gathering capacity (link to outreach).

Areas for Improvement:

_ The Service currently relies on the Equality Team to determine progress as against the standard (BVPI 2a) as opposed to drawing information from the operational areas concerning their progress against the requirements of the standard. A systematic process of service level self assessment is required to establish operational ownership, an informed understanding of current position as against the requirements of the standard and gap analysis to inform action planning. In the absence of such, the corporate centre will be unable to assess and monitor progress and achievement of intended outcomes and the ability to effectively mainstream equality activity and reduce reliance on the corporate centre to direct activity will be undermined.

_ Service planning guidance should require reference to equality activity linked to the IRMP and equality strategy.

_ The service will need to ensure that information gathering systems accommodate all six equality strands.

_ Use of 2001 census data alone will not enable the service to identify need as related to inward migration from accession states

f) Requirement: Seek agreement on equality targets with designated community stakeholders and local partners: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Significant work has been progressed in identifying a range of stakeholders, and informing them of the progress of the F&RS in the context of equality and diversity.

_ Clear commitment to developing an external scrutiny capacity to inform service development

_ Active efforts to facilitate open discussion regarding equality activity and reporting of such back to the corporate centre.

_ Proactive activity in regional efforts to progress the equality activity and clear willingness to share and learn from best practice.

Areas for Improvement:

_ HFRS must ensure that the forums that it uses for consultation have the capacity to carry out this role effectively. The feedback from the interviews suggests that not all members have the capacity to engage effectively as they do not appreciate fully what is being asked of them.

_ HFRS should develop its consultation processes so that the consultation forums are empowered to steer the issues reviewed. It was not apparent from the interviews that members of stakeholder forums feel they have sufficient influence over the issues discussed or were aware of where their engagement had resulted in changes. The implication is that groups are informed as distinct from engaged.

_ The level of engagement with other statutory partners e.g. the local authorities is not clear.

g) Requirement: Establish mechanisms for ensuring that equality targets are delivered by contractors through contract management: The HFRS demonstrated -

_ The service demonstrates a commitment to developing equality in procurement and the supplies business plan reflects this commitment

_ The equality strategy demonstrates a commitment to ensuring contractors meet HFRS equality policies.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The impact assessments concerning this area reflect the limitations elsewhere and will need remedying before HFRS can be confident that needs are met in this area. For example, the impact assessment of financial guidance for managers carried out on 18.05.05 did not progress past initial screening based justification that is it an internal process. This position cannot be justified and is out of line with significant progress on progressing equality and diversity activity on `internal processes' elsewhere, namely the range of Level 3 and Level 5 authorities.

_ Despite the relevant recent revisions made in the Code of Practice Relating to Contracts (draft 29.05.07), there is no explicit reference to the need for equality considerations in the contracting process. This implies that external contractors maybe unaware of the equality commitments made by the Service, HFRS should ensure that procurement systems support the commitments made by the Service and that contracts can be monitored and managed to this end. This is an important area for development and consideration should be given to exploring best practice models elsewhere, e.g.East Midlands, North East Centre for Excellence.

h) Requirement: Ensure completion of equality action plans at department and service level incorporating performance indicators: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Equality action planning is evident within some services plans.

_ A process for impact assessment is in place.

_ The equality strategy details function level equality activity.

_ Whilst station plans were not received, feedback from the interviews indicated that they contained linkages to overarching equality targets but that there was latitude in this to determine how they would be met at service level.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service should streamline the equality processes and plans in place to enable an effective overview of performance to be developed. Currently action plans contain conflicting information and this will undermine the ability to determine if action of achieving targets is happening.

_ There is an absence of a strategic lead informed by a clear understanding of what is required and actually happening at both corporate and service level. HFRS should implement a process of self assessment that is led corporately but provides for operational ownership. The service will then be able to use the information to develop an action plan that can be incorporated in the business planning process and performance managed accordingly. This will provide for a level of consistency in approach to be developed.

_ Effective performance management relies on an understanding of the requirements of the indicators monitored. HFRS should ensure that officers responsible for performance management are aware of the requirements of the standard to enable them to draw information from the operational areas rather than rely on judgements from the Equality Advisor to inform performance monitoring.

_ As referenced elsewhere the process for impact assessment should be reviewed, the linkage between assessments and action planning is not clear. Effective overview and scrutiny is not evident.

i) Requirement: Adopt where appropriate national targets/performance indicators as prescribed by Government departments or by the Audit Commission: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Responsiveness to national targets for example the introduction of regional call centres (IRMP)

_ Involvement in national strategies for example the national resilience strategy and CFOA HR Strategy (IRMP HR Service Plan).

_ That it is aware of and working towards nationally established targets for example reducing the number of working days lost in-line with the National Framework

Areas for Improvement:

_ The performance management function should seek to develop its understanding of the requirements of the various BVPIs to ensure that appropriate activity is monitored.

j) Requirement: Implement systems for reviewing progress and revising the Corporate Equality Scheme and departmental action plans: The HFRS demonstrated -

_ An improvement planning process is in place to facilitate performance management at the corporate level. Whilst the equality strategy is not explicitly listed as a key document in the ToR, the improvement register logs activity relating to equalities and associated BVPIs.

_ An understanding of the need to review equality activity (3-year reviews in strategy).

Areas for Improvement:

_ The improvement register version 12 part 1 - 25.07.07 noted that the authority has achieved level 2 and aims to achieve level 3 by October, however this determination has not been informed by a self assessment process that would enable such a judgement to be made and provide a gap analysis to inform service planning for progression.

_ The equality strategy appears to be a bolt on of all existing policies and strategies and as such often appears disjointed and some elements are out of date. The planned development of a single equality scheme offers an ideal opportunity to review the existing strategy and develop a new scheme based on a self assessment process.

k) Requirement: members and senior officers to endorse action plans as appropriate: HFRS demonstrated -

_ There is clear member endorsement for the equality activity carried out.

_ There is widespread commitment to the equality activity evident throughout the senior management team.

_ Senior managers understand the service improvement `business case' for progressing the equality agenda and proactively promote it.

_ Resources have been allocated to facilitate progress against the services objectives for equality and diversity.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The level of elected member involvement and understanding of what the service is trying to achieve is unclear.

_ Elected member understanding of their role and responsibilities as regards to equalities and equality related legislation is unclear.

_ The service should explore ways of developing members understanding of the business case for progressing the equalities agenda such that it would help depoliticise the area and enable member development to progress.

_ HFRS should seek to raise awareness of equalities across the six strands and develop capacity as regards to overview and scrutiny responsibilities .

l) Requirement: Link action planning to performance management and Best Value processes: HFRS demonstrated -

_ A performance management process is in place that picks up progress on BVPIs and associated action

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service should review the information used to inform performance management and facilitate effective challenge by developing greater understanding of what it is that is being monitored.

_ The overview and scrutiny function is under-developed, it appears that issues are being highlighted but that this does not lead to remedial action.

_ The evidence base identified for establishing progress against targets/objectives does not always relate particularly well to the outcome sought.

m) Requirement: Ensure that action on achieving targets has started: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Targets have been established and action is taking place to support achievement (e.g. recruitment targets / positive action days and advertisement in literature targeted at minority groups).

_ HFRS is proactively working with other services to develop best practice, share and develop understanding.

_ Resources have been committed to moving the authority forward, notably through the creation of the Equality Team.

Areas for Improvement:

_ Feedback from the interviews suggests that action on achieving targets may be more effective if service level officers are more involved in action planning. Frustration resulting from a lack of understanding as regards to the rationale behind planned action was evident despite there being a clear will and desire for greater engagement.

_ The action planning process needs developing to ensure that resources are targeted effectively and activity across service areas is joined up. Currently activity is driven and informed by the corporate centre which sometimes appears to be operating in isolation from other corporate areas and service levels. Implementation of a process of self assessment as suggested elsewhere could help to address this issue.

n) Requirement: Ensure that progress has been verified through self assessment, scrutiny and audit and have been validated externally through an accredited assessor: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Clear willingness to submit itself to audit and scrutiny.

_ Commitment to the regional improvement programme led by the RMB and support ensure outcomes are maximised.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service must develop a process for self assessment based on the requirements of the standard and progress this at both corporate and service level to identify gaps and facilitate action planning. This activity would support the attainment of the corporate goal to mainstream equalities into service delivery.

7.6 Community Engagement and Accountability

a) Requirement: Develop a strategy for all designated community, staff and stakeholder groups to participate in the development of equality objectives, service design and employment practice: HFRS demonstrated -

_ A consultation strategy is in place that identifies how groups should be involved and commits to releasing the resources required to facilitate this.

_ Clear willingness to engage stakeholders in the equality and service planning process.

_ Clear involvement of stakeholders in equality and service planning activity.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service needs to ensure that participation by stakeholders in the planning process is meaningful by ensuring appropriate feedback is given as to the results of their engagement .

_ The service may wish to consider the message given as to the value attributed to stakeholder engagement and priority given to equality activity when forum meetings are repeatedly cancelled or rescheduled.

b) Requirement: Make all service level and employment objectives and targets available for consultation and scrutiny: HFRS demonstrated -

_ The involvement of stakeholders in the development of service employment objectives and targets (e.g DIG).

_ The use of internal committees and forums to provide an overview and scrutiny function.

_ Clear community engagement..

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service should seek to ensure that the stakeholders it involves in consultation and scrutiny processes have the capacity to effectively carry out the role assigned to them.

_ HFRS should seek to ensure that the stakeholders engaged are able to influence the areas that they are being involved in. Feedback from the interviews suggests that participants often felt informed as distinct from engaged.

_ The service could do more to highlight the regional dimension of the work that it is carrying out and improve awareness of the proactive efforts and resources that have been committed.

c) Requirement: Make provision of language services appropriate to designated consultation and scrutiny groups: HFRS demonstrated -

_ The service provides a translation service on request

_ Outreach workers are in place to improve linkages with minority communities and promote the service as an employer. Issues raised are feedback to the Equality Advisor.

_ Plans for recruiting, for each station, liaison workers drawn from the local community.

Areas for Improvement:

_ None

d) Requirement: Consultation is systematically built into equality impact assessment, self assessment and the equality planning process: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Consultation with staff and stakeholders takes place within the equality and service planning process.

_ It is proactive in trying to ensure that stakeholder groups are representative.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service needs to ensure that consultation is embedded in the service planning and equality impact processes, and that it takes place consistently and meaningfully.

f) Requirement: Involve designated community, staff and stakeholder groups with scrutiny procedures: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Use of newsletters and events to raise awareness of ongoing work.

_ Use of staff and stakeholder forums to explore equality activity.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The overview and scrutiny function needs to be developed. The service needs to ensure that staff and stakeholders are systematically involved and that they have the skills and capacity to meaningfully participate.

_ The Fairness and Diversity Forum would be an ideal forum to develop in this capacity.

h) Requirement: Publicise how, where and when action on targets will start: HF&RS demonstrated -

_ Publication of equality action plans that include targets set, time frames and responsible officers.

Areas for Improvement:

_ Feedback from the interviews suggested that there is some uncertainty as regards to the performance management of equality activity and a lack of knowledge as to how or where to raise this concern.

7.7 Service delivery and customer care

a) Requirement: Equality objectives and targets developed within each department/service area for race, gender and disability based on completed impact assessments: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Some service plans reflected equality activity and the interviews indicated that equality action features in individual station plans.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service needs to ensure consistency in the linkages between the overarching IRMP and strategy goals and individual service and station plans.

b) Requirement: Equality objectives and targets developed within each department/service area for sexual orientation, religion and belief and age by March 2009: HFRS demonstrated -

_ As above

Areas for Improvement:

_ As above

c) Requirement: Service plans to specifically address the importance of barriers, accessibility and reasonable adjustment in the provision of services: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Understanding of the need to make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers to access and activity to support this.

Areas for Improvement:

_ As noted elsewhere the impact assessment process needs to be developed so that the barriers to accessing services are identified and remedied where appropriate.

d) Requirement: Allocation of appropriate resources to achieve targets: HFRS demonstrated -

_ The identification and allocation of resources to progress equality activity specifically linked to the drive to improve service delivery.

_ Management teams are made aware of the resource implications of equality related activity.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The consistency in the approach to equalities should be reviewed as there is some variation across the service areas.

_ Feedback obtained in the interviews suggested that uncertainty exists as to why certain priorities have been set or activity implemented. A more effective self assessment and impact assessment process would ensure that the service could justify how priorities have been determined and why resources are targeted in particular ways.

e) Requirement: Establish structures of responsibility at departmental and service level to progress action plans: HFRS demonstrated -

_ A performance management framework is in place that links to service plans.

Areas for Improvement:

_ Progress is required on the overview and challenge of activity within service areas to ensure that activity is carried out consistently across service areas.

_ Clearer links should be made between the service areas, equality steering group and performance management framework. This will enable reliance on the corporate centre to be reduced.

f) Requirement: Set timetable within action plans for creating/adapting information and monitoring systems within service areas: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Information and monitoring systems as related to employment profiles are in place.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service should explore the potential to develop the use of data gathered. Feedback in the interviews indicated that this would be particularly welcomed in regards to mapping incidents and risk to support the identification of patterns and inform station level action planning.

g) Requirement: For agencies delivering services on behalf of the local authority, include within contracts a requirement to deliver an effective and appropriate service, fairly and without unlawful discrimination: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Awareness of the need to ensure services contracted are delivered with reference to the equality standards established.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service needs to ensure that the requirement to ensure adherence to equality standards is integrated in the contracting and procurement function and that there are adequate checks in place to ensure compliance.

H) Requirement: Establish monitoring of contracts to secure equal employment and equal service delivery targets: HFRS demonstrated -

_ As above

Areas for Improvement:

_ As above

i) Requirement: Start action on departmental and service area targets: HFRS demonstrated -

_ The equality strategy sets targets for the service areas.

_ Services are aware of the need to accommodate equalities in project planning and service delivery.

_ Equality activity to achieve targets is underway at both corporate and service level.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The presence of equality activity in service plans is variable and efforts should be made to ensure a consistency in approach that will enable standards to be established and monitored.

_ The interviews suggest great reliance is placed in the use of impact assessments to generate targets for action, but the current system is not effective enough to facilitate this development.

_ HFRS should explore the capacity to develop information systems to enable more effective targeting of resources. It was indicated in the interviews that this would help stations to respond to local issues and incidents.

7.8 Employment and training

a) Requirement: Set employment equality targets for recruitment, staff retention, work force profiles for race, gender and disability: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Workforce profile targets have been established within the equality strategy and associated equality schemes.

_ Focused activity to support attainment of the targets set is in progress.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service should ensure that staff understand the activity implemented to address concern that positive action may lead to a decrease in the quality of the officers recruited.

b) Requirement: Set employment equality targets for work force profiles for sexual orientation, religion or belief and age according to available data: HFRS demonstrated -

_ The service has planned activity to promote support staff and/or potential recruits from the LGBT community and engaged relevant organisations to facilitate this.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service will need to establish data monitoring systems that will enable it to monitor progress in this area.

c) Requirement: Conduct an equal pay review and plan for equal pay adjustment: HFRS demonstrated -

_ An equal pay review has taken place and results reported to the HR Committee.

_ Issues for resolution have been identified and further work planned to develop this further and report to the Committee.

Areas for Improvement:

_ None

d) Requirement: Establish that policies and procedures associated with equality are part of staff handbook and are understood by staff: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Equalities is a feature of corporate induction.

_ Staff are clearly aware of the priority given to equalities.

_ Clear commitment at all levels to equalities and support for the efforts taken by the service.

_ Anti bullying and harassment training is in place.

Areas for Improvement:

_ Varying levels of understanding of equality legislation and key drivers for this activity is evident though it is noted that update training is planned.

e) Requirement: Establish a system of guidance and training on relevant equality issues to short-listing panels and interviewers: HFRS demonstrated -

_ ToR for the supervisors and middle managers ATP reflect the need to ensure equal opportunities.

_ The workforce steering group clearly understands the corporate commitment to implementing equality.

Areas for Improvement:

_ None

f) Requirement: Ensure that staff and members are aware of action plans and the implications for services and employment: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Staff are clearly aware of the equality activity and understand the implications for service delivery.

_ Staff are aware of the implications of this activity for employment.

_ The service works hard to ensure that staff are aware of the activity taking place in particular through the use of forums such as the Fairness and Dignity Forum and newsletters.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service needs to do more to ensure that staff feel engaged in the processes leading to the development of equality targets and action plans.

_ Feedback given during the interviews indicated a need for clearer communication to improve understanding of why action is being taken. This was not relayed in a negative light; rather staff felt they would be better able to champion activity if they had a better understanding of it.

_ Use of outreach workers beyond the promotion of employment could help to join up service delivery.

_ A variable level of knowledge as regards to equality legislation exists which indicates that staff and members may not fully appreciate the legal ramifications of unlawful discrimination.

g) Requirement: Provide training for managers on the implementation of the standard with contractors and partners: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Managers receive training on equalities.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service needs to raise awareness of the requirements of the Standard and ensure that it is incorporated consistently into contracting and procurement processes.

h) Requirement: Appraise competency/behaviours to ensure that managers and staff are capable of implementing the Equality Standard, including the new strands of sexual orientation, religion or belief and age: HFRS demonstrated -

_ A training programme is in place.

Areas for Improvement:

_ Staff in the interviews reflected a need for greater support in identifying issues inherent to the different equality strands.

_ It is not clear whether equality as a competency is appraised in regards to professional development planning.

i) Requirement: Provide training for all staff on the detailed implementation of the Equality Standard including action plans and updates on legal and other developments: HFRS demonstrated -

_ The training programme in place covers equality legislation and related HFRS activity.

_ Training for equality impact assessment is in place. Widespread understanding of the need to assess is evident.

_ Equality and diversity has a clear profile across the service, staff are proactive and open to training and personal development in this area.

_ Staff understand the service improvement `business case' of progressing the equality agenda for example in supporting the ability to address community safety issues.

_ The use of shared learning initiatives is understood and encouraged.

_ Hampshire Deaf Association has been engaged to deliver deaf awareness training and presentations by a variety of external experts (including the authors of the standard) have been organised to present to the Fairness and Diversity forum.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service should work to raise awareness regarding the standard as knowledge levels are inconsistent.

_ The service should develop awareness of the regional programme, the objectives and what will happen as a result

j) Requirement: Ensure that Local Government Workforce Strategies address equality issues: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Equality and diversity is a key objective within the workforce action plan.

_ The service is aware of the areas where progress is required and is actively trying to address unmet need.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service needs to ensure that efforts to redress recruitment imbalances does not undermine the credibility of the recruitment processes in place.

k) Requirement: Build equality objectives and targets into management appraisal mechanisms: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Training programmes are in place for supervisory and middle management. Training for strategic and brigade managers is planned for 2008.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The need to determine Equality & Diversity activity is a feature of the appraisal process.

l) Requirement: Provide information and appropriate training on action plans to support scrutiny process: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Staff and elected members are involved in the scrutiny process.

_ A programme of equality training is in place.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service needs to ensure that officers and elected members have the capacity to undertake the scrutiny role.

m) Requirement: Start action on all employment and pay targets: HFRS demonstrated -

_ Employment targets have been established and action on achieving them has begun.

_ Officers appreciate the cost implications of raising employment levels of minority groups for example in the need to adapt stations to accommodate new needs.

_ An equal pay review has taken place.

Areas for Improvement:

_ The service must ensure that tension arising from employment activity is addressed so that it does not undermine the efforts made.

8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1 HF&RS were assessed against the framework for Level 3 of the Equality Standard for the specific reason of identifying the gaps for the organisation, and in order to support the drawing together of an action plan to achieve level 3 of the standard by December 2008.

8.2 The assessment results set out above confirms that HF&RS has attained Level 2 of the Equality Standard for Local Government. There remains some areas for consolidation and improvement at this level as noted, but the organisation will be alert to these areas from this assessment and is prepared to positively engage to move matters forward. There is clear evidence of strong leadership in this area which is explicit throughout corporate documentation, alongside senior officers and members who have who have designated strategic responsibility for progressing and overseeing this area of work.

8.3 In some areas good progress is being made, for example consultation and community engagement which is a necessary pre-requisite for Level 3 attainment. HFRS is also able to demonstrate activity at Level 3 in some service areas with examples of actual service deliverables to the community based upon assessment. To achieve, support and sustain a claim at Level 3 however, the real challenge for HFRS is to ensure that such good practice is consistent across all service areas, that such is not confined to workforce related issues, that where service based outcomes are to be progressed they are based upon an appropriate impact assessment and that such is informed by relevant and accurate data / information, and that such are also subject to internal and external challenge.

8.4 In order for HFRS to achieve its intention and vision, it is most important the organisation requires through business planning guidance what needs to be done, and then ensures that there is a robust mechanism to effectively monitor and manage progress around equality and diversity, and that such is also informed by service area self assessments.

8.5 This is of critical importance in light of that set out within the Fire & Rescue Service Equality & Diversity Strategy 2008 - 18, given it states in respect of assessment through the Fire & Rescue Service performance assessment framework, "...Fire & Rescue Authorities will not normally be assessed as improving strongly without reaching Equality Standard for Local Government Level 3".

9.0 Areas for improvement - Summary

9.1 Elected members

The service should explore ways of developing member's understanding of the business case for progressing the equalities agenda such that it would help depoliticise the area and enable member development to progress. HFRS should seek to raise awareness of equalities across the six strands and develop capacity as regards to overview and scrutiny responsibilities. In this area of work, it appears that the overview and scrutiny function is under-developed.

9.2 Performance management

Effective performance management in respect of the equality standard relies on an understanding of the requirements of the indicators monitored. HFRS should ensure that officers responsible for performance management are aware of the requirements of the standard to enable them to draw information from the operational areas rather than rely on judgements from the Equality Advisor to inform performance monitoring.

The inclusion of equality related activity varies across the section plans and does not appear to be an explicit requirement of the service planning process. To ensure that services are aware of the activity that they are required to undertake and in order to facilitate performance management a clear line linking the IRMP, Equality Strategy and service plans must be established.

9.3 Procurement

There is no explicit reference to the need for equality considerations in the contracting process. This implies that external contractors maybe unaware of the equality commitments made by the Service, HFRS should ensure that procurement systems support the commitments made by the Service and that contracts can be monitored and managed to this end. This is an important area for development and consideration should be given to exploring best practice models elsewhere

9.4 Equality impact assessment

There needs to be a robust review of the reporting of progress in respect of impact assessments. This needs to link to the timetable established, not least as targets and completion dates are out of line in the progress reports supplied suggesting that failure to progress impact assessments is not routinely challenged.

The service is also invited to review the need for two reporting bodies for impact assessment in terms of streamlining and ensuring the ability to mainstream the process.

Whilst impact assessments have been carried out, none of the assessments provided extend beyond a partial assessment. In the absence of a full assessment and given the fact that the material provided suggests that templates exist for initial screening and partial assessment only, the possibility that services are not aware of the full extent of the assessment requirements cannot be dismissed and needs to be rigorously explored

Evidence from the assessment suggests a lack of challenge to the assessments produced. HFRS should develop a challenge mechanism around impact assessments to ensure a consistent standard of assessment is attained leading to practical action rather than a desktop exercise. The capacity of the LDG to carry out the scrutiny role assigned should be reviewed and they should be given a clear brief as to their role in critical challenge of impact assessments. They should also be developed to undertake an effective scrutiny role.

HFRS should review the training and guidance material for impact assessments to ensure that officers responsible for carrying them out are considering the full range of equality impacts. This also needs to ensure that the current bias in impact assessments towards race and disability is re-balanced. The systematic use of baseline information to inform impact assessments also needs to be quickly addressed.

9.5 Self assessment

The service is currently weak in respect of a robust self assessment framework for establishing an understanding on a section by section basis of what progress has been made, and to what level, in respect of the levels of the standard. Once such a framework is established, the service should seek to ensure that there is a mechanism for quality assuring these assessments / reports so that there is consistency, and that there should also be in-built a level of internal and external critical challenge. This activity would support the attainment of the corporate goal to mainstream equalities into service delivery.

9.6 Consultation & community engagement

The service needs to ensure that consultation is embedded in the service planning and equality impact processes, and that it takes place consistently and meaningfully. The service need further, to consider ways in which the engagement, involvement and consultation with stakeholders and equality representatives can be improved. The service needs to consider ways in which such groups or individuals can become more involved in scrutiny and challenge.

We are of the view that the service has done much to make links with such groups, however some of the evidence suggests that this area could be further developed so that groups are much more engaged in a two-way process with the service. Evidence from the assessment suggests groups are informed rather than engaged.

9.7 Employment and training

The service has taken some steps to inform the workforce over changing employment, recruitment & operational practices, but the Service should ensure that staff understand the rationale for this so as to address any potential for a negative culture to emerge. This could be reinforced at various levels (Staff meetings, appraisal, all training programmes, newsletters etc). But staff should also be encouraged to offer their views, and more importantly, what role they might have in supporting the organisation at a front line level. (As noted above, staff felt they would be better able to champion activity if they had a better understanding of it).

Concerns were expressed, during the focus group meetings, that the current policy and practice around equalities may be restricting any meaningful discussions about the problems that are being encountered by staff engaging with different communities. This is most likely to be a perception rather than reality, and points to a communication issue. HFRS has clearly made good progress in engaging with staff on some difficult issues, and this is an area that would benefit from further engagement, training and development of staff. It has to be said, that the assessment found that, nonetheless, staff at both operational and non-operational levels were highly committed to the principles of equality and agreed that the service was moving in the right direction. This points to an underlying feeling that employees generally feel that they would like more involvement and put their views across, but feel unable at the current time to do so. Therefore this is an area that the HFRS should explore further and consider ways in which such engagement can be improved.

9 Acknowledgements

Those involved in the wider RMB project and the actual assessment would like to thank the Chief Fire Officer, the Equality and Diversity Advisor and team members, the member champion for equalities, the Stakeholder Groups, all operational and non-operational staff and the individuals and groups that took part in the assessment, for their time and candid and open contributions.

11 Assessors

The Assessment was conducted and carried out by Doug Feery

All enquires should be directed to: Marianne Abley & Caroline Bosdet.

I&DeA

Layden House

76 - 86 Turnmill Street

London

EC1M 5LG