Message from BME
Workers Forum Co-ordinator
Brighton & Hove City
Council have very positively responded to the concerns put forward
by the BME Workers Forum (BMEWF) Steering Group. As a result,
Global HPO was invited back to the council in 2018 to help
re-energise and underpin the council’s commitment to a
‘Fair and Inclusive’ workplace.
In the past the topic of equality
and diversity in the workplace could be seen by some as a
‘box ticking’ exercise that needs to be done before
getting on to ‘actual’ work. It could also be argued
that some approaches to equality and diversity have not kept pace
with the more recent racial and cultural demographic changes of our
city.
The senior management team are
committed to ensuring the principles of fairness and inclusivity
are at the forefront and centre of the organisation. These
principles will permeate all levels of the organisation and all our
business areas.
There are some exciting times
ahead. However, any positive changes cannot be driven solely from
the top down. In order to make our processes and practices as fair
and inclusive as possible, we need for all of us to engage with the
process.
Any strategies or initiatives need
to be ongoing and dynamically evolving processes. This can only
happen with everyone’s direct engagement and
backing.
We have at hand a great
opportunity to contribute to how our organisation develops and
thrives. We need to challenge ourselves to get involved. Everyone
is welcome to put forward ideas and suggestions.
Now is a great time to come
forward to relate your experiences in order to help develop a
better, fairer and more inclusive future for our
workplace.
BME Workers Forum
Co-ordinator
More information and how to join the
BME Workers Forum
Any staff member who wishes to
join, or for any other queries please email bmewf@brighton-hove.gov.uk
You can also follow us on
Twitteror like our Facebook
page.
Keeping our people
promise to be a fair and inclusive place to work
Being a fair and inclusive
organisation enables all of us to have equality, and do our best
for the diverse communities we serve.
Our People Promise has established
a standard on what we should all experience working here and
re-affirmed the council’s key commitments to staff. One of
those commitments is our promise to be a fair and inclusive place
to work.
The council is united in ensuring
that Our People Promise is a realistic offer that can be achieved
by working together. This means asking questions and challenging
ourselves to be better when the answers we get back reveal the need
for change.
So in 2018 we invited external
consultants, Global HPO, to do a follow up to their 2012-13 review
into the experiences of BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) staff, and
to support us in working with staff to co-create an action plan in
response to their findings. I know we can and must do
better.
It’s not fair or acceptable
that some staff experience discrimination and unacceptable
behaviour working for the council. As we work to tackle inequality
in the city, we must also tackle it within the council.
Following Global HPO’s
review focus groups took place with staff from across the
organisation and the BME Workers’ Forum to hear the findings
and create solutions. It’s working with and listening to our
staff that has led to our Fair & Inclusive Action
Plan.
It’s built around the themes
of ensuring accountability and consequences for our behaviours,
improving learning and development on equality and diversity,
making sure our recruitment, retention and progression is fair and
inclusive, and improving how we work and understand the
city’s diverse communities. We will all be held to account
for making sure the council is a fair and inclusive place to
work.
Myself and all of the Executive
Leadership Team are confident that delivering this action plan will
mean that we’re a fair and inclusive place to work, that
challenges inequality, and celebrates the diversity of the city as
well as our own.
Geoff
Raw
Chief Executive
Brighton & Hove City Council
Message from our
recognised Trade Unions
UNISON
UNISON Brighton & Hove welcomes the Fair
and Inclusive initiatives instigated by the Council, following the
review by Global HPO in respect of the improvements needed
regarding equal opportunity and fair treatment for BME staff within
the workplace.
Commitment to Equality and Diversity must lie
in the very heart of all those who work within the Council, from
top to bottom. Each one of us has a responsibility to ensure
that our BME colleagues receive fair and equal treatment regardless
of our “position”. We must always seek to
challenge ourselves and others around us to ensure that the
workplace of each BME staff member is a safe, welcoming and
inclusive space.
UNISON will continue, as always, to challenge
those behaviours which do not uphold these
values, ensuring that our members are treated
fairly at all times. We look forward to working with Brighton
and Hove City Council on these initiatives to ensure that the
employment of BME staff is a positive and rewarding experience.
Sue Beatty
Branch Secretary
UNISON Brighton & Hove
GMB
The GMB supports the Global HPO and the
recommendations in their recent report. The GMB is committed to
working with the BME forum and all other forums in tackling
discrimination across the Council and hope that the GHPO report is
acted upon this time which will then mean we won’t require
GHPO to carry out another independent report.
Mark Turner
Branch Secretary
GMB Southern
|
Brighton & Hove City
Council
|
|
RACE AND DIVERSITY AT BRIGHTON AND HOVE CITY COUNCIL: OUTCOMES OF A
REVIEW 2018
|
|
Global HPO
Ltd
|
|
Elaine Bowes and
Davina Boakye - GHPO
May 2019
|
RACE AND
DIVERSITY AT BRIGHTON AND HOVE CITY COUNCIL:
OUTCOMES OF A
REVIEW 2018
In 2018 Global HPO
embarked upon a review of the progress of Brighton and Hove City
Council's diversity and inclusion programmes, with a particular
focus on racial equality. This paper reports on the
outcome of that review.
BACKGROUND
Race Equality in
Employment at Brighton and Hove City Council 2013
In May 2012 Global
HPO (GHPO) were commissioned to undertake a review of issues
affecting BME (Black and Minority Ethnic Staff) in Brighton &
Hove City Council (BHCC) based on concerns that had been raised by
the council’s BME Workers Forum (BMEWF). The GHPO brief
was to look at how BME staff were treated with respect to the
application of people policies, procedures, processes and systems
and whether they suffered greater detrimental outcomes in the
application of these. More fundamentally, the brief explicitly
focussed on what could and must be done to progress matters so that
any issues, however challenging, could be appropriately addressed,
with the council ready, willing and able to put in place mechanisms
that would enable and support all staff, but in particular BME
staff in Brighton & Hove.
The BMEWF in
particular felt that the organisational culture inadvertently
excluded BME people. The forum also thought that the lack of
an effective performance management culture and practice tended to
result in the proliferation of discriminatory practices.
This, coupled with no agreed statement of values and behaviours
across the organisation, left a vacuum that was filled by
individual views and actions by some managers and staff
alike.
The research report
- Race Equality in Employment at Brighton and Hove City Council
- concluded that BME staff were more likely to both
experience HR processes more negatively and experience the more
negative aspect of HR processes in that they were less likely to be
appointed; more likely to employed at the lower grades; less likely
to be employed at the more senior grades; more likely to experience
discipline - particularly capability; more likely to be
aggrieved - particularly in relation to bullying, and dismissal;
and more likely than other groups, to leave within the first year
of service.
GHPO concluded that
the reasons for these outcomes included but went beyond unequal
treatment on the grounds of race. It included, but also went
beyond inconsistent approaches in equality more generally.
Fundamentally the core reasons related to organisational issues
such as a total lack of an organisational value/behaviour
framework, poor performance management and poor leadership.
With respect to equality and inclusion there were no standards set and no models to follow at
BHCC.
The
review report ended with a raft of recommendations for remedial
action. These recommendations included addressing:
§ Equalities data
collection and analysis;
§ Fairness in the
application of HR policies and procedures - recruitment and
selection, harassment and bullying, grievance and discipline
etc;
§ The application of
equality policies and procedures - equality training and
development, Equality Impact Assessments, positive action
programmes to address issues of under-representation of staff at
senior levels at BHCC and with respect to external recruitment;
unequal outcomes for different groups with protected
characteristics - i.e. LGBT and women as compared with BME and
disabled staff;
§ Work with the Trade
unions, the staff forums especially the BMEWF and,
councillors;
§ Improving work with
local communities; HR involvement in the then City
Partnership;
§ The need for a
values/behaviour framework
§ The Equalities
Governance framework.
Race and
diversity at Brighton and Hove City Council 2018
Five years later
BHCC invited GHPO to revisit and review again. However, this
2018 review was triggered by the council's concerns about the slow
pace of change and barriers to equality and inclusion that remained
despite the council's revised approach and new action plans to
achieve the recommendations set out in the 2013 review
report.
The 2018 review
would firstly establish a baseline by
assessing the progress the council has made against the
recommendations made in the 2013 report. This would involve
highlighting the achievements made but also, equally importantly,
identify the area(s) in which the council had either not made any
progress or where progress has been limited and the contributory
reasons for these differences in outcomes.
The aim of the
review would be to:
§ Find ways of addressing the
perceived impasse that existed and to pro-actively assist in
energising and reviving the programme of work that the Council had
begun, enabling it to move forward so that it could deliver real
and tangible outcomes for BME staff.
§ Consider what the Council should
continue to do, and stop doing, and how to increase the pace of
change. In this regard to include a fresh perspective from
internal stakeholders enabling them to feel that they are being
listened to and engaged.
Methodology
The review was
chiefly qualitative. We began by reviewing all relevant
documentation - policies, practices and processes. We then
embarked upon a series of one-to-one interviews, focus and
discussion groups with the following groups of people.
One-to-one
confidential interviews - in some cases 2 people
attended:
§ HR Leads
§ Communities and Equalities
Leads
§ Learning and Development
Leads
§ Members of ELT (and where
appropriate in their respective roles as diversity
champions)
§ TU representatives
§ Leader of the Council
§ Head of
Communications
§ Staff members who wished to
contribute to the study
§ Staff members with relevant case
studies
Focus/discussion
groups with:
§ BMEWF steering group;
§ BMEWF
§ BME staff group
§ Disabled Workers and Carers
Forum
§ LGB Forum
§ Women's Forum
§ Directorate Equalities Group
(DEGS)
§ Workforce Equalities Group
(attended a meeting of the WEG)
§ HR staff team
§ General all staff
steam
Approximately 120
people were engaged in this process. The results reported
below are a blend of our observations and views and what we were
told by the participants to the review.
OUTCOMES
Context
Our document review
and first stage interviews and discussions with key individuals and
groups (HR Leads, BMEWF Steering Group, Equalities Leads provided
the following evidence:
There had indeed
been slow progress and little improvement in race quality outcomes
since the GHPO report in 2013.
This was due to a
range of factors identified below. But immediately it was
clear that many of the recommendations from the report had not been
actioned - even those that had been highlighted as 'quick
wins'. A significant factor in this outcome was the
unprecedented rate of change in the leadership at BHCC over the
past 5 years - both politically and in the executive. This
resulted in there being no ownership/leadership of the programme,
with one or two senior managers reporting during this exercise that
they did not know that this programme even
existed.
However, there was
one very significant improvement which BHCC has to be commended for
and, that is the level of expertise now present in the council with
respect to equality data collection and data analysis. This
is an important improvement because without data there is no way of
measuring equality outcomes and testing how effectively policies,
procedures and approaches are impacting the community as a
whole. Our document review revealed that BHCC has attained a
very sophisticated level of competence here. The
comments that follow should not be seen as belittling this
achievement and we strongly urge that this competence is not lost
as it remains critical to underpin the overall
programme.
As mentioned above,
record keeping, and monitoring is essential because it paints the
picture; it provides evidence for equality and inequality; it shows
where things are working and where they are not. Read and
analysed over time it provides trends. This information can
then drive the programme - it informs as to where the changes need
to be made and, on an ongoing basis it informs as to the impact of
those changes. So, it is an essential element of the plan,
but only one element of the plan. Equally as important is how
that data is used to drive the programme - to maintain energy, and
to act on the trends that are evident. Unfortunately, this
was lacking at BHCC. The result was hefty - turgid even -
reporting. Reporting that was over burdened with data, blind
to the trends that the data was revealing and stifling any energy
to action. Data collection and analysis had become an end in
itself at BHCC, rather than the means to the endgame - equality and
inclusion.
For example, the
data contained in annual workforce equalities reporting had shown
consistently for each of the three years 2014 - 2017, that
BME employees were less likely to be promoted than other protected
groups and less likely to be offered the opportunity to 'act up' -
an important route to permanent promotion. But this trend was not
picked up for further investigation and action, even though the
2013 report had highlighted the importance of internal positive
action programmes - mentoring and coaching etc - to address this
issue. In fact, most of the workforce equality actions along
the same three-year period at BHCC was in relation to recruitment
and selection. This is not to vilify the importance of
addressing inequalities in recruitment outcomes, but some good
judgement and balance is necessary.
Whilst BHCC had
been attracting an increasing number of BME applicants for jobs,
they were still less likely than others to be successful through
the various stages up to appointment. The proportion of BME staff
employed at BHCC had increased very modestly over the three-year
period from 2014 (5.93% of the workforce) to 2017 (6.72% of the
workforce) - by 0.8%. This is within the context of a rapidly
decreasing workforce overall - reduction of 11.4% FTE during the
same period. Missing the trends relating to internal promotion
issues for BME staff led to the neglect of important career
advancement issues for this group and probably contributed to the
increased frustration that we witnessed amongst BME staff during
focus groups and interviews. When they said that nothing had
changed, this was exactly the case. The data showed that
nothing significant had changed for them, and BHCC had done nothing
to address this.
THEMES
Culture
The most
significant and overriding theme that we identified in this review
relates to the organisational culture at BHCC. We would just
note here that an equalities programme is a change programme, and
essentially a cultural change programme. The challenges facing BHCC
in this respect are no different to the ones facing most
institutions in this country. So, the fact that fairness and
inclusion are not in the DNA at BHCC is by no means a remarkable
finding. However, the precise nature of this at BHCC does
need to be understood and acted upon for there to be any chance of
long-term change and success with respect to its diversity and
inclusion programmes.
|
There is a veneer of
tolerance and an impression of good overall performance on
equalities
|
BHCC is seen as a
beacon authority amongst its peers for its performance in
equalities. It has won accolades and awards over the years
for its achievements, and in relation to LGBT equality, these
accolades have been well deserved. Brighton has been described as
the UK’s ‘gay capital’ and is believed to have
the highest proportion of same-sex households in the country.
However, good performance in one aspect of diversity does not mean
that there is good performance across the piece in relation to all
aspects of difference. There is some misconception with respect to
Brighton and Hove that this is the case. Coupled with this is
the historical notion that Brighton is a 'tolerant' city.
With a history of acceptance of different - even radical - views
within its community going back hundreds of years, it is clear why
people might think that discrimination and exclusion don't happen
there. We feel that these beliefs and notions about the city
have provided a veneer that veils the truth. BME people and
disabled people do not enjoy the same experiences of inclusion as
other groups, and corporate and community ignorance of this fact
only serves to compound the challenges here.
Attitudes to
equalities
This leads on to the
attitudes to equality and inclusion at BHCC that we perceived
during the course of this study. This assessment was by no
means scientifically undertaken, but it was apparent amongst the
groups and individuals we spoke to and also relayed to us by a
number of people that took part in these
discussions.
We identified that
these attitudes are in three layers:
§ Benign neglect: by far the most
prevalent viewpoint characterised by people disbelieving that the
kinds of case studies and issues reported could really occur at
BHCC, and that the organisation and people within it are really
very tolerant, and whilst there may be some minor issues, these can
be sorted. Why then the need for equalities approaches and
policies?;
§ Pro-active for change: again, a
not insignificant cohort characterised by people believing that
BHCC's successes in work around sexuality and gender identity have
clouded the reality with respect to far less success with tackling
other forms of inequality, and are keen to see and be involved in
the change for genuine inclusion;
§ Hostility: we see this very much
as a minority position at BHCC. We did not encounter this
directly in our fieldwork, but this was relayed to us in personal
case studies, one-to-one interviews with some managers, and
discussions at the BMEWF, other staff forums and with the BME staff
discussion/focus group.
Going forward, we
believe that it is important for BHCC to capture this by including
a relevant question in the annual staff survey, and to maintain a
watching brief on these attitudes. We also believe that 'proactive
for change' is an important cohort that BHCC should be capitalising
on to deliver the equalities change programme - we address this
later in the closing paragraphs.
No
Consequences
This was by far the
most common response in interviews and discussion groups when the
question was posed about why change had not occurred as expected at
BHCC. Overwhelmingly staff believe that there is a culture of
acceptance of poor behaviour - some felt that this was linked to an
overly laissez faire attitude to tolerance - tolerance
defined as meaning that everything is ok and there are no
boundaries. Is BHCC so tolerant that it tolerates
anything - where is the line drawn? This links back to our
findings in 2013 when staff complained then about the lack of a
values and behaviour framework and no role
models.
Coupled with this is
the perception that when managers do attempt to address bad
behaviour through the disciplinary process, they can be thwarted by
the action of some (including, in some cases, union
representatives). . There was also the experience of some cases
being overturned at hearings and appeals. The reasons for
this maybe complex and related to the facts of individual cases but
there is a perception held by some managers that there is no point
in challenging offensive or abusive behaviour.
It is of course
critical that the council sets unequivocal standards of behaviour
and ensures that everyone understands what is acceptable and what
is unacceptable behaviour and the expectations of standards of
behaviour at work. The consequence of breaches of this code
will be similarly understood and transgressions dealt with -
and be seen to be dealt with - appropriately. A very
detailed Behaviour Framework has now been rolled out for use in
performance conversations. . The Behaviour Framework sets out
standards of behaviour in four areas: How we manage ourselves; How
we work together; How we shape our future and; How we lead and
empower. The Behaviour Framework is enshrined in BHCC’s
Our People Promise (see concluding paragraphs).
The culture of no
consequences extends also to mandatory instructions that are
ignored by staff and there are no penalties for these
violations. For example, we were told of and observed during
this study that instructions to attend compulsory equalities
training was sometimes ignored - again with no
penalties.
|
A lack of strategic
thinking in the development and implementation of equalities plans
and approaches
|
We saw this in
operation at BHCC on numerous occasions. We observed how this
worked and saw patterns that indicated to us that this was embedded
into the way that BHCC handles proposals and suggestions for
equalities plans - especially when these proposals may come from
the BMEWF. A risk assessment of all equalities proposals and
suggestions needs to be completed to ensure that these proposals do
not derail the overall strategic aims in the long term.
Sometimes a proposal may be made that at the time may seem to be an
answer to a stubborn challenge - but if it is not
rigorously risk assessed it could effectively set the plans
back eons, particularly if the risk involves losing the support of
key stakeholders. This is not to say that BHCC should not
take challenging risks, but it needs to be very clear about the
nature of the risk, alternative approaches to address the
situation, and whether the outcome is worth any potential
losses.
Ill conceived and
poorly thought through plans can lead to
inconclusive/questionable outcomes which will shatter any
illusion that something was being done about the problem, leading
in turn to frustrations, and can threaten to undermine the overall
strategy.
Some key questions
to ask when risk assessing proposals/plans are:
§ How will this proposal
further/positively impact the overall strategy/corporate
aim?
§ What outcomes do we want from
this?
§ What are the risks associated
with doing it this way?
§ Are we willing to take those
risks?
§ What alternatives are
available?
§ What will come next and how will
we handle it?
The council as a
community leader
Under s 149 of the
Equality Act 2010 BHCC (along with all public bodies, and other
bodies in relation to their work in the delivery of services on
behalf of public bodies) has the following duty:
The Public Sector
Equality Duty
‘’Those
subject to the equality duty must, in the exercise of their
functions, have due regard to the need to:
ú Eliminate unlawful
discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct
prohibited by the Act
ú
Advance
equality of opportunity between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not
ú
Foster good
relations between people who share a protected characteristic and
those who do not’’.
These three points
above are known as the three arms of the duty, and the last two
points demonstrate clearly that local authorities (and other public
bodies that they work in partnership with, such as the NHS, the
police, schools etc), are not just there to deliver services, but
to build cohesive communities. The local authority has a
central role to play here - as a strategic planning body, not only
with respect to the environment, but also in respect to
communities. It follows then that in order to carry out
this function, the council must know and understand about its
diverse communities.
Who do you think
you are?
We tested this in
our discussion/focus group work. We posed the following
questions and facilitated discussions around them
§ Is the local authority a
community leader?
§ Does the local authority have a
responsibility to help to create cohesive and peaceful
communities?
§ Does everyone in the community
have a right to expect that (within the given parameters) their
lives will be enriched/enhanced by the actions of their locally
elected representatives and the organisation that they
control?
Many people
considered the council to be a service provider and how they
delivered their functions/job roles reflected that, so there was a
degree of ambivalence here. However, most were engaged and
interested in this viewpoint. One or two people expressed
their opposition to this, and their view was that the local
authority is a service provider and not a builder of
communities.
There was also a
lack of knowledge about the rapidly changing ethnic demography in
Brighton and Hove. Those people with school aged children
were more aware of this, as this age group is where this phenomenon
is most pronounced. Many Brighton schools have ethnic/racial
profiles similar to London schools, with children who are fluent in
3/4 languages. Knowledge about the ethnic profile of a community is
important to be able to deliver services that meet all needs, but a
more profound/empathetic knowledge of community is necessary to be
an effective community leader. The challenge for BHCC going
forward is to understand the issues here and plan effectively for
the future. What sort of organisation should BHCC be developing
into in relation to these important demographic
changes?
The Equality
Governance Framework
The governance
arrangements to manage equality and inclusion at BHCC is a
hierarchical structure, ranging from individual staff members
through a committee/group system with the Executive Leadership Team
(ELT) overseeing and with ultimate responsibility at the top (see
appendix 1). There are inter-relationships between the
various committees/groups, so it is not a strictly 'top down'
organism. We had discussions with all the key stakeholders in
this system and attended a Workforce Equality Group (WEG)
meeting and held a focus group with members of the various
Directorate Equality Groups (DEGS) across the council. Our focus
for this review was workforce equality and our assessment of the
governance structure in that regard is that it is ineffective -
both as a whole and in its component parts.
The DEGS
discussion/focus group was a vibrant session with engaged and
interested senior managers. The DEGS themselves however, work
in silos in their individual directorates, with little sharing and
learning with their counterparts in other parts of the
council. They had never met as a group before our focus group
meeting and commented on how useful they had found this discussion
group. They had little understanding of how they fitted into
the wider framework and how their work influenced the other parts
of the structure and vice versa.
With respect to
workforce equalities it seemed to us that the WEG should be the
'engine' of the system, where we would expect to find most of the
energy driving change. Its membership is potentially very powerful
- all the key stakeholders for workforce equality are represented
here - the Equalities Team, the staff forums, the trade unions,
HR - yet it lacked the energy needed to drive the
change. The WEG operates as a council committee - relatively
passively receiving reports from HR. There is questioning,
but nothing very challenging and little dynamism. Data
overloaded reports from HR should be constructively challenged here
- trends identified and solutions offered. ELT
accepts this reporting - without challenge,
and it goes on. Reports overburdened with data are very
difficult to read - important points are lost if the messages are
not presented in a way that engages the reader. Data provides
context and should be presented as appendices to underpin/provide
evidence for the actions recommended under the themes/big picture
story of the main report.
Who owns the
Workforce Equality Strategy?
An important finding
is that there is clearly an over reliance on HR as
‘owners’ of the strategy. It is seen as their
responsibility and not as a corporate strategy - there is
insufficient buy in from the council as a whole. A major
shift is needed here for any future programme to have any
currency.
Development support
for staff forums
In the 2013 report
we highlighted the need for development/support for some of the
staff forums. We make that recommendation again here.
In order for them to operate more effectively a keener
understanding of the political nuances at BHCC is needed and how
they can navigate their way through this to achieve the outcomes
that they want - synchronizing their efforts accordingly with their
partners. They just need to work a bit smarter and need
some investment in their development to enable
this.
Equalities Learning
and Development (L&D)
As is the case with
most local authorities, BHCC is facing a great challenge with
respect to funding the learning and development (L&D)
interventions that are essential to keep the council
competent. There is no doubt that L&D at BHCC is
under resourced generally and of course this is also the case with
training around equality and inclusion. Equalities training
at BHCC is mandatory - but as mentioned above there are no
sanctions for teams or individuals that do not undergo the
training. Very little training is delivered in the traditional
classroom group setting - as this is very expensive, currently the
council are able to offer equalities classroom group training for
up to about 70 people per year. Most of the training is
delivered via web based online
interventions.
We looked at the
online training. We found the quality to be of a very basic
standard, the content was out of date - so out of date in one
instance that the information provided was wrong. The technology
did not enable a seamless effortless journey - it was frustratingly
difficult to navigate.
Unconscious Bias
Training
At the time of this
review, a large number of council staff had recently undergone
unconscious bias training. This is an important equalities
L&D intervention, and we were keen to understand how this was
delivered and how it was received. It was delivered via a
combination of online training followed up by team-based group
sessions delivered by the team manager who followed a script/aid
memoire that had been developed to coach the manager in how to
deliver the training.
Most people that we
spoke to during the interviews and focus groups had undergone this
training. The reception was mixed. Some people reported a
very positive experience, others far less positive. We
believe there were a number of reasons for this outcome.
§ Unconscious bias training is
potentially the most challenging in the range of equalities L&D
interventions and requires the skills of a confident and competent
equalities trainer. It was very risky to roll this out without the
requisite skills in house to deliver it. Most managers will
not be ''confident and competent equalities trainers''. But
clearly those managers who were interested and engaged in the
subject, who studied the script and who were confident in their
delivery were able to deliver a pretty proficient job. Others
were not.
§ With the likes of unconscious
bias training - it is far easier to engage people who are receptive
to the message. It's a much greater challenge to make an
impact on those who are antagonistic or unreceptive to the
subject. Here is where the skills of a competent trainer are
required.
§ But there is one issue that
threatens to undermine anything gained from the unconscious bias
exercise and that is that there has been no follow through. Raising
awareness of unconscious bias is just the beginning of a journey
through equalities learning and development. The next stage
to this is learning how to manage the expression of bias. The
question to be answered is ''now that I understand and am aware of
my biases and how they can affect my behaviour - what do I do about
it?, how do I manage it?'' The answer is missing at BHCC, and
during our discussion groups one or two people who had enjoyed
their unconscious bias training asked that very question - ''what
now? - what do I do with this?''
We looked at the
online training and the script for the trainers. Our view is
that whilst the content could have been more sophisticated and the
video more up to date - the most important learning points about
unconscious bias itself were covered.
L&D outcomes and
further challenges
We were told that
the impact of equalities training on behaviour change at BHCC is
minimal. That is the money spent on the current approaches is
giving no return - a false economy, therefore. The great challenge
for BHCC going forward is to develop approaches for equalities
L&D that really do deliver value for money - that is affordable
for the council but also crucially, that is effective. In
order to do this BHCC first needs to be clear on exactly what they
need their equalities learning to deliver and find the most
cost-effective means of executing this. There are many
avenues to learning, these need to be examined and the most
relevant models exploited at a cost that is affordable.
Communications
It appeared to us
that Communications at BHCC seemed not to have engaged with
workforce equality issues at all. The Comms team seemed to be
unaware of BHCC's equalities work in regard to their
workforce. Consequently, the existing programme did not have
a communications strategy built in. This has to be remedied
going forward, with the Communications Team at BHCC involved in the
development of approaches so that they are able to use their
expertise to advise on and use, the most appropriate methods (using
all media- social and otherwise) to promulgate the council's
messages internally and externally.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT
STEPS
The brief to GHPO
for the conclusion of the project was as follows:
''Outcome of the
review
To provide the
council with a report detailing the findings from the review and
identifying what specific realistic actions the council needs to
take to deliver real and tangible positive outcomes for the BME
workforce. A key element of the report will
be a prioritised programme action with a detailed rationale and
recommendedtimescales''.
This is a pretty
standard brief for reviews such as this. But we had been here
before at BHCC, and we did the same thing then, and much of what we
said then we are repeating again now. So, we need a different
approach. In designing this we considered the following:
§ The council as a corporate
body - for a variety of reasons - had never 'owned' the
strategy. It had been seen as an HR issue and the rest of the
council had paid scant regard to it. This had to be
remedied.
§ Political instabilities in the
leadership of the council over the years had resulted in
insecurities amongst staff and especially senior staff about
committing to long term strategies and plans, and for this
programme, a lack of direction, steer and drive. There is
little to be done about political change, but we felt that one way
of mitigating the fallout from this is to ensure that long standing
members of staff - who 'hold the organisational culture' regardless
of change around them - are engaged and commit to this approach and
develop a sense of ownership and pride in being a genuinely
inclusive and just organisation where everyone is
valued.
§ On our travels during this
review we were told - 'you'll be back in five years'. The
inference being that nothing will change and in five years we will
be invited back to do the same thing over again. To ensure
that this did not happen we needed a different approach.
Co-creation
The council were
using the model of co- creation to develop Our People
Promise. Our People Promise is an ongoing programme of work
to improve the BHCC employer offer and is now the BHCC employer
brand. It is based on five key commitments to staff and
provides a structure for communicating the changes that BHCC are
making. Its development has been underpinned by co-creation -
with staff and other stakeholders to ensure that it is a meaningful
and sustainable program - co creation with staff is seen as vital
to its success.
The action plan
from this review fits perfectly into Our People Promise -
under the Promise ''We Promise that we will be a Fair and
Inclusive place to work'' - and the model of co-creation we
feel will go a long way to addressing the challenges listed
above. So, the solution to the issues identified in this
review does not lie with GHPO to develop but with BHCC in the
co-creation process. BHCC will design and deliver the
solutions and be seen to do so.
In assisting BHCC
with this process GHPO have facilitated a series of workshops with
the key stakeholders, and leaders and influencers throughout the
council to begin the process of remedy. At these workshops
GHPO have presented the outcomes of the review and responded to
questions. Workshop participants have then designed the solutions
in smaller group settings led by BHCC senior managers and other key
staff. The resulting action plan that you will have read at
the beginning of this report is a synthesis of these workshop
outcomes. GHPO remains committed to support BHCC through this
process of organisational change.
App.1
|
Brighton &
Hove City Council
Equalities
Structure
(May
2017)
|
|
|
ô
ô
ô
ô
|
|
|
Workers’
Forums
(for Black &
Minority Ethnic staff, Disabled staff and Carers, Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Trans staff, and Women.)
Forums
meet quarterly for members to share experiences and provide mutual
support. Forum members attend the WEG, ESG and DEGs to have a
collective voice in developing policy, procedures and service
delivery.
|
Executive
Leadership Team (ELT)
|
ô
ô
ô
ô
ô
ô
|
Communities,
Equality and Third Sector
Provide support,
training and advice across the council on EIAs, equality
monitoring, legal compliance,
and best practice.
Co-ordinate and administer ESG, support Directorate Equality
Groups, facilitate links
between groups and
share corporate issues.
|
|
Leads for equality
work, specifically Larissa Reed for overall progress and Dave
Kuenssberg for workforce equality. Receive regular reports on
progress.
|
|
ô
ô
|
|
Workforce
Equality Group (WEG)
|
ô
|
Equality
Steering Group (ESG)
|
|
Ensure equality and
diversity across all workforce issues. Oversee implementation of
Workforce Equality Action Plan.
|
Ensure council
services embed equalities in their all aspects of their work.
Ensure progress against EIA timetable and E&I
Strategy.
|
|
ô
ô
|
|
Directorate
Equalities Groups (DEGs) – including representatives from
TUs
|
|
Provide quality
assurance for equalities work in directorates.
|
|
Staff issues report
/ refer to WEG
|
|
Service provision
issues report / refer to ESG
|
|
ô
ô
|
|
Directorate
Management Teams (DMT)
|
|
DMT to ensure EIAs
and corporate equality objectives are embedded into directorate and
service business plans.
|
|
ô
|
|
Council
Teams
|
|
Teams include
equality and inclusion issues as part of team meeting discussions,
service improvement, Team Plans and Equality Impact
Assessments.
|
|
ô
|
|
Individual
Staff
|
|
Performance &
Development Planning includes equalities targets. Learning and
development identifies equalities needs.
|