Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request
'Equality Framework for Local Government'.
(Word document)
Nottinghamshire County Council
Equality Framework Consultation Workshop 8 August 2008 Feedback
|
Do you agree with the move to 3 levels Emerging, Achieving, and Excellent?
|
The 3 categories streamline the existing 5 levels and are positive. The three levels are clear and easy to understand. It is easier to see what is required and this relates to good practice rather than a' tick box' approach.
We do not agree with the extra temporary category “moving towards excellence” as we think this will cause confusion.
Do you consider that each of the levels are appropriately pitched?
|
Yes, The formats are more understandable, and more open. They allow healthy department competition and honesty.
They appear to be realistic categories. There is a logical progression between the levels; this provides clarity of the direction for development.
Do you find it useful that the Framework highlights areas of work which will count towards compliance with- Existing public duties Customer care excellence Good practice on Community Cohesion
|
Yes. It would be even more useful if the Framework referenced which bit of the public sector duty / customer care excellence or good practice on community cohesion it related to.
Do you consider that the Framework now provides greater synergy with other areas of policy and practice?
|
Yes
Do you agree that the Peer Challenge should be required for validation of reaching the "Achieving" and the "Excellent" level?
|
Yes - needs to be robust. . Self assessment is not enough, independent scrutiny not only helps to validate, but also helps in contributing to the LAs overall learning in developing and improving services. Peer challenge also provides the opportunity to share good practice.
But with external help and with a light touch
Do you agree with the definition of equality used in the Framework which emphasises equal life chances for all (see page 9 of the Framework)?
|
The wider definition is very relevant to the improvement of outcomes in the lives of people. It is however vital that the 6 existing equality strands are not lost or diluted in the wider view, as there is evidenced disadvantage to be addressed.
And we also want definition of diversity
Do you consider it appropriate that the Framework anticipates a generic equality public duty which may be introduced in the forthcoming Single Equality Bill?
|
Yes this is helpful and preferable than having to review the framework once the single equality bill is introduced.
The Framework does not include Human Rights. At this stage we thought this might be just too much for authorities to take on. However, the developing equality standard in the NHS does include Human Rights and we seek your views on whether it would be appropriate for the new Framework to do so.
|
Human Rights should be included
All legislation stems from a belief in Human Rights
Many LA services do impact on people's Human Rights, particularly Art. 8, which is significant for children's services. As it is likely to be required in the future it would be better to be introduced now. As we work closely with partner agencies it would be preferable to have an aligned framework with health
The fifth area of change management- "Knowing your communities- equality mapping"- will reflect the importance of the place shaping agenda. Do you agree with the inclusion of this?
|
Yes. It is important to include for the purposes of planning future service provision and developing community leadership. It is vital to gain clear understanding of the community served and their equality and diversity issues. The inclusion of the place shaping agenda again makes important links between departmental and corporate issues and has a view to the introduction of the CAA
Do you consider that the Framework reflects the new place shaping role of local government, the importance of partnership working, Local Strategic Partnerships and Local Area Agreements?
|
Yes, it does. This could be strengthened.
The framework could give more of an emphasis on partnership work, particularly with the development of CAA
Do you think that the evidence that can be used for self assessment will also provide evidence for the new Comprehensive Area Assessment?
|
Yes there will be links and it is important to reduce the duplication of work for external assessments. Evidence from the IDeA equality framework ought to feed into CAA as equality and diversity should be central to all we do
Authorities who have reached levels 1 and 2 will be classified as Emerging. Those that have achieved level 3 will be treated as Achieving. Authorities at level 4 will be classified as Moving towards excellence and those at level 5 as Excellent.
|
Agree 3 levels
Do you consider that the Framework successfully represents a move away from a prescriptive top down process towards a more proportional approach where local authorities can use the Framework to determine their local needs and priorities?
|
Yes, It's clearer than the old standards. However only up to a point, as we think it was still possible to determine local needs and priorities under the existing standard. The greater emphasis on community engagement is welcome and will support a local response to local needs
Do you find the case studies showing how very different authorities might be measured under the new Framework to be helpful?
|
The case studies are helpful, show how LAs can progress and the associated questions are useful to help plan for improvements to be made. They also demonstrate progression through the categories.
We do not intend to produce detailed prescriptive guidance. However, are there areas where you would find more guidance useful?
|
Clear indicators would mean that prescriptive guidance would not be necessary
Real case studies would be useful as additional support/information
Tthere should be a non threatening way of sharing how other authorities have met the criteria this would be much more meaningful than more and more generic guidance. At the moment there is no way of seeing other authorities self assessments and evidence.
What are your views on the indicators?
|
Good practice database would be useful
Much more straightforward than standard
Make it easier to evidence CSCI, JAR, CAA
The “proof is in the pudding” and we would strongly recommend that there is a review period. It is impossible to fully appreciate where there may be difficulty in interpreting the Framework until it is being used.
Should there be any additional indicators?
|
Difficult to know -Review period needed
Should any of the indicators be amended?
|
Yes. See separate feedback.
Difficult to know extend of amendmentsat this time - Review period needed
The `How was this done' column is not intended to be a mandatory list of actions, but rather guidance on what sort of evidence could demonstrate achievements against the Framework. Do you find this helpful?
|
Yes - we think this means a broad example of how we did it with detailed case study as additional information. If it does not we need more guidance.
It is helpful for the framework to be evidenced based and outcomes focused.
Any other comments?
|
There should be evidence of how an authority can make linear progression through the standards. Or if there is no linear progression then this should be clearly stated.
Page 2 of 6
I:\Policy and Performance\Equalities\Equality Framework\Equality Framework consultation workshop final.doc