EFLG Self Assessment: Interim Report

Introduction:

In April this year, the Equality Framework for Local
Government (2009) replaced the Equality Standard for Local Government
(2001) as the national standard for assessing Public Authorities progress in
mainstreaming the equality. The new Framework, whilst aiming to build on
and develop the work councils have done under the Standard, brought along
considerable changes and challenges that require the Local Authorities to brace
up and focus on local and current social realities. Most notable of the changes
that this new framework introduces, include: a broader definition of equality;
five areas of performance (as against four in the Standard); reduction in the
number of required actions (from 167 of the Standard to 97); three levels of
achievement (as against five levels in the Standard) and evaluation by self-
assessment/peer-challenge.


The three levels of achievement recognised by the Framework include:
the basic Developing level, which corresponds with the level-1 and level-2
under the Standard; the intermediate Achieving level, which is equivalent to
the level-3 of the Standard and the highest Excellent level, corresponding
with the level 4 & 5 of the Standard.


The Framework provides for the migration of an Authoritys
achievements under the old Standard such that the Authorities that were
recognised to be at level-1 or level-2 under the Standard will be recognised as
the Developing Authorities under the Framework; the Authorities recognised
to be at level-3 under the Standard shall deemed to be at the Achieving level
under the Framework; the Authorities recognised as at level-4 under the
Standard shall be treated, transiently, as moving towards excellence and,
finally, those at level-5 under the Standard shall be recognised as Excellent
under the Framework.

The NCC, under the Standard, was recognised to have had achieved
level-3. Therefore, under the Framework it shall be migrating and recognised
as an Achieving Authority. However, in order to ensure that it achieves its
much cherished goal of beingand being branded asan Excellent
Authority by 2010, NCC decided to make a robust start in the implementation
of the Framework by undertaking a self-assessment exercise to confirm if it in
deed was at the Achieving level. Accordingly, an exercise was undertaken
internally and a survey, modelled precisely in terms of the achievement
journey prescribed by the Framework, was administered within NCC.


Nevertheless, the ultimate objective of this assessment was to gauge the
gap between its current status and the Excellent stage so as to enable NCC
to workout a tangible road map to guide it towards its much cherished goal.



The Methodology:

The survey instrument for this self-assessmentagainst
Achieving levelcomprised of a close-ended questionnaire, consisting of 32
questions (listed in the annexure attached herewith), spread over the five
performance areas (PA), highlighted by the Framework. The first 03
questions of the questionnaire dealt with the first PA i.e. Knowing your
communities and equality mapping; the next 09 questions covered the second
PA i.e. Place shaping, leadership, partnership and organisational
commitment; the subsequent four questions concerned the third PA i.e.
Community engagement and satisfaction; the following seven questions were
about the fourth PA i.e. Responsive services and customer care; and, finally,
the last nine questions addressed the fifth PA i.e. A modern and diverse
workforce.


Every question in the questionnaire had four possible responses: 1 or 2
or 3 or 4 {(1 = Not in place), (2 = Currently being established), (3 = In place
but needs improving), (4 = In place and effective)}. The questionnaire, thus, in
total could throw up a score anywhere between 32 (the minimum possible:
32x1) and 128 (the maximum possible: 32x4). Similarly, in its five different
PAs, the scoring ranges would be between their respective maxima and minima
i.e. between 03 and 12 for PA1; between 09 and 36 for PA2; between 04 and
16 for PA3; between 07 and 28 for PA4; and, finally, for PA5 it would be
between 09-36.


The respondents were instructed to presume question was,
specifically, addressed to them and respond, accordingly, as best as they can. In
case the respondents would find a question only partly relevant to them, they
were advised to respond to the question to the extent it pertained to them. And,
in case any question appeared to be completely irrelevant, the respondents were
advised to leave it blank.


For the purpose of analysis, the various ranges of scores (between 0%
and 100%) were sub-divided into four quartiles: the lowest quartile, Q1,
extending between 0% and 25%; second quartile, Q2, extending between 25%
and 50%; third quartile, Q3, between 50% and 75% and the highest quartile,
Q4, between 75% and 100%.


The quartile-wise break up, overall and across the five performance
areas, is tabulated hereunder:-

Quartile Range PA-1 PA-2 PA-3 PA-4 PA-5 Overall
1st
Quartile
<25% (3.0 - 5.25) (9.0 - 15.75) (4 - 7) (7.0 - 12.25) (9.0 - 15.75) (32-56)
2nd
Quartile
25%-50% (5.25 - 7.5) (15.75 22.5) (7 - 10) (12.25 - 17.5) (15.75-22.5) (56-80)
3rd
Quartile
50%-75% (7.5 - 9.75) (22.5 29.25) (10 - 13) (17.5 - 22.75) (22.5-29.25) (80-104)
4th
Quartile
75%-100% (9.75 12) (29.25 36.0) (13 - 16) (22.75 - 28.0) (29.25-36.0) (104-128)


The assumption being that if in this exercise NCC scored within Q1
(less than 25%), then that may signify its being at Developing level. In case it
scored anywhere within Q2 or Q3 (25%-75%), it would be an indication of its
being at the Achieving level. And, if the score was on a higher side, in Q-4
(more than 75%), then it might be an indication (subject to confirmation) of its
already being at the Excellent level.


The Results:

In total, thirty-one questionnaires (including the two from pilot
stage) were received from different quarters within NCC. The responses
recorded therein were processed to work out the average scores for each action
in the questionnaires. The average scores for each action were then used to
calculate the average scores for each performance area. Ultimately, the average
scores of the five performance areas were then summed to obtain an overall
score for NCC. In case someone had chosen not to respond to a particular
question (for being not-relevant to him/her) and left the relevant box blank,
such responses were eclipsed and eliminated from calculations. As such, the
actual data-series for individual questions varied and did not always equal
thirty-one (the total number of questionnaires received).










The overall average score of NCC in this survey was found to be
62.10% (79.5/128): a score that is indicative of its being an Achieving
Authority.

Details of the Scores:
The details of the scores across the five different
performance areas are as under:

Performance Area

Score

Level

Knowing your communities and equality
mapping

64.78% (7.8/12)

Achieving

Place shaping, leadership, partnership
and organisational commitment

60.65 (21.8/36)

Achieving

Community engagement and satisfaction

68.92% (11/16)

Achieving

Responsive services and customer care

60.05% (16.8/28)

Achieving

A modern and diverse workforce

61.38% (22.1/36)

Achieving

Overall

62.10% (79.5/128)

Achieving





PA 1:
For the 03 actions in the 1st performance area, Knowing your
communities and equality mapping, NCC, on average, scores 2.95; 2.57 & 2.23
respectively.




PA 2:
For the 09 actions in 2nd performance area, place shaping, leadership,
partnership and organisational commitment, NCC, on average, scores 2.17;
2.15; 2.05; 2.61; 2.28; 2.38; 2.82; 2.55 & 2.76 respectively.




PA 3:
For the 04 actions in 3rd performance area, Community engagement and
satisfaction, NCC, on average, scores 2.90; 2.60; 2.79 & 2.73 respectively.




PA 4:
For the 07 questions/actions in 4th performance area, Responsive
services and customer care, NCC, on average, scores 1.95; 2.35; 2.38; 2.27;
3.10; 2.29 & 2.43 respectively.





PA 5:
For the 09 questions/actions in 5th performance area, A modern and
diverse workforce, NCC, on average, scores 2.31; 1.71; 2.50; 2.33; 2.25; 2.66;
2.86; 2.27 & 2.32 respectively.





Actions in Descending Order:
If the actions, overall, are arranged in descending
order of their scores, the following picture emerges (scores in brackets):-

2.32 (3.17) > 2.21 (3.10) > 2.1 (2.95) > 2.13 (2.90) >
2.30 (2.86) > 2.10 (2.82) > 2.15 (2.79) > 2.12 (2.76) > 2.16 (2.73) > 2.29
(2.66) > 2.7 (2.61) > 2.14 (2.60) > 2.2 (2.57) > 2.11 (2.55) > 2.26 (2.50)
> 2.23 (2.43) >2.19 (2.38) > 2.9 (2.38) > 2.18 (2.35) > 2.27 (2.33) >
2.24 (2.31) > 2.22 (2.29) > 2.8 (2.28) > 2.20 (2.27) > 2.31 (2.27) > 2.28
(2.25) > 2.3 (2.23) > 2.4 (2.17) > 2.5 (2.15) > 2.6 (2.05) > 2.17 (1.95) >
2.25 (1.71)

And, when the actions in the five performance areas are arranged in the
descending order, following picture emerges:-


PA-1

PA-2

PA-3

PA-4

PA-5

Action Score Action Score Action Score Action Score Action Score
2.1 2.9 2.10 2.82 2.13 2.90 2.21 3.10 2.32 3.17
2.2 2.6 2.12 2.76 2.15 2.79 2.23 2.43 2.30 2.86
2.3 2.1 2.7 2.61 2.16 2.73 2.19 2.38 2.29 2.66

2.11 2.55 2.14 2.60 2.18 2.35 2.26 2.50

2.9 2.38

2.22 2.29 2.27 2.33

2.8 2.28

2.20 2.27 2.24 2.31

2.4 2.17

2.17 1.95 2.31 2.27

2.5 2.15

2.28 2.25

2.6 2.05

2.25 1.71





The Way Forward.


A perusal of the Equality Framework for Local Government, 2009,
reveals that an overwhelming majority (about 50%) of the thirty-two (32)
actions (listed in the annexure attached herewith) prescribed for Achieving
authorities relate, directly or indirectly, to information: either in way of
collecting it or in way of synthesizing it or in way of communicating it. A
majority of the other half of the actions are, primarily, related to having
equality outcomes / objectives/ goals in place, at the service/ unit levels. In
other words, all these actions, in a nutshell, drive LAs towards having a clearer
information/understanding of the ground realities vis-a-vis the equality in the
county; and using it to inform and set a bunch of requisite equality
outcomes/objectives/goals at the service/unit levels.

In operational terms, at corporate level, the whole Framework boils
down to three things: a provident statutory equality scheme(s); an efficient
SORP and a smart EqIA toolkit. The statutory equality scheme(s) needs to be
well informed of the ground realities such that it clearly spells out the equality
agenda in shape of tangible equality outcomes/ objectives/ goals; the SORP
needs to be effective in ensuring that the equality scheme(s) are implemented in
letter and spirit; and, to top it all, an EqIA toolkit should obviate any negative
equality impact and augment any positive equality impact of the overall
business of NCC. These three instruments of equality, in the first instance,
need to be based/informed of the ground realities and then shall, in the course
of their operation, reflect/throw up information about the state of
affairs/direction the things are moving in.

This overarching policy umbrella shall provide a bespoke system to
implement equality work; a system that will not only ensure our legal
compliance but shall also ensure the delivery of equality outcomes.

Therefore, to begin with, it shall be prudent if NCC revisits its equality
scheme(s) and puts in place a dynamic and more relevant scheme. It shall be
highly desirable, in view of NCCs goal to be an excellent authority by 2011, if
this is a one-year-scheme rather the usual three year scheme. The one year
tenure shall give it the flexibility required to address the immediate equality
needs of NCC, as well as the ability to respond swiftly to the potential
widespread changes that the implementation of the Equality Bill by Parliament
in Spring 2010 would bring.

However, as a first step towards the new scheme, tangible equality
outcomes/ objectives/ goals need to set at service/ unit level. There are two
ways to do it. One is the bottom up, i.e., these equality outcomes/
objectives/targets/goals etc are actually set at the unit/service level and are then
fed into the equality scheme. Or, conversely, these equality outcomes/
objectives/targets/goals etc are done top-down: the outcomes/ goals/ objectives/
targets etc are set at corporate level by incorporating/ prescribing them into the
equality scheme(s) and then left to service/unit levels to be implemented. The
latter option, however, may not be very pragmatic/practical: it may be better to
leave it to the services that can do it more realistically within the resources
available.

With this in mind we are trying to secure a 99 event in March for some
interactive work to be undertaken in relation to the scheme.


Farooq Ahmed Kirmani
January 4, 2009