The impact of the formal equality stance on institutional processes and legal compliance in Higher Education

The aim of this paper is to build on a previous paper which explored the politics and perspectives of various social actors regarding anti-discrimination legislation and equality within a higher education setting. This paper will discuss the impact of the politics and perceptions on compliance with legislative requirements as reflected through the equality processes within a case study institution. In considering this, the question which will be borne in mind is: does the tendency towards adopting the formal equality stance also impact on the case study’s equality processes and, in turn, their response to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)? Such an analysis could have wider implications on how equality and compliance with the law is dealt with in other Higher Education Institutions (HEI)

The politics of equality and diversity in Higher Education

The aim of this paper is to provide an exploration of the perspectives relating to equality, diversity and anti-discrimination legislation from multi-actors at different levels of seniority and with varying involvement with equality issues and diversity management within a Higher Education institution. The role of management has been regarded as key in providing the leadership required and sending out the message that equality and diversity issues are significant in order to ensure that legislation is adhered to, not just by the letter, but also the spirit. “This top-down commitment and support was regarded by line managers as extremely important for leading the cultural change which was felt necessary in order to achieve equality for all...” (Greene, A. et al (2005) p36) The same may be said of the role of management within Higher Education Institutions where “[t]he extent and importance of managers in higher education has increased considerably in recent years as UK higher education has expanded…and the commitment of senior managers to equality of opportunity is clearly of considerable significance…” (Deem, R et al (2005) p82) Management perspectives of the meaning of equality therefore have an impact on establishing the priorities for an institution thereby determining how equality and diversity issues are dealt with. In addition, a comparison between management perspectives of the meaning and scope of equality and other members of staff as well as students is significant as these perceptions may differ depending on the role and status of the individual. Previous research has found that “[t]here appeared to be a considerable gulf between the views of staff…and the perceptions of their senior managers.” (Deem, R et al (2005) p6) Differing perspectives of equality may affect the relationships between various actors within the institution and how the politics of equality and diversity are managed. Of particular interest are the views and perceptions of equality and diversity practitioners within Higher Education. Their position and role within the case study institution is unique as they are neither regarded as part of the academic departmental structure of the institution, nor part of the management structure and are therefore poised somewhere in between. Once again, their positioning within the institution, their role and status will be explored and the impact on the politics of diversity management considered. This research aims to further understanding of how perceptions of equality and diversity, and the role of equality and diversity practitioners, affect the management of equality and diversity within Higher Education and implications for the practice of equality will be considere

The Impact of the Public Sector Equality Duties on higher education: a case study

The Public Sector Equality Duties (PSEDs) are a radical development in anti-discrimination legislation due to the emphasis on the need for public authorities to be proactive in order to address institutional discrimination. They require public authorities to take a substantive approach to equality by removing institutional barriers and focussing on equality outcomes. The aim of this thesis is to consider the implementation and impact of this innovative legislative approach to equality, with specific attention given to race and disability within a Higher Education Institution (HEI). It is demonstrated that senior management are not sympathetic to the substantive equality approach which is required by the PSEDs and instead operate with a formal understanding of equality. In addition, as the external pressures on Higher Education Institutions to comply with the legal requirements diminish over time, the processes established to deal with equality as well as legal compliance within the case study institution have weakened. As a consequence, there is a gap between what the law requires and what is happening in practice. At the same time, the experiences of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) and disabled staff and students indicate that they are still experiencing significant disadvantage within the case study institution. As well as enduring individual instances of discrimination, broader institutional barriers are also evident. An institutional response to address the disadvantage, which is required by the PSEDs, is not visible. It is surmised that this is due to the adoption of the fairness as opposed to a substantive approach to equality. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is employed in order to provide an explanation for the findings within the case study institution. Although it can be used to help account for the data in relation to race, there are limitations in terms of its application to the data regarding disability. CRT acknowledges the intersections between race and other forms of oppression, such as disability, although its focus is still on race as the primary factor for oppression. However, some of the key concepts utilised by Critical Race theorists, such as contradiction closing cases and interest convergence, can also be usefully applied to the data relating to disability

New Spaces: Safeguarding Students from Violence and Hate

Full report of the HEFCE Catalyst funded projectSexual assault, harassment, violence and hate crime on university campuses is a prevalent and pressing concern. A recent Universities UK taskforce report recommended that urgent action in this area is needed. Universities are significant sites for implementing a joined-up approach and tackling these issues. As a campus of Changemakers, students, inter-disciplinary researchers, professional and support staff at The University of Northampton decided to take action to address these significant and important issues, in particular within the context of a major campus move to a town centre location. As one of only 60 institutions across the country to be awarded funding from HEFCE’s Catalyst fund, this ‘New Spaces: Safeguarding Students from Violence and Hate’ cross collaborative project aimed to create vital partnerships in tackling sexual violence and hate crime on campus. The aims of the project were to evaluate existing policies and develop a student-led collaborative approach to identify what currently happens when disclosures are made; staff and student perceptions, knowledge and experiences within the campus transition; as well as providing recommendations for new institutional policies, strategies and recommendations to support students in reporting harassment, sexual abuse, sexual violence and hate crime. This project also contributes to HEFCE’s wider work in creating guidelines and recommendations for HEIs for addressing these issues. A survey of the published literature, as well as an evaluation of existing processes and policies at The University of Northampton were carried out within this project. Data collection involved 2 Staff and 2 student focus groups, as well as 11 interviews with members of the university management team. These were conducted to discuss staff and student experiences, what support was in place for disclosures and recommendations for future practice within the transition to the new campus. One of the student focus groups utilised photo-elicitation methods to allow students to visually conceptualise and create a new, safe campus space. Recommendations are provided for understanding the prevalence of these issues within a campus context; tackle normative beliefs which may influence how they are perceived; increasing knowledge and awareness of sexual violence and hate crime; implementing mechanisms for disclosure and reporting; addressing issues related to security measures and procedures; enhancing partnership working within the local community. These recommendations have local impact and are being used to inform institutional policies and procedures at The University. Project findings are also being implemented into HEFCE’s wider work and national action around these issues. Internationally, the dissemination of these findings is contributing to the limited research in this area

Place to Call Home Project Evaluation Report: Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children, Foster Care and Supported Lodgings Placements in the East Midlands

This is the evaluation report of the Place to Call Home Project. It looks at how the Project was designed, adjusted in response to government restrictions in relation to Covid and whether its operationalisation achieved the key priorities set out in this report. Funded through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Controlling Migration Fund (CMF), East Midlands Strategic Migration Partnership (EMSMP) sought to increase its regional in-house foster care and supported lodgings provision for Unaccompanied asylum seeking children and young people. Demands on local provision have increased significantly with an increase in the number arriving to the region and will continue as the National Transfer Scheme (NTS) became mandatory on 14th December 2021 (Home Office, 2022). Of concern has been the resourcing of appropriate care provision for this cohort of Looked After Children (LAC), which the East Midlands Councils (EMC) found to be problematic in its report ‘Analysis of the Local Authority Costs incurred in support of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking children in the East Midlands’ (2017). The cost of providing care or support to UASC and young people in the region outweighed the sum received from the government for this purpose by £25,000 per UASC, not least because local authorities had to rely on independent care provision at a far greater cost than in-house placements. With this in mind 9 local East Midlands local authorities: Derby City Council, Derbyshire County Council, Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council, Lincolnshire County Council, Northamptonshire County Council, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Rutland County Council sought funding from the national CMF which would help them to set up a regional co-ordination team that spearheaded a recruitment campaign, specialised UASC foster care and supported lodgings training in order to develop the regional capacity of inhouse care provision in the East Midlands. This report focuses on the current literature relating to the care provision of UASC and experiences of and support for individuals who foster or provide supported lodgings to this complex group of LAC. In setting out the current concerns raised by the literature it will highlight the challenges that the Place to Call Home Project sought to address as it attracted potential applicants and then worked with them through the assessment process, delivering specialist training. Findings will be reported on the key stages of the process: the recruitment campaign, the assessment process and the training. Highlighted will be some important lessons that can be used to inform future funding of UASC foster care provision. The key summary findings are: The number of Foster Care Placement Approvals were: 41 The number of Supported Lodging Provider Approvals were: 4 37.57% of completed initial enquiries to the project were with people with BAME backgrounds 83.3% of enquirers were interested in working specifically with migrant children 28 prospective carers participated in the specialist UASC training that was developed by the project; overall their evaluations of the training were very positive Regional Co-ordination has been challenging to set up and should be continued to ensure the sustainability of the Projec

Marketisation, (new) management and equality in Higher Education

It may be suggested that this emphasis on audits, targets, accountability and the ‘consumer’ could have a positive impact in terms of the pressure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duties (PSEDs).[4] Recognising that there is a diverse student population who have different needs, with Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) competing for these students, and the setting of targets and monitoring equality outcomes via auditing, has the potential to ensure compliance with the legal requirements. However, the juxtaposition to this view is that, questions have arisen as to the extent to which this marketisation of higher education is, in reality, compatible with the achievement of substantive equality aims

No dogs, no blacks, no Irish

Today the Immigration Bill 2015 will be debated in the House of Commons as it receives its second reading. The Bill is another one in a long line of changes to immigration law which have introduced ever more draconian restrictions on migrants and also effectively extends the enforcement of immigration laws beyond immigration officials. The latest Bill creates eight new criminal offences and those at risk of falling foul of the law include landlords, agents and employers. The Bill also extends the powers of immigration officials to arrest without warrant, enter and search premises and seize property. There are therefore many elements of the Bill which could be scrutinized in this blog post. However, one section appears to have attracted more media attention than others. The Bill proposes to introduce a new section 33A into the Immigration Act 2014 (yes, it’s been less than a year since the last piece of immigration legislation!). This section imposes liability on landlords where they ‘allow’ a disqualified adult from occupying a property or where a landlord knows or has reasonable cause to know that their premises are being occupied by a disqualified adult