research placement at leeds city council: report · research placement at leeds city council:...
TRANSCRIPT
4386 words
Research Placement at Leeds City Council: Report
Introduction
Leeds City Council (LCC) has a responsibility to ensure that people using council services are
not discriminated against under the governments Equality Act 2010 (Legislation.gov.uk, 2010).
One way in which they do this is to perform assessments on any new service proposed or any
proposed change of service, to ensure that no group of people is disproportionately affected by
the work of the LCC. The LCC asked two students, Laura and myself, to carry out research into
whether the current method of avoiding discrimination is effective, specifically in regard to
people’s religion and belief. This research seeks to discover what the main issues surrounding
religion and belief might be for a secular organisation such as a city council, and what can be
improved about the Council’s current method of protecting people’s religious or non-religious
beliefs. This report focuses on the methodology of our research as well as exploring the early
emerging issues which have arisen after only four interviews, and is complemented by Laura’s
report, which gives insight into the key findings from both of our research.
Why is Religion and Belief important?
That religion and belief is a protected characteristic in the view of the government and
council suggests that religion and belief has an important, if not increasing role in public life.
However, many have argued that Britain is becoming an increasingly secular nation, removing
the need for governments and local organisations to seriously consider religion and belief in
their work. Secularisation can be understood as the “process by which sectors of society and
culture are removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols” (Berger,
1967:107), and so can arguably be seen in the shift of responsibility for certain social functions
and institutions, those of education, health and social care, for example, from religious
authorities to the state (Dinham and Lowndes, 2009:3). Secularists argue that faith only
“contributes to the ‘decorative’ element in British life” and no longer has any real impact in the
public sphere (Dinham and Lowndes, 2009:2). Voas- “fuzzy fidelity”- “Many people remain
interested in church weddings and funeral, Christmas services and local festivals. They believe
in ‘something out there’, pay at least lip service to Christian values, and may we willing to
identify with a denomination (2009:161)” (Beckford, 2010:124).
In its ‘strong form’ … the secularist thesis argues that religion and politics must be seen
as separate activities, the former being other-worldly and personal and the latter this-
worldly, communal and public…Religion has little to contribute to public life… Public
politics should be secular, omitting religion (Furbey, 2009:31).
One explanation for secularisation of Britain is that, with increasing technological advances,
people no longer look to something transcendent to explain every day phenomena “faith lost
much of their social significance under the dual pressures of urbanisation and technological
innovation…technology promised ways around ‘God-given’ constraints…live longer; defy
disease; fly across continents and oceans… Nature knows no bounds” (Dinham and Lowndes,
2009:3). Furthermore, Furbey argues that as our understandings of how things work have
become increasingly scientific, maintaining religious beliefs has been viewed as irrational “and a
matter of ‘blind faith’” (Furbey, 2009:22), a view which perhaps explains why politicians and
4386 words
public figures hesitate to associate themselves with religion, and often deny their affiliation
during their career. Interestingly, Protestantism itself is often accredited with causing
secularisation, with arguably individualistic nature, as it aimed to allow each individual to
interpret the Bible, the word of God, in their own way. Furthermore, early Protestantism
rejected forced beliefs, and this could be viewed as a quest to separate religion from the public
realm (Furbey, 2009:24).
However, it is important to recognise the strong arguments from the other side, in which
religion is still seen as prominent in British life. “There have been continuing high levels of self-
reported religious affiliation across the country” (Dinham and Lowndes, 2009:2), with only 15%
of the population stating that they have ‘no religion’, and 72% of the population maintaining
their affiliation with Christianity (Dinham and Lowndes, 2009:2). Dinham and Lowndes concede
that secularisation, in terms of the transfer of certain institutions from religious authorities to
the state, but argue that it “by no means expels faith altogether from the public realm” (Dinham
and Lowndes, 2009:2), with the majority of the population claiming to be religious. “This
reflects what has been described as the phenomenon of ‘believing without belonging’”, a term
coined by Grace Davie which is “sometimes understood in terms of the privatisation of religion”
(Dinham and Lowndes, 2009:4); however, it is increasingly recognised “that private religious
belief can have social consequence” (Dinham and Lowndes, 2009:4), perhaps explaining the
need for policies surrounding public faith today.
“The charge that religion is irrational is joined by the related objection that religion is a source
of social division, bloody conflict and tyranny” (Furbey, 2009:27). The increasing
multiculturalism found in British society has arguably caused a great deal of conflict, a view
which has caused many to argue in favour of the active removal of religion from the public
realm, a push towards the further privatisation and individualisation of religion, in order to
avoid social conflict. “Yet other policy strands identify ‘faith’ as ‘solution’, contributing
significantly to voluntary action, civic partnership, the renewal of civil society and (although
there is some ambivalence here) social cohesion policies” (Furbey, 2009:27).
Furbey finds clear examples of ways in which the major religions of British society are in line
with the human rights and social cohesion policies adopted by the state. He firstly argues that a
key element of Christianity involves the love of your neighbour, suggesting that the presence of
Christianity in the public realm is highly compatible with multiculturalism (Furbey, 2009:30).
Furthermore, he argues that “Islam holds the ‘oneness’ of humanity as a central principle and an
understanding of God as compassionate and merciful. People are free moral agents with
obligations to work for peace and justice” (Furbey, 2009:30), again highlighting that Islam
should not stand in the way of the government’s aim of social cohesion. He finds further
examples within Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism, and finally argues that if the principles of
these religions were truly enacted, “faith in the public realm might reasonable be accepted as a
very positive presence” (Furbey, 2009: 31).
Dinham and Lowndes argue that from the 1990s onwards, the government recognised religion
as “having a potentially important role to play in building ‘community cohesion’” and
furthermore “identified the potential for building on the traditional service role of faith bodies
(for instance in educations, housing, fostering and adoption) and extending into this new areas
(including urban and rural regeneration, community safety, childcare and health promotion)”
(Dinham and Lowndes, 2009:5-6).
4386 words
This issue is taken up in great deal by James Beckford, who suggests that the government has
utilised the socially active nature of religion as a means of improving aspects of society.
Furthermore, he argues that the potential problem posed by multiculturalism has been
overcome by the government; “the New Labour governments in the UK between 1997 and 2010
tried hard to manage the social implications of increasing levels of religious diversity. They did
so by implementing policies which interpellated – or summoned – faith groups as partners with
the state” (Beckford, 2010:133). Beckford highlights that the “government increasingly framed
its relations with religions in terms of an overarching support for ‘faith’ as a unitary and
potentially unifying force that was capable of enhancing public—as well as private—life”
(Beckford, 2010:127). Moreover, he discusses the governments use of ‘inter-faith’ initiatives,
which provide a medium for the building, and strengthening, of “relationships between religions
and the people who belong to them” (Weller, 2009:63). It is within the context of these on-going
debates surrounding the relationship between religion and faith and public life provide the
context that this report aims to further explore how religion and belief affects issues of local
government, and seeks to highlight how these academic issues have a real impact for the LCC, as
well as adding new data from the research conducted.
CONTEXT
Leeds City Council (LCC) is the local authority responsible for the City of Leeds. Leeds is the
third largest city in the UK, and has a population of over 750,000, from several different
religious backgrounds. The LCC contains an Equality and Diversity Function, which aims to
ensure that people’s beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, are given ‘due regard’, as instructed
by government legislation surrounding issues of religion and belief. “Equal opportunities in the
Council is about making sure that everyone can fully join in the social, cultural, political and
economic life of our city” (Leeds City Council, 2012)
The LCC recognizes several different ‘protected characteristics’ within the population, which
include “age, impairment, ethnic origin, nationality, religion or belief, social class, sex, sexual
orientation, gender reassignment, marital or civil partnership status, responsibility for
dependants, pregnancy and maternity or trade union activity (Leeds City Council 2012).
The council uses forms called Equality, Diversity, Cohesion and Integration Impact Assessments
(IAs) to ensure that their actions and services to not have adverse effects on any of these
protected groups. While sometimes adverse effects on individuals within a community are
inevitable, the forms help to prevent obvious discrimination taking place (Leeds City Council,
2012a).
THE PLACEMENT
The equality function within the Leeds City Council (LCC) asked two students undertaking
research placements, myself and Laura, to help them improve the way in which they ensure ‘due
regard’ is given to the protected group of religion and belief. We were asked to undertake
research into IAs and assess how these could possibly be changed. Furthermore the placement
leader suggested that we research the opinions of current council officers on the current
4386 words
method of ensuring due regard is given to religion and belief, as well as exploring the issues that
surround this protected group. The final output1 for the LCC would be a list of findings of the
current method of using IAs as it stands, as well as recommendations of ways in which due
regard could be better given to religion and belief, and recommendations into how the system
could be improved for better understanding, efficiency and ease for the council employees who
carry out IAs. See Appendix C for the final report produced for the LCC.
METHODOLOGY
In order to assess the usefulness of “Equality, Diversity, Cohesion and Integration Impact
Assessments” we carried out interviews of LCC employees in order to gain more in depth data.
In our initial meeting with the placement leader, we discussed possible questions to ask
interviewees; however, the final questions were devised by the placement leader. Our sample of
potential participants and their contact details was also supplied by the placement leader,
allowing me to begin email correspondence in order to arrange the interviews. As there were
two of us participating in the placement, we decided to divide the interviews between the two of
us, and come together with our findings at the end in order to produce the recommendations
requested of us by the council. Therefore, this report focuses on the methodology of our
research, as well as the early issues which emerged from the initial research carried out. Laura’s
report will further explore the issues raised during our research using the full range of data that
we both collected.
We used open questions allowing interviewees to discuss issues that may not have emerged
from closed questions with prescribed answers (Jupp, 2006:157). Furthermore this style of
interview allowed me to ask follow up questions and gain deeper knowledge of the issues raised
in interviews. Many of the interviewees worked within the same department of the council and
so had similar job roles. The placement leader therefore suggested that rather than simply
interviewing these employees individually, that we should meet them together, as a focus group.
This helped to not only save time, but also to allow for a discussion to ensue from questions
allowing more insight into issues raised.
In carrying out interviews strict protocols must be followed in order to ensure that all research
is carried out ethically. It is important to maintain the anonymity of the participants, as in
revealing their identity might lead to adverse consequences; “Research should not bring harm
to the respondents” (Jupp, 2006:97). Their assured anonymity allows interviewees to be honest
and frank when answering questions without fear of repercussions of any kind, and is therefore
more likely to lead to accurate data, rather than answered affected by coercion of any kind. In
order to maintain the anonymity of the interviewees I did not pass on the recordings of the
interviews but only the written up transcripts, as well as removing their names and specific job
title from the final write ups which I provided to the council. Furthermore it is imperative that
the people being interviewed give informed consent for their answers to be recorded and used.
In order to gain this, I provided participants with a letter informing them of the research I was
undertaking, why and who for, as well as what would be done with their research afterwards
(summarised and used to inform the council in ways in which to improve their method for
giving due regard to religion and belief). They were then asked to sign a consent form stating
1 Appendix C- Final Output
4386 words
that they understood that they did not have to participate in the research and could withdraw at
any time, as well as stating that their identities would remain anonymous. The consent form
also asked for their permission to record their answers. I then had to sign the forms in front of
the participants to ensure that we both acknowledged and understood what they were giving
consent to (Jupp, 2006:97)2.
CRITIQUE OF METHODOLOGY
The sample of potential interviewees provided by the placement leader included council
employees from a range of different positions. Having divided the participants between us, I
carried out the interviews of the first half of names provided, none of whom were service
providers. It seemed clear to me that the people interviewed were not the best people to ask in
order to get the information that we were looking for. I mainly spoke to people who worked
within human resources, and so did not have so much to do with issues around service
providing but to do with employability. This was a problem, as I felt that a few of the questions
were specific to those employees who would have an active role in service providing or
restructuring, and so did not necessarily seem relevant when faced with the issue of employing
and team restructuring, for example: “how do you understand whether the activity you’re
proposing is going to have a disproportionate impact on a particular group?”3 None of the
participants that I questioned were responsible for organising activities, and so it became
difficult to see how the issue of ensuring ‘due regard’ to religion and belief would relate to these
participants in their individual roles. This aspect of the interviews could have perhaps been
strengthened had the original questions acknowledged the different responsibilities of the
interviewees provided in the sample, and alternative questions provided for when the general
questions were not applicable. Moreover, working in human resources many of the
interviewees were familiar with the equality team and impact assessments, and so I found it
hard to gather new information that the equality team and placement leader were not already
aware of. Service providers, who work less directly with the equality and diversity function may
have flagged up more issues they had had with impact assessments, as information would
perhaps have been less accessible for them.
Due to the nature of the questions as open, however, it was possible to gain understanding into
how issues surrounding equality and diversity affected each different interviewee, as I was able
to ask follow up questions encouraging the participants to speak in more detail about issues
that have arisen for them, as well as their view on the pros and cons of the current method of
ensuring ‘due regard’ is given (IAs). However, having never interviewed before, I found it
difficult to process the information I was receiving with the pressure to think on my feet and
come up with further questions which arose from the interviewees’ answers (Jupp, 2006:157-
8). This problem was in part overcome by the use of a Dictaphone, which I used to record the
interviews. Using this tool allowed me to focus on asking questions raised from previous
answers and to leave the analysis of these answers until after the interview, when I could spend
longer thinking about the implications and issues raised by the interviewees. Furthermore,
while there were set questions, the interviews took on a fairly unstructured nature as I began to
ask further questions which had not been previously discussed with the placement leader. 2 Appendix A-Consent form 3 Appendix B-Interview questions
4386 words
Unstructured interviews can have a higher potential bias, as the interviewer may ask questions
which lead to the conclusion they are expecting, rather than asking questions which would
encourage a truthful and objective account (Jupp, 2006:157-8). This potential bias therefore
must be acknowledged when trying to find conclusions from the answers of participants.
Through conducting the interviews several interesting issues were raised in the answers of the
participants; however, these issues were often not discussed in depth as the questions provided
seemed to focus only on whether IAs were easy to use and successful at giving ‘due regard’ to
peoples religious or non-religious beliefs. It may have been more beneficial, in terms of
improving the way in which ‘due regard’ is given, if more focus was given to what the
interviewees felt were issues surrounding religion and belief that they had come across.
Furthermore I felt that more issues may have been discussed in more depth had the interviews
all been conducted as focus groups. I held one focus group with the members of the equality
team, and while, of course, they had thought in great deal about the issues raised, they were able
to bounce off each other, encouraging more thoughtful responses and sometime debate which
raised some different ideas. Other interviews were with either one or two people at the time,
and this did not create any significant debate or discussion, as even when there were two
participants interviewed together, their rob roles were similar enough that they often had the
same views and answers to questions.
Early Emerging Issues:
Having only conducted four interviews, it is difficult to predict what the key conclusions of the
research will be. However, several issues did emerge from the early research, with the
participants identifying various difficulties that have arisen when discussing matters of religion
and belief.
Religious Literacy
During the focus group held with the equality function, the issue of religious literacy was
discussed: how should we refer to issues surrounding religion? Is there a difference between
religion and faith or belief? Does the way we discuss these issues make any practical difference?
Beckford (2010) argues that the religious literacy of the government is important for social
cohesion. He suggests that the language used by the government underwent an important shift
in the 1990s, referring to ‘faith’ instead of ‘religion’ in order to emphasise the similarities
between different traditions, rather than painting them as opposing institutions: “The
connotations that the term ‘religion’ has with organisations, membership, authority, doctrine,
regulation, obedience, etc. gave way to a softer focus on supposedly shared values, tolerance
and a generic willingness to contribute towards the public good” (Beckford, 2010:126).
Moreover, the aforementioned ‘inter-faith’ initiatives have become an increasingly useful tool in
order to encourage discussion between differing groups, also allowing the government and
local authorities to become more literate when it comes to discussing the issues surrounding
people’s beliefs, enabling public bodies to act in support of people’s beliefs rather than despite
them (Weller, 2009:63). Baker calls for “religious literacy that expresses engagement with
others at the level of values and visions, and seeks understanding of the motivation of others. All
institutions have values and visions, and individuals have ‘spiritual capital’, whether or not they
4386 words
define themselves as religious or spiritual people” (Baker, 2006:116). He uses the phrase
‘spiritual capital’ to denote the useful elements of religion in society as discussed earlier, for
example its use in helping to support education and welfare initiatives etc. He is therefore
suggesting that the government, and/or local authorities must aim to understand the discourses
within and between religions if they hope to efficiently partner with religions for similar goals
(Weller, 2009:73). It seemed from the interviews, however, that the real problem posed in
terms of religious literacy, was that there was a general fear in discussing matters of religion
and belief. One participant who was involved in human resources suggested that problems may
arise where a particular change might affect someone on the team due to their religion or belief,
but this interviewee felt that while a lot of people were not familiar with the practices of certain
religions, they should not be afraid to “ask the person if or how the change affects them”
(Interviewee A). Thus, this suggests that the either of either religion or faith is not important,
but the individual person’s needs are, and more of a focus should be placed on the needs of
individuals rather than attempting to generalise all individuals into groups to be managed.
Religion and Race
The equality team highlighted their concern that council employees may struggle to
differentiate between race and religion, particularly when it came to the Muslim population of
Leeds, as one participant suggested that they often heard generalisations and stereotypes based
on the assumption that “all South-Asians are Muslim”(Interviewee B), and would practice their
faith in exactly the same way. But what is the danger posed by this confusion, and is it
something the council needs to dedicate resources to rectifying? Maleiha Malik suggests that it
has been within the governments interests to purposefully blur the lines between religion, race
and culture. Due to the significant overlap, it makes sense to deal with any issues from the
perspective of race and religion together, rather than from both individually: “race and religion
overlap to form distinct cultural practices and groups. There is a complex overlap between
these different factors: they cannot be reduced to either colour, ethnicity or nationality (in the
case of race) or aspects of belief and religious practice (in the case of religion)” (Malik, 2008:16).
This suggests that the confusion between race and religion is not necessarily a detrimental
thing when it comes to policy making, a view backed up by other interviewees, who suggested
that while it was possible that people struggled to differentiate race and religion, this had not
appeared to have an adverse impact on the protection of either groups. Malik notes, however,
that the complex relationship between race and religion can have disadvantages, in that, since
racial issues have tended to take precedent over issues surrounding religion, “ethnic religious
minorities (e.g. Jews and Sikhs) enjoy a greater degree of protection than non-ethnic religious
minorities (e.g. Muslims or Rastafarians)” (Malik, 2008:16).
Islamophobia
That the equality team highlighted issues specifically surrounding the Muslim population
seemed particularly interesting, as Muslim/non-Muslim relations in West Yorkshire have been
highly publicised in recent times. “Muslims have a visibility out of proportion to their numbers”
(Cheesman and Khanum, 2009:41), a fact well evidenced by the misconceptions in the number
of Muslim’s in Britain, who in fact only make up around 2.5% of the population (Dinham and
Lowndes, 2009:2). This visibility perhaps stems from the fact that Muslims “stand out because
4386 words
most are not white, and their customs and beliefs are not implicit in British tradition”
(Cheesman and Khanum, 2009:41).
The council however works towards eliminating segregation between communities, so why is it
that social cohesion has proved particularly difficult between Muslim communities and other
communities, and between differing Muslim communities as well? Cheesman and Khanum
argue that this rift had more to do with financial issues than it does matters of religion or race:
“poverty has been the main driver of segregation as the more affluent simply buy their way out.
Muslims in Britain suffer high levels of deprivation, to tending to live in the cheapest housing”
(Cheesman and Khanum, 2009:42). They relate this specifically to Muslim in the West Yorkshire
region: “This is confirmed by detailed spatial investigations into ethnic residential segregation
in Bradford, focusing on the South Asians who form the largest minority and who are mainly
Pakistani Muslims” (Cheesman and Khanum, 2009:42). This suggests that Muslim families do
not choose to live in segregated areas, but simply do not have the means to move into the areas
populated by other religious and ethnic communities.
However, this is not the only barrier to social cohesion with and between Muslim communities,
as they also highlight that many Muslims face language barriers, suggesting that this prevents
them from participating in community events (Cheesman and Khanum, 2009:45). This to me
seemed an interesting issue, as it should be a problem that is flagged up when carrying out IAs.
One further issue highlighted by Cheesman and Khanum that I found particularly interesting
was the statistic that “nearly one third (29%) of [British] respondents [to a survey in 2001]
prepared to state positively that being Muslim was incompatible with being British” (Cheesman
and Khanum, 2009:50). This seems to me a problem that could be improved by the council;
while IAs ensure the council is giving due regard to religion and belief, it could perhaps do more
to educate communities on different religions and faiths, perhaps by making inter-faith groups
more well-known and more encouraged among young people. This could allow for better
understandings of different faiths and therefore fewer misconceptions and judgments.
Conclusion
While, at the time of writing this report, only 4 interviews or focus groups had been conducted,
the research already seemed to be beneficial to the council and its aim to improve the way in
which due regard is given to people’s religious or non-religious beliefs. Though at times it seems
that the wrong people were being asked the wrong questions, the casual nature of the
interviews meant that meaningful information could be drawn from discussions which had
flowed from the original questions. The issues that emerged from this initial research clearly
have significance for the relationship between religion and society, not only confirming the
council’s suspicions about what the problems are, but also providing insight into what, if
anything needs to be changed in order to improve the problem. I believe that the conclusions
drawn from this research will be beneficial to Leeds City Council’s aim of improving their
equality service, finding ways to break down supposed barriers caused by religious differences.
4386 words
Bibliography
Baker, C, 2009, ‘Blurred encounters? Religious literacy, spiritual capital and language’,
In: Dinham A, R. Furbey, and V. Lowndes, Faith in the Public Realm: Controversies,
Policies and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp.105-122
Beckford, J[James] A, 2010, ‘The Return of Public Religion? A Critical Assessment of a
Popular Claim’, Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, 23 (2), pp.121-136
Berger, P, 1967, The Sacred Canopy, New York: Doubleday, pp.106-160
Cheesman D, and N Khanum, 2009, ‘‘Soft’ ’ segregation: Muslim identity, British
secularism and inequality’, In: Dinham A, R. Furbey, and V. Lowndes, Faith in the Public
Realm: Controversies, Policies and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp.41-62
Dinham A, and V. Lowndes, 2009, ‘Faith in the Public Realm’, In: Dinham A, R. Furbey,
and V. Lowndes, Faith in the Public Realm: Controversies, Policies and Practice, Bristol:
The Policy Press, pp.1-20
Furbey R, 2009, ‘Controversies of “public faith”, In: Dinham A, R. Furbey, and V.
Lowndes, Faith in the Public Realm: Controversies, Policies and Practice, Bristol: The
Policy Press, pp.21-40
Leeds City Council, 2012, Equality and Diversity [online], [accessed 10 February 2013],
available on: http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council/Pages/EqualityAndDiversity.aspx
Legislation.gov.uk , 2010, Equality Act 2010 [online], [Accessed 4th April], available from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
Malik, M, 2008, ‘From conflict to cohesion’: competing interests in equality law and policy,
London: Equality and Diversity Forum
Weller, P, 2009, ‘How participation changes things: ‘inter-faith’, ‘multi-faith’ and a new
public imagery’, In: Dinham A, R. Furbey, and V. Lowndes, Faith in the Public Realm:
Controversies, Policies and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp.63-82
4386 words
APPENDIX A- CONSENT FORM
Name of Module Leader: Dr Rachel Muers
Name of student researcher: Susannah Lederhose
Please initial box I confirm that I have read and understand the information letter explaining the above research project and I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the project.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason and without there being any negative consequences. In addition, should I not wish to answer any particular question or questions, I am free to decline.
I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential. I understand that my name will not be linked with the research materials, and I will not be identified or identifiable by name in the student report or essay.
I understand that my responses will be audio recorded, and that, except for in the final report, the research notes will not be stored beyond the end of the student’s time at the University.
I agree to take part in the above research project.
________________________ ________________ ____________________
Name of Participant Date Signature
_________________________ ________________ ____________________
Name of student Date Signature
To be signed and dated in presence of the participant
Dr Rachel Muers ________________ ____________________ Module Leader Date Signature
4386 words
APPENDIX B- INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Structure of interview including potential questions
1) Introduce yourself/yourselves outlining the purpose of research and final product, timescales. Ask
for informed consent
2) What is your name, job title, Directorate, Service area, main responsibilities and main
responsibilities around equality?
3) How do you give due regard to equality, i.e. how do you understand whether the activity you’re
proposing is going to have a disproportionate impact on a particular group?
Prompts – Equality Impact Assessment process, built into planning process
4) When giving due regard to equality either through the Equality Impact Assessment process or via
other means, do you consider religion or belief?
If so…….
What do you use to support you when giving due regard to religion or belief?
Do you find that resource useful?
How could that be strengthened? Does it need to be more prescriptive?
Does religion or belief need defining more clearly in order for you to understand what you are supposed to be giving due regard to?
Prompts - Religion or belief briefing sheet, Religion and Faith Guide, use of additional expertise as
part of impact assessment team for example, Religion or Belief Hub, Equality Impact Assessment
Guidance, anything else?
If not……
What are the reasons you don’t? o Lack of training o Lack of support o Lack of relevant information/resources o Does religion or belief need defining more clearly in order for you to understand
what you are supposed to be giving due regard to?
6) Do you think people are able to separate out the difference between religion or belief and
race/ethnicity?
7) Are there any other comments you would like to make or any final questions that you have?
4386 words
APPENDIX C- FINAL OUTPUT FOR LEEDS CITY COUNCIL
Equality Impact Assessments: Giving due regard to religion and belief in Leeds City Council
Introduction
The Leeds City Council (LCC) has a responsibility to ensure that Council service users are not
discriminated against. One way in which they do this is to perform assessments on any new service
proposed or any proposed change of service, to ensure that no group of people is disproportionately
affected by the work of the LCC. The LCC asked two students to carry out research into whether the
current method of avoiding discrimination is effective, specifically in regard to people’s religion and
belief. This research seeks to discover what the main issues surrounding religion and belief might for
the LCC, and what can be improved about the current method of protecting people’s religious or non-
religious beliefs. The council uses forms called Equality, Diversity, Cohesion and Integration Impact
Assessments (IAs) to ensure that their actions and services do not have adverse effects on any of these
protected groups. While sometimes adverse effects on individuals within a community are inevitable,
the forms help to prevent obvious discrimination taking place.
Methodology and Critique
In order to assess the usefulness of “Equality, Diversity, Cohesion and Integration Impact
Assessments” we carried out interviews of LCC employees in order to gain more in depth data. In our
initial meeting with the placement leader, we discussed possible questions to ask interviewees;
however, the placement leader devised the final questions. Our sample of potential participants and
their contact details was also supplied by the placement leader, allowing us to begin email
correspondence in order to arrange the interviews. As there were two of us participating in the
placement, we decided to divide the interviews between the two of us, and come together with our
findings at the end in order to produce the recommendations requested by the council.
Many of the interviewees worked within the same department of the council and so had similar job
roles. The placement leader therefore suggested that rather than simply interviewing these employees
individually, we should meet them together as a focus group. This helped not only to save time, but
also allowed for a discussion to ensue from questions allowing more insight into issues raised. We
used open questions, allowing interviewees to discuss issues that may not have emerged from closed
questions with prescribed answers. Due to the nature of the questions being open it was possible to
gain understanding into how issues surrounding equality and diversity affected each different
interviewee, as we were able to ask follow up questions encouraging the participants to speak in more
detail about issues that have arisen for them, as well as their view on the pros and cons of the current
method of ensuring ‘due regard’ is given (IAs). Furthermore, whilst there were set questions, the
interviews took on a fairly unstructured nature as we began to ask further questions which had not
been previously discussed with the placement leader. Unstructured interviews can have a higher
potential bias, as the interviewer may ask questions which lead to the conclusion they are expecting,
rather than asking questions which would encourage a truthful and objective account. This potential
bias therefore must be acknowledged when trying to find conclusions from the answers of
participants.
In carrying out interviews strict protocols must be followed in order to ensure that all research is
carried out ethically. It is important to maintain the anonymity of the participants, as revealing their
identity might lead to adverse consequences. Their assured anonymity allows interviewees to be
4386 words
honest when answering questions without fear of repercussions of any kind and is therefore more
likely to lead to accurate data, rather than answered affected by coercion of any kind. In order to
maintain the anonymity of the interviewees, we did not pass on the recordings of the interviews but
only the written up transcripts. Furthermore it was imperative that the people being interviewed gave
informed consent for their answers to be recorded and used. In order to gain this, we provided
participants with a letter informing them of the research we were undertaking, why, and who for, as
well as what would be done with the research afterwards (summarised and used to inform the council
in ways in which to improve their method for giving due regard to religion and belief). They were
then asked to sign a consent form stating that they understood that they did not have to participate in
the research and could withdraw at any time, as well as stating that their identities would remain
anonymous. The consent form also asked for their permission to record their answers. The forms were
then signed by the student researchers in front of the participants, to ensure both acknowledged and
understood what they were giving consent to.
Through conducting the interviews several interesting issues were raised in the answers of the
participants; however, these issues were often not discussed in depth as the questions provided
seemed to focus only on whether IAs were easy to use and successful at giving ‘due regard’ to
people’s religious or non-religious beliefs. It may have been more beneficial, in terms of improving
the way in which ‘due regard’ is given, if more focus was given to what the interviewees felt were
issues surrounding religion and belief that they had come across. Furthermore it seems that more
issues may have been discussed in more depth had the interviews all been conducted as focus groups.
One focus group was with the members of the equality team, and while, of course, they had thought in
great deal about the issues raised, they were able to bounce off each other, encouraging more
thoughtful responses and sometimes debate which raised some different ideas. Other interviews were
with either one or two people at a time and this did not create any significant debate or discussion, as
even when there were two participants interviewed together, their rob roles were similar enough that
they often had the same views and answers to questions.
Summary of findings
Giving due regard to religion and belief is not classed as a high priority because a certain level has
already been achieved. It was also made apparent that there are less people to do the work. This seems
a direct consequence of money issues and funding cuts in the Council; with this going on, it seems
this may be a reason for the lack of training. It was found that the resources were not being used
effectively and thought to be “unhelpful” and this could be due to them being very basic and not up to
date e.g. the census data used in the Religion and Faith guide was from 2001. The data is collected
about religion and belief but it was suggested the data is not put to as good use as it could be and not
analysed effectively. Potentially this could be due to a lack of training and lack of knowledge which
were also barriers facing staff when trying to give due regard to religion and belief. A lack of
knowledge seemed to cause stereotyping about religion and belief, with staff not knowing the small
but important issues surrounding religion and belief. There were also problems surrounding different
definitions i.e. confusions around the meanings of religion, belief, race, culture etc. and the wider
issues surrounding these. A further issue concerning data was that there was a lack of response from
the public with information about the religion and beliefs of different communities. This could also be
linked to a lack of knowledge because staff need to be able to explain to communities why
information is needed on religion and belief. Another theme that became obvious was that because
legal protection for other characteristics have been around longer, some found it easier to know the
issues around these; people have “grown up” with these issues e.g. gender, age, sexuality. We
4386 words
therefore suggest that it is difficult to produce a good equality impact assessment without a sound
knowledge and understanding of the underlying issues.
Conclusions & Proposals
The most effective ways for the Council to move forward and give better due regard to religion and
belief could begin by encouraging confidence among colleagues to talk about religions and any
information used to improve services should be punished on the intranet. Perhaps a document
explaining, “this is how knowing about religion and belief helped us improve a service”, so people
can see the benefits of giving due regard. It also needs to be clear about how and why using
information about religion and belief is important and needed. It also seems that immediate phone
calls to the equality team whenever an issue regarding religion or belief arises should be phased out,
as this is not solving the problem long term. Picking up the phone seems like it should be a last resort
on a complex issue.
Regarding resources, it seems that seminars and lunchtime training would benefit the council officers
because training would better equip staff to know how to find out about religion and belief and know
why the information is important. Finding out this information should not be ignored; rather, it should
be made mandatory and if a feedback sheet on a service is left blank regarding religion and belief, this
should be followed up. Perhaps a simple written guide on religions and belief with relevant examples
would be more beneficial to council officers. Examples of how the facts about religion can be applied
to projects and how to give due regard in impact assessments would also be beneficial. The research
findings also suggest that there is a tendency to group protected people into one stereotype. For
example it might be thought that all people with a disability or all people of the same gender have the
same experiences as others. It seems that staff are less certain what they are talking about when
talking about religion and there is an obvious danger with stereotyping e.g. “all south Asian people
are Muslim and all practice their religion in the same way”.
Finally, regarding data, it might be a positive step to move forward by setting up targets for
improvement. For instance community profiling and discovering how well the service providers know
the community and needs of the service users. For example there could be an aim to improve the
religious belief data by 10% year on year and improve the way the data is obtained.
4386 words
APPENDIX D- FULL FINDINGS
Communications
Religion is not a homogeneous category – it’s complicated so when you ask people
about religion, people are suspicious about what you want to know
Currently seems like it’s not high on the agenda because such a level has already been
achieved
There are less people to do the work
Resources
Guidance from home office not localised
Language needs looking at ‘extremism’ and its different kinds
A tendency for people not to use resources – go to people from the Equality team if
there’s a specific issue
Guidelines provided are very basic – can’t expect to be prescriptive about it as all
situations different.
Intranet is imminently changing - people do not know how or where to find
information so don’t bother looking for it
Impact assessments should be treated as a “live document: which can be edited as
you’re going along and not just filled out and forgotten about
I have found that there is conflict as to whether training is provided on informing
people on how to give due regard
Money issues - days off for everyone etc and payment for training courses. Would it
even be possible to make the course mandatory?
Hub perhaps not an appropriate group- during the day and therefore only includes
those who aren’t at work- less likely to be able to provide info on issues around work
place etc.
Lots of info on the intranet- maybe not so easy to find?
Hubs- have not yet managed to have a positive impact on services etc. They are great
for debates etc., but not being used as well as they could be? Negative aspects-
sometimes people come to the hub looking to promote their individual agendas so
hard to separate this bias from helpful suggestions?
Knowledge
Stereotyping still present amongst staff knowledge
Not many staff members are equipped to explain why this information is needed to
the customer (in relation to equality monitoring)– lack of training, staff feel it’s an
additional job
Important to know the small but important issues – food issues e.g. vegetarianism,
washing up pots cultural issues
4386 words
Defining religion/belief/culture: hidden danger of boxing the off with this is what so
and so needs. Trying to make people fit into definitions, rather should try to meet
individual needs as much as possible
Legal protection for other characteristics have been around longer so easier to know
the issues around these (people have grown up with these issues) e.g. gender, age,
sexuality
Difficult to produce a good impact assessment without knowledge and understanding
of underlying issues?
Data
When there are cross over issues and grey areas, it can become tricky to separate out
the problems. Sometimes training can only take you so far – something extra needed
(?)
Religion and belief section on equality monitoring sheets sent to the public for
feedback are not very well completed but always asked about. Religion and belief
data is not as apparent/not as much response from the public regarding religion and
belief. 2011 Census results will fill in information about religion. It’s a trend where
age and gender are most likely to be filled out. It is the last one to have come onto the
sheet
Government policy around equality hasn’t been encouraging local authority or local
sector provider to get a more hands on/specific approach
A theme which came up in my interviews is that local authority is good at collecting
information but “poor” at analyzing it
Impact assessment can acknowledge the issue, but sometimes you have to accept the
impact for example can appreciate not everyone is happy with Christmas close down
but in the financial climate etc. sometimes no efficient way to avoid this?
Other
Timings – conflicting amongst religions i.e. closing the library over Christmas to fit in
with Christian faith may have negative impacts on other religions who want to
continue to use the library during this time.
Used to have equality and diversity training for 2 days – was good but in the past 2/3
years been overshadowed
Solutions
Communications
Encouraging confidence among colleagues to talk about religions
4386 words
People on the front line carrying out the services e.g. repair work on homes, should
also know about religion and belief so that they are able to deliver appropriate
services.
Any information used to improve service should be published on intranet – produce a
document explaining, “this is how knowing about religion and belief helped us
improve a service”. So people can see the benefits of giving it due regard
Seems there are 3 things to note
1) if not prioritized, then it gets sidelined
2) if not analysed, it then people think “what’s the point?”
3) if not going to use information to improve services, then no point
Need to be clear about why and how using information about religion and belief
Immediate phone calls to equality team should be phased out – not solving the
problem long term. Picking up the phone seems like it should be a last resort on a
tricky complex issue.
Perhaps the IAs could use more straightforward language? Sometimes it can be a bit
daunting, the wording so careful and specific, perhaps could be broken down?
It seems staff feel comfortable talking about BME (Black and minority ethnic)
community as one community but not about religion as it’s obviously recognised as
several different communities.
Indicate what the forms should be used for/in what situation and how they should be
used to benefit the service users etc
Resources
Hold some seminars? Lunchtime training?
Intranet – information needs to be easier to find
Training needed to better equip staff to know how to find out about religion and belief
and know why the information is important. Finding this information on religion and
belief should not be ignored and should be made mandatory and if a feedback sheet
on a service is left blank regarding religion and belief, this should be followed up.
Guidance needs to be more easy to use
Simple written guide on religions and belief with relevant examples
A simpler Impact assessment guide – a template with notes on each section
Examples of how the facts about religion can be applied to projects and how to give
due regard in impact assessments
Use of equality hubs
Could give examples of a good and bad impact assessment and why so that people
learn what is needed
Guidelines/resources used as a guide but shouldn’t get into the mindset of relying on
them
Knowledge
4386 words
The knowledge of staff needs improving to keep everyone up to date with the issues
My research has found there is a tendency to group protected people into one
stereotype? (eg. All disabled people/ women have the same experience as others). It
seems staff are less certain what they are talking about when talking about religion.
There is an obvious danger in stereotyping e.g. all south Asian people are Muslim and
also practice their religion in exactly the same way.
Data
Maybe targets could be set up: community profiling – how well do the service
providers know the community. For e.g. aim to improve religious belief knowledge
by 10% every year (improve how the data is obtained)
Should be a mandatory part of process when making any changes – strategies/policies
Other
If people on the ground carrying out the work know more about religious background
they may be able to provide a better service – by becoming more sensitive to any
underlying issues
Perhaps there could be some way of helping people deal with the outcomes of
decisions that impact them negatively?