equality & diversity: a case study – rotherham mbc zafar saleem

ProudSafeAliveAchievingLearning

Equality & Diversity: A Case Study – Rotherham MBC

Zafar Saleem

Community Engagement & Cohesion Manager

Derby Equality & Diversity Network


Introduction 1. Rotherham – The Borough context

2. Weakness

3. Solutions

4. Current performance

5. The future


Rotherham - Context


Rotherham in Context • Metropolitan borough in the South Yorkshire conurbation,

adjoining Sheffield, Barnsley and Doncaster

• 285 square kilometres

• Over 50% rural

• 253,000 population

• 13400 employees

• Economic transformation

• Unemployment 3.22% (2.99% nationally)


Rotherham in Context • BME population – 5.2%• Disabled people – 22.4%• Women in Rotherham earn £40 per week less

than national average for women • Very small recognisable LGBT community• Gypsy & Traveller• Older People – 34% of population age 50+• Diverse religious community• Migrants workers- growing (2000+ Roma)


Non-white ethnic Non-white ethnic minority : 3.1%minority : 3.1%

Population: 250,000Population: 250,000

The largest n/w The largest n/w ethnic group is ethnic group is Pakistani: 1.9%Pakistani: 1.9%

Asylum Seekers: 751Asylum Seekers: 751

50 different countries 50 different countries

Iranian Community Iranian Community

88%n/w/e below 5088%n/w/e below 50

37% children (0-15)37% children (0-15)

52% is inactive 52% is inactive

Disabled in Disabled in community :18.86%community :18.86%

LGBTLGBT

70% Rural70% Rural

Main Languages Spoken: English, Urdu, Main Languages Spoken: English, Urdu, Arabic, French Arabic, French

unemployment rate: unemployment rate: 3.75%3.75%

Disabled employees: Disabled employees:

2.06%2.06%

Rotherham in Context


Weaknesses

- Our starting point


“At the time of the Corporate Governance Inspection there was evidence of green shoots of improvement. The Council started from a low base, much still remains to be done and some hard

decisions need to be taken”Corporate Governance Inspection Report – March 2002

• Council vision unclear with no strategic direction

• Lack of confident corporate management team

• Mixed quality service management teams

• Limited performance management arrangements

• Council operated in silos

• Weak – Benefits, Public Housing Stock, Access, Education, Governance

• CPA position December 2002/03 – Weak


Equality & Diversity – where we started • Lacked strategic direction• Few resources• Application: ad hoc, no corporate or systematic

approach• Initiatives piecemeal and non-sustainable• No impact on organisation or externally

(community/partners)• Non-compliant (RES not implemented; reserved

BVPIs; ESLG (Level 0); work mainly employment focussed


Solutions


What did we do?• Leadership and commitment• Challenge• Focus on priorities

– (outcome based approach)• Capacity building• Partnership working• Embedding performance management culture –

accountability• Celebrating success


Leadership and commitment• Full commitment of Leader and Chief Executive• Cabinet lead for community cohesion and

equalities• Strong Local Strategic Partnership (LSP)• Reporting mechanisms

– Corporate Management Team– Cabinet– Democratic Renewal Scrutiny Panel– Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee


Challenge• Accelerated targets

(Equality Framework for Local Government)

• Self Assessment

• Role of Scrutiny

• Performance clinics

• Corporate Equality and Diversity Strategy Group


Focus on priorities• Community Strategy published 2005

- 5 key themes and 2 cross cutting themes

• Equality agenda based on legal, national and local priorities

• Engagement with stakeholders and communities of interest

• Promotion of vision – Faces of Rotherham campaign


Capacity Building - Internal• 700+ managers attended workshops in year 1• Briefings to all employees• Member Development Programme• Reviewed and restructured Corporate Equality Strategy Group• Equality Champions and Directorate Coordinators• 215 employees trained on equality impact assessment• Corporate support through policy development, processes,

guidance and toolkits.• Workforce planning• Equality and diversity competencies for

all employees (PDR)• Community of interest networks and support


Capacity Building - External

• LGBT community groups

• RCM & Inter-Faith network

• Diverse BME sector

• Anchor groups (VAR, REMA, RWN)

• Voice & Influence (YP)

• Organisations of Disabled People

• Effective & Committed LSP


Partnership working• Local Strategic Partnership• Shared vision – equality and fairness built into all

strategies and policies (Community Strategy, NRS etc)

• Joint working with partner agencies and voluntary community sector– Examples of partnership working:– Community Cohesion Group– Rotherham Ethnic Minorities Alliance– Women’s Strategy Group– Mosque Liaison Group


Performance Management Culture• Raised profile (equality targets

adopted as CX commitments)• Clear roles and accountability• Best practice• Service Planning Framework• Performance Management Framework• Robust performance information,

monitoring, research• External audit• Focus on positives


Achievements

“ To stop a decline is impressive. To reverse it within just a few years and climb towards the top of the ladder is altogether a different achievement,

but that is just what Rotherham MBC has done”

IDeA


E&D Achievement• First council or public body of any size to

be recognised as achieving “excellence” under the Equality Framework for Local Government

• Level 0 (2004) to Excellent (2009)


What Still Needs ToBe Done …….

• EFLG improvement plan implementation• EA 2010 • Staying relevant?

– Big Society – Localism Bill– New language: integration, fairness, equity

• Challenge to do more for less/CSR• Place based budgets: Borough wide integration with

PCT and SYP via Community Strategy and LSP• Community Cohesion • Development of communities of interest/place


Thank You For Listening

equality & diversity: a case study – rotherham mbc zafar saleem

Documents

diversity strategy groupfocus

community cohesion

weakequality diversity

disabled people

context bme population

local prioritiesengagement

prioritiescommunity

population age