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?