Equality Impact Assessment Template...1. Topic of assessment EIA title: Reward Policies –...

Equality Impact Assessment Template

1. Topic of assessment

EIA title: Reward Policies – Workbased Relocation Grant

EIA author: Julie Smyth

2. Approval

Name Date approved

Approved by1 Ken Akers 17 May 2016

3. Quality control

Version number 4 EIA completed 27 May 2016

Date saved 27 May 2016 EIA published 17 June 2016

4. EIA team

Name Job title (if applicable)

Organisation Role

Julie Smyth HR Manager Reward & Recognition team

Surrey County Council

Pay & Reward specialist

Ken Akers Head of HR & OD Surrey County Council

Project Manager

Debbie Bala HR Project Advisor Surrey County Council

Project Advisor

5. Explaining the matter being assessed

What policy, function or service is being introduced or reviewed?

As part of the on-going improvement and development of our

organisation we are reviewing our pay, reward and benefits for staff.

We have reviewed terms and conditions to make the most of our

investment into benefits, that we spend residents’ money

appropriately to make sure our employment policies provide:

Best financial benefit;

Benefits that are fair and effective; and

Delivery of new ways of working.

This means we are proposing to make changes to some of our

employment practices and policies. Where this has an impact on

1 Refer to earlier guidance for details on getting approval for your EIA.


staff we will do all we can to minimise this.

We will need to increase the threshold for the relocation grant from the current minimum two miles to a new minimum of 20 miles on a round trip to the place of work. In future the relocation grant will be paid for one year. These proposals will affect all non schools staff on main Surrey Pay arrangements and staff who have transferred to the Council Staff will be able to access the policy at all times via the snet portal.

What proposals are you assessing?

As part of improving flexibility and where jobs are relocating we will

continue to provide support with costs of relocation for staff. We need

to make sure that we balance the costs of moving services and

supporting staff.

This means we will need to increase the threshold for the relocation

grant from the current minimum two miles to a new minimum of 20

miles on a round trip to the place of work.

In future the relocation grant will be paid for one year in line with the

period of pay protection staff receive when their role is changed to a

lower grade.

Who is affected by the proposals outlined above?

Group one: non schools staff on main Surrey Pay arrangements All non-schools based Surrey Pay employees whose terms and

conditions of employment are determined by the Council will be

affected by these proposal.

Group two: non schools staff who have transferred to the Council Employees, who have transferred into Surrey County Council and

retain some of their original terms and conditions will be impacted

where the Surrey employment policies are currently applied; this

includes:

Staff in South East Shared Services who transferred from Cerco;

Staff in Adult Social Care and Public Health who transferred from

Public Health; and

Staff in Trading Standards who transferred from Buckinghamshire

County Council.


6. Sources of information

Engagement carried out

Strategic Engagement

Member informal and formal briefings

Presentations to Council Overview Board

Member Briefings

Presentations to Chief Executive Direct Reports

Presentations and workshops with Extended Leadership Team

Presentations and discussions with Directorate Leadership Teams

Presentations and discussions with Senior Management Teams

Union Pay Team Workshops

Staff Engagement Sessions

Reward & Recognition Discussions - conducted in 2014/15

40 Video Presentations and feedback briefings with 600 managers

81 Video presentations and feedback consultation sessions with 3000 staff

186 Team Surveys

1200 inbox messages

Individual briefings provided for:

o Children’s Schools and Families

o Adult Social Care

o Trading Standards

o Surrey Fire & Rescue Service

Staff Engagement Process

3 months notice provided for managers and staff to book on to sessions

Engagement sessions arranged in a variety of accessible locations, meeting specific

requirements accordingly ie additional provision and liaison of interpreter services.

Video of proposals, questions and answers and related page links were provided at

engagement sessions, via SNet and Youtube URL, to give a consistent message and

aid accessibility to staff from any internet connected computer, enabling local screen

magnification or access on home PCs.

SNet pages, staff letters and general communications were developed through close

working with Internal Communications Team, in accordance with the house style.


Staff communications material sense checked with other members of staff to ensure

interpretation for people not as close to the P&R work.

Letters to staff on the consultation of proposals sent in email and paper form as

necessary.

Feedback opportunities - staff with protected characteristics:

Manager briefings and staff consultation sessions

Feedback inbox

Helpdesk HR

Team surveys

One to ones

Attendance percentages of 2968 attendees, 29% of the whole group of 10,293:

Gender: 74% Female, 26% Male

Lower paid: 54%

Data used

Strategic Engagement (Annex 1)

EIA Data – Surrey Pay (Annex 1)

7. Impact of the new/amended policy, service or function


7a. Impact of the proposals on residents and service users with protected characteristics

Protected characteristic2

Potential positive impacts

Potential negative impacts

Evidence

Age None None None

Disability None None None

Gender reassignment

None None None

Pregnancy and maternity

None None None

Race None None None

Religion and belief

None None None

Sex None None None

Sexual orientation

None None None

Marriage and civil partnerships

None None None

Carers None None None

2 More information on the definitions of these groups can be found here.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/protected-characteristics-definitions/


7b. Impact of the proposals on staff with protected characteristics

Protected characteristic

Potential positive impacts Potential negative impacts Evidence

All The minimum mileage threshold is set so that any increase in costs of travel are not likely to be prohibitive for staff continuing to work in their current role.

Increase the threshold for the

relocation grant from the current

minimum two miles to a new

minimum of 20 miles on a round trip

to the place of work.

In future the relocation grant will be

paid for one year in line with the

period of pay protection staff receive

when their role is changed to a lower

grade.

A relatively small number of staff

(295) representing 3% of staff in

scope will receive no increase as

their pay is already at maximum

market rate.


Age Increase the threshold for the









grade.



A relatively small number of staff (295) representing 3% of staff in scope will receive no increase as their pay is already at maximum market rate. Within this relatively small number the

following are negatively impacted:

People aged 45-54 and 55-64,

Whilst there is no ‘positive’ impact in

not increasing pay, it should be noted

that the impact is less when

compared to the whole workforce for:

People aged 25-34

Disability

Gender reassignment

Pregnancy and maternity

Race

Religion and belief

Sex Operate a policy of reasonable adjustments for staff where changes to arrangements will impact individuals.

Increase the threshold for the











grade.

A relatively small number of staff (295) representing 3% of staff in scope will receive no increase as their pay is already at maximum market rate. Within this relatively small number the

following are negatively impacted:

Full time women,

Full time men. Whilst there is no ‘positive’ impact in

not increasing pay, it should be noted

that the impact is less when

compared to the whole workforce for:

Front line staff (graded S1-7),

Part time women.

Sexual orientation

Marriage and civil partnerships

Carers


8. Amendments to the proposals

Change Reason for change

Reduce the threshold for claims from 20 to

10 on a round trip.

Further mitigate any impact of increased

travel costs during a transitional year,

allowing staff time to adjust budgets or

seek another job.

9. Action plan

Potential impact (positive or negative)

Action needed to maximise positive impact or mitigate

negative impact By when Owner

Increase the threshold for

the relocation grant from

the current minimum two

miles to a new minimum of

20 miles on a round trip to

the place of work.

In future the relocation

grant will be paid for one

year in line with the period

of pay protection staff

receive when their role is

changed to a lower grade.

A relatively small number of staff (295) representing 3% of staff in scope will receive no increase as their pay is already at maximum market rate. Therefore any costs incurred from workbased relocation could not be off-set against pay.

Reduce the threshold for claims from 20 to 10 on a round trip.

Completed 20/05/16

KA

10. Potential negative impacts that cannot be mitigated

Potential negative impact Protected characteristic(s)

that could be affected


11. Summary of key impacts and actions

Information and engagement underpinning equalities analysis


Key impacts (positive and/or negative) on people with protected characteristics

A relatively small number of staff (295) representing 3% of

staff in scope will receive no increase as their pay is already

at maximum market rate. Therefore any costs incurred from

workbased relocation could not be off-set against pay.

Changes you have made to the proposal as a result of the EIA


Key mitigating actions planned to address any outstanding negative impacts


Potential negative impacts that cannot be mitigated


Strategic Engagement (Annex 1)

Strategic Engagement Dates

Members briefings

Informal PPDC 20 July 2015 2 November 2015 7 December 2015 11 January 2016 25 February 2016

Formal PPDC 18 December 2014 29 January 2016 19 May 2016

Council Overview Board

Informal COB 16 May 2015 1 October 2015

Formal COB 2 December 2015 28 January 2016

Member Briefings 4 April 2016

27 June 2016

Chief Executive Leadership Team

CEDR 23 June 2015 13 July 2015 30 September 2015 6 October 2015 7 October 2015 12 October 2015 30 October 2015 23 November 2015

Extended Leadership Team

7 December 2015 1 February 2016

Directorate Leadership Teams

Adult Social Care 10 June 2015 7 October 2015

Business Services / Orbis 1 October 2015

Chief Executive Office 17 June 2015 15 July 2015

Children’s, Schools & Families 9 September 2015

Customer & Communities 27 August 2015

Environment & Infrastructure 5 August 2015 25 November 2015

Senior Management Teams

Adult Social Care 15 September 2015

Chief Executive Office 16 July 2015

Children’s, Schools & Families 9 September 2015

Commercial Services 17 September 2015 13 October 2015

Customer & Communities 2 September 2015

Environment & Infrastructure 26 August 2015

Trade Union Engagement

Union Rep Forum 17 April 2015 22 June 2015 24 September 2015 20 November 2015


25 February 2016 21 April 2016

Informal Pay Team 19 February 2015 5 March 2015 19 March 2015 9 April 2015 23 April 2015 7 May 2015 21 May 2015 11 June 2015 27 July 2015 3 September 2015 1 October 2015 15 October 2015 12 November 2015 3 December 2015

Formal Pay Team 17 December 2015 21 January 2016 4 February 2016 18 February 2016 3 March 2016 18 March 2016 1 April 2016 8 April 2016 15 April 2016 22 April 2016 29 April 2016 6 May 2016 13 May 2016 20 May 2016



Protected

characteristicCategory

Headcount of

Impact Group

% of Impact

Group

Headcount of

SCC

Workforce

% of SCC

workforce

16-24 270 3% 532 5%

25-34 1410 18% 1896 18%

35-44 1918 24% 2574 24%

45-54 2426 31% 3261 30%

55-64 1632 21% 2116 20%

65-74 226 3% 403 4%

75+ 7 0% 42 0%

Yes 333 4% unknown unknown

Unknown 7556 96% unknown unknown

Ethnicity BME Headcount 740 9% 822 8%

Female 6191 78% 7960 74%

Male 1698 22% 2864 26%

Front Line Staff (S1-7) 4811 61% 6657 62%

Team Leaders (S8-9) 1452 18% 2300 21%

Middle Mgr (S10-12) 1310 17% 1522 14%

Senior Mgr (S13+) 316 4% 345 3%

Any other religion 23 0% 38 0%

Buddhist 51 1% 55 1%

Christian - all faiths 2573 33% 3145 29%

Hindu 57 1% 67 1%

Jewish 11 0% 13 0%

Muslim 415 5% 113 1%

No Faith / Religion 1889 24% 2251 21%

Sikh 6 0% 8 0%

Not Stated 2863 36% 5130 47%

FT Female 2782 35% 3037 28%

PT Female 3409 43% 4923 45%

FT Male 1415 18% 2006 19%

PT Male 283 4% 858 8%

Divorced 390 5% Unknown Unknown

Married 3940 50% Unknown Unknown

Partnered 210 3% Unknown Unknown

Separated 149 2% Unknown Unknown

Single 2319 29% Unknown Unknown

Widowed 40 1% Unknown Unknown

Unknown 841 11% Unknown Unknown

Bisexual 31 0% 53 0%

Gay Man 27 0% 41 0%

Heterosexual 3499 44% 4947 46%

Lesbian 19 0% 31 0%

Prefer Not To Say 1516 19% 2573 24%

Unknown 2797 35% 3179 29%

Total headcount 7889 10824

Gender

Pay Proposals - Equality Impact Analysis (all staff affected by proposals as @ 1.10.2015)

Age

Disability*

Pay

Religion

Working hours

* Current anomaly in the countywide report of disability which is under investigation

Marital status

Orientation

Equality Impact Assessment Template...1. Topic of assessment EIA title: Reward Policies –...

Documents

Transcript of Equality Impact Assessment Template...1. Topic of assessment EIA title: Reward Policies –...