TARGET STAFF / ALL STAFF
START DATE / 14th APRIL 2011/12
Responsible Manager’s / Mark Playford and Gary Leaver
SOURCE DOCUMENTS / PSI 32/2011 ENSURING EQUALITY
DESIRED OUTCOMES / To ensure that we meet our moral duty and legal obligations to provide a fair service to all.
This document sets out Rochester’s Local Operating Policy and lists some key mandatory actions designed to ensure legal compliance. Further specific guidance and tools, can be found on the Equalities Group intranet site.
“Two important things are to have a genuine interest in people and to be kind to them. Kindness I have discovered, is everything” – Isaac Bashevis Singer
“Equality is achieved when we treat everyone fairly”
- Mick Baughan- Winston Archibald- Gary Leaver-
CONTENTS
PAGE NUMBER / SECTION / TITLE1 / Cover front page
2 and 3 / Contents
4 / Rochester Equalities Policy Statement
5 / 1 / Mandatory Actions
2 / Senior Managers
6 / 3 / All Managers
4 / Monitoring
7 / 5 / Equality Impact Assessments
8 / 6 / Sensitive and Confidential Handling of Personal Data
7 / Analysis of Monitoring Data
9 / 8 / Publication of Monitoring Data
9 / Process
10 / Sign Off
10 / 11 / Publication
12 / Review
13 / Discrimination Incident Reporting
11 / 13 / Discrimination Incident Reporting
12 / 14 / Procurement and Partnerships
15 / Legal Responsibilities
13 / 16 / Protected Characteristics
14 / 17 / Prohibited Conduct
18 / Direct Discrimination
19 / Indirect Discrimination
20 / Discrimination Arising from Disability
21 / Harassment
22 / Victimisation
15 / 23 / Duties
24 / Foster Good Relationships
25 / Management Information
16 / 26 / Performance Management
27 / Measuring the Quality of Prison Life Reports
28 / Incident Data
29 / HMCIP Reports
30 / IMB Reports
31 / Prisoner and Stakeholder Consultation Involvement
17 / 32 / Protection of Victims and Reporters of Incidents
33 / Senior Management Sign Off and Quality Control
34 / Management Information DIRF Log
35 / Prisoner Appeals
36 / Timeliness
37 / Prisoner Confidence
38 / Reasonable Adjustments
18 / 39 / How do we decide what is reasonable
40 / What level of cost should we bear?
19 / 41 / Where should we locate the prisoner?
42 / Ensuring access for all prisoners
43 / Who can provide advice?
20 / 44 / Learning Disabilities
21 / 45 / Incentives and Earned Privileges
22 / 46 / Employment
47 / Regime
48 / Further Information
49 / Summary of Key Changes from the previous LOP
50 / PSO2800
23 / 51 / PSO2855
52 / Stage 1 Initial Screening
24 / 53 / Aims
54 / Effects
55 / Evidence
56 / Stakeholders and Feedback
25 / 57 / Impact
58 / Local Discretion
59 / Summary of relevance to equalities issues
26 / 60 / Monitoring and Review Arrangements
27 / 61 / We are all equal
Governor John Wilson…………………..
Date 14th April 2011
“Equality is achieved when we treat everyone fairly”
Rochester Equalities Policy Statement
Rochester is committed to fairness for all. We endeavour to treat all people properly and ensure equality of opportunity.
We will deliver our services fairly and respond to individual needs. We insist on respectful and decent behaviour from staff, offenders, visitors and others with whom we work, and may come into contact with.
We recognise that discrimination, harassment and bullying can nevertheless occur and we will take prompt and appropriate action whenever we discover them.
All members of staff must work and behave in a way that is consistent with the equality policy statement and our legal responsibilities to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality and good relations.
All staff are expected to meet high standards of professional and personal conduct, and this includes complying with the legal responsibilities in the equalities legislation. As well as refraining from discrimination, harassment and victimisation, these include actively promoting equality. All staff are personally responsible for their conduct in this area and failure to maintain the required standards can lead to action, which may result in dismissal from the Service.
The desired outcomes are to ensure that we meet our moral duty and legal obligations to provide a fair service to all.
All staff must read and follow sections of this policy as required, and should refer to PSI 32/2011.
All staff, offenders and visitors must adhere to the standards of behaviour set out in this Instruction and follow the mandatory requirements of the policy.
Signed
The Governor John Wilson
1. Mandatory Actions
Governors must ensure that all staff are made aware of this Instruction. All staff must adhere to the standards of behaviour set out in this Instruction and follow the mandatory requirements of PSI 32/2011.
The mandatory actions are designed to ensure the following:
2. Senior Managers
Senior Management must demonstrate personal leadership especially by The Governor, supported by a functional head with lead responsibility for co-ordinating work on equalities issues. Governors must ensure that staff and prisoners are aware of the identities of the functional head with lead responsibility for equalities issues and any other staff with specific responsibilities in this area.
The Governor must ensure that management information on equalities issues in service delivery is analysed, and that an annual equality action plan is produced and published. Responsibility for actions on the plan must be clear and managers and staff must be held to account for progress through relevant management checks.
Progress must be tracked and an update report must be submitted regularly (at a frequency to be determined by the Governor based on an assessment of risk) for discussion by the Senior Management Team, copied to the Deputy Director of Custody, and published.
Governors must ensure that prisoners and other stakeholders, particularly those from minority groups, are consulted and involved appropriately in the management of equalities issues.
Prisoners will be sensitively encouraged to disclose their disabilities, with reasonable adjustments made and recorded. Disabled prisoners will be located appropriately. Courts and escort contractors informed of disabled prisoners’ needs as appropriate.
Senior Managers must ensure that efforts are made to identify whether a prisoner has a mental or physical impairment of any form. Senior Managers must ensure that prisoners are encouraged to disclose their disability status and that procedures are in place to record this information (both on reception and subsequently) and to treat it confidentially. Not all prisoners will be aware of their disabled status and staff must be proactive in identifying the specific needs of all prisoners.
Senior Managers must consider on an ongoing basis what prisoners and visitors with a range of disabilities might reasonably need and ensure that reasonable adjustments are made for disabled prisoners and visitors.
Senior Managers must consider whether prison policies and practices, the built environment, or a lack of auxiliary aids and services could put a disabled prisoner or visitor at a substantial disadvantage and if so must make reasonable adjustments to avoid the disadvantage. If a request for reasonable adjustments is made by a prisoner or visitor it must be considered and the outcome documented.
Senior Managers must ensure that where it is not possible to make the reasonable adjustments required the prisoner is transferred to another appropriate establishment. Where there is a dispute between prisons about where a disabled prisoner is best located, the Deputy Director of Custody must be contacted.
The transfer of a disabled prisoner must not be delayed or prevented on the basis of their disability (unless the proposed receiving establishment cannot provide appropriate facilities).
Governors must ensure that where a disabled prisoner is required at court, the escort Contractor and Clerk of Court are informed of the details of the disability and the needs of the prisoner.
3. All Managers
All managers must take personal responsibility for equalities issues within their areas. An annual local equality action plan based on relevant management information, discussed regularly by the SMT, with managers and staff held to account for progress.
4. Monitoring
Equality monitoring information on all prisoners is collected, recorded, with service provision monitored. This monitoring data is published. Any additional monitoring should be in proportion to the risks identified and the outcomes and characteristics monitored should be kept under regular review.
Data is collected and used to drive action. This includes the mandatory SMART II data on race equality and locally prioritised data collection on other areas and other protected characteristics using the local section of SMART II and the Equality Monitoring Tool (Short-term).
Monitoring involves collating information is the process of collecting, storing, and analysing equalities data about prisoners. This section provides an outline of how it is done and signposts a series of other guidance documents available on the Equalities Group intranet site or from
Monitoring is a key way of ensuring that Rochester staff are meeting their legal duties to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality, and demonstrating that they do so. It allows the identification of patterns of disproportionality in outcomes between different groups of prisoners, which can be explored and either explained or tackled appropriately. It also provides evidence to inform the impact assessment process.
By making monitoring data available to staff, prisoners and other stakeholders we ensure that our service delivery is transparent and that unfounded perceptions of unfairness can be challenged.
5. Equality Impact Assessments
Establishment Equality Impact Assessments is the process that is used to identify and manage risk around equalities issues locally. They can helpfully be seen as a type of investigation – a way of finding out the cause of an equalities issue (e.g. disproportionality in monitoring data results or prisoner perceptions of discrimination in the operation of a policy or function) and putting in place actions to address it.
EIAs must be completed to a satisfactory standard in accordance with an annual EIA programme, devised through a risk prioritisation process. Our equality impact assessments are part of a process that is used to identify and manage risk around equalities issues at Rochester.
The annual EIA programme should include a description of the process that was used to prioritise areas for impact assessment. This process should be based on all relevant local management information and informed by national data and guidance; include consideration of the risks faced by the establishment with regard to each of the equalities issues; and involve full consultation with stakeholders, including prisoners.
There should be flexibility to make changes to the programme and/or to conduct additional impact assessments as and when new risks are identified.
The Governor must use a risk identification and prioritisation process to devise an annual Rochester EIA programme. This programme must be agreed with the relevant senior manager above establishment level and copy of it must be sent to the Equalities Group.
The Governor must ensure that EIAs are completed in accordance with the programme, to a satisfactory standard using the NOMS service delivery EIA template or NEAT tool, made available at Rochester and sent to Equalities Group (for publication).
EIAs may be completed using the NOMS Equality impact Assessment Tool (NEAT), or the delivery unit EIA template, both of which are available on the Equalities Group intranet site or from NEAT provides a way of working through and recording each step of the process, whereas the EIA template is designed simply to capture the key information in a shorter document. Each is supported by comprehensive guidance.
Each EIA on the programme should be commissioned by an SMT member. This can be done using the ‘Commission an EIA report’ section of NEAT or by completing the first page of the EIA template. This stage is designed to ensure that the EIA focuses on the risks identified.
6. Sensitive and Confidential Handling of Personal Data
All staff responsible for collecting, handling and publishing personal data should be aware of their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act. Such data will usually constitute sensitive personal data and should be handled fairly and lawfully. Offenders should be informed of the reasons for the collection of personal information relating to them and assured that it will not be misused. The data should generally not be published except in an anonymised format. For more information on the Data Protection Act and NOMS policy see PSO 9020.
The characteristics Monitoring data is collected from prisoners and recorded on the NOMIS system on:
· Age;
· Disability;
· Gender;
· Race;
· Religion and belief;
· Sexual Orientation.
The general principle is that prisoners should be asked for this information. Where information is already available to staff with responsibility for collecting it, prisoners should be asked to check that it is accurate.
Monitoring of some outcomes using the SMART tool is mandatory.
Decisions about additional monitoring will be taken by identifying and prioritising risks around equalities issues at Rochester. A process similar (and parallel) to that used for identifying and prioritising EIAs should be used. Bringing together the outcome of consultation with prisoners (and particularly those who are members of protected groups) and other evidence of actual or potential discrimination, the key risks to Rochester will be identified and prioritised. Monitoring of identified outcomes according to the relevant protected characteristics will be put in place in proportion to the risks identified.
The outcomes monitored will be kept under regular review, and should reflect the current level of risk.
Monitoring outcomes will be conducted using the tools provided. Rochester’s monitoring pages of SMART for functions monitored by race on a monthly basis, and the Equality Monitoring Tool (short-term) for functions monitored by race over other time periods and by other characteristics.
7. Analysis of monitoring data
Monitoring data is examined regularly for evidence of disproportionality.
At Rochester we are committed to fairness. Disproportionality occurs when protected groups are under or over represented in a particular function or area; for example, if the data shows that our IEP scheme consistently denies certain privileges to particular protected groups. This does not establish that unfairness is occurring - it is possible that disproportionality represents fair outcomes: for example, there may be differences in the level of need between different groups - but it is a prompt for further investigation.