Race Equality Audit
2
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
2
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
Race equality audit Background The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 requires all public bodies to publish three pieces of information regarding race equality: 1. The Race Equality Scheme. The Act required public authorities to publish their first Race stEquality Scheme by May 31 2002, and to review it within three years. 2. Employment monitoring statistics relating to race equality. 3. Outcomes of race equality impact assessments – these are required to be published as they are completed. Method A web-based audit of the websites of all trusts’ was undertaken. Where the documents were not identified within 30 minutes, the trust was recorded as not meeting requirements. The web-based audit assumes that if a trust has published the documents, they will be accessible on the trust’s website as a minimum. There are situations where the trust may have met the requirement to publish without it being available on the website. For example, they may have published the document in hard copy only, distributed copies to local patient, community and voluntary groups or it may be mentioned on the website and available on request. The initial audit consisted of a pilot phase of 10% of trusts. Using the web-based approach, where a trust was identified as not meeting requirements in any of the three requirements, the results were passed onto regional staff for validation. In each of the three publication requirements, regional follow ...
Voir
Publié par
Langue
English
Race equality audit
Background
The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 requires all public bodies to publish three pieces
of information regarding race equality:
1. The Race Equality Scheme. The Act required public authorities to publish their first Race
Equality Scheme by May 31
st
2002, and to review it within three years.
2. Employment monitoring statistics relating to race equality.
3. Outcomes of race equality impact assessments – these are required to be published as
they are completed.
Method
A web-based audit of the websites of all trusts’ was undertaken.
Where the documents were
not identified within 30 minutes, the trust was recorded as not meeting requirements.
The web-based audit assumes that if a trust has published the documents, they will be
accessible on the trust’s website as a minimum.
There are situations where the trust may have met the requirement to publish without it being
available on the website.
For example, they may have published the document in hard copy
only, distributed copies to local patient, community and voluntary groups or it may be
mentioned on the website and available on request.
The initial audit consisted of a pilot phase of 10% of trusts.
Using the web-based approach,
where a trust was identified as not meeting requirements in any of the three requirements, the
results were passed onto regional staff for validation.
In each of the three publication
requirements, regional follow up led to 1.8% results being amended.
The small margin of
error indicated that a web-based audit is a sufficiently robust methodology for the purposes of
this audit.
Furthermore, the original assumption that publication involves the document /
information being accessible on the website is validated by the result that no trusts reported
publication (and distribution or promotion) in hard copy during regional follow up.
That is, in
all cases where the result was changed to positive after follow up, a hyperlink was provided to
demonstrate that this is has been published on the website.
The following results provide a ‘snap shot’ of the position among trusts in England as at
March 24
th
2006.
It is possible that since this date, more trusts have published the Race
Equality Scheme, employment monitoring statistics on race equality and outcomes of race
equality impact assessments in some cases, prompted by the regional follow up undertaken
as part of the pilot phase or of the audit itself.
The scope of this report is quantitative analysis of trusts compliance; it should be noted that
the audit did not involve any qualitative analysis of the documentation.
Please turn over
Summary of results
1. Overall
Percentage of trusts
that have published a
current Race Equality
Scheme (2005-2008)
Percentage of trusts
that have published
employment
monitoring statistics by
ethnic groups in last 18
months
Percentage of trusts
that have published
the outcomes of race
equality impact
assessments
60%
6%
2%
•
One per cent (7/570) of trusts have fully met the Act’s publication requirements (have
published a current Race Equality Scheme, employment monitoring statistics by ethnic
group and outcomes of race equality impact assessments). The seven trusts consist of:
o
four PCTs
o
one mental health trusts
o
one acute trust
o
one ambulance trust
•
Six per cent (35/570) have met two of the three requirements, i.e. publication of a current
Race Equality Scheme and employment monitoring statistics by ethnic groups.
2. By region
Breakdown
Percentage of trusts
that have published a
current Race Equality
Scheme (2005-2008)
Percentage of trusts
that have published
employment
monitoring statistics by
ethnic groups in last 18
months
Percentage of trusts
that have published
the outcomes of race
equality impact
assessments
Overall
60%
6%
2%
North (172)
55%
6%
1%
London and South
East (120)
73%
14%
2%
Central (173)
54%
5%
2%
South West (105)
63%
2%
2%
3. By sector
Breakdown
Percentage of trusts
that have published a
current Race Equality
Scheme (2005-2008)
Percentage of trusts
that have published
employment
monitoring statistics by
ethnic groups in last 18
months
Percentage of trusts
that have published
the outcomes of race
equality impact
assessments
Overall
60%
6%
2%
Acute (173)
48%
6%
1%
Mental health (61)
61%
10%
2%
Ambulance(30)
57%
10%
3%
Learning
disability(3)
33%
33%
0%
Primary care (303) 67%
5%
2%
