Equality Impact Assessment - Capability Procedure

• Home
• Your Council
• Equalities
• Equality Impact Assessments
• Equality Impact Assessments - Chief Executives Directorate
• Equality Impact Assessment - Capability Procedure

Function being assessed:

Capability Procedure

Is this a new function or a review of an existing function?

Review of an Existing Function. This procedure is an existing procedure which has been in place for a number of years known as RBK’s Procedures for dealing with Problems at work involving Conduct and Capability.

What are the aims/purpose of the function?

The aim of the procedure is to give managers a framework of how to manage matters relating to employees capability to perform in their role. The procedure covers matters relating to ill-health and performance and it aims to treat all employees in a fair and consistent manner.  

Is the function designed to meet specific needs such as the needs of minority ethnic groups, older people, disabled people etc?

The Procedure is designed to meet the needs of all RBK employees. It does not apply to service users. It is not specifically designed to meet the needs of particular groups however reasonable adjustments within the procedure would be made for example being flexible when arranging times and locations of hearings. In addition, any requests for specialist equipment will be accommodated where practical.

What information has been gathered on this function? (Indicate the type of information gathered e.g. statistics, consultation, other monitoring information)? Attach a summary or refer to where the evidence can be found.

Statistics:

Cases dealt with under the Capability Procedure are recorded on a spreadsheet on an annual basis. Each spreadsheet shows cases from April to March each year and includes information on whether the case was handled at an informal or formal level. It also lists the outcome of the case, what sanction was imposed, whether or not the employee appealed against the decision, and information on the 6 equality strands (where available on the employee’s personal record).

The data is split by department and directorate and the total number of cases are recorded in the annual HR Team Plan. Numbers of cases are at a sufficient level for effective conclusions to be drawn in relation to gender, age and ethnic origin however the number of staff subject to the capability procedure represents on average only 1% of the workforce, so caution must be taken when considering the breakdown of this group of staff and comparisons to the overall RBK workforce. In relation to disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief, recorded data is very limited and so no effective conclusions can be drawn on these strands, however they will continue to be monitored and it is hoped that the data check which took place in late 2009 will allow more data to be collected on these strands which could improve future analysis.

Consultation & Training:

The Capability Procedure is outlined in the new managers induction which takes place twice a year, depending on recruitment of new managers. These sessions are supported by two hourly briefings sessions for middle managers which are held twice a year. The sessions cover how and when the procedure should be used and explain the distinction between the capability procedure and the disciplinary procedure. The procedure if available on the RBK intranet for staff and managers to view and managers are asked to distribute paper copies of the procedure for those staff who do not have regular access to the intranet.  

In addition to middle managers training, where particular departments or types of workers are identified as higher involvement in capability cases, targeted training sessions will be run in order to enable managers in these areas to identify where capability matters may occur and deal with these in these in accordance with the Capability Procedure.

Does your analysis of the information show different outcomes for different groups (higher or lower uptake/failure to access/receive a poorer or inferior service)? If yes, indicate which groups and which aspects of the policy or function contribute to inequality?

Age:

07/08                  25-39 10%, 40-49 35%, 50-64 48% (6% unknown)

08/09                  25-39 22%, 40-49 22%, 50-64 44% (6% unknown)

RBK Workforce: 25-39 25%, 40-49 26%, 50-64 41%

Gender:

07/08 61% Female, 39% Male, 08/09 39% Female, 55% Male, 6% Unknown. Data from these two years shows a higher representation of males involved in the capability procedure compared to their representation in RBK overall (21%).

Ethnic Origin:

From 2008/9: 6% ethnic origin unknown, 33% BME groups, 61% non-BME groups. From 2007/08: 29% BME, 71% Non-BME. Data from the last two years shows a higher representation of BME staff involved in the Capability Procedure than the BME representation in the RBK workforce (15%).

Are these differences justified (e.g. are there legislative or other constraints)? If they are, explain in what way.

Age: 44% of Capability cases are related to ill-health and of these, 75% employees are in the 50-64 age band. Higher representation in the 50-64 age band could be due to the Capability cases which involve ill-health. It could be the case that older employees experience longer term health problems which could then led to action under the capability procedure if the problems prevent them from carrying out the duties of their post where adjustments cannot be made or do not suffice for the nature of the health problem. However, further analysis of the reason for capability action will need to be undertaken to investigate the cause for higher representation in this age category.

Gender: It is unclear why males are more highly represented in Capability cases than in the overall RBK workforce. The 08/09 cases show The only directorate where males have a higher representation than females within the overall workforce is Environmental Services (63% males), however no cases in Environmental Services occurred in 2007/8 and only 6% of cases from 08/09 were based in Environmental Services so this does not account for the higher male representation in cases.

In order to investigate why this higher male representation occurs, further monitoring and analyses across the 5 strands in comparison to gender, and their comparisons to the overall RBK workforce, will need to be undertaken. This could highlight pockets of higher male representation in the workforce and give an insight into why those types of job may be subject to more performance or ill-health issues.

Ethnic Origin:

On average 55% of Capability cases occur within the Community Services Directorate, the directorate with the highest BME staff representation (17.5%) which could go someway in explaining the higher representation of BME staff in Capability cases, however it does not fully explain why the BME representation is on average 31% in capability cases so further analysis looking into the specific reasons of capability action and analysing the cases across the other 5 strands is necessary.

Community Services Staff:

As stated above, the Community Services directorate have the highest representation of staff involved in Capability cases. This high representation could be explained by the fact that Community Services have the largest number of staff (44% of all staff are in Community Services) so we would expect a higher representation in cases. In addition to this it has been identified that a number of ill-health capability cases occur within Community Care Services in relation to back conditions of carers which due to the nature of the work, often result in action under the capability procedure.

What action needs to be taken as a result of this Equality Impact Assessment to address any detrimental impacts or meet previously unidentified need? Include here any reasonable adjustments for access by disabled people. Include dates by which action will be taken. Attach an action plan if necessary.

See above for details of further analysis.

When will you evaluate the impact of action taken? Give review dates.

Data will be recorded over the next year and this will be analysed and compared to previous years in February 2010

Assessment completed by:

Helen Burman, HR Assistant

Human Resources

March 2009