Identifying negative impacts
Ask the following questions to help identify potential negative impacts, implications or considerations. Not all will be relevant to every EIA, and there may well be other types of negative impacts that you identify
-
Is a group being treated less favourably?
-
Is a group being placed at a disadvantage?
-
Is a group(s) being impacted (negatively) more than others?
-
Are reasonable adjustments for disabled people being accommodated?
-
Are barriers to access and participation being created?
-
Are poorer experiences or outcomes likely?
Is a group being treated less favourably?
Consider whether the policy / process / activity treats (or could treat) someone worse than others because of their protected (or other) characteristic. If a student, colleague or service user is treated less favourably than others because of a protected characteristic, they are being directly discriminated against.
Consider not only whether the policy / process / activity itself treats a group less favourably, but also whether there is a risk of this occurring during its implementation (e.g. due to lack of understanding or bias/prejudice among those implementing it).
Identify any key decision-making or interaction points where biases could influence what happens and potentially lead to discrimination.
|
Under certain circumstances, it is within the law to treat a group less favourably:
|
Is a group being placed at a disadvantage?
Indirect discrimination occurs when there is a policy / process / activity / decision which applies to everyone in the same way, but has a worse effect on some people than others (i.e. it inadvertently puts someone at a disadvantage because of their protected characteristic/s). Consider whether any requirements, rules or conditions might be more difficult for someone to meet because of their protected (or other) characteristic, or whether any arrangements relating to the policy, process or activity might put someone at a disadvantage because of their protected (or other) characteristic.
| Indirect discrimination can be objectively justified in limited circumstances when the provision, criterion or practice is shown to be a ‘proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim’. In the context of higher education this may include ensuring the health and safety and welfare of students or colleagues, as well as maintaining academic and other standards. |
Is a group being impacted (negatively) more than others?
Consider whether what you are planning, or reviewing, will affect (or has affected) one group more than others in a negative way. You will need some idea of the population that is impacted in terms of protected (or other) characteristics, and how this compares with the wider student or colleague population across the University.
Are reasonable adjustments for disabled people being accommodated?
The University has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled colleagues, students and service users, to enable them to participate fully in work, education and our services. Adjustments can be made in different ways:
- Changing the way things are done (e.g. ensuring hearing loops are available; providing teaching materials in alternative formats)
- Making changes to the physical environment (e.g. providing inclusive access to buildings; providing access to quiet spaces)
- Providing auxiliary aids and services (e.g. assistive software for an employee/student with a visual impairment).
This duty is anticipatory – we have to think ahead, plan and act in advance, as far as we reasonably can, to meet the requirements of disabled students, colleagues and services users.
You should also consider if, through implementation of the policy / process / activity / change, reasonable adjustments for individuals impacted need to be reassessed. It may be necessary to provide colleagues or students with the opportunity to inform the University of a disability as part of the new/revised policy / process / activity / change.
Are barriers to access and participation being created?
Consider whether people sharing a characteristic may require different provisions or approaches in order to participate, access or benefit from what you are planning. Identify whether there is evidence of lower participation, uptake or usage of what you are considering by different groups, which may suggest barriers to access and participation. For example, underrepresentation in areas of employment, areas of study, or lower uptake of a policy or service. Additionally, think about whether there any reasons why some colleagues or students may not take advantage of what is offered/proposed, and whether this may be relevant to any groups more than others.
Are poorer experiences or outcomes likely?
If there is evidence of a group having an experience that is worse than other groups’ or worse outcomes than others, this indicates that there are factors that are negatively impacting them. These factors will often be multi-factorial and complex and not just related to what you are looking at through the EIA. However, there may be aspects of what you are looking at that can be linked to these experiences or outcomes and changes or adjustments that can be made that could make a difference.
