Equity
If inclusion is a set of actions and behaviours to enable diversity to function for under-represented populations, then equity is a justice-based approach to diversity and inclusion.
At its core, equity is about treating people in a just way – not necessarily all in the same way – in order to secure good outcomes for all people (Cipriani, 2020). More specifically, it has three elements.
First, equity is an analytical framework. It sees people and certain population groups as differently situated in society. For example, in a system where ‘race’ actively shapes the kinds of lives that BAME people can lead, it tends to result in disparities in terms of access to and outcomes in important aspects of life, e.g. health, education, employment, criminal justice etc. And an equity-informed analysis is attentive to the ways in which systems, institutions and individuals enable and deliver these detrimental outcomes.
Second, equity is a way to think about corrective action. It suggests that, as people and certain populations are differently located in society, we cannot secure justice by trying to treat people the same, e.g. using ‘equal opportunities’ in a recruitment process. Equal opportunities will tend to ignore the social context that may have shaped BAME lives in the moments up to recruitment – including the effects of past discrimination.
We pick up on equity-informed alternatives to equal opportunities below.
Third, race equity is for thinking about outcomes for BAME people. Specifically, the logic of equity-thinking is that there must be enhanced outcomes for BAME populations, to end racial disparities so that ‘race’ no longer affects how people are situated in collective life.
Therefore, the idea of equity is important and necessary. But, as with the earlier discussion on terms such as ‘BAME’ and ‘diversity’, above all we want to be principled on outcomes and practical on language. Many advocates working with/for/from BAME populations prefer terms other than ‘racial equity’ to describe their work. These might include ‘racial justice’, ‘anti-racism’ or ‘race equality’. In addition, ‘equity’ is language from the US and may not be quite right for the UK context. However, we use the term ‘equity’ for the rest of the report to highlight how BAME people are situated in society and that greater racial diversity in the charity sector cannot be delivered simply by adding equal opportunities into the mix – not when social circumstances so profoundly shape outcomes.
What equity means in practice
Equal opportunities means trying to provide a candidate or prospective candidate with a ‘fair shot’ at the position they want (EHRC, 2016c). In practice this might mean ensuring that as many people as possible know about the position; that the selection criteria are role-relevant; and that a selection panel is itself ‘diverse’.
Under equal opportunities, individual candidates are compared at a moment in time, with the ‘winner’ being the person deemed the ‘best fit’ against the job description and person specification. This approach treats people in the same way at the point of decision-making. Equal opportunities work in a system untainted by racism, but not in a context where the evidence shows that employers, as a whole, discriminate in favour of white British job applicants and against BAME candidates.10 Even if employers were treating people in the same way, equal opportunity approaches ignore the ways in which ‘race’ may have shaped BAME lives in the moments up to recruitment – including the effects of past, even intergenerational discrimination. Equal opportunities recruitment processes will, relatively speaking, tend to favour well-positioned (male, heterosexual, middle- and upper-class) white candidates whose lives have been largely unimpeded by discrimination.
One interviewee explained the limits of equal opportunities in the following way:
I’ve never understood what it [equal opportunity] means. So, you’re going to give these middle-class white folks who have had all the privilege, the same as you’re going to give me who’s coming from a background where I’ve been denied so much opportunity, so much resources. And you’re going to give exactly the same. So, you’re keeping them in that position. And I’ll still stay down here. That’s the difference.
Interview – BAME charity employee
An equity and justice-based approach towards diversity requires more than equality of opportunity. It means treating BAME people not in the same way as white counterparts but differently, to secure (much more) equal and enhanced outcomes to end group-based disparities.
The principle of treating some populations differently to adjust for disadvantageous context is established in higher education in the UK. Universities can offer places to students based on the circumstances that may affect their educational attainment prior to university. These ‘contextual offers’ take into account the level of ‘deprivation’ in the applicant’s neighbourhood and whether they have been in the care system. Candidates are still expected to perform ‘well’, but can be offered a place on reduced entry requirements.1
Extending the approach of offering roles to people from under-represented backgrounds to candidates who perform ‘less-well’ than over-represented groups is unlikely to be feasible in the charity sector, as it may be deemed to be positive discrimination. But while positive discrimination is unlawful, employers can use positive action. Positive action includes a range of measures that can be taken to encourage and train people from under-represented populations so that they are more able to compete with other applicants. Positive action also means that if there are two equally matched candidates then it is lawful to appoint the person who is from an under-represented group.
It is also possible to redraw recruitment criteria for charity jobs in ways that genuinely value the skills, knowledge and specialisms that BAME people and other marginalised people may have. This means reimagining ideas of who is the ‘best fit’ and redefining what is understood as excellence, and redesigning jobs and requirements accordingly (see Section 5 for more on recommendations). It also means choosing candidates with the potential to add the most to the hiring organisations. But that will involve having an investment mindset to developing people who may not immediately be able to ‘hit the ground running’ but who will contribute in time. It also means charities choosing extra work, and potentially the discomfort of choosing people who are not on the same page and may also be on
a different book.
This is not an easy choice; but easy leads to more of the same.
Recruitment is critical to the cultivation of what we might call diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) culture in the charity sector. However, if we are to think holistically and systemically then DEI in the charity sector is not just about having a more ‘representative’ workforce or trustee board. That is only part of the equation. Deep-down, DEI is reflected in everything an organisation does. Meaningful approaches to diversity and race equity in an organisation or in a sector change not only who does the work – the workforce – but the work itself. In other words, done well, real progress in DEI not only changes the players, it changes the game itself.
It means, for example, that cancer, employment and anti-poverty charities place at the centre of their thinking the racialised nature of health, the labour market and living on a low income. That then feeds through into their efforts to end racial disparities in access to good work, good health and good living standards.
There are different mechanisms to achieve this focus on race equity. One mechanism used especially in public services is that of (race) equality impact assessments2 to help organisations to ensure that their policies, practices and decisions are ‘fair’, meet the needs of their users or potential users, and do not discriminate against any group on the basis of protected characteristics (EHRC, 2019), including ‘race’, age, sex or sexual orientation.
Even more helpful would be something that we could call race equity impact plans.13 These are processes that inform an organisation as it designs or redesigns the work it delivers in the world. As such, they both review and assess past impacts on equity and are forward-looking and intentional about trying to deliver positive future outcomes as part of their overall strategy. Critically, too, these are continuous processes, where the focus is on building deep and ongoing relationships and conversations with stakeholders in the orbit of the organisation – especially those who are more marginalised.
This work should take place at the same time as – or even ahead of – efforts to increase workforce diversity, because a charity may recruit staff and trustees infrequently. External efforts for race equity benefit BAME people in society at large and reinforce internal efforts to value, attract, retain and advance BAME people inside the organisation. This in turn can further strengthen the work and resolve of the charity to advance race equity and to end racism in the outside world, and in this way a virtual DEI circle is created. This also means that mainstream charities begin to show up productively and consistently in BAME people’s lives, which can lead to BAME people seeing mainstream charities and the charity sector as a place for them.
This approach has some interesting implications. It can mean that although, of course, DEI within an organisation matters, it is not all that matters. For example, a mainstream mental health charity could have a BAME majority workforce and a BAME chief executive. But if it has no intentional strategy to recognise and address the racialised nature of mental health problems, its overall contribution to DEI may be limited (Khan, 2020). By contrast, a mental health charity with an all-white workforce could, with a well thought-out, purposeful strategy, improve outcomes for BAME people and make a bigger impact on race equity.
This is not a reason to maintain racial homogeneity among charity staff, board members and other volunteers. But changing personnel is not the only way to make a positive impact on DEI, and charities should target DEI improvements internally and in their external efforts. The two go hand in hand.
Finally, mainstream organisations do not need to try to fix racism and racial disparities in their ‘patch’ all on their own. There are specialist BAME-led organisations or BAME people that – with appropriate resources – can help.
In doing DEI work on the inside and on the outside, the charity sector can reconnect with its ethical core, and pursue diversity and practice inclusion to deliver equity and justice. As a result, charities can do more than ‘welcome diversity’, they can proactively work against racism and towards racial justice.
- This can mean that a person with contextual disadvantages is required to have the same grades as any other entrant, but in some universities this can lead to a guaranteed offer of places with still high but reduced entry requirements. For example, see University of Oxford (2020) and Durham University (2020).
- AdvanceHE (2019).
- Equalities charity brap is particularly skilled in developing equity impact assessment and plans; see brap.org.uk
