Indicative Simple EqIA for Decision Makers

Simple example Equality Impact Assessment Toolkit for decision makers across the HE sector in England

This Equality Impact Assessment Toolkit is underpinned by a 6 month collaborative research project and forms part of an expanding dialogue across the HE sector in relation to equality impact assessments (EqIAs). The project has sought to understand and respond to criticisms and obstacles to the effective use of EqIAs across the sector. It has also explored the link between the emerging focus on co-production and EqIA practice. This Toolkit is part of a more detailed Equality Analysis Framework which has been developed for those leading on EqIAs across the sector and supports proportionate, context driven approaches as a means of ensuring more effective and inclusive decision-making processes. This simple example Toolkit is intended as an accessible resource for use by decision makers in addition to their institutional process and with support from those with EDI expertise.

How to Use This Toolkit

Quick access to reference materials

Return to How to Use This Toolkit page.

How to Use This Toolkit

Use the green button to return to the EqIA Flowchart

Navigating the Tool Click on icons to open deeper content and get helpful tips Look for interactive buttons to access information throughout Access resources and checklists

This interactive tool is designed to support you through an example equality impact assessment process step by step. You can explore the content in any order, but we recommend starting at the beginning and following the process through to the end on first use for a full understanding.

Start Toolkit

Go back to previously viewed page.

Return to the start at any time.

What is an Equality Impact Assessment?

Equality Impact Assessments (EqIAs) are essential tools that help universities meet their responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). They provide a structured approach to evaluating how policies, practices, or decisions may affect different groups, using data, evidence, and consultation. While EqIAs are legally required in Scotland and Wales, in England they are not mandatory, but courts expect public bodies to demonstrate they have considered equality impacts, which often mirrors the EqIA process. For universities, maintaining clear, written records of these assessments is crucial, especially in the event of legal scrutiny. Although there is no obligation to publish EqIAs, documenting the process is the most effective way to show compliance and support inclusive, equitable decision-making.

Go to page

Go to page

Universities will usually have developed their own context specific approach and this Toolkit should not be used as a replacement for your own process. Rather, this Toolkit provides a basic outline of an indicative EqIA process.

EqIAs and the law infographic

• Proportionality assessment
• Scoping
• Information gathering
• Conversations
• Impact assessment
• Action planning
• Monitoring and sharing

General Duty (s149 EA 2010)

Specific Duties in England (EA 2010 (Specific Duties and Public Authorities) Regulations 2017)

Equality Impact Assessments (EqIA)

Public bodies must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to:

• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the EA 2010
• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a 'protected characteristic' and those who do not
• Foster good relations between people who share a 'protected characteristic' and those who do not

EqIAs help public bodies assess how policies/practices affect equality. Not legally required in England, the courts have indicated that to meet the PSED, public bodies should follow steps that closely resemble conducting an EqIA including the need to:

• Think ahead: consider equality impacts throughout the decision making process
• Act consciously: make equality a real, central part of decision making
• Stay accountable: base actions on evidence, consult meaningfully, and keep reviewing over time

THE PSED, EQIAS AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Public bodies must:

• Publish gender pay gap information annually
• Publish information to demonstrate compliance with the general duty annually
• Prepare and publish one of more objectives to achieve the aims of the general equality duty every four years

A Summary

The Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) unified previous equality laws and introduced the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). The PSED applies to public authorities and those performing public functions, requiring them to consider equality in their operations.

+ info

+ info

+ info

Indicative Equality Impact Assessment

The following suggests an indicative EqIA process for decision makers in higher education institutions which aligns with the PSED and is also underpinned by principles of co-production and proportionality. This indicative process is supported by a checklist, responses to complex questions and a flow chart to guide decision makers through a simplified, reflective, and question-driven approach.

Although institutions will have developed a context specific approach, an indicative EqIA process is likely include the following general steps:

Go to page

Go to age

• Proportionality assessment
• Scoping
• Information gathering
• Conversations
• Impact assessment
• Action planning
• Monitoring and sharing

EqIA Flowchart

INDICATIVE EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FLOWCHART

Proportionality assessment

Significant measure?

High risk measure?

Complex measure?

High interest measure?

Compliance measure?

IF ANY RESPONSE 'YES' (N/B IF RESPONSE IS 'NO' KEEP UNDER REVIEW)

No positive or negative impact: document and keep under review:

Scoping

Positive or negative impact: proceed to full assessment

Information gathering

Conversations

Impact assessment

Create an action plan

Publish and share

Monitor and review

Negative impact

Positive impact

What is a proportionality assessment?

Proportionality Checklist

Proportionality Assessment

Tricky Question?

What is scoping?

Scoping Checklist

Scoping

Tricky Question?

What is information gathering?

Information gathering Checklist

Information Gathering

Tricky Question?

What are conversations?

Conversations Checklist

Conversations

USEFUL RESOURCE: Co-production with staff and students: Principles and practices for promoting equality and change

Tricky Question?

What is an impact assessment?

Impact assessment Checklist

Impact assessment

Tricky Question?

What is action planning?

Action planning Checklist

Action planning

Tricky Question?

What is sharing and monitoring?

Sharing and monitoring Checklist

Sharing and monitoring

Tricky Question?

Research Project Reports

A detailed Equality Analysis Framework has been developed and is underpinned by a 6-month research project carried out with EDI leads from across England, Scotland and Wales as well as a series of student focus groups. Links to the very detailed full research report and a more accessible summary research report on the EqIA project can be found here.

Full Report

Summary Report

More resources

Full example EQIA Checklist For Decision Makers Across HE

Research participants in the EqIA project emphasised the need for simplification and accessibility around EqIAs. It was perceived that EqIAs need to be simpler, less formulaic, proportionate and more accessible to avoid disengagement due to complexity. Equally it was perceived that encouragement is needed to ensure decision makers move away from rigid form filling to more flexible, evidence-based critical thinking. The following provides a full simple checklist approach for decision makers which seeks to encourage a reflective, question driven approach towards impact assessment.

EqIA Checklist

More resources

Full Complex Q&A document

Research participants in the EqIA project recognised the need for building confidence and understanding around EqIAs. This was particularly important in relation to more complex elements of an EqIA process. The following provides some suggested responses to more complex and difficult questions around equality impact assessment in the HE sector.

Complex Q&As

More resources

Co-production with staff and students: Principles and practices for promoting equality and change

The EqIA research sought to consider the possibilities of aligning co-production principles with EqIA processes to encourage greater engagement and inclusive decision making across the HE sector. Co-production is a collaborative process where all participants, especially those with lived experience, share their expertise and engage in open dialogue (including differing views) to make decisions transparently and collectively, without prioritizing any single perspective. Underpinned by the data gathered, these Students and Staff as Co-producers in HE Equality Assessment Principles have been developed.

Co-production with staff and students: Principles and practices for promoting equality and change

Please get in touch with Chantal Davieschantal.davies@chester.ac.uk for further information or feedback on this toolkit.

How to ‘action plan’ where an EqIA demonstrates there are negative impacts of a policy/practice which cannot be mitigated? Where an EqIA has identified negative impacts of a policy/practice which cannot be removed or mitigated, consideration usually needs to be given as to whether the policy/practice should continue. If the policy/practice unlawfully discriminates, then legal advice should be sought, and it must be discontinued to avoid legal liability. In other circumstances the following may be an appropriate approach to demonstrate the decision was made with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010: + Acknowledge the negative impact and clearly document which distinct groups are impacted; what the negative impacts will be; why mitigation is not possible (e.g. legal, financial, or operational constraints). + Provide evidence-based objective justification – if mitigation is not possible, the policy/practice must be proportionate (benefits should outweigh negative impacts); be necessary (there should be no less discriminatory alternative); be appropriate (the policy/practice should align to the institution’s legitimate aims). + Action plan – this should provide for monitoring of the negative impact over time and provide regular review points to review the impact; provide regular opportunities for engagement with potentially impacted groups to gather feedback and explore emerging alternatives to mitigate the impact; communicate this process transparently with stakeholders and provide appropriate continuing support to those impacted. + Record and publish – senior leaders should be aware and be accountable for implementing the policy/practice (despite negative impacts). The justification and action plan need to be shared with the impacted groups and documented together with a clear audit trail of the EqIA process.

If Negative Impact Identified + Have the following options been considered:

• Change the policy/practice to reduce/eliminate impact
• Stop the policy/practice if disproportionate unjustifiable negative impact and/or is unlawful discrimination
• Justify the impact only if no alternatives exist

Action Plan Development + Have actions been co-created with stakeholders? + Does the plan include:

• Description of the impact
• Justification for decisions made
• Steps to mitigate or eliminate negative impacts
• Timeline for implementation

Accountability + Are all actions assigned to named individuals? + Are timescales for each action realistic and achievable?

action plan Checklist for EQIA

Preparation + Has any Lived Experience Lead/any EqIA Working Group been involved? + Have distinct groups been meaningfully engaged in assessing impact and developing an action plan? Impact Assessment Outcome + Has the impact been clearly identified as:

• Positive (benefits should be promoted)
• Neutral (policy/practice can proceed)
• Negative

+ Is there evidence supporting the identified impact? + For positive or negative impacts, action should be recorded.

Clarity of Purpose + Is the purpose of the policy/practice clearly defined? + Have the intended outcomes been articulated by the decision maker? Key Scoping Questions + What is the purpose of the proposed policy/practice and how will it achieve this purpose? + Who will benefit and/or who may be negatively impacted from the policy/practice? + Are there any associated aims that could affect distinct groups? Decision Point + Is there evidence of negative impacts or positive benefits for any distinct group? Yes → Proceed to the next stage of assessment. No → Document justification for not continuing further. Efficiency Check + Is this a straightforward case with no potential impacts? If yes, confirm no further exploration is needed.

Scoping Checklist for EQIA

Leadership & accountability + Has a decision maker been identified to lead the Scoping process? + Has a Proportionality assessment been completed to justify this step? Collaboration & Inclusion + Are there Lived Experience Leads and/or EqIA Working Groups involved? + Is the Scoping being conducted collaboratively with others? Evidence Gathering + Is existing evidence and knowledge being used? + Is the Scoping based on objective evidence (not just anecdotal)? Proportionality + Is the Scoping proportionate to the policy/practice decision?

sharing and monitoringChecklist for EQIA

Internal Sharing + Internally share the EqIA across wider networks + Include both positive and negative impacts and mitigation efforts External Publication (if appropriate) + Consider publishing the EqIA on the institutional website + Ensure alignment with legal/compliance obligations (e.g. GPG Reporting, APP) and existing EDI work (e.g. Athena Swan, REC) Monitoring + Is there a scheduled EqIA monitoring date which is flagged and tracked? + Are there mechanisms to evaluate ongoing or emerging equality impacts? + Are stakeholders involved in the monitoring process + Are the monitoring outcomes recorded and accessible + Is the level of monitoring proportionate to the policy/practice scale and duration?

Sign-Off and Review + Has the EqIA been signed off by the decision maker and any accountable senior manager? + Has any institutional paperwork been completed? Community Engagement + Share EqIA with impacted groups + Communicate positive impacts to relevant groups + Communicate remaining negative impacts and actions to reduce them + Provide justification for continuing with the policy/practice if negative impacts remain Reflection and Learning (EqIA process evaluation) + Lived-Experience Lead, EqIA Working Group, appropriate stakeholders, decision maker reflect on:

• What worked well and what could be improved
• Can any learning be applied to future EqIAs

Deeper Analysis (if needed) + Is a more detailed impact analysis required due to complexity? + Are there unintended consequences or conflicts with other practice/policies? + Is further Information Gathering or Consultation necessary? Broader Considerations + Have intersectional and cumulative impacts been considered if relevant? + Have impacts beyond the protected characteristics been assessed if relevant? Outcome Classification + Positive Impact: No discrimination (benefits for distinct groups need to be promoted). + Negative Impact: Evidence of potential harm to distinct groups. + Neutral Impact: No significant positive or negative effects identified.

Impact assessment Checklist for EQIA

Preparation + Has all relevant data and evidence been gathered? + Have lived experiences and stakeholder Conversations been documented? + Has the initial Scoping assessment been reviewed? Collaborative Assessment + Has a Lived Experience Lead/EqIA Working Group been involved in the impact assessment if relevant? + Has there been any wider collaboration on assessing the potential impact on distinct groups? Impact Evaluation + Is the impact positive, negative, or neutral? + Have opportunities to reduce harm or enhance benefits been explored?

What is a proportionality assessment?

A proportionality assessment is a quick check to decide how much time and effort should go into an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA). It helps you judge whether a policy/practice is likely to have a big, complex, or risky impact (especially on marginalised groups) and whether a full EqIA is needed.

Got an idea?

Use this space to add awesome interactivity. Include text, images, videos, tables, PDFs... even interactive questions! Premium tip: Get information on how your audience interacts with your creation:

• Visit the Analytics settings;
• Activate user tracking;
• Let the communication flow!

Proportionality Assessment Checklist for EqIA

Next Steps Based on Responses + If any answer is “yes” or “maybe” → Proceed to a Scoping. + If all answers are “no” → Ensure: – Inclusive practices are embedded throughout and decision and justification recorded. – Ongoing monitoring for changes that may alter the initial Proportionality assessment. Examples of Decisions that may not require EqIA but may still require awareness of potential equality impacts + Minor changes with limited impact (e.g. changing a textbook in a small module). + Routine administrative decisions (e.g. switching coffee suppliers). + Low-risk updates (e.g. new staff expenses form). + Narrow-scope actions (e.g. adjusting meeting times).

Initial Assessment by Decision Maker + Identify the need, depth, and scope of EqIA based on the policy or practice. + Refer to any existing context-based institutional EqIA guidance (e.g. detailed, basic, inclusive). Key Questions to Guide Proportionality + Could this policy/practice significantly affect large numbers of people? (Significant measure) + Does it have a high potential for adverse impacts on marginalised groups? (High risk measure) + Is it a complex issue requiring deeper exploration of group impacts? (Complex measure) + Is it likely to attract substantial public interest or scrutiny? (High interest measure) + Is an EqIA required for legal or compliance reasons? (Compliance measure)

Methods of engaging in Conversations (examples) + Individual meetings + Focus groups or workshops + Agenda item in existing community meetings + Attend student society or staff network meetings Accessibility and Trust + Offer to meet participants in their own spaces. + Respect participants’ time and contributions. + Use existing staff/student networks and data collection methods where appropriate. During the Conversations + Follow Students and Staff as Co-producers in HE Equality Assessment Principles. + Document insights and feedback clearly and respectfully. After the Conversations + Reflect on new insights or concerns raised. + Communicate outcomes and next steps to participants.

conversations Checklist for EQIA

Before engaging in Conversations + Identify potentially impacted marginalised groups. + Assess the relevance and proportionality of Conversations based on the policy’s complexity and impact. Planning the Conversations + Choose inclusive and flexible engagement methods. + Consider the Students and Staff as Co-producers in HE Equality Assessment Principles. + Decide who will facilitate the Conversations:

• Lived Experience Lead or EqIA Working Group if appropriate
• Decision maker (if no lead/group exists – note this may be consultation, not co-production)

When is it appropriate to externally publish an EqIA? In England there is no requirement to publish an EqIA and recent Government guidance has emphasised this noting that any such requirement on a public body could have a negative impact on the decision makers’ considerations (Government Equalities Office, 2023). The research demonstrated that the decision by institutions on whether to publicly share EqIAs often depended on the matter being assessed. Proportionate approaches towards external publication were evident. For some universities, significant EqIAs of public interest were published externally and some also referred to publication where an EqIA action plan aligned with commitments under Athena Swan and/or the Race Equality Charters or wider legal commitments. The research suggested that external publication of EqIAs may assist in promoting accountability and engagement of decision makers. It was also suggested that external publication of an EqIA may enhance transparency and build trust with stakeholders. Therefore, when deciding whether to externally publish an EqIA the following pointers for action may be relevant: + Adopt a proportionate approach – tailor the decision to publish an EqIA to the significance and the sensitivity of the issue being assessed; consider case by case evaluation rather than a blanket policy. + Align with wider commitments – publish EqIAs that support or align with wider institutional commitments (both voluntary and mandatory). + Promote transparency and trust – use external publication of EqIAs to enhance transparency and build trust with stakeholders; highlight how publication can demonstrate accountability and engage decision makers more effectively. + Encourage HE sector wide dialogue – consider external publication to share best practice across institutions to foster consistency and mutual learning in EqIA publication strategies.

How do you embed co-production principles into the EqIA process and move beyond ‘consultation’? Whilst many research participants described some level of engagement with potentially impacted distinct groups as part of their institutional EqIA, this often fell short of an authentic co-production approach and could more appropriately be described as consultation. Whilst consultation is generally considered to be a process where decision makers seek input and feedback from stakeholders as part of the decision-making process, co-production is a collaborative process where stakeholders and decision makers work together as equal partners to design, deliver and evaluate a policy/practice. The following may be relevant considerations when seeking to embed co-production (rather than just consultation) into the EqIA process: + Build an environment to support co-produced decision making more generally across the institution which ensures that staff/students are partners across the decision-making process and not just brought in to explore the impact of a proposed policy/practice at the later stages. Rather, staff/students should be partners in developing the policy/practice from the start. + Consider the Students and staff as co-producers in HE equality assessment Principles developed as part of this research project. + Consider engaging a Lived Experience Lead or developing an EqIA Working Group (representing diverse staff/student voices) and work with them throughout the EqIA process as suggested in the Indicative EqIA to inform the scope of the EqIA; identify impacts, risks and opportunities; inform information gathering; assess impacts and develop mitigation strategies; develop co-created action plans; monitor and evaluate the EqIA action plan. + Consider proportionate approaches towards co-production as part of the EqIA being careful to avoid ‘exhausting’ staff/student stakeholders and ensure inclusive, flexible, proportionate approaches to dialogue.

What is action planning?

Action planning involves (sometimes collaboratively) developing a clear and accountable plan based on earlier impact assessments and discussions about a proposed policy or practice. This plan should outline potential impacts on different groups, justify decisions transparently, and assign responsibilities with timelines. If negative impacts are identified, the plan must explore options to either change the policy to reduce harm, stop it if the harm is illegal or outweighs its purpose, or (only as a last resort) justify the impact if the policy is essential. Regular monitoring and senior management accountability are key to ensuring progress and integrity.

How do you assess intersectional/cumulative equality impacts as part of the EqIA? One of the most difficult and complex elements of an EqIA is assessing potential intersectional/cumulative impacts. The research suggests that there is evidence of poor understanding of decision makers on how to engage with intersectional/cumulative impact analysis. The research suggested the need for greater focus by decision makers on lived experience of those from marginalised communities many of whom faced intersectional/cumulative disadvantage. It was considered that greater engagement with student/staff voices as part of the EqIA process rather than over reliance on quantitative data would assist decision makers in better understanding complex impacts. The following may be relevant considerations when assessing intersectional/complex equality impacts as part of an EqIA: + Embed and build capacity for holistic strategies into decision making by encouraging decision makers to consider how a policy might affect individuals in multiple ways from the start of the process. This will assist in building confidence in inclusive decision making. + Provide support through collecting and analysing data that can be broken down by multiple characteristics to assist in greater institutional engagement with exploring patterns of intersectional/cumulative disadvantage. + Engage with lived experience through conversations and discussions with individuals who represent intersecting identities and encourage more engagement with qualitative data to understand nuanced experiences which go beyond the ‘numbers’. + Provide context based examples and evidence of intersectional/cumulative disadvantage and complex barriers for decision makers to support confidence and understanding. + Develop mitigation strategies to impact that address intersectional/cumulative impacts, not just single-issue solutions.

What are conversations?

Conversations, in this context, refer to meaningful engagements with distinct groups who may be affected by a proposed policy or practice, especially when early assessments suggest potential negative impacts. These discussions aim to uncover overlooked effects, particularly on individuals with lived experience of social issues or vulnerabilities, and help address knowledge or data gaps. Effective conversations should be inclusive, flexible, and ideally follow co-production principles where affected individuals are actively involved in shaping outcomes. Depending on the situation, these engagements can take various forms such as meetings or focus groups, and should be proportionate to the policy’s complexity and impact. Trust-building, respectful use of participants’ time, and meeting people in their own spaces are key to successful conversations.

What is an impact assessment?

An impact assessment is a collaborative and reflective process used to evaluate whether a proposed policy or practice will have positive, negative, or neutral effects on different groups. Sometimes conducted with input from stakeholders with lived experience and decision makers, it helps ensure that changes to policies/practices align with initial findings and consider unintended consequences. The process may involve deeper analysis for complex issues and can explore alternative approaches to minimize harm or enhance benefits. It also allows institutions to assess broader or intersectional impacts beyond those protected under the Equality Act 2010.

What is scoping?

Scoping is the initial process of identifying whether a proposed policy or practice might positively or negatively affect specific groups. Led by the decision maker and involving relevant lived experience stakeholders (where appropriate), it uses existing evidence and engagement to make an early assessment of potential impacts. If any significant potential impacts are found, a full equality impact assessment is required; if not, a clear justification for not proceeding must be recorded.

What is information gathering?

Information gathering is a collaborative stage in the EqIA process that follows the initial scoping phase. Its purpose is to gather information to deepen understanding of how a policy or practice may affect different groups, particularly those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, as well as socio-economic and possibly other relevant groups. This stage involves collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, identifying evidence gaps, and making informed judgments when data is limited. It involves decision-makers in ensuring diverse perspectives are considered, especially where identities intersect.

What are some ways of overcoming data collection challenges as part of the EqIA? The research pointed to difficulties around data collection as a core challenge to decision makers engaging effectively with an EqIA. It was felt that institutions often collected incomplete or non-disaggregated data. Equally, there was evidence of inconsistent data collection across institutions and externally and privacy and confidentiality concerns when dealing with small sample sizes. With tight deadlines on carrying out EqIAs, often there was perceived to be over reliance on quantitative data by decision makers as collecting qualitative data was more time consuming and required skilled facilitation and training. The following may be relevant considerations when seeking to overcome some of these data collection challenges as part of an EqIA: + Support for more standardised data collection across departments and encouragement of wider voluntary disclosure by those from distinct groups (such as those aligning with the Equality Act 2010) by transparently emphasising why data is collected, how it will be used, who will have access, anonymity and the importance of collecting such data for promoting inclusive and equitable decision making as well as outlining what changes have been possible as a result of having accurate equality data. + Training and capacity building provided for decision makers on how to gather, triangulate and analyse qualitative and quantitative data (including support on ethical and inclusive practices). + Encouragement of enhanced qualitative data collection through offering multiple ways for stakeholders to participate and compensation for participant engagement. Use existing structures where possible (e.g. staff and student networks) to streamline engagement. + Encouragement for decision makers to analyse data by exploring how overlapping identities affect experience and involvement of those with lived experience in interpreting this data. + Support for decision makers on how to access and triangulate external benchmarking data with internal data. + Support collection disaggregated data where possible and appropriate to develop better understanding of potential nuanced impacts. However, ensure decision makers understand data handling compliance with GDPR.

What is sharing and monitoring?

Following an EqIA and before a policy or practice is published, it must be approved by key decision-makers and shared with groups likely to be affected. This includes communicating both positive and negative impacts, along with any steps taken to reduce negative impacts. Transparency is key (especially when negative impacts remain) and sharing the EqIA internally and sometimes externally promotes trust and accountability. Monitoring doesn’t end with publication; ongoing evaluation, regular reviews, and responsiveness to new impacts are essential. A collaborative, reflective approach helps ensure continuous improvement and inclusivity in future practices.

Is it ever appropriate to use anecdotal evidence in a scoping assessment as part of an EqIA? Gathering objective and appropriate information is vital in carrying out an EqIA. However, the research suggests that ‘anecdotal evidence’ may be a relevant part of decision makers considerations at the Scoping stage of an EqIA to identify gaps in information which need further exploration or to provide nuance to existing data. Anecdotal evidence generally refers to personal stories, informal feedback of observations shared by individuals or groups. In the context of an EqIA, this may come from staff/student conversations, comments in meetings or focus groups, feedback from staff networks, observations from staff/students. It may be appropriate for decision makers to utilise anecdotal evidence as part of the Scoping with the following guidance on how to use effectively: + Decision makers should be encouraged to recognise that such evidence should be used as a supplementary insight to complement quantitative data or to highlight gaps in data that need further exploration but that it should not be used to draw definitive conclusions. However, it may be a good starting point for further Scoping. + Where anecdotal evidence is considered, the source and context should be documented clearly (where did it come from? in what context was it shared?). + It may be possible to look for themes and trends in anecdotal evidence if similar stories or concerns have arisen from multiple sources. + Importantly, anecdotal evidence at the scoping stage can guide on further targeted data collection and inquiry in the later stages of an EqIA and also assist in informing which distinct groups to engage with.

Got an idea?

Use this space to add awesome interactivity. Include text, images, videos, tables, PDFs... even interactive questions! Premium tip: Get information on how your audience interacts with your creation:

• Visit the Analytics settings;
• Activate user tracking;
• Let the communication flow!

INFORMATION GATHERING Checklist for EQIA

Data Considerations + Review data including information already gathered during the Scoping stage. + Identify and address gaps in information. + Proceed with assessment even if data is limited. + Use the Conversations stage to support judgement where data is lacking. Key Questions to Guide the Process + What do we need or want to know? + Who can help determine what evidence is needed and where to find it? + What existing evidence is available? + What evidence is needed to ensure all perspectives are considered? + Where are the gaps, and how can we gather the missing information?

When to Begin + Scoping stage indicates potential positive or negative impacts. Collaboration opportunities + Involve any Lived Experience Lead and/or EqIA Working Group. Types of Information to Collect + Quantitative data (e.g., statistics, demographics). + Qualitative data (e.g., lived experiences, interviews). + Data covering all protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. + Consider whether to Include socio-economic groups and other marginalised communities in line with institutional guidance, if relevant. + Consider intersectionality/cumulative disadvantage (how identities overlap, cumulate and interact) in line with institutional guidance.

What are some worked examples of a proportionality assessment in a HE context?

Proportionality should be a core consideration throughout any EqIA process and will be central to the decision as to whether to proceed with an exploration of the impacts of a policy/practice in the first place. Research participants suggested the need for context based institutional examples of proportionality assessments to assist in building decision-making confidence. Some context-based examples are shown in the table. See more detailed explanation in the full Complex Questions resource.

Got an idea?

Use this space to add awesome interactivity. Include text, images, videos, tables, PDFs... even interactive questions! Premium tip: Get information on how your audience interacts with your creation:

• Visit the Analytics settings;
• Activate user tracking;
• Let the communication flow!