GEF response to HSP Draft Equality Outcomes (2nd draft) August 2020

Glasgow Equality Forum response to HSP Draft Equality Outcomes (2nd draft)
August 2020

Thanks to Stephanie Kirkham for giving GEF and equality networks the opportunity to comment upon the 2nd draft of the Glasgow HSCP equality outcomes 2020-24. GEF and equality networks have worked in partnership with Stephanie and the HSCP EWG since June to provide comprehensive feedback on the first draft outcomes. GEF’s June response is available here:

We understand that the final draft has to go to Integrated Joint Board for approval on 20th August. GEF were only given 1 week to feedback on the 2nd draft. We provide a suggested way forward at page 3 below that will improve the current draft, as we consider given the time constraints, the outcomes cannot be made fully legally compliant before the August IJB meeting. If the IJB asked us about these outcomes, we would have to say we couldn’t endorse them as they do not meet the legal requirements set down in legislation and guidance.

Whilst we appreciate the time constraints placed upon HSCP staff due to other urgent work, giving short time scales for feedback is a major barrier to the participation of equality groups.  If time had allowed, the outcomes could have been considered by Glasgow Voluntary Sector Race Equality Network, GDA’s Drivers for Change Group and Glasgow Women’s Voluntary Sector Network Management Committee. All these groups are now meeting remotely and are made up of people from protected characteristic groups, who have lived experience of accessing health and social care services, and volunteers and workers who advocate on their behalf. Their comments would provide valuable evidence and suggestions grounded within lived experience about what specific actions the HSCP should take.

Whilst the new draft has taken account of our one aspect of our feedback – specific protected characteristic groups are now named within some of the outcomes – our main criticism of the previous draft remains: none of the Outcomes currently contain any evidence. The outcomes should be derived from direct evidence of a unmet need by a specific equality group, then must specify what actions will be taken to meet that need, and how progress will be measured and evaluated to demonstrate improvement.

To take a real life example, an outcome around improving BME health outcomes could be framed around improving take up rates for particular health screening programmes for excluded groups of disabled or BME women, where the current data shows lower uptake. Then the actions would detail the steps that would be taken over 4 year period to go about increasing update – for example, increasing practitioners with community languages, reducing access barriers, working in partnership with voluntary sector, community groups and locality teams to promote the service. The outcome would explain which data sources were used to demonstrate this need, and detail how progress would be measured and evaluated.

Proposed Way Forward….

In order that the final draft is fully evidence based and compliant with the Equality Act, GEF propose that a working draft of the Outcomes is submitted to the IJB in August, stating that GEF recommends that a short life working group is established of equality networks, NHS, GCC and HSCP data analysts and locality Health Improvement workers to draw up a set of needs and evidence based–outcomes, using the broad aims and aspirations of the current draft as a jump off point. The Outcomes should identify actions covering a broad cross-section of service areas (as listed on previous page), with responsibility for delivery being delegated to Service Leads across the city. The work of this group will be presented to the HSCP Equality Working Group (EWG) for comment, with a final draft going to the IJB meeting in September/ October.

The final outcomes should also:

• Reflect upon the rich and insightful discussions by health professionals at June HSCP EWG on topics such as effect of lockdown on women, and race discrimination as a public health issue;

• Specify what relationship they will have with the new Community Planning Partnership Community Plan, due in Sept 2020 (which is driven by work of Social Recovery Taskforce);

• Identify linkages with the Participation and Engagement Strategy, which is currently being developed. It is worth noting that much of the feedback we gave to the P and E Strategy is identical to suggestions within Equality Outcome feedback, for example relating to meaningful involvement for people with protected characteristics within Strategic Planning Groups, Programme Board and capital build projects;

• Identify linkages with delivery of the HSCP Mainstreaming Report, HSCP and GCC Strategic Plans, IJB FAS and PE Committees, Public Health Oversight Committee, Moving Forward Together Change Programme and Thriving Places groups.

General Comments

  • Much of current outcomes would be better placed within the Mainstreaming Report;
  • Many of the proposed actions are legal requirements already so cannot be named as improvements as they should already be happening;
  • Outcomes should identify partners that will be required to deliver work and how this will be resourced i.e. LGBT Charter Mark, GDA participation work, BME capacity building work;
  • Strategic equality networks and organisations have a vital role in successful delivery, and evaluation, and accountability and participation mechanisms involving networks should be threaded through all the Equality Outcomes;
  • There is lots of existing, well evidenced work that could be noted as ongoing priorities within the Outcomes, for example Wellbeing Fund projects, GCC Holiday Hunger work and voluntary sector food provision. Can this work be developed and access widened through lens of the Equality Outcomes?


GEF response to first draft Equality Outcomes

The following points still apply to the current draft:

• Representation

GEF priorities and needs of pc groups:

Disabled people represented at IJB, Strategic Commissioning Groups, capital build projects
True representation at places where decisions are made at the earliest stage if policy development.
For every proposed service or policy change, identify the earliest possible stage people with protected characteristics can be involved.
Making a commitment within the Participation and Engagement Strategy to involve disabled people in decisions that affect them, for example the Maximising Independence Programme.

Indicator of success/ measurement:

Disabled people report they feel more involved in health and social care decision making.
Improvement in mainstreaming reports showing how people with protected characteristics involved in decision making.


• Employment and opportunities

GEF priorities and needs of pc groups:

Improved rates of employment for protected characteristic groups within HSCP, at all grades.
Ability to demonstrate workable pathways for career progression for disabled and BME workers across HSCP.

Indicator of success/ measurement:

Set targets in partnership with GEF, monitor year on year and publish. Focus on disability and BME people.


• Services that better meet needs

GEF priorities and needs of pc groups:

Mental health services that better meet the needs and experiences of BME young people

Indicator of success/ measurement:

Evidence of projects addressing identified needs.
Increase in young BME people accessing services


• Procurement and commissioning

GEF priorities and needs of pc groups:

Community benefit/ equalities clause in contracts, to benefit protected characteristic groups, including employment on capital projects, procured services.

Indicator of success/ measurement:

Target to increase specified benefit, like increased number of BME/ disabled people employed under procured and commissioned contracts.


• Transparency/ accountability

GEF priorities and needs of pc groups:

All CP partners to publish what third sector orgs they fund/ commission, and specify what work is being delivered (GEF focus is equality groups, conference called for more transparency overall).

Indicator of success/ measurement:

A more joined up approach across city. Clearer picture of what equality orgs and outcomes are being funded. Increased ability to see gap in public sector funding



GEF priorities and needs of pc groups:

EQIAs drafted collaboratively with GEF members in range of policy areas identified as priority by GEF.
Review 6 monthly collaboratively

Indicator of success/ measurement:

Pilot project with agreed outputs resourced by CPP. This would feed into Performance Management Framework


• Training

GEF priorities and needs of pc groups:

All elected members, IJB members and community reps receive training in EQIAs and human rights budgeting. This training is specifically relating to their responsibility within decision making to scrutinise proposals to ensure they meet the law, rather than existing EQIA training that staff undertake.

Indicator of success/ measurement:

Number of people taking training increased.
Fewer number of GCC committee papers noting “no Equality Impacts”
Measurable and demonstrable increase in effective scrutiny of changes to services, policies and procedures.


• Community Empowerment Act, including PB, Community Action Plan and Locality Plans

GEF priorities and needs of pc groups:

Fund community development workers to actively engage with people from protected characteristic groups and to reduce barriers to participation. This becomes more and more important as PB is extended to more service areas.
Improve linkages with equalities expertise and delivery of Locality Plans and improve participation and involvement with protected characteristic groups.

Indicator of success/ measurement:

People in post in these jobs.
Increased applications to PB projects from equality groups.
Increase in effective monitoring and reporting of engagement and involvement of people with protected characteristics by community connectors and those delivering work in localities.    #gefequality