Equality and Human Rights Mainstreaming strategy: consultation analysis

9. How will the Strategy support real change?

The consultation paper acknowledges that Strategy alone does not achieve change and proposes two supporting resources to drive change: an Action Plan and a toolkit. Views were sought on whether these resources would be a useful way to help drive change and whether additional reporting requirements are needed.

The Action Plan will set out actions the Scottish Government is taking to mainstream equality and human rights, including collating the wide range of existing cross-cutting mainstreaming actions and commitments and locating these in one place alongside additional actions resulting from this consultation. The Plan would be updated annually and provide progress statements which will link directly to, and form part of, statutory reporting.

A toolkit to support the public sector, including Scottish Government, is intended to help deliver mainstreaming in practice. It would provide examples of the steps needed and the practical tools organisations can implement to mainstream equality and human rights.

Q23. Do you think the proposed approach to a collated Action Plan will drive change?

Just under half (48%) of those answering felt the proposed approach to a collated Action Plan will drive change, 26% did not, and 27% were unsure. Organisations were more positive about the Action Plan with 52% expressing support compared to 36% of individuals. Views varied by organisation type, ranging from 36% of equality advocacy organisations expressing support compared to 78% of health bodies.

Around seven in ten of all respondents left an open comment at Q23. For ease of reading, this chapter is organised by reasons for agreeing that a collated Action Plan could drive change, followed by reasons for disagreement and other issues.

A collated Action Plan could drive change

Many respondents agreed that a collated Action Plan could drive change, especially if it included clear and detailed actions to facilitate robust measurement. Reasons for believing it would drive change included that it would create a clear roadmap, allow alignment with external agency plans, enhance the ability to identify cross-cutting areas, reduce duplication and maximise capacity. Other suggestions were that it should set out the ‘how’ alongside the ‘what’, that it should cover short, medium and long-term outcomes and should determine which goals apply to which agencies or groups.

A collated Action Plan could help improve accountability and transparency according to several respondents. This could be achieved by having actions contained within a single and accessible location, holding bodies accountable if they do not achieve the actions in time and ensuring responsibilities are clearly defined.

Some others felt an Action Plan could be useful in tracking and monitoring progress, with suggestions including that baseline data could be used to help measure future progress, that it could help address current fragmentation, and that it could make it easier to track progress.

An Action Plan alone may not achieve the desired change

Doubts as to whether the Action Plan alone would achieve the desired outcomes were raised by some respondents, with a few also commenting on current arrangements having limited impact. Reasons for expressing these views included that insufficient detail had been given to determine if change is likely to result from a plan, that clear actions are required, that wider cultural change is required, and that the effectiveness of an Action Plan relied on the other drivers mentioned in the consultation paper being actioned. A few felt an Action Plan could create an unnecessary administrative burden; this is addressed in the next question.

Suggestions for content

Aspects that several respondents felt an Action Plan should cover included:

• A review of existing mainstreaming-related actions and commitments and identification of best practice.
• That it should be designed from an anti-racist perspective, agreed by relevant organisations in this field and signed off by a named person at an appropriate level of seniority.
• Measurable milestones and a timeline.
• Training materials, including case studies, aimed at both specialist and wider staff.
• Links to relevant legislation, policies and strategies, ensuring the principles and practices are integrated into core processes, policies and decision-making.
• A mechanism for adapting the plan to cater for unforeseen challenges.

Wider engagement and commitment required

Ensuring that stakeholders are involved in the design of an Action Plan and that it has a commitment from a wide range of agencies was recommended by several respondents. Meaningful involvement in co-producing the Action Plan, such as by those with lived experience, those in the third and public sectors and leaders impacted by the plan, were specifically mentioned. It was also stressed that an Action Plan should achieve buy-in, or commitment, through promoting collaborative and shared learning opportunities, addressing gaps in specialist professional roles and ensuring the toolkit is accessible to all.

Regular review and updating required

The need for an Action Plan to be monitored, reviewed or updated regularly was suggested by some respondents. Views included that regular progress updates should be circulated for feedback from stakeholders, that accountability mechanisms should be integral to the approach used to track progress, and that an Action Plan should be updated to reflect any new knowledge and best practice.

Any Plan must be resourced and well-managed

Some respondents called for sufficient resources to deliver and implement actions associated with an Action Plan, or expressed the view that current levels of resourcing in the public sector could negatively impact their ability to implement an Action Plan. Ensuring bodies are held accountable for implementing actions was raised by some, including calls for more consideration of oversight and enforcement requirements.

Q24. Do you think there is a need for a cross-public sector toolkit to support mainstreaming of Equality and Human Rights?

Among those answering Q24, 69% felt there is a need for a cross-public sector toolkit to support mainstreaming of equality and human rights, 16% did not and 13% were unsure. Organisations were more likely than individuals to favour a toolkit, with 76% expressing support compared to half (50%) of individuals. While all organisations in several sectors supported a toolkit (e.g. all public bodies and local authorities were in favour), support was lower among equality advocacy organisations and health bodies (67%) and professional membership bodies (33%).

Around two thirds of respondents commented at Q24. Views were wide-ranging, with the most common themes being agreement with the proposal, that it could create a consistent approach and that it could increase access to resources. Again, for ease of reading, views are grouped by reasons for agreement followed by reasons for disagreement.

Agreement with the need for a cross-public sector toolkit

Several respondents agreed with the proposal for a cross-public sector toolkit. Comments included that a toolkit was needed and would be a ‘positive move’, a ‘useful tool’ and an ‘important resource’. A similar proportion of respondents endorsed a toolkit, believing it could support a consistent approach. These respondents felt consistency could be achieved in guidance to support effective mainstreaming practices across diverse organisations and through fostering a culture of shared knowledge and improvement.

The benefit of having an accessible resource was highlighted by several respondents. Comments suggested that increased accessibility of a shared resource could help address capacity concerns and ensure organisations – including smaller ones – could access resources to improve their practice. Suggested ways to achieve accessibility were given by a few, including providing it in a range of formats or having a dedicated platform.

Several respondents noted that a toolkit could help share best practice examples, with one organisation noting that participants had valued their work on ‘Good Approaches’ in relation to sharing best practice. Examples of Equality Impact Assessments, Mainstreaming Reports, or Equality Outcomes from different organisations and sectors were suggested as materials that could be shared. One respondent felt that the Scottish Government should share any internal guidance and advice on mainstreaming equalities externally with public sector staff to help with capacity and to ensure consistency.

Aligned to comments at Q23, some respondents felt a toolkit could help drive positive change. Views included that it could:

• Support a wide range of roles to integrate equality and human rights into their work.
• Strengthen governance arrangements such as through aligning policy with practice.
• Enable people to understand the requirements of those with lived experience.

Some also felt a toolkit could avoid duplication of effort and would, therefore, be an efficient use of resources. A few called for any toolkit to consider a wider scope, beyond the public sector, such as coordinating it with the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and making it available to those outwith the public sector.

Disagreement or uncertainty about the need for a cross-public sector toolkit

Negative views on the proposals were expressed by some respondents who felt it could increase bureaucracy or duplicate effort, some who felt it would be unlikely to generate positive change and some who were unsure if it would.

Disagreement with the need for a toolkit due to the potential for increased bureaucracy or complexity was noted by some respondents. Views included that there is already sufficient guidance or too many processes and toolkits, or that it would create more paperwork. Some felt there was no need for new toolkits, expressing a preference instead for consolidating mainstreaming processes or better utilising existing resources.

A view that a toolkit would not create the desired change was raised by some who felt that:

• There was evidence of reticence in some organisations to apply mainstreaming, either by individual staff members or at leadership level.
• Toolkits alone could not enable change or could dilute targeted steps already taken.
• A toolkit would not address perceived structural barriers such as under-resourcing and high workloads.

Uncertainty over how effective a toolkit would be was expressed by some respondents, with views indicating it would depend on factors such as a willingness of staff and organisations to engage with the material, their capacity to use the resources, the quality of the material and how well it is promoted and explained.

Q25. What practical steps would you include to make the toolkit an effective resource?

At Q25, around six in ten respondents commented. A range of issues were raised, and for ease of reading, they have been grouped into the following areas: format and content of any toolkit, delivery or participant considerations, and monitoring and review.

Format and content of the toolkit

Respondents provided various suggestions on how the toolkit should be designed, including that it should be accessible and easy to use, with templates, case studies, and links to relevant policies. Accessibility was emphasised by several respondents. Most commonly, it was felt the toolkit should use accessible design principles, such as using plain English, Easy Read, audiovisual and other disability-friendly formats. One organisation, however, called for the removal of the need for Easy Read versions, preferring the toolkit and policy documents to be written concisely in plain English. Others noted the toolkit should be in an accessible location, such as an easy-to-navigate website.

Some respondents called for the toolkit to be well designed, such as being easy and intuitive to use. It was suggested that the content should be eye-catching, using images and simple diagrams, check-lists, or step-by-step guides, and easy to navigate.

Some respondents suggested using templates or examples to support understanding what mainstreaming looks like in practice. Areas where respondents felt this would be helpful included policy development, overcoming challenges, and conducting integrated impact assessments. Some felt references to other resources, such as policies, frameworks, toolkits, or training, should be included. Legal compliance requirements and good practice and evidence were also often suggested. Other specific suggestions included use of project portfolio management processes, community engagement resources, the proposed new National Outcome on Care, and rights-based resources and guidance.

Including case studies or involving those with lived experience to illustrate mainstreaming in practice was suggested by some respondents. Suggestions included scenario-based learning modules, video case studies, multi-themed case studies and practical examples. Some others suggested having information on different protected characteristics or inter-sectionality, i.e. how different characteristics can overlap and interact.

Delivery and implementation considerations

Various themes were raised relating to how a toolkit should be developed, delivered or used. This included recommendations that it be co-designed with stakeholders, use peer-learning or shared practice, and others suggestions about how a toolkit could be used.

Several respondents called for stakeholders to be involved in the design of any toolkit. Groups mentioned included people with lived experience, diversity and equality professionals, communications and research professionals, network Equality Leads, the NDPB (Non-Departmental Public Body) Equality Forum, the third sector, NHS Education for Scotland and Police Scotland.

The need for active promotion of any toolkit or new learning resources was raised by several respondents. Comments were often brief, though suggested ways this could be achieved included awareness-raising workshops, encouraging training providers to develop qualifications or accredited resources, national advertising and advertising in libraries, doctor surgeries, hospitals and council offices, for example.

Some respondents recommended embedding ways to share learning, such as through peer-to-peer-based approaches. Ways to achieve this were suggested, such as encouraging blogs, knowledge-sharing forums, discussion groups, or networking events.

Developing a toolkit that is flexible or that can be adapted for different audiences was considered important by some respondents at Q25 and some at Q24. Tailored resources for different professional groups or sectors were recommended, such as addressing the specific needs of small organisations and teams or addressing differences at a local level, such as rural and urban variations.

The need for the toolkit to have value or be meaningful was emphasised by some. Views included that the resource needs to be trusted, be invested in, and for the benefits of using it to be promoted. One respondent suggested the content should be based on evidence of what works to promote behavioural change.

Ways to distribute or deliver learning content were suggested by some respondents. Ideas included defining the intended audience in advance, giving support to people to access the materials, making the toolkit available to members of the public, avoiding licensing fees, using a multi-layered approach with a blend of in-person and online sessions and ensuring the content is embedded across existing resources and organisations, such as the Leading to Change platform and NHS Education for Scotland’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Network. Using interactive self-assessment resources was recommended by some to enable self-directed learning or identify areas for improving practice across areas.

Some respondents called for the toolkit to be used on a mandatory basis, or for mandatory elements within it. Two felt it should be mandatory for staff to use the toolkit within their induction; others called for disability competency training to be mandatory and reiterated the importance of the requirement to undertake Equality Impact Assessments.

At Q24, some raised the need for clear guidance, something also reflected at engagement events. Areas where clarity was requested included who is responsible for producing the toolkit, identification of measurable goals, and expectations for use. Issuing clear guidance was viewed as a way to avoid fragmentation and promote consistency across Scotland.

Regular review and updates

A few themes emerged in relation to updating, monitoring, and feedback on any toolkit. Several respondents at Q25 and some at Q24 felt any toolkit should be kept under regular review and updated as policy and practice change over time. Proposed ways to achieve this included a dedicated team having responsibility for updating and maintaining the resources, establishing and using metrics to measure the toolkit’s effectiveness and impact and collaborating with specialist organisations to continually shape and improve it.

Some respondents commented on the use of data, such as using data to inform the toolkit’s contents or to allow bodies to upload data, for instance, evidence of progress to support accountability measures. Some others similarly suggested a need for feedback or reporting mechanisms to ensure any toolkit remains relevant and impactful.

Q26. What are your views on establishing additional reporting requirements?

The consultation paper states that: “There is extensive existing and proposed statutory reporting for both Scottish Government and the wider public sector. So we do not propose that the Strategy will have separate stand-alone reporting requirements beyond the Action Plan updates.”

Just under three fifths (59%) of those answering Q26 felt that additional reporting requirements should not be created, compared to 16% who did and 25% who were unsure. Similar proportions of individuals and organisations felt that additional reporting should not be created (58% and 59%, respectively), but organisations were more likely to be unsure about this proposal than individuals (28% compared to 17%, respectively). A majority of most organisation types felt additional reporting requirements should not be created, but views varied within equality advocacy organisations, of which 36% felt they should not be created, 21% felt they should, and 43% were unsure.

Integrate reporting requirements with existing mechanisms

Three quarters of respondents left an open comment at Q26. Many respondents called for reporting on mainstreaming human rights to be incorporated into existing reporting mechanisms. Perceived advantages of this included optimising resources, reducing administrative burden, avoiding duplication of effort and simplification.

Aligned to this theme, some respondents called for reporting to be streamlined or consolidated into a single reporting exercise. Ideas included collating reporting into one location or report, adopting a ‘whole system’ approach or focusing on practical, actionable outcomes rather than perceived burdensome processes. A few called for sufficient or additional resources to be in place to enable robust reporting.

Additional reporting is not necessary

More broadly, many respondents expressed a view that additional reporting requirements would increase administrative burden or that there were already sufficient reporting mechanisms in place. Key points mentioned included that additional reporting would be inefficient, lead to a ‘tick box’ mentality, require resources, or result in duplication of effort. Similarly, some others felt there was not enough resources or capacity to deliver additional reporting. Specific points included that there may only be one person whose role is to deliver reports, that it could detract from a focus on delivery or that support may be needed to improve the quality of certain types of data, such as capturing intersectional data.

Similarly, some other respondents felt that current reporting processes could be strengthened. Comments suggested improvement was needed, for instance, due to reports being of poor quality or inconsistent, to ensure Scottish Ministers comply with their duty to publish proposals for activity, to enable improved performance of the Public Sector Equality Duty, and to strengthen communication channels.

Could help with accountability and transparency

The need for accountability and transparency was discussed by some respondents, though views varied on whether this could be achieved through additional reporting. In addition to the use of additional reporting, suggestions for promoting accountability and transparency have been discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.

Consider the timing of reporting schedules

The need to consider when reports should be submitted was raised by some respondents. Suggestions included creating a timeline to help with the structure and planning of reports, aligning reporting with EHRC reporting, considering the gap between implementing the forthcoming Human Rights Bill and this Strategy, allowing ad hoc submissions at the discretion of public authorities, and to align reporting with current public sector statutory reporting. For instance, it was noted that Police Scotland Equality Outcomes and other public bodies' progress reports are due in 2027 and 2031, which were not thought to align with the likely reporting schedule for this Strategy.

Other comments

Some left brief comments indicating their opposition to additional reporting. Other views included welcoming the commitment to delivering an annual statement on gender policy coherence and that national equality outcomes would allow the Scottish Government to lead by example by ensuring their work is outcomes-focused.