Equality and Human Rights Mainstreaming strategy: consultation analysis

8. Improving Capacity

This section analyses respondents' views on the Strategy’s aim to ensure the Scottish Government and the wider public sector have the resources and budget to fully integrate equality and human rights into everything they do. This will require organisations to use their staff, financial and other assets to support positive change.

Regarding funding specifically, the consultation paper states: “Fundamental to this is ensuring equality and human rights are built into resource allocation and budgeting decisions as critical factors in decision making. This includes funding for third-sector organisations to create external capacity.”

Q20. Do you agree that improving capacity is a key driver of mainstreaming equality and human rights?

Among those answering Q20, 92% agreed that improving capacity is a key driver for mainstreaming equality and human rights; 7% disagreed, and 1% were unsure. All organisations agreed with this key driver, compared to 64% of individuals.

Funding questions and concerns

Just over half of respondents left an open comment at Q20. The most prevalent theme in responses was agreement that capacity needs to improve to ensure the Strategy achieves its aims. Many respondents commented that adequate resources, such as time, staffing and funding were vital to enable organisations to prioritise human rights and equality. Several respondents did not elaborate on this, but some provided examples, such as ensuring capacity and resource allocation is in line with the key objectives of ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and the UNCRPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). An organisation stated that these conventions emphasise the importance of providing the maximum available resources to ensure the progressive realisation of human rights and promote the full inclusion and participation of all individuals.

Some commented on the lack of consistency in funding for the third sector and advocated for multi-year funding. A few respondents highlighted that this sector has faced funding cuts in recent years and a small number felt that long-term funding was essential to recruit and retain specialist equality and human rights staff in the third sector. A small number of respondents felt that funding for the public sector should also be increased to ensure there is sufficient resources to enable the mainstreaming of equality and human rights.

Further questions about funding included: where it would come from, how much it would be, if it would be ringfenced, how it would be allocated, what it should be spent on (e.g., training) and how funding recipients would demonstrate where money has been spent.

Current capacity challenges

Some respondents raised concerns about their organisation’s existing capacity levels and cited this as a key barrier to undertaking current work on equality and human rights. Some challenges noted by organisations included: a lack of funding or cuts to current funding leading to the closure of some equalities organisations, existing services experiencing high demand and feeling stretched, and a historical lack of investment in the equalities sector.

Separating capacity and capability

Some respondents agreed that it was important to separate capacity (i.e. people, time, and resources) and capability (i.e., skills and knowledge), as outlined in the consultation paper. However, a few organisations highlighted how the two are interdependent.

Q21. Have we captured the core elements of improving capacity within the context of mainstreaming?

Just over half (52%) of those answering Q21 felt that the core elements of improving capacity within the context of mainstreaming had been captured in the consultation paper. There was a marked difference between individuals and organisations, with 30% of individuals expressing a positive view compared to 59% of organisations. Opinions varied by organisation type, with all of health organisations agreeing, compared to 20% of professional/membership bodies.

Funding questions and concerns

In addition to the points outlined under Q20, respondents sought more detail about how the proposed grant funding for civil society organisations would be distributed and how any additional funding would interact with existing equalities and human rights budgets, such as those distributed by public bodies.

Some respondents commented on different budgeting approaches that could be taken, such as embedding a human rights budgeting approach across the public sector, taking guidance from the Scottish Human Rights Commission on human rights budgeting, and utilising an intersectional gender budgeting approach.

Requests for more detail

Some respondents felt the Strategy lacked clarity and requested more information about improving capacity. For example, an organisation felt that a plan with specific milestones and deliverables was needed to ensure resources were used effectively. Another felt that it was not clear how improving capacity would be achieved, what this would look like in practice and what needed to be improved. Clearer definitions of ‘capacity’ and ‘civil society organisations’ were also requested.

One organisation highlighted the parallels between the proposed Drivers of Change for the Mainstreaming Strategy and the 2021 recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Budget Advisory Group. It felt that consideration should be given to how the Strategy could contribute to the implementation of these recommendations.

Monitoring and evidencing impact

A few comments were made about accountability and transparency in the context of improving capacity. One respondent suggested that a framework for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of capacity-building efforts could be developed. One organisation felt that independent bodies (e.g. SHRC and SPSO^[6]) were important to monitor services and that adequate capacity for these assessors should be a priority. Another said that it is difficult for civil society organisations to demonstrate the impact of grant funding as many of these groups are volunteer-led and so require more resources to help them evidence their outcomes. Another organisation suggested that technology could be used to streamline work, and participants at an engagement event suggested using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to assist in the analysis of data from EQIAs.

Q22. What actions would you recommend to ensure that improving capacity as outlined will contribute to the achievement of mainstreaming?

Around two thirds of respondents left an open comment in response to Q22. However, a large proportion of the comments reiterated the themes addressed in Q20 and Q21 above. Additional themes included training, which is addressed in Chapter 7, and collaboration, which is described below.

Collaboration and sharing best practices

Some respondents at Q22 noted collaboration as important to maximising capacity. However, collaboration, sharing best practices, and utilising local expertise were recurring themes across the consultation, in particular Q6 (strengthening leadership), Q12 (effective regulatory and policy environment), Q15 (utilising evidence and experience) and Q19 (enhanced capability and culture). To minimise repetition, the key points about collaboration have been consolidated here.

Multiple potential benefits of collaboration and sharing best practice were highlighted, including that it could:

• Encourage resources to be used more effectively.
• Ensure cohesive and consistent policies and processes are used across Scotland.
• Aid capacity building and integrating workable practice into day-to-day work across the public sector.

Suggestions for where there could be a focus on collaboration or partnership included between and within the Scottish Government, the wider public sector, the third sector and the local community. Others highlighted different types of collaboration and suggested including non-public sector organisations to create a holistic approach to mainstreaming. For example, one respondent suggested that the third sector and public bodies could collaborate to design policies and services, and another suggested partnering with trade unions to create stronger public sector leadership. Other suggestions included forming a network of specialists focused on equality and human rights, or undertaking co-design and consultation with affected stakeholders.

At Q15, some respondents discussed evidence and experience; these comments have been inlcuded in the analysis here due to their relevance to this question. Some respondents felt that third-sector organisations and communities hold expertise in the effective use of evidence and experience, which could support mainstreaming activity. The importance of the third sector in building trust with people with lived experience was also noted. Several respondents advocated for building and maintaining a directory or database of shared knowledge and best practices which is accessible, stored centrally and available for scrutiny and assessment across public bodies.

Some respondents provided examples of best practices across the consultation questions. For example, some provided suggestions at Q3 to Q6 (strengthening leadership) and at Q18 and Q17 (enhancing capability and culture), some suggested drawing on best practice examples in any training