Independent Advocacy Social Care Pilot Fund: equality impact assessment

Key Findings

As stated above, the key evidence gathered and analysed for all the above protected characteristics and public sector equality duties was: co-design engagements; an internal mapping process; and a literature review. Where gaps in data were found, the search was extended to consider social care research more widely (i.e., not specific to independent advocacy) and then, as necessary, health literature. This provided a reasonable base from which to analyse the proposed grant fund pilot.

The data was analysed to see whether there were disadvantages among any of the groups that could be overcome through careful planning of this offer. It is clear that just because the planned grant fund does not directly discriminate amongst groups

(given its non-targeted nature) that does not mean that discrimination will not occur. For example, considering the protected characteristic of sex, in 2023/24 (most recently available data), the rate of females receiving social care was over one and half times that of males^[1]. This reflects the fact that, at older ages, the number of females is much higher than the number of males due to higher female life expectancy^[2]. Therefore, non-targeted services brought in to support people through their social care journey will, due to the make-up of that population, favour women.

That said, there are no plans to ‘correct’ for this in the development of this policy.

Beginning then with the Public Sector Equality Duty of eliminating discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act

2010, we found that requirement already built into the independent advocacy sector. This is because the sole focus of an independent advocate is ensuring that the individual being supported (the ‘advocacy partner’) is able to voice their opinions and have a fair explanation of the options available to them and understand their rights in any given circumstance; essentially, their presence aims to prevent discrimination, harassment or victimisation from occurring. Given this policy is looking to increase independent advocacy, we believe that, in and of itself, should meet this duty across all characteristics. Relevantly, however, there were some findings from our data that suggested that bias and / or lack of understanding was sometimes demonstrated by independent advocates themselves. Therefore, consideration will be given as to how quality can be monitored throughout the pilot phase to be a check on this type of issue going forward.

The analysis also uncovered useful findings in relation to protected characteristics and the other two public sector equality duties which will lead to alterations in how the grant fund is brought forward. Those are detailed below.

For race, language barriers and cultural barriers were significant issues that came through the analysis. So it is insufficient to offer a ‘race blind’ non-targeted offer, as the result of that will likely be that those from minority ethnic backgrounds will not be

able to access support. Care must therefore be taken when developing the grant fund to ensure that the specific needs of people under this characteristic are accounted for.

For disability, the need for accessible processes came through strongly, as did the necessity for sufficient time to be built into any offer to ensure those with complex needs, and particularly those with learning disabilities, were able to be properly supported. So, again, these findings will need to be built into the grant fund, to ensure it is accessible and meaningful for people with disabilities as well as for others. This also needs to be combined with the race considerations detailed above.

In terms of age the vast majority of people accessing social care services are aged 65 and over. This has real implications in terms of accessibility, with rates of digital exclusion highest amongst this age group. This age group are also more likely to reside in rural areas than younger people, which has its own issues around digital access. Therefore, it is essential that organisations who are successful in the grant fund do not necessitate the use of digital skills in potential users of the independent advocacy, in order to ensure that people of all ages are able to make use of the offer.

For religion and belief, whilst there was not a lot of data available, the one clear finding that came through pointed to a need for culturally aware support, which again can be built into the development of the grant fund.

In relation to pregnancy and maternity, the only data available to analyse was in relation to maternity services. This found issues in relation to support for people with autism, learning disabilities, and from minority ethnic groups, similar to those described above in terms of cultural awareness, (lack of) understanding of needs, and communication issues. Again, such issues will need to form part of the consideration of how to ensure those organisations that are successful in applying to the grant fund give access to their advocacy offer in a way that is truly accessible to people with anyone within and across the protected characteristic categories.

For sexual orientation, the main finding was that increased independent advocacy could support people to navigate the social care system, and to address some barriers to access. In common with some of the other protected characteristics, it was found that cultural barriers and bias played a role in preventing people from being able to access the support they need, and that intersectionality between other protected characteristics and sexual orientation was not taken into account. The issue of reduced cultural understanding and bias was also raised with independent advocacy provision itself, not just with accessing social care services. This underlines that careful consideration of how independent advocates understand and support people with protected characteristics that are potentially different to their own will be required from applicants to the grant fund.

In terms of gender reassignment, while data is limited, it was clear that there are significant barriers faced by transgender people in accessing social care services. Any grant fund that sought to support in this area would need to be very aware of, and supportive of, transgender specific needs.

Finally, in terms of fostering good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not, the key here is the type of independent advocacy that is brought forward. Citizen advocacy, peer advocacy and collective advocacy all offer an opportunity for people with various protected characteristics to come together, and so could be used to meet this duty. For example, a citizen advocate may be supporting someone with a disability yet not have a disability themselves; as citizen advocates are volunteers, they gain an understanding of the individual advocacy partner through their engagement in the process, therefore fostering the good relations that this equality duty requires. For collective advocacy, groups sometimes aim to make change, taking their message outside of the collective. By putting forward their ideas for change and improvement, they widen understanding of their needs and the barriers they face, allowing others who don’t share that protected characteristic to reach a greater awareness. Finally, peer advocacy allows those engaged to gain greater understanding with others who share some of the same protected characteristics.