National Care Service: Procurement - Co-design Partnership Programme report

What we learned

Evaluation questions need to be clear and focussed.

People told us they were happy we were evaluating human rights. Throughout the discussions the idea of using specific scenarios or targeting certain important elements of human rights were common. Some people thought that this would be more impactful than asking one large question aiming to address all the principles of human rights.

Other points around this included:

• evaluation questions should focus on specific parts of human rights that are important to people
• questions should be clear, easy to understand and not long and complicated

Here are some things people said during the discussion:

“Previous experience of procurement is that some questions aren’t specific enough so this draft question is valuable since those responding will need to answer in a similarly specific way. It makes clear it’s all about individuals’ wants and needs.”

“What are your views on Travellers, and how have you engaged with the community?” – example question to ask

“How will you apply the panel principles to ensure you will take a human rights-based approach?” – example question to ask

It is important people are treated as individuals, including respecting their culture, priorities and preferences.

People said that evaluation questions for human rights should test service providers’ approach to:

• flexibility
• choice
• personalisation
• preventing discrimination

Other points around this included:

• good responses will show proactive communication and involve the person
• they will also avoid presumptions and adapt to take account of personal choice
• this should apply even for seemingly small tasks, and circumstances, on a day-to-day basis

Here are some of the things people said during our discussions:

“They assumed we all had the same disability because we were all in wheelchairs – we should have been treated as individuals with individual requirements.”

“Hate it when staff bring out their own hair dryer – I have my own favourite one, if a support worker remembers that it makes me feel supported.”

“[You should] get to change your choices over time.”

“What’s right for one member of the community, and the needs of one Traveller, won’t be the same for other members of the community. Assumptions should not be made and everyone has to be treated as an individual.”

People feel their support workers impact their human rights.

In particular, people said support workers affect how empowered and involved they are in their own care. They said support workers affect the level of choice, control and flexibility of their support.

Other points around this included:

• evaluation questions about human rights should include information about the workforce
• questions should test how service providers will:
• make sure the person knows who is coming to support them
• make sure all workers are trained, engaged, respectful and good communicators
• support workers to have a good understanding of the person, including any cultural requirements or preferences
• demonstrate a commitment to ongoing training and development of workers to so they can deliver a human rights-based service that meets the self-directed support principles

Here are some of the things people said during our discussions:

“They were fully trained professionals and were compassionate and also open to respecting my culture and preferences. They were accepting of my requests to accommodate my cultural needs.”

“Support worker not paying attention – feels disrespectful – example: support worker fell asleep, not good at all.”

“Employ staff who know and understand us, and who are cheerful and positive.”

“There should be a requirement for organisations to have undertaken [Self-directed Support and Getting it Right for Everyone (GIRFE)] training.”

“Would like to see ‘training’ specifically referenced in the question.”

For responses to be good, demonstration is essential.

Supported people told us general responses about policies, or using buzz words like ‘personalisation’ was not enough to be a good response. They want responses to be backed by examples, evidence and to show a proactive approach to prevent bad practices, as well as support good practice of their workforce. Only then should providers’ responses be scored good or excellent.

Supported people told us they are nervous service providers may be good at writing policies, but poor at applying them.

To improve the evaluation approach to human rights, the evaluation should:

• ask service providers to show, through evidence, how they will deliver specific elements of human rights
• use words like ‘demonstrate’ instead of ‘detail’ in evaluation questions
• use scenario-based questions, to check how providers would apply their policies in real world situations

Other points around this included:

• good and excellent responses will use evidence with examples to clearly show understanding and proactive delivery of human rights
• poorer responses will rely on standardised approaches and policy statements, with few or no examples or evidence

Here are some of the things people said during our discussions:

“A good example would display meaty evidence, and have the response being evidence-driven.”

“As the aim is to be person-centred, it’s easy to write examples using buzz words, so a good example would show how something has been done in real life and how they actually go about things in practice.”

“Sometimes places will say they’re accessible, but practicality doesn’t match up – feels like a buzz word – can be overwhelming [or a] struggle to process.”

Participation of supported people helps make sure that services are flexible and person-led.

People said clear communication and collaboration are needed to empower the person and support participation. Evaluation responses should include evidence of clear communication and empowering people to participate in their care and support. This should apply to all questions. The level of proactive and individualised approach will determine whether the response is adequate, good, or excellent.

Here are some of the things people said during our discussions:

“[supported people should be] treated as experts in their own life. When at a restaurant, we’re experts in what we want to eat but we need a menu to be put in front of us. Similarly, with support requirements, we want to know what options are available to us – we don’t know what we don’t know.”

“Not just the words, but the how I’m asked – look at me face to face and talk to me as a person… no shouting, explain things, and if it’s hard to understand they would explain in a different way.”

“[support workers should be] asking the person for consent [every time] – and [thinking about] the way that it is asked.”

Demonstrating you are proactive in delivering human rights is important.

People told us through the discussion that good service providers understand that they need to be proactive in their engagement with human rights. This means demonstrating that they will deliver human rights.

And it also means they should be more likely to score ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ if they can show they are proactive in:

• empowering individuals to realise their human rights
• preventing discrimination

Here are some of the things people said during our discussions:

“Proactive demonstrating that they will treat each person equally – not favouring one group of people [..] It’s easy to fundraise for victims, but on the other side it’s hard to fundraise for the opposite side (previous offender), although both sides need the support.”

”[A good response would say] I have general awareness of the community and want to learn more so have engaged with community members, but would want to know what individual service users want and need from a service.”

“Make sure to show they are striving to be as inclusive as possible […] Demonstrating how they are informing people about their rights and how they are signposting people and their families to orgs [or] community groups that support them to realise their rights.”