Social Security Charter Review: research findings

16. Workshop 4: Agreeing changes to the Charter and reviewing the framework

Workshop four was took place at the end of August and 14 participants took part. The aims of the workshop were to review the proposed changes made so far and agree a full set of changes. Researchers explored whether participants were content that changes reflected their comments from workshop three. Researchers also highlighted outstanding issues. Participants also considered the new ‘Useful information’ section. Lastly, participants also shared their views on the Charter Measurement Framework including the approach to the review and priorities for communicating the framework.

Participants also received a presentation from the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The presentation gave an overview of the role of the Charter in delivering a Human Rights based approach to social security in Scotland.

16.1 Draft changes to the Charter

There was continued support for proposed changes to structure of the Charter. There was some movement of commitments between sections and sub-headings had been added to each section to bring together commitments into related themes. Updates had been made to the wording of commitments based on discussions at workshop three. Researchers took participants through these changes in small group discussions. This was the second time participants had reviewed changes to the first two sections and the first time looking at changes to sections three and four. Participants made some suggestions for further changes which are described below. Draft commitments are again provided in boxes for context.

Draft commitment: Recruiting people who care about delivering a service based on equality, respect, dignity and human rights, and including this in our recruitment criteria and questions

Following further changes based on feedback at workshop three, participants were now happier with the wording of this commitment. However, there was a suggestion that the commitment was “wordy” and could be rearranged to put ‘recruitment criteria’ at the beginning of the sentence.

Draft commitment: Delivering face-to-face services in local communities in places that are convenient, welcoming and accessible for you. This includes home visits if appropriate

Participants thought the second draft of this commitment was better and reflected their feedback from workshop three. There was an assumption that face-to-face could means home visits and a suggestion that the commitment could reference other forms of communication such as video calls. There was positive support for the idea to add ‘face-to-face services’ to the glossary to provide more information about the choice available to clients.

Draft commitment: Refer you to a free and independent advocacy service (the Social Security Independent Advocacy Service), to support you if you are disabled, to help you understand and be involved in decisions which affect you

Participants questioned why the advocacy service was only available to clients who are disabled. There was continued uncertainty about the independence of the advocacy service from Social Security Scotland.

Draft commitment: Signpost you towards other organisations that may be able to provide advice or guidance

Participants again discussed the terminology used to tell clients about other services and how this was done in practice. Participants repeated their view that ‘signpost’ was unclear. Some participants said the word ‘signpost’ should be changed to ‘direct’ as this was “easier to understand”.

Draft commitment: Implementing a system to provide updates on the progress of your application and expected timelines, including if things might take a bit longer

Participants said the revisions to the wording of this commitment were a “welcome change” and made the information in the commitment more “helpful” to clients. Participants liked the idea of being told when it will take more time to process their applications. One participant disagreed and said it remained unclear: “you either have timelines or you don’t, you either have internal targets or not”.

Draft commitment: Ensuring that if you have questions along the way, we will handle your enquiries as quickly as we can

The wording of this commitment continued to generate significant discussion. Some participants remained unhappy with the phrase ‘as quickly as we can’, while others were content. Ideas for replacement words were limited but there was a suggestion this could be replaced by “forthwith”. One participant highlighted that the wording would depend on “what clients wanted and what could be delivered”. Participants again reiterated the value of updates and prompt answers to avoid clients “feeling forgotten”.

Section 3: A learning system tag line: We will encourage feedback and empower people to deliver the best service possible

There was negative feedback about the word ‘empower’. Some thought it was meaningless and others were unsure about who was empowered – clients or staff.

Draft commitment: Measuring each year how we are delivering the commitments in Our Charter and building lessons learnt from this into future improvements to our services

Participants were happy with the changes to this commitment to provide more specific information about measuring performance and using it to improve.

Draft commitment: Put people first as we deliver an efficient service and deliver value for money

Participants were still hesitant about this commitment following changes made by researchers based on feedback at workshop three. Many were still unsure about the phrase ‘value for money’. They reiterated that the phrase had “negative connotations” and had “prejudice” which implied “cheap”. There was a suggestion to add a group of people at the end of the sentence to make it clearer who the value was for. For example, “for every person” or “for everyone that is using the service”.

16.2 ‘Additional information for clients’

There was overall support for the addition of ‘useful or additional information’ relevant to the Charter. Information included: a glossary, an overview of key processes, and helpful links. An overview of this information can be found in section 5.5.

Participants thought clients would find additional information “very helpful” but agreed that it had to be “meaningful”. One group stressed that the ‘useful information’ should not replace or dilute the commitments of the Charter. There was general agreement that including information in a separate section would stop the Charter becoming too long or cluttered.

Some participants thought the ‘useful information’ should be placed at the top of the Charter, others said at the end. Some thought this could make the Charter itself too long and suggested two versions – a short summary Charter with links to the full information in a longer version. One participant was concerned about the impact of printing paper copies of detailed information and questioned whether this was value for money.

“I like the idea of having it [information about a term] at the end, in the glossary, looks more streamlined, easier to read”. Core client group participant

16.3 Reviewing the Charter Measurement Framework

Participants heard an overview of the approach to reviewing the framework. There was overall support for proposed approach, particularly that the framework should reflect changes to Charter and how Social Security Scotland works in practice.

Connected to previous discussions about accountability and transparency, participants said it was important for the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland to share information about performance. Participants were unfamiliar with existing mechanisms for measuring performance such as published research, statistics and Social Security Scotland’s annual report. Feedback emphasised that data on performance “needs to be out there” and participants said in particular, people who use the service want to “know how it is delivering for them”.

The group suggested information was shared with clients to show “what we’ve done”. Ideas for how to do this included an “in the news” section of Social Security Scotland’s website which one participant described as “user friendly”. Other ideas were to share links to published information, distribute flyers with “headlines” and promote information in community locations. Two participants raised concerns about printed information and value for money.

“…with the Scottish Government everything is online and I think it is superb…I think there should be a contact that if you want paper copy then we can send one to you.” Core client group participant

In terms of content, participants said information should cover what improvements have been made and what is coming next; “where we are and where we’re trying to get to”. There were suggestions the content could be divided into sections which show what the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland “have done / will do / aspire to do”. Other suggestions were to focus on key changes and give rolling updates.

“We have achieved this or we’re still not achieving this, but are putting things in place to improve.” Core client group participant

Participants said reporting on performance should focus on what clients are most interested in. There were limited suggestions for what this information should cover. One suggestion was for data on redeterminations and appeals and timescales for decisions. This was echoed by another participant who said clients were primarily concerned with “how long things take”. Participants also said that reporting should make clear how clients are involved in improving the service, including reviewing the Charter.

“We are involving people who use the service”. Core client group participant

“Showing [the revised Charter has] come from the wider populace make it a bit more meaningful that it was more inclusive”. Core client group participant

Participants were clear that information about performance should be simple and concise. One group looked at the 2021-22 framework and said it was unlikely clients “would read 105 pages”. Some thought two versions, a summary and a longer more detailed version, could be helpful for clients. Participants said this could allow information to be tailored to “users of the system” and “other interested groups”.

“People want something that is easy to go through and quick.” Core client group participant

Participants were also agreed that communication about performance should avoid jargon and be easy to follow. Participants said that visual communication could be more engaging than lots of text. There were suggestions for graphs and charts to show things like year-on-year comparisons. For example, one participant suggested “good visible information” to show things like how long applications took today compared to six months ago.