Gender and Data
 
The Empowering Women Panel understands that if women aren’t represented through quantitative data, and if their perspectives are not heard through qualitative research, then things won’t change. Policy will go on being made in a way that disregards gender differences and the many ways women and non-binary people are disadvantaged.
 
Our peer research project represents an excellent way of reaching out and collecting data from women who rarely have any influence on politics. By interviewing friends, family, colleagues, and people in our communities, we were able to connect with women who might not feel comfortable speaking to a professional researcher.
 
We also explored some of the barriers women encounter when trying to access aid - including the multiple hurdles faced by prepayment meter users attempting to employ the government's Energy Bills Support Scheme - therefore restricting relief for those who needed it most. Statistics will tell us a quarter of households did not use the scheme but cannot tell us why.
 
The Scottish Government should respect data that comes from more creative, innovative research methods, especially when they enable a wider range of people to participate.
 
Statistics are important, but they will never tell the whole story. Diverse and varied testimony from those with lived experience is also needed to help policy-makers really connect with and understand the challenges women and non-binary people face.
 

Background
During our second year of work, we led three ‘learning conversations’ with an Integrated Joint Board, care organisations, and advocacy groups to understand the realities of this work.

Instead of formal meetings, these were opportunities for everyone to learn from each other. Everyone was invited to share their experience of care, either personally or professionally. We also encouraged everyone to think about what got in the way of them doing the work they were trying to do, as well as what helped them.
We were encouraged by the way that everyone really listened to each other and tried to understand the realities of their experience of care. 
 
Integrated Joint Board
We spoke to members of a rural Integration Joint Board. Empowering Women Panel members from that region shared their lived experience and heard about the realities of trying to lead adult health and social care outside the Central Belt.

They described the system as being ‘on fire’ but recognised that because of the busy-ness and bureaucracy within the system, they often don’t act until the fire is ‘licking at their feet’, which feels too late. They talked about how they’re the ones designing the system yet can’t even get it right for people they love and care about. So they understand how challenging it must be for people like us who don’t fully understand or work in the system. They told us about the emphasis on targets - like delayed discharge and budgets – and how they are unable to focus on issues like early intervention and supporting people in the community, never mind equality and diversity.

They also said that there are constant demands from Government to produce more and more plans and strategies, with fewer resources available to actually put them in place. They talked about the time taken up in reporting and attending scrutiny meetings and called for more support and less pressure from Government, as well as time to implement changes before demanding even more. 

The IJB members also suggested that equality outcomes should be aligned with and integrated more strongly into the cycle of producing things like the health and social care commissioning plans, local outcomes improvement plans, and so on, rather than sitting alone.

Although they could see the value of equality impact assessments, both Scottish Government officials and IJB members recognised that they are still often carried out too late in the process. They become a ‘box ticking exercise’ rather than a tool to truly address inequalities. They also told us that the single strand approach of considering impacts for protected characteristic groups does not allow them to recognise where people may be intersectionally marginalised.

Finally, they told us that meaningful involvement of people with lived experience would, in particular, strengthen the process of undertaking equality impact assessments.

However, they did admit that the public sector often struggles to let go of their control to people and communities. They said it would be useful for them to have more guidance on this from Government, so that they feel they have permission to do this.
 
Delivery Organisations
We spoke to several commissioned services delivering adult social care who told us that they had never heard of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and are not monitored by public sector commissioners around issues relating to equality and diversity. 

The PSED is a legal requirement for public sector organisations  in the UK to think about how their policies and decisions might affect people who share a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation. The idea is that that public bodies eliminate discrimination so that everyone receives the same service from them, regardless of their identities.

Delivery organisations felt that they have very little time and receive very little support around equality and diversity, despite inequalities, prejudice and discrimination being a significant issue for both service users and staff.  This was echoed by women who shared their stories with us. They told us that a ‘cost over quality’ approach to commissioning meant that some services struggle to provide humane, never mind equality-informed services.

Delivery organisations also felt a lack of trust from the public sector and that they weren’t valued. They experienced a lack of information sharing and a lack of clarity, as well as being viewed as less capable than NHS colleagues, despite doing pretty much the same work. Communication in general was seen as an issue.

They called for more support and communication and clarity from Scottish Government about how social care would be supported and valued in the future, for example, through the national care strategy.
 
Support Organisations
We heard from organisations supporting carers and protected characteristic groups that the language within the current Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty is not strong enough and is open to - sometimes deliberate - misinterpretation.  For example, public bodies may decide what adjustments are ‘reasonable’ for a disabled service user or staff member. But these may not be ‘reasonable’ for that person and often will not contribute towards advancing their equality.  They said that they often hear about public bodies breaking the law in terms of their equality duties, without consequences. They called for more accountability for public sector organisations that are not meeting the Duty.

These third sector organisations talked about how important their role is in connecting with marginalised people and enabling lived experience voices to be heard. They’re often not adequately resourced to do this. We know from our conversations with our peers and each other how much support third sector organisations can give and how much trust has been built.
 
Reflections
From all of our conversations with a range of professionals, we generally found that people were committed, passionate and willing. However, we found that each part of the system is working in isolation and not having useful conversations with each other. Instead, there is a lot of finger pointing and blame which ultimately doesn’t help any of them. And it certainly doesn’t help women and girls like us who are experiencing the gaps that are created by that siloed way of thinking.
 
It seems like people want to work more closely together but there’s almost so much emphasis on feeding the machine that they can’t get to the actual work. We found that the higher up the chain you go, the more people are focused on bureaucracy and less on the people with lived experience who, after all, are the real reason for this work. Lived experience is central to finding the solutions but people often struggle to know how to do that meaningfully. 
​
We learned that everyone is facing barriers. We also know that there is a willingness to find solutions.
The question is, how does the Scottish Government use the powers it does have to make sure that every part of the system can work together effectively and transform that willingness into action?