Scottish Borders SDS Forum
/Scottish Borders SDS Forum is a group of people with lived experience of self-directed-support (SDS) in the Scottish Borders. In May 2019, the forum made a participation request to Scottish Borders Council after the local authority decided to introduce pre-payment cards without adequate consultation.
Background
Scottish Borders SDS Forum was set up by Encompass through funding from the Scottish Government via a Support in the Right Direction project with the aim of contributing to the future development of Self-directed Support in the Scottish Borders. Members of the Forum are individuals and carers who are using SDS, regardless of which of the four SDS options they choose.
In January 2019 the Borders SDS Forum learned that the council was proposing introducing pre-payment cards for people using Option 1. At two meetings held in early January, Encompass had asked whether there was going to be any consultation, and were told there would not be any. At a Borders SDS Forum meeting in the same month, members expressed concern. They were aware of previous research from England highlighting issues around payment cards.
The Forum contacted the SDS Lead at Scottish Borders Council in February 2019. They asked for more information and requested consultation with people currently using Option 1. Again, the response was that there would be no further consultation, although the council planned to pilot any future option that was introduced.
Representatives from the Forum were invited to attend a workshop on pre-payment cards meeting in March 2019. However, having heard about participation requests through training delivered by SDS Scotland, the Forum decided to make one that March.
Making the request
The form for making a participation request asks groups to state an outcome they want to improve. The forum focused on service-user involvement and choice, in line with the underlying principles contained within SDS legislation.
In response to the form’s questions around why the group should be involved and what they would bring, the group highlighted their lived experience and also that they were dedicated to representing and supporting the views, needs and interests of service users and their cares.
The forum submitted their request on the 10th April 2019.
The decision
After a delay in validating the participation request, Scottish Borders Council agreed to the request on the 9th July 2019, stating that a pre-organised meeting which the group had been invited to (also on the 9th July) was part of the outcome improvement process.
The lack of advance warning meant that forum members who attended the meeting on the 9th were unaware it was part of the outcome improvement process. Furthermore, the forum felt they didn’t have the opportunity to respond properly to the proposed process, as is supposed to happen under the legislation.
Forum members felt disempowered and underprepared but, with guidance from Self-Directed Support Scotland (SDSS) and Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC), they successfully requested that modifications be made to the outcome improvement process to ensure meaningful participation, including revised timescales. The forum also took the opportunity to ask if an equality impact assessment had been undertaken.
The process
After some more email communication to iron out the process, it was agreed in January 2020 that options appraisal meetings would be held in March 2020, and that all SDS payment options would be considered as part of the outcome improvement process.
The forum was also invited to participate in an Integrated Assessment (The council’s formal process encompassing an Equality Impact Assessment or EQIA) which enabled an assessment of the equality impact of all potential options. The Integrated Assessment was incorporated into the outcome improvement process, enabling the forum to highlight the impact on older people, people living in rural locations, and those with less access to technology. The impact on socio-economically disadvantaged groups was also looked at.
The process was delayed for nearly a year due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Three meetings were held in early 2021. There were some initial issues around ensuring the meetings were part of an outcome improvement process as opposed to just an options appraisal. However, over the course of the meetings, the Forum was able to contribute fully to the outcome improvement process.
Examples of how they contributed include:
Ensuring the options appraisal focused on choice and control and positive outcomes for people.
Presenting the results of freedom of information requests they had made to other local authorities in Scotland showing the relatively high start-up and ongoing costs of pre-payment cards.
Highlighting research carried out by SDSS and the ALLIANCE with people using Option 1, which found that people required support when introducing pre-payment cards.
Pointing to evidence from one Scottish local authority of the need to support people during implementation of pre-payment cards which were introduced without consultation.
Having a significant input into the corporate management draft report with recommendations for council.
The forum had to continue to argue until the last meeting for choice in relation to pre-payment cards. In the last meeting the council tried to add in that pre-payment cards would be the default position for new users. The forum successfully argued against this.
Outcome
In late summer 2021, the forum heard that the decision had been made for people to have a choice as to whether they used pre-payment cards or not, the decision that the forum had sought to begin with.
In further evidence that the outcome (service user involvement in planning and decision-making in regard to payment cards) has been improved, the forum has been asked to be involved in the planning process for implementing the use of pre-payment cards.
“It was worth doing despite all the work involved. It gave us structure and somehow authority. It was a learning experience for the SDS Forum and SBC employees – they benefitted greatly from hearing from people with lived experience.”
Elspeth Critchley, Secretary, Borders SDS Forum
The forum felt they had considerable impact on the corporate management report’s recommendation that all new and current users have a free choice of available options. Furthermore, they believe that the cards would probably have been introduced had they not made the participation request.
Learning
Within the process, the Forum has played a role keeping the process on track and focused on achieving outcomes. Quite a lot of correspondence has happened between meetings, such as when picking up on something that wasn’t agreed in a previous meeting so that things improve in upcoming meetings.
Outwith the process, but still connected to it, the Forum has benefited from its ongoing relationship with the two Scottish Borders councillors, one of whom is a member of the forum. The other leads on adult social care within the council. The forum invited him to an information session on self-directed support, after which he become a strong advocate for choice and control. He attended the first of the three outcome improvement process meetings in 2021 and was able to emphasise concerns about the meeting to the social work department. The greater focus on choice, control and flexibility in following followed on from that.
In some ways the process has felt overly formal, long and drawn out. This has been tiring for the group, but they are also aware that it will have been challenging for council officers. In addition to the community engagement team who have facilitated much of the communication between the forum and the council, other council departments that have been involved are finance, social work and senior management. The forum hopes this hasn’t affected their relationship with the council in the longer term.
On this, Mark Han-Johnston from SDSS adds that everyone in the process should have learned a great deal about collaboratively working towards improving outcomes. This should make it easier to embed these ways of working in future council planning. A related, unintended, outcome is that the forum has made other people aware about what is important to it as a group. Relationships have developed that should hopefully be fruitful in future.
A further area of learning is around equality. Both SDSS and Borders SDS Forum found the EQIA to be an important element of the outcome improvement process. The Forum’s Secretary, Elspeth Critchley is glad the forum asked for this to be included when responding to the initial decision notice, and believes EQIA training should be a requirement for council planners.
Mark points out that the EQIA probably has more ‘teeth’ than the participation request legislation, with a recent example in Scotland of a judicial review reversing decisions on equalities grounds. He adds that the potential connection between participation requests and EQIAs should be emphasised in guidance around making participation requests. On this, Elspeth highlights that the forum benefited from having a member with experience of conducting an EQIA, but that not all groups will be in such a strong position.
There is a wider point here about capacity, and Elspeth is keen to point out how the complicated process, language and level of work involved could be barriers to many groups thinking of making a participation request. She is appreciative of the support provided by SDSS throughout the process, and SCDC at the early stages of making the participation request.
“An interesting outcome of the process has been I think an increased respect from the LA for the SDS Forum and a greater willingness to involve us in anything to do with SDS and to see that as positive. For example – the SDS Lead recently retired and I have been involved with Social Work staff, on behalf of the Forum, in drawing up the job description, the short listing and I will be involved in the interviews.”
Elspeth Critchley, Secretary, Borders SDS Forum
Mark from SDS Scotland highlights the issue of getting the outcome right. He observes that this is an issue for public bodies as well as community organisations. For example, Scottish Borders Council appeared to overly focus on the different options for SDS payments, rather than improving outcomes. It would therefore be useful to provide public bodies with some guidance on making outcome improvement processes about achieving outcomes.
