The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Fair Enough?
Fair For All Progress Report:
Analysis of Race Equality Schemes and Fair For All Action Plans

Background to the Findings

Content of findings

• The Findings in the following section represent a summary of the findings for 27 Boards and Trusts. These Findings are a summary of the 27 individual Final Summary Reports that are being published (on CD-rom) to accompany this report ( Appendix F).
• Thus the Findings summarise all the analyses undertaken by the consultants of all the Schemes and Action Plans submitted for analysis.
• Interspersed with the Findings are examples of practice and planning and recommendations for action.

Boards and Trusts which submitted Schemes and Action Plans for analysis

Note: The following were omitted from the analysis: Scottish Executive Health Department (too different from the national and area organisations for which our assessment framework was designed); NHS Education (not supplied); and Golden Jubilee National Hospital and NHS 24 (not asked to supply a Scheme for analysis).

Practice or planning examples

• The practice or planning examples that are featured in the Findings are not intended to be comprehensive in nature. However we have included at least one practice or planning example for each broad topic covered in the National Assessment Framework (and therefore then covered in the individual analysis).
• We have been able to include at least one practice or planning example from each organisation which has submitted a Scheme and Action Plan.
• This is appropriate as all organisations are making progress.
• It is particularly to be noted that the practice or planning examples have been necessarily gathered from a desk analysis of Schemes and Action Plans rather than by research of actual practice on the ground. Thus they may often reflect intention and commitment rather than current practice and achievement.
• The inclusion of a particular organisation to illustrate practice or planning in one area thus does not mean that it has necessarily established a model of good practice or excellence to be followed by other organisations. Indeed there may well be other organisations which have better practice in that area of work.

Timeframe for obtaining Schemes and Action Plans

• The timescales for the preliminary and final stages of the project were tight. One reason for this was late submissions by Boards and Trusts, particularly at the preliminary stage. The NRCEMH had to do a great deal of follow up work to obtain copies of Schemes or Action Plan from various Boards or Trusts.
• In many cases it was not clear whether the version under analysis was the final version or whether it had indeed been published. A number of Schemes were said to be draft or subject to consultation or to agreement at Board level.
• However, it has to be noted that there was no precise guidance in the Specific Duty as to how Schemes should be submitted. (The obligation was rather just that they should be published.) The FFA HDL on the other hand was clear that the Action Plan should be submitted to the Scottish Executive.
• Organisations had to cope for their part with two dates (November 2002 and March 2003) and the two different drivers, which generally meant two rounds of work on their part. There is some overlap between the two drivers (though they are different) and a Joint Implementation Framework was subsequently developed by the CRE and NRCEMH, though not in sufficient time to meet the November deadline. It is to be hoped that further negotiations may bring more alignment so that organisations can focus on delivery.

Context for assessment

• Some Schemes were said to be still in draft form (even after 30th November) or subject to consultation or to agreement at Board level.
• Very often it was not clear whether the version of Scheme being analysed was in fact a final version or whether or not it had been published.
• The great majority of Schemes were original in their approach and generally took good account of local circumstances
• Sharing of content and approach between Boards and Trusts was rather limited (despite feedback that some at least would have preferred more national guidance).

Differences between NHS organisations

• Lothian and Greater Glasgow published separate schemes for each Board and Trust; other area Boards published single Schemes. All NHS organisations need to consider the implications for all parts of their organisation as the shape of NHS Scotland changes and to ensure mainstreaming throughout the organisation.
• The National Assessment Framework was not relevant in full for national Boards. In addition, two national organisations have undergone reorganisation during the period so that their Schemes now need to be reconsidered following integration with other organisations.

Assessment of commitment

• The analysis has been a desk based exercise. Consultants have had to assess levels of commitment from what has been produced by Boards and Trusts in their Schemes and Action Plans.
• Very often commitments have been made in those documents but it is not necessarily clear what action has been taken or is being planned. Very often, the analysis has sought evidence that the organisation in question has at least done more than simply lift text from CRE or FFA guidance documents.
• Generally speaking, it has been necessary to take a view on whether the organisation in question seems to be making genuine progress towards meeting the obligations placed upon it, even if it has not yet achieved the objectives set. Frequently, organisations have not had a history of work in the area though some schemes demonstrate an enthusiasm for making progress quickly.

Guidance

• The findings can be read in conjunction with the National Assessment Framework which contains more detailed guidance on how schemes and action plans can be improved.
• The CRE published Guidance and a Code of Practice which set out requirements and gave pointers to what should be included in Schemes. The CRE has also produced Guidance since the start of the project (for Inspectorates and on Procurement), and Guidance is being developed on partnerships.
• Some organisations felt that more national guidance should have been produced at the start of the process. An alternative view would be that it has been valuable for organisations to work through the implications of the legislation and policy guidance in detail at the local level to develop action that is genuinely appropriate for individual circumstances and to gain understanding of the issues.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations may be used both in the summary of analysis that follows and in the National Assessment Framework at Appendix D.

« Previous | Contents | Next »