« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1. Within the Scottish Executive's policy framework of Closing the Opportunity Gap there is a specific objective for rural Scotland. This seeks to improve access to high quality services for the most disadvantaged groups and individuals in rural communities, thereby enhancing quality of life and access to opportunity.
2. In order to meet this objective the Scottish Executive has set a target so that by 2008, agreed improvements to accessibility and quality are achieved for key services in remote and disadvantaged communities.
3. With this target in mind, the Scottish Executive has designated 22 Rural Service Priority Areas ( RSPAs). These areas have been identified as experiencing particular disadvantage in service provision, access to services and subsequent opportunities. Local service improvement targets in each area will be agreed with Community Planning Partners ( CPPs). This research was commissioned to inform the discussion between the Scottish Executive and Community Planning Partners in this process.
4. The objectives of the research were to explore and identify the priorities of people living in rural areas regarding key services for them and their community and to identify how access to and quality of these services might be improved. This objective was met through a literature review designed to source and assess what information already existed from previous research and consultation in these areas, followed by primary qualitative research undertaken through a programme of group discussions conducted across the RSPAs.
5. In addition to addressing the above objective, the primary research also sought ideas from rural residents on innovative ways of improving service delivery and their views on communicating needs to policy makers and service deliverers.
6. A further objective of the primary research was to recommend how the findings could inform future survey work to measure satisfaction and perceptions of service quality in rural Scotland.
FINDINGS OF THE GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Service access & quality
7. An exploration of how access and quality were defined revealed that in many instances people struggled to separate the two, i.e. for many services they were one and the same. However, some definitions were agreed upon, with access typically meaning travel time, physical accessibility, opening hours, services being brought in to a region, level of personal contact, response time, regularity of service, reliability and capacity. Quality was typically defined as an acceptable range of service, acceptable costs, quality of staff, time allocated to service users, services tailored to the community, cleanliness of premises, and access itself.
Service improvements
8. The primary focus group research revealed that, although there were local issues raised in terms of service priorities, access and quality in each of the locations, there was a broad consensus across all regions as to what the priority quality and access issues were for residents in rural Scotland. These are shown below and represent those services prioritised for improvement by all, or almost all, of the groups. They are:
- access to public transport including buses, trains and planes (routes, timetables, integration of different services) & rising cost of private transport (fuel, tax, lack of petrol stations)
- access to health centres, GPs and emergency health services (limited opening hours, seniority of staff, withdrawal of other services such as mid-wife and health visitors, dental services)
- access to other emergency services (withdrawal of the local 'bobby', longer travel times for the fire service etc)
- access to refuse collection and recycling (frequency, high journey times) and poor quality ('poorly' implemented or badly communicated)
- access to post offices and retail shops (shops closing, limited choice, high travel times as a result, loss of community centre)
- quality of road maintenance and perceived short-termist view on maintenance ('patching up', heavy lorries)
- access to and quality of communication services (poor reception and service quality of telephone, mobiles, broadband, television)
- access and quality of utilities, water and energy (poor quality of product, poor service from staff, belief that rural locations were unimportant)
- access to, and quality of, housing was also a concern in a sizeable minority of the communities consulted . Leisure, recreation and education were also widely discussed but less so than the other issues described above.
9. However, although the service priorities were often broadly similar, the reasons for raising them were sometimes very different across the locations.
10. Many of the issues identified in the primary qualitative research were consistent with the findings of previous local research and consultation (including larger scale survey research), as revealed in the literature review. However, the literature review also revealed a number of other key priorities in the areas of housing, leisure, recreation, community facilities (particularly for younger people), education, economic development, crime, alcohol and drug abuse due to the differing focus of the other research and consultation (ie the tendency to focus on single issues with particular groups). The role and nature of the issues varied between communities.
Channels of communication
11. There was a belief among focus group participants in some areas that they had never been so consulted yet seen so few results. They believed that their MPs, local councils and the Scottish Executive should focus on 'getting the job done' rather than discussing what needs to be done. However participants in other areas felt they had never been communicated with and felt that better two-way communication was essential.
12. As a result, many spontaneously requested a direct communication channel to the Scottish Executive. It was felt that direct access to MSPs and MPs, in particular surgeries, was appealing yet underused due to the short amount of time they are available. There seemed to be room for communication to communities on the role and potential effectiveness of Community Councils and possible training for councillors to be more receptive to communication within the community.
LITERATURE REVIEW FINDINGS
13. Most of the issues identified within the focus groups as being priorities for improvement were also found to have been highlighted in local research and consultation as revealed by the literature review. Local research exercises had, however, explored a wider range of service issues than came up in the focus groups.
14. The most frequently occurring issues in both the groups and the literature related to transport and health. Refuse collection, recycling and retailing were other common issues prominent to both.
15. In comparing the findings of this project's primary research and that of the literature review, it is important to recognise that although at least some of the local work has been considerably larger in scale (including survey research), it has also tended to focus on single themes and/or groups of people. The primary focus group research was broader, although small scale. It sought to establish views on the service access and quality improvement priorities across the widest possible range of services and their attributes.
16. When presented with a blank canvas, as in this research, it is important to note that much greater prominence has been given to issues relating to emergency services, telecommunications and utilities. There was very little coverage of these issues in the local research. Conversely, there was very little mention of crime and job creation in the groups, which feature strongly in previous work. Youth issues and the needs of the elderly featured strongly in the literature, but they were not high amongst the priorities of the discussion groups. Education and training, housing and leisure opportunities were also more prominent in the literature review than in the focus groups.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
17. Many of the accessibility and quality service issues identified in both elements of this research concern services that are provided by both the public and private sectors. Interestingly, voluntary sector provision did not feature in the findings of the groups. Improvements can therefore best be brought about by the co-ordinated effort of service providers and policy makers. This means there is a role not only for Community Planning Partners, but also the Scottish Executive and private sector providers.
18. The Scottish Executive has begun to discuss the implications of this research with Community Planning Partnerships. CPPs are already seeking to address some of the issues raised in the research. It is important therefore that future efforts to improve access to and quality of rural services recognise the work already undertaken to identify and act upon community needs.
« Previous | Contents | Next »