« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 2: THE CONSULTATION PROCESS
2.1 TIMING OF THE CONSULTATION
The consultation ran from 13 th March 2006 to 5 th June 2006. In total 1,349 responses were received, providing a wide range of views and information for consideration.
2.2 NATURE OF THE CONSULTATION
The consultation document (Appendix 1) set out to stimulate discussion on Scotland's ageing population and was structured around 6 broad sections, with each section containing a small number of open ended questions covering a wide range of issues.
The consultation questions covered a range of areas including:
- Contribution and Opportunity;
- Work;
- Services for older people;
- Health and well-being;
- Housing, transport and surroundings;
- Other issues and areas which may take into consideration aspects such as new technology, the different needs of people with disabilities or from ethnic communities, how different generations can work together and so on.
Table 2.1 lists the questions contained within the consultation document.
Table 2.1
The Questions Contained in the Consultation Document
Q1 | Contribution and Opportunity What do you think are the main ways in which older people contribute to society and Scotland? Are there any other ways they might be able to contribute more in the future? Do you think there are obstacles to older people contributing to society? What are they and how can they be overcome? What do you think about ageism and age discrimination? What else could be done? |
Q2 | Work Thinking about older people who want to keep working, what stops people from working for as long as they want to? What help might older people need if they want to continue working? What do you think can be done to help people build up a better income for when they retire? What help might people need to combine work with other things such as caring, looking after children or volunteering? What else could be done? |
Q3 | Services for Older People What sort of services do you think will be important for older people in the future? Thinking about services that work well, what makes those services good? What can be done to make sure that the different services work together properly? How can we make sure that as services develop and change, they continue to meet the needs of older people? What else could be done? |
Q4 | Heath and Well-being What do you think are the most important things for good physical health in later life? What are the things that contribute most to good mental health and well-being in later life? What can be done to support those things? What else could be done? |
Q5 | Housing, Transport and Surroundings What should be done to make sure that our houses and homes are suitable for an ageing population? What should be done to make sure that our transport system is good enough? What should be done to make sure that our towns, cities, villages and neighbourhoods are suitable for an ageing population? How can we better plan for an ageing population? What else could be done? |
Q6 | Other Issues Any other mentions which may take into consideration things such as new technology, the different needs of people with disabilities or from minority communities, how different generations can work together and how older people can have a say about the services they get. There may be thoughts on how businesses can be encouraged to provide products and services designed for older people or about how older people are viewed by society. |
2.3 DISTRIBUTION AND ADVERTISING OF CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
Up to 20,000 paper copies of the consultation questionnaire were distributed with an on-line response facility available on a dedicated website. In addition to the consultation questionnaire, a series of focus groups and seminars were held and the consultation exercise was supported by media activity.
In order to ensure that any issues specific to older people in minority groups were included, the Equal Opportunities Programme carried out over 300 surveys with people aged over 50 from Black and Minority Ethnic communities throughout Scotland. Interpreters were available in order that any potential respondents would not be disadvantaged by a language barrier. Eleven different backgrounds and languages were involved including Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati, Polish, Ukranian and Italian. The sample included respondents from both rural and urban areas and a gender balance was maintained.
2.4 RESPONSES
Responses
A total of 1,349 responses to the consultation were received. These consisted of two distinct types of response:
Short responses: There were 1,243 of these responses and the majority were returned either via the web-site or in hard copy using the response booklet provided. These shorter responses tended to be general in nature and were mostly from individuals.
Substantive responses: These were lengthier responses or responses that dealt with a specific issue or area in detail and were returned mainly by email or post. While the majority of responses followed the structure of the consultation booklet, there were some responses which were returned in a more free-flowing format and these were included with the substantive responses. We identified 106 substantive responses, predominately from organisations. These responses have also been used to provide verbatim comments both to illustrate the data and to provide extra detail on specific themes.
Where consultees have agreed to have their response made public, these responses have been made available in the Scottish Executive Library and on the Scottish Executive web-site, alongside a copy of this report which provides an analysis of all responses.
Consultees
Responses were received from 3 categories of consultees and 11 organisational types (Table 2.2):
- those responding on behalf of an organisation;
- those responding on behalf of a discussion group;
- individual respondents.
The response booklet requested some basic classification information from consultees and this information has been used to produce a profile of those responding (Table 2.3).
Table 2.2
Total number of Consultees by Category
Respondent Type | No | % |
|---|
Individuals | 721 | 53 |
|---|
Group Discussion | 90 | 7 |
|---|
Organisation | 313 | 23 |
|---|
Not stated | 225 | 17 |
|---|
TOTAL | 1349 | 100 |
|---|
Organisational Types: |
|---|
Community council | 59 | 19 |
|---|
Charity | 45 | 14 |
|---|
Voluntary organisation | 37 | 12 |
|---|
Local authority | 30 | 10 |
|---|
Special interest group | 30 | 10 |
|---|
Public body | 18 | 6 |
|---|
Health organisation | 16 | 5 |
|---|
Private company | 13 | 4 |
|---|
Professional body | 13 | 4 |
|---|
Educational organisation | 6 | 2 |
|---|
Housing association | 3 | 1 |
|---|
Not stated | 43 | 14 |
|---|
ORGANISATION TOTAL | 313 | 101 |
|---|
(* figures may not add to 100% due to rounding)
Table 2.2 above shows, over half (53%) of all responses were from individuals and just under one in four (23%) from organisations. However, 17% of consultees did not provide this information. Organisational responses have been further segmented into organisational types.
Table 2.3
Profile of respondents
Respondent Type | Indiv | | Discuss Group | | Org | |
|---|
TOTALS | 721 | % | 90 | % | 313 | % |
|---|
Age | | | | | | |
|---|
Up to 21 | 30 | 4 | 1 | 1 | | |
|---|
22-34 | 63 | 9 | 4 | 4 | | |
|---|
35- 49 | 82 | 11 | 4 | 4 | | |
|---|
Total under 50 | 175 | 25 | 9 | 10 | | |
|---|
50 -64 | 205 | 28 | 11 | 12 | | |
|---|
Over 65 | 308 | 43 | 47 | 52 | | |
|---|
Mixed age | | | 19 | 21 | | |
|---|
Not stated | 33 | 5 | 4 | 4 | | |
|---|
Gender | | | | | | |
|---|
Male / Represents Men | 298 | 41 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 1 |
|---|
Female / Represents Women | 373 | 52 | 24 | 27 | 29 | 9 |
|---|
Other | 6 | 1 | | | | |
|---|
Not stated / No specific gender represented | 44 | 6 | 60 | 66 | 280 | 89 |
|---|
Ethnic Group | | | | | | |
|---|
Scottish | 270 | 37 | | | | |
|---|
Other British / Irish | 94 | 13 | | | | |
|---|
White (any other)* | 55 | 8 | | | | |
|---|
Mixed (any) | 31 | 4 | | | | |
|---|
Indian | 57 | 8 | | | | |
|---|
Pakistani | 59 | 8 | | | | |
|---|
Bangladeshi | 39 | 5 | | | | |
|---|
Chinese | 65 | 9 | | | | |
|---|
Asian (any other) | 4 | 1 | | | | |
|---|
Black (any) | 5 | 1 | | | | |
|---|
Other (any) | 11 | 2 | | | | |
|---|
Represents minority ethnic communities: | | | | | | |
|---|
Yes | | | 3 | 3 | 14 | 4 |
|---|
No | | | 77 | 86 | 164 | 52 |
|---|
Not stated | | | 10 | 11 | 135 | 43 |
|---|
Consulted members: | | | | | | |
|---|
Yes | | | | | 139 | 44 |
|---|
No | | | | | 36 | 12 |
|---|
Total numbers included in discussion groups / consulted | 902 | | 3329 | |
|---|
( figures may not add to 100% due to rounding)
(* many of the on-line returns originated in South America)
Gaps in Respondent Type
A scan of the respondent list along with a review of the consultee organisations revealed no obvious gaps, although the two types of organisation least well represented were Housing Associations and Educational Organisations. The highest level of response was from Community Councils who represented 19% of all organisational responses (see Table 2.3 above for the profile of respondents).
Higher proportions of females (52%) than males (41%) responded to the consultation. In age groups, the greatest proportions of consultees were from older aged groups of 50+ years. Those responding on behalf of a discussion group were asked how many people had contributed to their response and those responding on behalf of organisations were asked whether they had consulted members.
« Previous | Contents | Next »