Memorandum from Scope
Scope is a national disability organisation
whose focus is people with cerebral palsy. Our aim is that Disabled
People achieve equality and we welcome the opportunity to respond
to the Public Administration Select Committee Inquiry into "Public
Services, Putting People First".
Scope's response focuses on questions 3,6,7,8,10
and 12 in which we have a particular interest and expertise. Due
to the timescales involved in responding to this paper, Scope
has regrettably been unable to consult directly with Disabled
People who use our services. This response is therefore reflective
of the views of Scope staff with expertise in the area of participation
and co-production and the views of Disabled People as expressed
through previous consultation and participation work.
Scope welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence
to the Committee on such an important issue and would be very
pleased to expand on our submission or answer any further questions
members of the Committee may have in person.
Question 3—What role do measures of customer
satisfaction have in assessing the standards of public services?
How should service user views be monitored? How can the cost effectiveness
of user surveys and feedback mechanisms be assessed?
Scope believes that measures of customer satisfaction
have a vital role to play in assessing the standards of public
service. These measures are of greater value when coupled with
clear evidence and processes demonstrating how customers' views
have been considered or acted upon.
User views should be monitored in a variety
of ways which will often be dependent on the nature of the service
in question. Scope believes that whilst customer surveys are a
useful tool to gain a higher volume feedback, their usefulness
can be limited. The responses and feedback will be dependent on
the questions asked and do not take into account customers' varying
access needs. This may lead to responses being received from a
less representative group of customers.
Disabled People have previously told Scope that
in order to find out their views, a range of accessible methods
should be used. These could include responding to written surveys
produced in varied accessible formats, or verbal responses to
clear questions asked face to face, through focus groups, online
discussions or by taking account of customers' comments made at
the point of service delivery.
The cost effectiveness of such measures should
in part be assessed on the diversity of respondents and the way
in which the measures have informed service design and delivery.
It is advisable that services take ownership of this process so
that rich information can be taken into account more readily.
Question 6—Should users be more directly
involved in service delivery? If so, how can this be achieved?
Scope believes that service users should certainly
be directly involved in service delivery and Disabled people have
argued this strongly for some time. There are a number of ways
that Disabled people have said this could be achieved. The key
point remains that great consideration must be given to ensuring
that access needs of all customers must be met, in terms of accessing
built environments, structures and procedures and by ensuring
access to information.
Some specific ways to enable involvement could
be developing decision making groups and service user forums,
ensuring that a diverse range of users are involved. On a strategic
level Scope believes it is necessary to put in place a Co-production
Strategy, Participation Standards and scrutiny mechanisms to enable
the design, delivery and evaluation of a service to be co-produced
with the service users.
Question 7—Are there certain types of decision
which are more suited to consultation than others?
Scope believes that it is important to ascertain
the desired level of involvement of service users when considering
whether a particular decision is suited to consultation. Consultation
refers to a process in which there is a comparatively low level
of involvement of customers. Typically this means that it is suited
to situations where many aspects of the decision have already
been defined and are unlikely to be greatly revised by the outcome
of a consultation. Consultation can be useful when seeking opinions
on a given area, or influencing detail of a predefined choice
of options.
Involvement of a diverse range of customers
in a meaningful way requires that much more control over the outcomes
is given over to respondents.
Scope would like to see a co-production approach
taken more widely in relation to public service matters. This
would enable meaningful involvement of disabled people in the
whole planning and decision-making process, rather than just being
involved in the latter stages when they are often just presented
with a limited number of options.
Question 8—Do official consultations typically
manage to capture the views of the right people? What kinds of
consultation are most effective in engaging with the appropriate
people?
Official consultations often fail to engage
with a diverse range of customers due to the short amount of time
available to collate responses coupled with the huge amount of
information being consulted on, often in a way that is inaccessible
and inflexible. Disabled people often struggle to obtain consultation
materials in a range of formats, including clear words and pictures,
and so are denied necessary information in sufficient time to
enable a full response.
In official consultations Scope has responded
to previously, Disabled People have stated that the terminology
and case studies presented to them are often too complicated and
when referring to Disabled People and their issues, are explicitly
disablist or unrepresentative of their lives. Disabled people
have also said they would find it more accessible if they were
they given the opportunity to respond to consultations in other
formats that did not involve writing. Examples could include facilitation
of focus groups, photography or artwork. These options are often
not considered or made available. The result being that many Disabled
People, particularly those with specific access requirements or
who require a substantial level of support are not empowered to
respond and therefore their opinions, beliefs and views ignored.
An issue highlighted in the paper is that responses
often come from the same sources. Scope believes that this is
due to the limited timeframe in which people must respond to consultations
and the fact many of the documents are produced in formats that
are not accessible, but also quite intimidating and unwieldy.
This often means that it is only those individuals
who are more articulate, or those organisations which have sufficient
resources to dissect the information and present in more appropriate
ways to the customer, are likely to respond.
Question 10—How does user influence relate
to wider issues of democratic accountability?
Scope believes that many issues relating to
a dichotomy between involvement of service recipients and wider
public accountabilities could be resolved through employing greater
levels of customer involvement than consultation allows for. It
is Scope's experience that when issues around accountability and
outside constraints are openly explored with service recipients,
they are largely receptive to these issues and this can lead to
exploring more creative and efficient ways to work within such
constraints.
Question 12—Are there situations where the
views and experiences of service users are irrelevant?
It is Scope's view that there are no situations
where the views and experiences of service recipients are irrelevant.
Disabled people we have consulted with previously have clearly
indicated that they feel it is highly inappropriate to make any
decision that affects their lives or community without engaging
with them on the issue. It is Scope's view that only by involving
customers throughout design, delivery and evaluation that appropriate
services can develop.
January 2007
| 
