Getting it right for every child – wellbeing assessment 2022: statutory guidance - consultation analysis

1. Introduction and background

In 2019, the Deputy First Minister informed the Scottish Parliament that new Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) policy and practice guidance was to be produced. Well developed drafts were shared with stakeholders in late 2019/early 2020 but work was paused by the pandemic. Co-production working groups then updated these materials and these were shared with stakeholders.

A consultation followed, gathering views from members of the public on this newly drafted guidance. It took place from 1 November 2021 to 4 February 2022 and a total of 121 responses were submitted. The results of two engagement events with stakeholders, held alongside the consultation, contributed to building a picture of feedback about the revised guidance.

The purpose of this report is to provide a detailed overview of the issues raised, the main themes and the number of those who engaged with the public consultation on the Statutory Guidance on Assessment of Wellbeing.

1.1 Responses to the consultation

The public consultation took place between 1 November 2021 and 4 February 2022. Responses were received via the Citizen Space online portal and email.

No 'campaign responses'^[1] were identified during the analysis. Figure 1 below provides details of numbers of respondents to the consultation.

Note: Organisations in Figure 1 above have been categorised according to best fit

1.2 Analysis of responses

The consultation involved a questionnaire with six questions. Four of these questions were quantitative, and the fifth and sixth questions were qualitative and open-ended. The remainder of this report presents analysis of responses to these questions.

All responses were downloaded to Excel. Responses to the multiple-choice questions were quantitatively analysed using Excel to identify the number and percentage of respondents selecting each option. Cross-tabulations were produced to break down responses in order to identify any differences in opinion.

To analyse responses to the free-text, qualitative questions, the Excel spreadsheet was imported into NVivo. A number of responses were submitted separately by email and these were manually analysed and combined with the analysis conducted in NVivo.

Responses to the open-ended questions were analysed and assessed for any patterns. Responses were manually coded and cross-referenced with auto-coding.

Reports from the consultation events with children, young people and families, and with practitioners, were manually analysed due to the low number of these and to ensure that all relevant points were captured.

As with any consultation exercise, it should be noted that respondents usually have a particular interest in the subject area. The self-selecting nature of the respondents therefore means that the views expressed throughout this report cannot necessarily be seen as representative of wider public opinion.

Throughout the analysis, terms have been used to indicate the prevalence of certain viewpoints or suggestions.

The following provides definitions of the approximate proportions referred to when these terms are used:

• All - 100%
• Many/most – over 75%
• The majority – over 50%
• Some – under 50%
• A few – up to five respondents