Getting Our Priorities right - Consultation Analysis

4. RESPONSES TO THE EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Introduction

4.1 This section considers the responses to the consultation questions posed in relation to Equality Impact Assessment. The response rate to this section of the consultation was very low, with only eight out of 73 respondents making comments.

Question 1: From your knowledge of the diverse needs of vulnerable children and families at risk from problematic substance abuse issues, can you provide any further information that you think we should have in this guidance? In addition, is there any other information you think we should obtain? How or where should we find this information?

4.2 Respondents to this question generally simply suggested that certain groups of people could receive more attention within the guidance. Three respondents suggested that there should be further reference to ethnic and religious minority groups, two of whom gave particular emphasis to travelling families. One respondent felt that more attention could be paid to families affected by disability, mental health issues, or learning disabilities. One suggested that in certain communities, alcohol and drug consumption is rare, so it is difficult for those families who do experience misuse to receive support. One respondent called for more information on how the guidance applies to looked after children.

Question 2: Do you think the guidance will have a disproportionately negative impact on particular groups of people in our target audience?

4.3 Almost all of those who responded to question two believed that there would not be a negative impact on any particular group. Only one respondent believed that there would be negative impacts, but offered no further comment. Another felt that the document may not sufficiently advise staff on how to support parents who use substances problematically, but are not engaged with services. A third respondent felt that the document should emphasise that while drug or alcohol misuse may interfere with parenting capacity, it does not mean that someone who misuses alcohol or drugs is automatically a bad parent. One respondent stated that it was difficult to comment but they felt that not all groups are "appropriately reflected/ represented within the guidance" - but did not provide further comment.

Question 3: If you think this guidance will have a negative impact on a particular group, why is this?

4.4 One respondent noted numerous references to blood borne viruses in the guidance document, and cautioned against the implication of any negative connotations. Another felt that the document paid too little attention to taking the views of children into account, and to the role of Independent Advocacy, and that these perceived failings would negatively impact anyone who faces a communication barrier. A third respondent felt that as a result of the guidance, professionals may make judgements about families when they are not qualified to do so. They gave the example of children affected by FASD whose behaviour may be erroneously blamed on adoptive parents. Again, one respondent could not comment because they felt that all groups were not appropriately represented.

Question 4: What positive impacts do you think the guidance will have on particular groups of people?

4.5 Two respondents felt that it was difficult to determine positive impact, one because of the size and presentation of the document, and another because they felt that all groups were not appropriately represented. Another respondent expected that the guidance would make families better aware of the support available, but qualified this with the point that more attention could be paid to the motivation individuals need to improve their lives. Similarly, one respondent felt that the guidance would effectively challenge stigma and was particularly helpful in its approach to engaging with men.

Question 5: What changes to this guidance would you suggest to reduce any negative impact or enhance any positive impact you have identified?

4.6 One respondent suggested that people in recovery should have been involved on the steering group (which we assume refers to the steering group for the guidance), while another called for more consultation with service users from minority ethnic groups. A third respondent felt that more information on public attitudes towards families suffering from substance misuse would be welcome, while a fourth hoped for whole population information. One respondent again called for more information on looked after children.

Question 6: When we complete our impact assessment on the guidance - are there any other significant issues we need to consider in relation to:

• Age
• Disability
• Gender
• Sexual orientation
• Gender reassignment
• Pregnancy or maternity

4.7 One respondent called for clearer definitions of 'children' and 'young people', and for more attention to be paid to pregnancy, neo-natal abstinence syndrome and FASD. Another felt that more attention should be paid to gender in relation to domestic abuse, and also that the guidance should take into account the expected negative impact of upcoming welfare reforms. Again, the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance stressed that all protected groups should have access to Independent Advocacy. The Scottish Social Services Council thought that specific guidance may be helpful when dealing with families from ethnic or religious minority backgrounds, while FASD Scotland argued that girls should be warned at a young age of the dangers of drinking while pregnant.