People's Panel for Wellbeing 2022 and Beyond: process and learning evaluation

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Overall, the panel members were positive about their experiences and there is enthusiasm for this approach in the wider policy community across the Scottish Government. The idea for developing the People’s Panel came, in part, from a desire of the research team to show proof of concept, demonstrate the value of the approach and to start to think about how to embed the approach within the day-to-day ways in which evidence for policy making is generated. This research has shown that there have been some successes and examples of good practice that should be taken forward in any subsequent work:

• In the design of the People’s Panel there was a clear commitment to inclusion and meaningful steps were taken to facilitate participation. The team used a pre-event questionnaire to understand the support needs of the panel members and all the communications used plain English and accessible language. This helped create a space in which panel members felt listened to and valued. These steps should be replicated in future work.
• The online events included a floating member of staff to provide technical support where needed. However, panel members still felt less comfortable with the platform (Teams) as opposed to others. As it may not be an option to switch to other online platforms, ongoing support for any technical difficulties is important.
• The approach taken clearly illustrated examples of good research practice in the use of ongoing informed consent practice, research questions to guide the design of the process and a well-structured facilitator guidance. This should be continued and represented in any future guidance that is developed to support other teams in the Scottish Government to engage with or utilise this approach in their work.
• Teams across the Scottish Government should use the strategic mapping work that has been carried out which outlines range of panels that are running at any one time, with information about the key questions and issues they are seeking to address. The research team who carried out this work should circulate and publicise this more widely and consistently. The interviewees were not aware of this work but stated that this type of approach would be useful to make sure that resources are being used effectively, and that people are not being over-researched.

This research has also highlighted some areas where the approach requires some further development. The following recommendations include those that could be addressed in the short term in the early stages of planning any future panels:

• Varying the time and day of meeting so that more people are able to attend. While this group were able to attend on a weekday having the meetings during the day on a weekday may have limited those in work, (or in less flexible work) from participating.
• Offering more flexibility in the format of the events so that there is more time to spend on the subjects where panel members felt they had more to say.
• The timeline of future panels should take into consideration a longer-term view, as well as the ongoing and shorter term request form that was used to understand policy needs. Although it was not possible to do so in the development of this first panel, it would be useful to undertake some preliminary work to scope out the significant pieces of work that may be on the horizon (for example, implementation plans or strategic documents). This would sit alongside the existing practice of gathering shorter term requests that may come up and require a quicker turnaround.
• Recruit future panels based on a broader theme and be clear in participation information that a key part of the panel approach is flexibility, in order to respond to policy needs as they arise.

The following recommendations are more strategic in focus and in some cases may require some resourcing to take forward:

• Time should be taken to develop a clear set of outcomes for the People’s Panel approach so that these can be communicated consistently to panel members and wider policy stakeholders. These should be accompanied by a clear evaluation framework, informed by a Theory of Change. This would address some of the challenges highlighted in the research (for example, setting expectations about what impact can be achieved and providing evidence of such) and offer a way to build on the enthusiasm and opportunities also outlined in the findings.
• The need to offer ongoing feedback to the current People’s Panel members on the ways that their participation has had an impact on the work of the Scottish Government and some wider recognition of the role that the panel members have made. This might include the provision of references of a certification related to their role. This would require some resourcing, which may be a challenge, but it would align with the best practice guidance that was written by the Poverty Alliance for the Poverty and Inequality Commission^[6].
• To overcome some of the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities there needs to be ongoing and sustained conversations about the People’s Panel approach and the value it offers for evidence generation. This should include presentations on the People’s Panel approach, ensuring wide circulation of the publications related to this work and the development of training modules for inclusion on the staff intranet and as part of induction processes. A mentorship programme could also be started with those who worked on the first panel supporting those who want to learn more and perhaps develop the approach in other areas of the Scottish Government.
• Work with parts of Scottish Government pursing Scotland’s Open Government commitments, to ensure that there is clarity and consistency in the terminology being used across the organisation. This would also support the development of an understanding of the ways that the People’s Panel approach to generating evidence might link to ideas about participatory and deliberative approaches.