Disability and Carers Benefits Expert Advisory Group: review

6. Conclusions and implications

The first part of the research findings section of this report (chapter 3) identified some of the key issues around the remit and purpose of the Group. Although quantitative data suggested that there was a strong understanding of the purpose and remit among Group members, it emerged from the interview data that the details of this understanding may vary among members. Furthermore, uncertainties around the remit and purpose of the Group should be considered in light of the establishment of new actors in the social security advisory landscape in Scotland (e.g. Scottish Commission on Social Security, Executive Advisory Body for the Social Security Scotland).

The second part of the research findings section of this report (chapter 4) discussed the effectiveness of the Group thus far. It was noted that both Group members and officials acknowledged the value of advice offered by the Group. At the same time, both also saw limitations of this advice. Four aspects, concerned with the nature of the advice, that may have inhibited its usefulness emerged from the survey and interview data. These were related to the extent to which the advice was challenging, detailed, and evidence based, and the extent to which it reflected a collective voice of the Group (as opposed to reflecting particular organisational interests of select members). Each of these themes was unpacked (chapters 4.1 - 4.4) and views from members of the Group on what improvements could be made were identified.

The third part of the research findings section (chapter 5) focused on more generic issues related to how the Group has been set up and how it operates. It identified what survey questionnaire respondents and interviewees perceived as strengths and weaknesses of the Group. This analysis pinpointed the following areas as important in determining the effectiveness of the Group: member's commitment, membership, chairing, relationship with the Scottish Government, time constraints and capacity issues. Strengths and challenges of the Group in each of these areas were discussed in separate sections.

Taken together, these findings have several implications that both the Group and officials in the Scottish Government may want to consider to ensure that DACBEAG can be more effective in the future:

1. The Group may want to seek to closer align the advice it provides to its purpose and remit. Moreover, given some contrasting views among the DACBEAG members interviewed, on how operational advice and issues of affordability fit with the remit and purpose of the Group, members may want to discuss among themselves their understandings of the purpose and details of the remit, and seek clarity on these issues from the Scottish Government (see chapter 3).

2. The Scottish Government could consider how well its requests for advice are aligned with the remit of the Group (chapter 3). The Government may also wish to consider whether their policy officials responsible for leading the relationship with the Group have a more explicit role in prioritising the requests that come to the Group from across the Scottish Government. The Group, and the Scottish Government, should commit to timely resolution of queries around the Group's priorities, and the relative importance and urgency of items in its work programme.

3. Officials across various areas could benefit from a better understanding of the remit of the Group, and greater clarity on how they can engage with it, especially in cases where the Group starts the engagement proactively. This could possibly allow officials to increase the benefit derived from expertise the Group has to offer, for example in terms of formal requests/commissioning of advice services (chapter 5.4.3).

4. The Group may want to pursue a closer and more proactive engagement with the Scottish Government. Interview data indicated that this has already been happening and this should be continued. Given the capacity issues of the Group and its members (chapter 5.5.1 and 5.5.2), closer relationships and proactive engagement with the Scottish Government could give the Group a better sight of future plans among policy makers. This would in turn enable the Group to prioritise workload, given limited resources and time constraints (chapter 5.5.4).

5. In addition, officials could engage with the Group earlier in the policy-making process. According to survey and interview data, this could make the Group better positioned to provide advice which is more challenging (chapter 4.1), detailed (chapter 4.2) and timely (chapter 5.5). This approach could help change perceptions among a minority of Group members that information from the Scottish Government reaches the Group late and that the Group is informed, rather than consulted (chapter 5.4.2). Importantly, both Group members and officials indicated that such issues have already been improving and this trajectory should continue.

6. Given a lack of clarity on the terms of involvement and potential contribution among some officials in cases where the Group sought to give advice proactively (chapter 5.4.3), the Group may want to find ways of developing a clearer view of where its contribution may lie and seek to communicate it clearly.

7. Given the uncertainties about the nature of supporting evidence (chapter 4.3), the Group should seek clarity from the Scottish Government on the type of evidence that is required, and be more clear about the form, strength and value of evidence underlying its advice. In addition, given some critical views among DACBEAG members around the issue of the evidence, members may want to discuss and review the type and role of evidence the Group uses in its advice delivery process.

8. Given the uncertainties among some members around the clarity of the steer in relation to advice that is requested by the Scottish Government (chapters 4.2 and 5.4.1), the Group may want to consider the nature of the steer (i.e. how specific it should be) it would like to receive from officials and discuss it with them. In addition, the Group could benefit from asking proactively for a more detailed steer or clarification when required.

9. The Group and the Scottish Government may want to discuss what feedback mechanisms can be put in place to ensure that all Group members understand the impact of advice, why some advice may not always be integrated into policy (chapter 4.1), and how particular pieces of advice could be improved in terms of quality and relevance for policy purposes.

10. Although the work performed by the secretariat was highly praised by Group members, there were views among some that resources available to the secretariat were not sufficient (chapter 5.5.3). Given this, the Group and the officials may want to discuss whether the secretariat is sufficiently resourced to meet the requirements and expectations on both sides, and how this can be kept under review.

11. The Group and the Scottish Government may want to discuss membership with a view to ensure that the Group has skills and experience around the table that are more closely relevant to the remit (chapter 5.2) and that work is distributed more equally among members (chapter 5.1). Advancements in this area could make the Group more effective and able to work more timely.

12. The findings show that the Group may have to work with severe time constraints among its members who can devote time to the extent to which their organisational roles allow (chapters 4.4. and 5.5.1). Whilst it is recognised that Group members are not supposed to act as representatives of their organisations, some members may wish to consider whether special arrangements with their employers could enable them to formally set aside due time and resource to engage with the Group more actively. However, it has been noted by interviewees that this may be particularly difficult for small organisations and members from academia.

13. The Group may wish to discuss what organisational approach to meetings, and/or working model with respect to producing proposals (e.g. producing proposals in meetings, or working from pre-developed proposals within set parameters), will be best able to meet the agreed remit and approach.

14. Absenteeism on Group meetings was an issue raised by some members of the Group and this issue should be addressed in ways other than sending substitutes (chapter 5.1).

15. Finally, Group members may want to find ways of knowing each other better to enable more harmonious and effective collaboration (chapter 5.6).