1
Improving Services for People with Learning
Disabilities from Minority Ethnic Groups:
Report to the Learning Disabilities Task Force with recommendations for a report to the Minister from the Valuing People Support Team
Introduction
In February 2004, following a report from the ethnicity sub-group of the Learning Disabilities Task Force and the development of Learning Difficulties and Ethnicity – A Framework for Action, Dr Ladyman requested a report at the end of 2004/05 year, reviewing PB progress.
In order to help provide a report, the Valuing People Support Team, in liaison with the ethnicity sub-group of the Learning Disabilities Task Force,
commissioned Professor Hatton from the Institute of Health Research
(Lancaster University). To develop and undertake a short survey. The findings of the survey are reported in appendix 1 to this paper. This report is also informed by the views of the ethnicity sub-group, contributions to the Director’s review of Valuing People and other information sources where appropriate.
Key findings
1. It is a concern that only just over half of Partnership Boards responded to the survey despite it going out under the name of the Director of Valuing People with a clear statement that it was to provide a report at the request of the Minister (the list of Boards that responded by the deadline is at appendix 2). Of course we are not able to say if the 49% non-respondents are performing better or worse that those who
responded but this in itself is a cause for some concern. See appendix 4 for a list of Boards that responded within the final deadline.
2. From the self-reports of Partnership Boards it appears that there has been uneven progress in implementation of the Framework for Action. It is increasingly clear what activity can lead to improvements. Just over half of respondents reported achievements. Where there is local
2
This finding can be linked to reports from many councils that they have yet to finish work to assess how their policies impact on people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities. In addition, learning disability inspections by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) in 2004/05 continue to report concerns about low availability of culturally appropriate provision and low take up.
3. Some Boards have good information systems allowing them to know who should be and who is being served but many do not. The
information that is available confirms significant continuing under-representation of some minority ethnic groups in services
4. Use of the Learning Disability Development Fund (LDDF) to support initiatives relating to race equality has increased amongst respondents but is still at a low level in 2004/05 (22%), despite encouragement to use it for this purpose. This is a concern in the context of the uneven progress reported. It will also be important for Boards to make sure that LDDF is used to start to build sustainable improvements and not be limited to either small-scale temporary services, separate from
mainstream provision, or to research that is not connected to strategic action. We hope that making ethnicity a formal priority for LDDF in 2005/06 will lead to increased use.
5. Half of those responding reported making changes to the operation of their Partnership Boards to take better account of people from minority ethnic communities in their work and half reported reviewing their Board strategies (for housing, employment etc) for the same purpose. This is encouraging but needs to be expanded across all Boards
6. Obstacles to progress were reported by most boards. Of most concern were those linked to low levels of local organisational commitment and priority. Other obstacles, such as engaging with small or dispersed communities, may be helpfully addressed via sharing good practice or some targeted advice and assistance.
The survey findings confirm the anecdotal experience of members of the former Task Force sub-group, National Forum, national and regional networks and the Valuing People Support Team. CSCI Social Care Inspections of Learning Disability services in 2004/05 also continue to highlight concerns about a lack of good, culturally appropriate services for people from black and minority ethnic communities, and low take up.
Recommendations
1. That the Learning Disabilities Task Force agree the following recommendations be forwarded to the new Minister, along with the survey report and appendices.
2. That the Valuing People Support Team, working with the Department of Health, develops a next-stage strategy to support local development. This strategy should be developed as part of Care Service
Improvement Partnership planning and in particular should link closely with the current National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) Black and Minority Ethnic Mental Health (BME) programme The
strategy should incorporate:
• Work to ensure that all significant Valuing People Support Team initiatives are designed to include action to promote race equality. In particular, initiatives following on from the Adult Social Care Green Paper and Life Chances for Disabled People report
• Advice on further development of appropriate performance
monitoring and inspection mechanisms with key agencies including CSCI and the Healthcare Commission
• Further development of regional good practice networks with a particular focus on the obstacles identified in the Partnership Board survey
• Support for the development of the national leadership and advisory group being developed from the former task force sub group
• Supporting a next round of leadership development support programmes for Partnership Boards
3. That the Valuing People Support Team and DH maintain the financial investments in improvement that have been made in 2004/05 and continue to seek support from other agencies in 2005/06. (Please note that both Department of Health and Valuing People Support Team have already made allocations to continue this work)
4. That the Learning Disabilities Task Force continue to monitor progress in 2005/06 in liaison with the Valuing People Support Team and the new national leadership and advisory group. In particular, that Valuing People Support Team undertake a review similar to the current one at the end of the year. This review should include close consultation with groups of people with learning disabilities and families from minority ethnic communities
1
Issue for decision
The recommendations to the Learning Disabilities Task Force from the sub-group on ethnicity included a proposal that Partnership Boards should develop a
specific ethnicity plan, showing how they would make local improvements to services and supports for people from minority ethnic communities. Dr
Improving Services for People with Learning
Disabilities from Minority Ethnic Groups:
Appendix 1
Results of a National Survey of Partnership
Boards
Chris Hatton
2
Summary
Just over half of Partnership Boards (51%) completed questionnaires.
Information
Most Partnership Boards (74%) provided detailed information on the ethnicity of people with learning disabilities known to local services, although fewer
Partnership Boards (46%) provided information on the expected population of people with learning disabilities in their area. Where Partnership Boards provided this information, less than a quarter of the expected population of people with learning disabilities were known to services; White people tended to be over-represented and South Asian people under-represented within services.
Partnership Boards typically used 2001 Census information to calculate the expected population of people with learning disabilities in their area. The numbers of people with learning disabilities known to services were most often obtained from electronic databases maintained by social services or learning disability services.
Electronic databases were felt by Partnership Boards to be the most useful source of information, as long as they were integrated across services and staff recorded information comprehensively. Having dedicated workers to gain
information directly from people from minority ethnic communities and to maintain the database, were felt to be essential in gaining good quality information.
Partnership Boards without detailed information often reported that they had competing priorities and a lack of time to collect information, or that they had not been able to engage with the small minority ethnic communities in their area.
LDDF funding
Only 10% of Partnership Boards reported spending part of their LDDF allocation on improving services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities in 2003-04; this figure had risen to 22% in 2004-05. Partnership Boards spent an average £19,900 of their LDDF allocation in 2004-05 on several initiatives, most commonly funding development workers and training staff.
Many Partnership Boards (16%) reported that ethnicity issues were routinely built into all initiatives funded by LDDF money, although very few gave details of how this was achieved. Although many Partnership Boards (32%) reported that there were no obstacles to using LDDF money, some Partnership Boards (18%)
3
Strategic planning
Around half of Partnership Boards reported that they had reviewed their strategic plans to take account of people from minority ethnic communities, although few Partnership Boards provided details of these reviews.
Partnership Boards
Just over half of Partnership Boards (52%) reported that they had changed some aspect of their operation to take account of people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities. This most commonly involved setting up an
ethnicity subgroup (29%), appointing an ethnicity champion (11%) and attempting to increase the number of members from minority ethnic communities, including staff (10%), local organisations (11%) and users or carers (16%).
Partnership Board strategies to improve services for people from minority ethnic communities included gaining information (18%), engaging local minority ethnic communities (9%), developing strategy documents (19%) and recruiting
development workers to work with minority ethnic communities (9%). A minority of Partnership Boards (10%) reported that all their strategies routinely considered people from minority ethnic communities, although little detail was provided.
Achievements
Achievements were mentioned by over half of Partnership Boards (55%). These reflected the strategies mentioned above; training staff and raising awareness of relevant issues within services (11%) and local communities (6%);
commissioning research into local ethnicity issues (9%); recruiting development workers (9%); and developing strategic action plans (7%). Some Partnership Boards also mentioned changes to local services, such as the development of day services for a specific ethnic community (9%), using person-centred planning with people from minority ethnic communities (7%), making short-term breaks more accessible to people from minority ethnic communities (6%) and developing advocacy/self-advocacy services for people from minority ethnic groups (6%).
Obstacles
4 Although some Partnership Boards reported that competing priorities (13%), a lack of staff time (11%) and a lack of resources (12%) were major obstacles, similar numbers of Partnership Boards mentioned organisational obstacles such as a lack of organisational commitment (11%), the operation of Partnership Boards (10%) and problems in staff recruitment, training, retention and promotion (11%).
From their responses to this survey, Partnership Boards seem to be moving at different speeds. There seems to be progress in the number of Partnership Boards that are able to report:
• Good information on the numbers and needs of people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities in their local area
• Using LDDF funding to promote new initiatives to improve services for people from minority ethnic communities
• Changes to the operation of the Partnership Board to raise the profile of people from minority ethnic communities and develop strategies to improve services
• The development of action plans and strategies to improve services for people from minority ethnic communities that are “owned” by the
Partnership Board
• Organisational leadership and commitment to improving services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities
• Some movement from information gathering and strategy development to changes in services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities.
However, some Partnership Boards responding to this survey reported that improving services for people from minority ethnic communities was not a high priority, resulting in a lack of strategic leadership and action. Poor information, small numbers of people from minority ethnic communities in the local area and a lack of engagement with local minority ethnic communities were given as reasons for not pursuing strategic action, rather than as factors stimulating such action.
Clearly, the Valuing People Support Team has been successful in raising the profile of ethnicity issues amongst many Partnership Boards and helping
5
Introduction
From the publication of Valuing People onwards, it has been recognised that people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities receive a
relatively poor deal from existing services (Department of Health, 2001, 2004; Mir et al., 2001). Valuing People has given Partnership Boards the responsibility for leading improvements in services for people with learning disabilities from
minority ethnic communities. Several initiatives have assisted Partnership Boards in this task, including:
1. Legislation, particularly the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000)
2. Learning Difficulties and Ethnicity: A Framework for Action, commissioned
by the Valuing Support Team and Department of Health to provide
practical guidance to Partnership Boards (Valuing People Support Team, 2004)
3. A national good practice network run by ARC and funded by the Department of Health
4. Regional ethnicity networks, set up by the Valuing People Support Team with DH funding support
5. A leadership training course for some Partnership Boards to conduct in-depth strategic work to improve services for people with learning
disabilities from minority ethnic communities, funded by Valuing People Support Team and the NHS Leadership Centre
6. A number of grants from Department of Health, for example to develop training capacity in this area and provide relevant materials for those responsible for race equality schemes
7. Helpful initiatives by other agencies, including CSCI, Disability Rights Commission and Commission for Racial Equality.
Dr Stephen Ladyman, Parliamentary Secretary of State for Community at the Department of Health asked for a report concerning the progress made by
Partnership Boards in improving services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities. To assist in the production of the report, the
6
The Survey
A short questionnaire for Partnership Boards was developed by the author in consultation with the Valuing People Support Team and the Learning Disability Taskforce Sub-group on Ethnicity. The questions were closely linked to the expectations of Dr Ladyman in his video speech to Partnership Boards for the launch events of Learning Difficulties and Ethnicity – A Framework for Action. The questionnaire asked for the following information:
1. Did Partnership Boards have information on the expected numbers of people with learning disabilities in their area and the actual numbers of people known to services, broken down by ethnic group? What helped and hindered Partnership Boards in getting good information?
2. Did Partnership Boards spend any of their Learning Disability
Development Fund allocation on initiatives to improve services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities and if so, how much and on what?
3. Have Partnership Boards reviewed their plans and strategies to make sure they meet the needs of people from all ethnic communities in their area?
4. Have Partnership Boards changed anything about how they operate to account into account people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities?
5. Are there any initiatives that Partnership Boards are particularly proud of that they would like to share with others?
6. What have the biggest obstacles been to improving services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities?
7
Results
Who Responded?
Completed questionnaires were returned by 82 Partnership Boards, a 51% response rate. The highest response rates were from Partnership Boards in the West Midlands, South West, East Midlands and South East. The lowest
response rates were from Partnership Boards in Yorkshire, London and Eastern.
Responses by region
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Easte rn
Eas t M
idla nds
Lond on
North EastNorth WestSout h E
ast
Sout h W
est
We st M
idlan ds
York shire
Region
Percentage response rate
What Information Is Available?
We asked Partnership Boards whether they had any information on the number of people with learning disabilities they would estimate would be living in their area, broken down by ethnic group. We also asked Partnership Boards to provide us with the actual number of people with learning disabilities known to services in their area.
8 • A substantial majority of responding Partnership Boards (61 Partnership
Boards; 74%) provided detailed information on the number of people with learning disabilities known to services by ethnic group
• Most Partnership Boards also had information on more detailed ethnic categories (53 Partnership Boards; 65%) and age bands (55 Partnership Boards; 67%) across ethnic groups, although fewer Partnership Boards had any information on religion (36 Partnership Boards; 44%), support needs (34 Partnership Boards; 41%), specific services used (33
Partnership Boards; 40%) or carers (33 Partnership Boards; 40%)
• Many Partnership Boards reported that the broad categorisations of ethnicity used in the Census did not identify important ethnic and religious groups in their local area, such as Irish, traveller and Jewish communities. Information using the more detailed Census ethnic categories and
religious categories were required to gain information that was useful for local planning purposes.
From the 26 Partnership Boards who gave information on both estimated and actual numbers in a form enabling comparison, 90.1% of the estimated
population of people with learning disabilities was White, 1.9% was Black, 5.9% was Asian, 1.4% was Mixed and 0.7% was Chinese or Other. Within the
population of people with learning disabilities known to services, 93.4% was White, 1.7% was Black, 3.0% was Asian, 01.1% was Mixed and 0.8% was Chinese or Other. However, only 21.5% of the total estimated population of people with learning disabilities was actually known to services.
Taken together, this pattern of information suggests that there is a considerable shortfall in services for people with learning disabilities across all ethnic groups. However, this shortfall is not constant across ethnic groups; White people with learning disabilities are over-represented and Asian people with learning disabilities are under-represented within services.
Information on the estimated number of people with learning disabilities in the local area was usually obtained by combining information on the general
population living in the local area with information on general prevalence rates of learning disability to calculate estimated numbers of people with learning
disabilities across different ethnic groups. The general population information was most commonly obtained using the 2001 Census. Partnership Boards used a range of prevalence estimates to estimate the number of people with learning disabilities in their area; most commonly the figures of 25 per 1,000 (people with mild learning disabilities) and 4 per 1,000 (people with severe learning
9 Information on the actual number of people with learning disabilities known to services were collected using a wide variety of methods, including:
• Social services electronic databases concerning people with learning disabilities (31 Partnership Boards; 38%). NHS (3 Partnership Boards; 4%), education (3 Partnership Boards; 4%) and integrated (4 Partnership Boards; 5%) databases were rarely used
• Access to a Learning Disability Register (5 Partnership Boards; 6%) • Using data from statistical returns to the Government, such as the
Referral, Assessment and Packages of Care (RAP) returns (5 Partnership Boards; 6%)
• Collecting information directly from support workers, managers and service providers (11 Partnership Boards; 13%)
• Collecting information from assessments, referrals and individual plans (13 Partnership Boards; 16%)
• Conducting meetings, consultations or local research projects with people from minority ethnic communities (9 Partnership Boards; 11%)
• Using local data from the 2001 Census (16 Partnership Boards; 20%). Partnership Boards reported a number of factors that helped them get good information concerning people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities. One crucial factor was having a good electronic database containing information on people with learning disabilities, typically:
• A centralised, specific database for people with learning disabilities set up by services for people with learning disabilities, typically based on referral and assessment data inputted by service personnel (15 Partnership Boards; 18%)
• A Learning Disability Register (3 Partnership Boards; 4%).
For some Partnership Boards, general Local Authority information resources and personnel were reported to be helpful (7 Partnership Boards; 9%); as was 2001 Census data (4 Partnership Boards; 5%), child disability databases (2
10 • Ensuring that staff record ethnicity, religion and language accurately for
every person with learning disabilities they come into contact with (10 Partnership Boards; 12%); staff training is crucial for this to make this happen (3 Partnership Boards; 4%)
• Having dedicated workers, firstly to maintain contacts with local minority ethnic communities and secondly to maintain the database (7 Partnership Boards; 9%)
• Ensuring that information is collected directly from people with learning disabilities and their families (4 Partnership Boards; 5%) in the appropriate language, either by interviewers with the appropriate language skills or through the use of interpreters (6 Partnership Boards; 7%);
Other Partnership Boards had also found useful ensuring that the recording of ethnicity was mandatory (1 Partnership Board); requiring that service providers give ethnicity data as part of contract monitoring procedures (1 Partnership Board); and discussing information requirements with managers (1 Partnership Board).
However, Partnership Boards also reported a wide range of problems in gaining good information on people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic
communities. Although Partnership Boards did find electronic databases useful, they often reported problems that limited their helpfulness for planning purposes:
• Most importantly, a database is only as good as the information entered into it, and many Partnership Boards (32 Partnership Boards; 39%) reported that databases were often incomplete, with staff frequently not recording ethnicity, religion or preferred language of the service user
• Also important was that some databases were not set up to collect information on ethnicity, religion and preferred language that Partnership Boards needed for strategic planning (19 Partnership Boards; 23%)
• Databases were also rarely integrated across services or age groups and could use inconsistent definitions of learning disability, resulting in patchy, incomplete information or information on particular age groups (16
Partnership Boards; 20%). One Partnership Board also mentioned that the Data Protection Act imposed severe restrictions on the sharing of information across services
11 • Some Partnership Boards reported that they had a lack of expertise and
resources concerning the information systems being used in their local area (5 Partnership Boards; 6%).
Beyond the use of databases, Partnership Boards reported broader reasons for the difficulty in gaining good information. Some of these reasons concerned services themselves, particularly the service having competing priorities (4 Partnership Boards; 5%) and time pressures (5 Partnership Boards; 6%). Two Partnership Boards (2%) reported that it was difficult to convince staff of the importance of collecting good information without a critical mass of senior staff committed to improving services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities.
A second set of difficulties concerned the lack of relationship between services and local minority ethnic communities, in particular the resources, effort and skills required to effectively engage local minority ethnic communities (13 Partnership Boards; 16%). Partnership Boards also mentioned difficulties in getting good information when there were small numbers of people from minority ethnic communities in the area (2 Partnership Boards; 2%); when people were not known to services (2 Partnership Boards; 2%) and when local minority ethnic communities did not understand learning disability (1 Partnership Board; 1%).
How is the Learning Disability Development Fund being used?
We asked Partnership Boards about whether they were spending any of their Learning Disability Development Fund (LDDF) allocation on ethnicity issues, in both the 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 LDDF allocation years.
• For 2003-2004, 59 Partnership Boards (72%) reported receiving an LDDF allocation. However, only eight of these Partnership Boards (10%)
reported spending some of their LDDF allocation on ethnicity issues in 2003-2004; spending an average £26,400 on ethnicity issues (an average 13% of their total LDDF allocation)
• For 2004-2005, 64 Partnership Boards (78%) reported receiving an LDDF allocation. Eighteen of these Partnership Boards (22%) reported spending some of their LDDF allocation on ethnicity issues in 2004-2005, spending an average £19,900 on ethnicity issues (an average 13% of their total LDDF allocation)
12 Partnership Boards used their LDDF allocations to stimulate a wide range of local initiatives, including:
• Workshops and strategy days for users and carers from minority ethnic communities (2 Partnership Boards; 2%)
• Training for staff and the Partnership Board on ethnicity issues and the Race Relations Amendment Act (4 Partnership Boards; 5%)
• Development workers to engage with local minority ethnic communities (6 Partnership Boards; 7%), including the development of specific services such as short-term breaks (1 Partnership Board; 1%)
• The development of groups for users and carers from minority ethnic communities (3 Partnership Boards; 4%)
• Starting up an ethnicity subgroup of the Partnership Board (1 Partnership Board; 1%)
• Starting a leisure group for young people from minority ethnic communities (1 Partnership Board; 1%)
• Starting a drop-in service for Asian carers potentially interested in person-centred planning (1 Partnership Board; 1%)
• Developing self-advocacy for users from minority ethnic communities (3 Partnership Boards; 4%)
• Raising awareness of people with learning disabilities amongst minority ethnic communities (2 Partnership Boards; 2%)
• Altering assessment procedures to be inclusive of all local communities (1 Partnership Board; 1%)
• Conducting research into the needs of local minority ethnic communities, including travellers (2 Partnership Boards; 2%)
• Piloting general service initiatives with users and carers from minority ethnic communities (1 Partnership Board; 1%)
13 In addition, a further 13 Partnership Boards (16%) reported that ethnicity issues were routinely built into all LDDF initiatives undertaken by the Partnership Board. However, very few of these Partnership Boards provided examples of how this was achieved. One Partnership Board, for example, had set a target that all new service initiatives had to include at least a proportionate number of people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities.
Of those Partnership Boards commenting on the use of LDDF money for ethnicity issues, the largest number (26 Partnership Boards; 32%) reported that there were no obstacles to them using LDDF money for ethnicity issues. However, other Partnership Boards reported a variety of obstacles to using LDDF money for ethnicity issues:
• Competing priorities (15 Partnership Boards; 18%)
• LDDF money often already being allocated to other priorities (7 Partnership Boards; 9%)
• Not enough LDDF money (6 Partnership Boards; 7%)
• Small numbers of people from minority ethnic communities in the local area (3 Partnership Boards; 4%)
• A lack of local information concerning people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities (3 Partnership Boards; 3%)
• Ethnicity not being recorded as a priority category in statutory returns to the Department of Health (3 Partnership Boards; 3%)
• Lack of organisational time and leadership (2 Partnership Boards; 2%) • Problems recruiting relevant staff (1 Partnership Board; 1%).
How is strategic planning progressing?
We asked Partnership Boards if they had reviewed their strategic plans in a number of areas to take into account the needs of people from minority ethnic communities; 75 Partnership Boards (91%) responded to this question. Although the figures varied from area to area, in general around half the Partnership
14 Person-centred planning 39 Partnership Boards (48%)
Health 34 Partnership Boards (41%) Quality assurance 29 Partnership Boards (35%) Workforce development 29 Partnership Boards (35%) Housing 37 Partnership Boards (45%) Modernising day services 42 Partnership Boards (51%) Employment 35 Partnership Boards (43%)
However, few Partnership Boards provided details or examples of how the reviews had been conducted, or what the results of the reviews were. Examples of reviews and their consequences included:
• Completing an Impact Assessment as required by the Race Relations Amendment Act
• Review the workforce strategy of services for people with learning disabilities to ensure compliance with the general Local Authority workforce diversity strategy
• Developing a specialist day service for South Asian users
• Developing a flexible short-term break service, with South Asian users a priority group for this service
• Producing good practice guidance concerning person-centred planning with people from South Asian communities
• Developing a project concerning person-centred planning with families from minority ethnic communities
• Recruiting a development worker to work with people from minority ethnic communities on individualised services
• Working with the local Jobcentre Plus to increase the diversity of the workforce in services for people with learning disabilities
15
How are Partnership Boards performing?
We asked Partnership Boards if they had reviewed their own performance in relation to people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities, and if so, what action they had taken.
Most Partnership Boards (59 Partnership Boards; 72%) reported that they had reviewed the operation of the Partnership Board, although it was not always clear that this was with reference to people from minority ethnic communities. Just of half of Partnership Boards (43 Partnership Boards; 52%) also reported that they had changed some aspect of the structure, responsibilities or membership of the Board. Common changes included:
• Setting up an ethnicity, equality or diversity subgroup of the Partnership Board (24 Partnership Boards; 29%)
• Ensuring that the Partnership Board included users and/or carers from minority ethnic communities (13 Partnership Boards; 16%), often with support from a development worker where necessary
• Increasing representation on the Partnership Board by staff and
professionals from minority ethnic communities, including development workers appointed to work with people from minority ethnic communities (9 Partnership Boards; 11%)
• Having a designated ethnicity champion on the Partnership Board (8 Partnership Boards; 10%)
• Inviting representatives from organisations representing minority ethnic communities to join the Partnership Board (9 Partnership Boards; 11%), although these invitations were often not successful.
Most Partnership Boards (51 Partnership Boards; 62%) reported that the
Partnership Board had developed strategies to improve services for people from minority ethnic communities. A wide range of strategies were reported, with the most common including:
• Gaining more information, including analysing existing databases, conducting audits and commissioning research (15 Partnership Boards; 18%)
• Producing a report containing strategic recommendations (10 Partnership Boards; 12%)
16 • Developing links with minority ethnic communities (7 Partnership Boards;
9%)
• Developing a strategic action plan concerning people from minority ethnic communities (6 Partnership Boards; 7%)
• Producing an Equality Impact Assessment, as required by the Race Relations Amendment Act (6 Partnership Boards; 7%)
• Developing more accessible information for people from minority ethnic communities (4 Partnership Boards; 5%), including translating Partnership Board materials, producing translated booklets and working with local Race Equality Councils to raise awareness of services amongst minority ethnic communities.
Fewer Partnership Boards mentioned the following strategies:
• Working through the Ethnicity Framework (3 Partnership Boards; 4%) • Taking part in regional initiatives (3 Partnership Boards; 4%)
• Taking part in the National Leadership Programme (2 Partnership Boards; 2%)
• Developing advocacy for people from minority ethnic communities (2 Partnership Boards; 2%)
• Supporting staff from minority ethnic communities and increasing the workforce (2 Partnership Boards; 2%).
A small number of Partnership Boards (8 Partnership Boards; 10%) reported that all their strategies routinely considered people from minority ethnic communities, although there was very little evidence provided to support these statements.
What are Partnership Boards proud of?
Over half of Partnership Boards (45 Partnership Boards; 55%) reported an
17 • Training staff and raising awareness concerning ethnicity and culture (9
Partnership Boards; 11%)
• Commissioning research into the numbers and needs of people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities (7 Partnership Boards; 9%)
• Recruiting a development worker to work with people from minority ethnic communities (7 Partnership Boards; 9%)
• Recruiting more staff from minority ethnic communities (7 Partnership Boards; 9%)
• Using person-centred planning to improve supports for people from minority ethnic communities (6 Partnership Boards; 7%)
• New day services developed for a specific ethnic community (6 Partnership Boards; 7%)
• Developing action plans with a high priority placed on ethnicity and culture (6 Partnership Boards; 7%)
• Developing advocacy and self-advocacy schemes relevant to people from minority ethnic communities (5 Partnership Boards; 6%)
• Raising awareness of people with learning disabilities and services amongst minority ethnic communities (5 Partnership Boards; 8%)
• Setting up an ethnicity subgroup of the PB (4 Partnership Boards; 5%) • Making short-term break services more accessible to people from minority
ethnic communities, particularly in terms of offering “women-only” short breaks (4 Partnership Boards; 5%)
• Developing support groups of carers from minority ethnic communities (3 Partnership Boards; 4%)
• Conducting an Equality Impact Assessment (3 Partnership Boards; 4%).
What obstacles have Partnership Boards encountered?
18 obstacles in 2004, with four Partnership Boards (5%) reporting no major
obstacles.
Many of these obstacles concerned the nature of the areas within which
Partnership Boards were operating. Many Partnership Boards (23 Partnership Boards; 28%) reported that the small number of people from minority ethnic communities in their area was an obstacle to service improvement. These Partnership Boards were often small authorities with limited resources (4
Partnership Boards; 5%) or large rural authorities (3 Partnership Boards; 4%); in either case minority ethnic communities were often small, scattered and not concentrated in large communities (8 Partnership Boards; 10%), resulting in work being done individually rather than strategically (6 Partnership Boards; 7%) and a difficulty in maintaining staff skills and expertise (2 Partnership Boards; 2%). In contrast, one Partnership Board reported that the huge range of ethnic
communities in the locality was an obstacle to delivering uniformly high quality services to each community.
Many Partnership Boards reported a lack of knowledge or information about minority ethnic communities (15 Partnership Boards; 18%) and/or inaccurate information (12 Partnership Boards; 15%). This often was associated with difficulties in engaging with local minority ethnic communities (17 Partnership Boards; 21%) and difficulties in finding people who do not currently use services (3 Partnership Boards; 4%). A small number of Partnership Boards reported that people from minority ethnic communities were reluctant to come forward to accept culturally insensitive services (5 Partnership Boards; 6%) or were suspicious of the motivations of service providers (1 Partnership Board; 1%).
A consistent theme amongst Partnership Boards was the low priority given to working with people from minority ethnic communities in the face of competing priorities (11 Partnership Boards; 13%). Some Partnership Boards suggested that a lack of resources was a major obstacle to improving services for people from minority ethnic communities (10 Partnership Boards; 12%); and a lack of dedicated staff time was also mentioned (9 Partnership Boards; 11%). However, organisational obstacles involving the co-ordination of different agencies and a lack of organisational commitment (9 Partnership Boards; 11%) were reported by a similar number of Partnership Boards, along with problems in the operation of Partnership Boards themselves (8 Partnership Boards; 10%) and problems in recruiting, training, retaining and promoting suitable staff (9 Partnership Boards; 11%).
Conclusions
19 minority ethnic communities. There seems to be progress in the number of Partnership Boards that are able to report:
• Good information on the numbers and needs of people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities in their local area, with some evidence of Partnership Boards putting substantial efforts into improving the quality of their information and attempting to reach out to new
communities
• Using LDDF funding to promote new initiatives to improve services for people from minority ethnic communities, including a small number of Partnership Boards where ethnicity issues are routinely addressed within general LDDF initiatives
• Changes to the operation of the Partnership Board to raise the profile of people from minority ethnic communities and develop strategies to improve services
• The development of action plans and strategies to improve services for people from minority ethnic communities that are “owned” by the
Partnership Board.
• Organisational leadership and commitment to improving services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities, even in some areas with small and scattered minority ethnic communities
• Some movement from information gathering and strategy development to changes in services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities.
However, some Partnership Boards responding to this survey reported that improving services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic
communities was not a high priority, resulting in a lack of strategic leadership and action. Poor information, small numbers of people from minority ethnic
communities in the local area and a lack of engagement with local minority ethnic communities seemed to be given as reasons for not pursuing strategic action, rather than as factors stimulating such action.
Clearly, the Valuing People Support Team, with support from the Department of Health and the ethnicity sub-group of the Task Force, has been successful in raising the profile of ethnicity issues amongst many Partnership Boards and helping Partnership Boards to make progress. However, such progress is not universal, with some Partnership Boards requiring further support and
20
References
Department of Health (2001). Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning
Disability for the 21st Century. London: The Stationery Office.
Department of Health (2004). Valuing People: Moving Forward Together – The
Government’s annual report on learning disability 2004. London: Department of
Health.
Mir, G., Nocon, A. & Ahmad, W. with Jones, L. (2001). Learning Difficulties and
Ethnicity. London: Department of Health.
Valuing People Support Team/DH (2004). Learning Difficulties and Ethnicity: A
Improving Services for People with Learning
Disabilities from Minority Ethnic Groups:
Appendix 2: List of Partnership Boards that returned within the
final deadline
Barnsley
Bath & North East Somerset Bedfordshire Bexley Birmingham Bolton Bournemouth Bracknell
Brighton and Hove Bromley
Cambridgeshire Camden Cheshire
Chorley & South Ribble Cornwall Coventry Croydon Darlington Derbyshire Devon Dorset Dudley Durham East Sussex Gloucestershire Greenwich Halton Hampshire Havering Hertfordshire Hounslow
Hyndburn & Ribble Valley Islington Kent Knowsley Leicester City Leicestershire Liverpool Middlesbrough Morecambe Bay North Lincolnshire North Staffordshire Northumberland Nottingham City Nottinghamshire North Tyneside North Yorkshire Newham Norfolk Oxfordshire Plymouth Poole Preston Reading Rochdale Rotherham Salford South Gloucestershire South Tyneside Sandwell Sefton Shropshire Somerset Southampton St Helens Staffordshire Stockport Suffolk Tameside Telford & Wrekin Torbay Tower Hamlets Trafford Wakefield Warwickshire West Sussex Westminster Wiltshire
Windsor & Maidenhead Wirral
Wolverhampton Wokingham Worcestershire
Improving Services for People with Learning
Disabilities from Minority Ethnic Groups:
Appendix 3
Examples of Good Practice from a National
Survey of Partnership Boards
Chris Hatton
2 Introduction
From the publication of Valuing People onwards, it has been recognised that people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities receive a relatively poor deal from existing services (Department of Health, 2001, 2004; Mir et al., 2001). Valuing People has given Partnership Boards the
responsibility for leading improvements in services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities.
Dr Stephen Ladyman, Parliamentary Secretary of State for Community at the Department of Health, asked the Valuing People Support Team to prepare a report concerning the progress made by PB in improving services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities. To assist in the production of the report, the Valuing People Support Team commissioned a national survey of PB, the results of which have been written up in a report (see Hatton, 2005).
This additional document to the report outlines some activities identified by the Partnership Board who took part in the survey as examples of good practice. This is not an exhaustive list of examples of good practice, as only half (51%) of Partnership Board returned completed survey questionnaires. In addition, many examples of good practice may not have been mentioned by Partnership Board as there was limited space available on the survey questionnaires.
The examples of good practice are organised according to the major headings outlined in Learning Difficulties and Ethnicity: A Framework for Action
(DH/Valuing People Support Team, 2004), with additional headings for Partnership Boards:
• Partnership Boards
1. Effective working
2. Compliance with legislation 3. Information
• Supporting Family Carers • Children
• Young People and Transition • Health
• Choice and Control
1. Advocacy
2. Person-centred planning 3. Direct payments
• Fulfilling Lives
1. Day services 2. Employment
3. Education and lifelong learning
4. Leisure, social activities, friendships and relationships 5. A place to live
3
• Workforce Training and Planning
4 Partnership Boards 1: Effective Working
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Bolton Set up an ethnicity subgroup of the Partnership Board, and appointed ethnicity reps to all other subgroups
Croydon Set up an ethnicity subgroup and are developing an action plan
Liverpool Set up a Race Equality Strategy Task and Action Group, and an Equal Access Team
Rotherham Extended membership of the Ethnic Minorities Development Group and developed an action plan to improve information provision to people and families from minority ethnic groups (including a translation and interpreting strategy)
Salford Set up a Valuing Diversity Task Group responsible to the Partnership Board
Sandwell Set up an Equality and Diversity Subgroup and action plan Tameside Completed an Equalities Action Plan as part of Best Value
Review
Partnership Boards 2: Compliance with Legislation (Race
Relations Amendment Act; Disability Discrimination Act)
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Bexley Completion of Equality Impact Assessment for Adult Learning Disability Services
South
Gloucestershire
Information Officer produced an accessible summary of the Race Relations Amendment Act
5 Partnership Boards 3: Information
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Bedfordshire Expansion of Bedford Outreach project to the whole county Birmingham Funding a MENCAP project to run an information and advice
service for people and their families from minority ethnic communities
Bolton Partnership Board to follow in detail the lives of 12 people (including 5 from minority ethnic communities) to monitor progress and identify obstacles requiring individual and strategic action
Bournemouth Set up a subgroup to look at getting better information concerning people from minority ethnic communities, including developing links with local minority ethnic communities for consultation purposes
Cheshire Gaining detailed information on local Gypsy and traveller communities
Croydon Recruited a development worker to carry out baseline research into the numbers and needs of people from minority ethnic communities
Dudley Taking part in a joint health/social services initiative with local a Muslim radio station to provide information and raise awareness of services, using relevant languages
Durham Produced a report for the Partnership Board on current service needs, service responses and strategies for improving services for people from minority ethnic communities
Hampshire Commissioned research concerning the issues faced by people from minority ethnic communities in the county Hertfordshire Commissioned research to gain feedback from people from
minority ethnic communities on the services they are using Hertfordshire Conducted a detailed audit of services with service users
and carers from minority ethnic communities; changes to services as a result of this audit will be monitored
Hounslow Commissioned MENCAP’s Ethnic Minority Participation and Access Project
Morecambe Bay
Worked to improve the recording of ethnicity by operational teams
North Lincolnshire
Produced a video to raise awareness of services for people with learning disabilities across all communities
Sandwell Obtained funding from Carers Grant for research concerning the needs of South Asian families
6 Supporting Family Carers
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Birmingham Funding a MENCAP project to establish and support a carers group for South Asian women
Birmingham Set up a drop-in respite service for families from minority ethnic communities
Devon Holding on-going consultations with a focus group of carers from minority ethnic communities to better understand which services do and do not work, and to strategically develop services
Devon Offered £200 cash to family carers of a person with learning disabilities: helped to identify new people from minority ethnic communities needing services
Dudley Set up a group for carers from minority ethnic communities, with professional support, for mutual support and
consultation
Greenwich Developed specific support groups for carers from minority ethnic communities
Hertfordshire Appointed an involvement worker for service users and carers from minority ethnic communities
Hounslow Introduced “women-only weeks” in short-break services Leicester City Worked with carers and community groups to raise
awareness of Valuing People amongst people from minority ethnic communities
North Lincolnshire
Invited carers from all ethnic groups to events and provided support for them to attend
Nottinghamshire Short-break services redeveloped to meet the needs of all communities (e.g. same sex staff group available if
necessary)
Rochdale Flexible short-break service during the day for South Asian family carers who do not wish to use overnight short-term break services
Suffolk Gained funding from Carers Grant to fund 0.5 worker to work with carers from minority ethnic communities Windsor &
Maidenhead
Gained funding from Day Opportunities fund to part-fund an outreach worker to make contact with and discover the needs of families from minority ethnic communities Wolverhampton Set up a task group for carers from minority ethnic
7
Children
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
No examples of good practice relating to children from minority ethnic communities were provided by Partnership Board participating in the survey
Young People and Transition
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Birmingham Funding a MENCAP project developing links with young people and their families from minority ethnic communities South
Tyneside
Trying to combine information giving with engaging family carers from minority ethnic communities in the transition process
Tameside Conducted research to find out why young people from minority ethnic communities sometimes do not access services when leaving educational college
Health
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Camden Involvement of learning disability services in local NHS “Vibrant Communities” initiative to improve the cultural competence of health services and increase the diversity of the NHS workforce
Camden Multi-disciplinary health team working with local advocacy and interpreter agencies to share awareness and develop effective practice
8
Choice and Control 1: Advocacy
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Birmingham Developed local advocacy services to work with people from minority ethnic communities
Camden Research and development work to ensure that local advocacy services are accessible and relevant to people from minority ethnic communities
Coventry The development of a self-advocacy group for people from minority ethnic communities
Dudley Set up a self-advocacy group for people from minority ethnic communities
Dudley Obtained funding for a part-time worker to recruit advocates from minority ethnic communities
Leicester City Commissioned advocacy services for people from South Asian communities
Newham 1:1 advocacy service very popular with people from minority ethnic communities
Newham People First running a self-advocacy group for people from minority ethnic communities
Oxfordshire Part-funded a local self-advocacy group to work with people from minority ethnic communities
Tower Hamlets
Increased funding to a self-advocacy group to increase participation by people from minority ethnic communities
Choice and Control 2: Person-Centred Planning
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Halton People from minority ethnic communities are a priority group for person-centred planning
Leicester City Developed a good practice toolkit to promote person-centred planning amongst people from South Asian communities Newham Set up South Asian women’s drop-in sessions to support person-centred planning, which is proving very successful with people from minority ethnic communities
Salford Using person-centred planning with six people from minority ethnic communities to improve services both individually and strategically
9
Choice and Control 3: Direct Payments
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Bromley Ensuring that direct payments are available to people from minority ethnic communities who do not wish to use current services
Devon Worked with people from minority ethnic communities to access direct payments
Dudley One-off direct payments to family carers from minority ethnic communities
Westminster Funding a direct payments officer: uptake of direct payments by people from minority ethnic communities has significantly increased
Fulfilling Lives 1: Day Services
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Cambridgeshire Developments in day services including training, events with users and family carers and displays on religion and culture, work with speech therapy
Hyndburn & Ribble Valley
Set up a women-only satellite day service in an area with a large minority ethnic population; service caters for women from all ethnic groups
Leicester City Commissioned a new community support service as an alternative to day centres for people from South Asian communities
Middlesbrough Established a day service for people from minority ethnic communities (2 days a week, planning to move to 5 days a week)
Newham The day opportunities service employs a South Asian resource worker
Rotherham Redirected funding to provide day services for young South Asian women which reflect cultural needs and uphold young people’s values about inclusion
South
Gloucestershire
Two short-break services held women-only weekends
Tower Hamlets Set up 2 day services for Bangladeshi women
Warwickshire A day service for people with learning disabilities has linked up with a day service for people from minority ethnic
10
Fulfilling Lives 2: Employment
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Newham Estimate that over half of people gaining paid employment are from minority ethnic communities
Fulfilling Lives 3: Education and Lifelong Learning
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
No examples of good practice relating to education and lifelong learning for people from minority ethnic communities were provided by Partnership Boards participating in the survey
Fulfilling Lives 4: Leisure, social activities, friendships and
relationships
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Birmingham Funding a MENCAP project to liaise with local places of worship
Rochdale Women from South Asian communities taking up diverse leisure and social activities individually and as a group
Fulfilling Lives 5: A Place To Live
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
No examples of good practice relating to a place to live for people from minority ethnic communities were provided by Partnership Board participating in the survey
Fulfilling Lives 6: Benefits and entitlements
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
11
Workforce Training and Planning
Partnership Board
Example of Good Practice
Birmingham Set up a joint initiative between the NHS and a local provider agency to attract staff from minority ethnic communities, including access to a skills escalator scheme
Bolton Employed a development worker to work with people from minority ethnic communities
Bolton Increased recruitment of staff from minority ethnic communities throughout services
Camden Involvement in local initiative with health professionals to promote awareness of careers in schools with a high proportion of minority ethnic pupils
Cheshire Providing information for staff about minority ethnic groups, cultures and religions
Devon Focus in local newsletter for learning disability staff on services for people from minority ethnic communities
Dudley Employed a specialist worker to improve services for people from minority ethnic communities
Greenwich Recruitment of a development worker to help local teams meet the needs of people across diverse ethnic groups Hyndburn &
Ribble Valley
Day centre working hard to recruit more staff from minority ethnic communities
Shropshire Significantly increased the number of learning disability staff from minority ethnic communities, and involved some of these staff in training staff across services
South
Gloucestershire
Recruitment of a community development worker to work with people from minority ethnic communities
South
Gloucestershire
Diversity training being organised for all frontline staff
Stockport Council-led diversity training Telford &
Wrekin
Have advertised and recruited under section 5/2 for the JCLDT and Mental Impairment Team
Torbay Council-led diversity training received by all staff in social services for people with learning disabilities
12
References
Department of Health (2001). Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning
Disability for the 21st Century. London: The Stationery Office.
Department of Health (2004). Valuing People: Moving Forward Together – The
Government’s annual report on learning disability 2004. London: Department of
Health.
Hatton, C. (2005). Improving Services for People with Learning Disabilities from
Minority Ethnic Groups: Results of a National Survey of Partnership Boards.
Lancaster: Institute for Health Research, Lancaster University.
Mir, G., Nocon, A. & Ahmad, W. with Jones, L. (2001). Learning Difficulties and
Ethnicity. London: Department of Health.
Valuing People Support Team (2004). Learning Difficulties and Ethnicity: A
Improving Services for People with Learning
Disabilities from Minority Ethnic Groups:
Appendix 4
Reflections on the National Survey of
Partnership Boards
Chris Hatton
Introduction
From the publication of Valuing People onwards, it has been recognised that people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities receive a relatively poor deal from existing services (Department of Health, 2001, 2004; Mir et al., 2001). Valuing People has given Partnership Boards (PB) the responsibility for leading improvements in services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities.
Dr Stephen Ladyman, Parliamentary Secretary of State for Community at the Department of Health, asked the Valuing People Support Team to prepare a report concerning the progress made by Partnership Boards in improving services for people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities. To assist in the production of the report, the Valuing People Support Team commissioned a national survey of Partnership Boards, the results of which have been written up (Hatton, 2005a). An additional document outlines some activities identified as examples of good practice by the Partnership Boards who took part in the survey (Hatton, 2005b).
This final document contains some brief personal reflections on the findings of the national survey, consisting of a series of questions raised by the survey that a wide range of stakeholders need to consider. These reflections are in no particular order, and are aimed to highlight broad issues of general
relevance; these reflections intentionally do not concern individual Partnership Boards or local authorities.
How important is ethnicity?
In the context of the national survey, this broad question can be asked in a number of ways.
First, how important is ethnicity to Partnership Boards and services more generally?
One way of thinking about this question is to look at the response rate to the survey, 51%. If the glass is half-full, then this is an encouragingly high response rate compared to most postal surveys. If the glass is half-empty, then this is a disappointing response rate given that it was a carefully targeted survey conducted at the request of a Government Minister.
be given as reasons for not pursuing strategic action, rather than as factors stimulating such action. Clearly, support is required for these Partnership Boards to move towards a position where there is a strong commitment
towards excellence in meeting the needs of all people with learning disabilities in the local area. A lack of leadership and commitment at senior levels within services will be reflected in a similar lack of commitment from staff in all positions within services.
Second, how important is ethnicity compared to other aspects of culture?
In many survey responses, ethnicity seemed to be used as a synonym for race, with only non-white communities assumed to be “ethnic” and cultural issues such as religion bundled together and assumed to be relevant to specific ethnic groups. There are a couple of observations here:
1. All communities have “ethnicity”, and ethnicity is not about race or skin colour – White Irish communities, for example, often have a strong and particular ethnic identity.
2. Other aspects of culture rather than ethnicity may be very important, for example religion, which cuts across ethnic communities. For example, some Jewish communities may have very particular requirements of service supports, even though they are often counted as ethnically white. Islam is a faith practiced by people across a wide range of ethnic communities. Christianity is also practiced in very different ways by people across a wide range of ethnic communities, including white ethnic communities.
What resources are needed?
Some responding Partnership Boards mentioned a lack of resources as an obstacle to improving services for people from minority ethnic communities. This is certainly likely to be the case where Partnership Boards have identified large numbers of local people from minority ethnic communities not previously known to services, and is likely to be a particularly acute issue in areas with newly arriving communities such as asylum seekers and refugees. The Government may wish to consider incentivising Partnership Boards to identify and meet the needs of people with learning disabilities not previously in contact with services, perhaps prioritising people from minority ethnic communities.
However, where people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic
communities are known to services, then improvements to services for people from these communities may well be cost-neutral, and in any event are
What are Partnership Boards doing to comply with legislation?
Increasingly, legislation such as Race Relations Amendment Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act are placing specific responsibilities upon Partnership Boards and services used by people with learning disabilities. Relatively few Partnership Boards specifically mentioned these pieces of legislation, although this may reflect a perception of this compliance as routine and not worth mentioning rather than reflecting a lack of awareness or action. However, it is important that Partnership Boards and all relevant agencies are aware of these legislative requirements and take action to ensure compliance.
How can Partnership Boards work best to meet the needs of people from minority ethnic communities?
From many of the survey responses, there are encouraging signs that
Partnership Boards are taking action to raise of profile of ethnicity as an issue and to increase representation from users, family carers and professionals from minority ethnic communities. As yet, it is too soon to know which of the many changes being made are most effective – for example, does having an ethnicity subgroup or a champion on the Partnership Board seem to make a difference? Over the next few years, it might be worth looking at sharing information, evidence and learning across Partnership Boards concerning the most effective ways to make Partnership Boards work better for people from minority ethnic communities.
What information do Partnership Boards need?
Many Partnership Boards mentioned the difficulties of getting relevant, reliable and accurate information on the total local population of people with learning disabilities, including those not known to services. As people from minority ethnic communities are less likely to be known to services, this lack of information is likely to have a particularly big impact on people from these communities. Many Partnership Boards also mentioned problems with getting accurate information on the ethnicity of people using services, usually
because people collecting and coding the information on individuals did not routinely record information on ethnicity. Some Partnership Boards also mentioned that health and social care performance indicators did not ask for information on ethnicity, reducing the priority of ethnicity when collecting and collating information
Information seemed to be such an important issue for Partnership Boards that many of them were explicitly focusing on collecting better information before developing strategic action plans or changing services to better meet the needs of people from minority ethnic communities, particularly in
least involving detailed ethnicity, religion, spoken and written languages) on a routine basis. Again, good practice ideas can be shared across Partnership Boards with support from the Valuing People Support Team. The Valuing People Support Team might also want to consider discussions with the Healthcare Commission and Commission for Social Care Inspection CSCI on incorporating ethnicity and religion within the performance indicators they routinely collect.
How can the Learning Disability Development Fund best be used to improve supports for people from minority ethnic communities?
Improving services for people from minority ethnic communities is now a recognised priority for Learning Disability Development Fund (LDDF) funding, although responses from the survey suggest that this may throw up a
dilemma for Partnership Boards.
First, many Partnership Boards claimed that, although they had not specifically allocated LDDF funding to improving services for people from minority ethnic communities, they were taking ethnicity and culture routinely into account within general strategies, for example person-centred planning, advocacy or day services modernisation. This mainstreaming of ethnicity issues within routine strategic planning and service delivery is, for me, the preferred option for ensuring that ethnicity and cultural issues become embedded into the core of service values and activities. However, many Partnership Boards making this claim did not provide any supporting evidence as to how they were achieving this integration and how they were monitoring their effectiveness. This leaves open the possibility that these responses actually reflected inaction rather than integrated strategy concerning people from minority ethnic communities. A small number of Partnership Boards did provide convincing evidence of such integrated strategies, such as ensuring that people from minority ethnic communities were proportionally represented within new service initiatives or providing evidence that general strategies had produced particularly positive results for people from minority ethnic
communities.
The second part of the dilemma is that some Partnership Boards did use LDDF money to focus specifically on ethnicity issues, but that this money was used to develop ethnically separate services in the absence of a general PB strategy concerning people from minority ethnic communities. It is a
possibility that encouraging Partnership Boards to use LDDF money specifically for ethnicity issues may result in an increase in the number of short-term, ethnically separate services, rather than supporting the
development of proper strategic thinking and service development in support of that thinking.
How do we best serve the needs of asylum seekers and refugees?
A small number of Partnership Boards specifically mentioned working with asylum seekers and refugees. People in these categories can represent a challenge for usual ways of working as they often do not arrive into relevant established communities and their presence can be relatively short-term. As a result local services often do not have existing staff teams with relevant language skills or knowledge of these communities; uncertainty about length of stay may also present challenges to existing service systems. It may be that national guidance is need
