SWBG blog
Edinburgh Integration Joint Board Grants Programme
Heather Williams, Training Lead at the Scottish Women’s Budget Group, discusses the latest proposals made by Edinburgh Integration Joint Board on their Grants Programme
There has been a lot said this week about the proposal made by the Edinburgh Integrated Joint Board (EIJB) to give 90 days’ notice to stop funding 64 third sector organisations across the city. It has been estimated that this will result in over 100 job losses and will t potentially cost £16million in lost additional funding, leading to further disadvantage being experienced by over 50,000 people who use the affected services.[1]
The integration of health and social care services was intended to ensure ‘those who use health and social care services get the right care and support whatever their needs, at the right time and in the right setting at any point in their care journey, with a focus on community-based and preventative care’.[2] Yet what we see in many areas of Scotland is a system which is failing to meet its intended purpose of providing the right care and support to people. This is partly due to the lack of proper integration in relation to the provision of services or budgets.
The EIJB proposal is the latest made by IJB’s across Scotland[3] that highlights that the siphoning off services for those with health and social care needs leave many of our most disadvantaged communities and groups in a worse position than pre-integration.
The paper produced by the EIJB sets out that these cuts are needed to ensure that the best use is made of finite resources to allow the EIJB to meet its core and statutory responsibilities. Reviewing the paper using a gender budgeting lens highlights some questions about the assessment that forms the basis of the proposal and how we assess the impact of the way in which we spend money or make cuts.
Value for Money
The proposal states that ‘the size of the deficit is such that without decisive action, the EIJB will be unable to meet its statutory obligations and unable to protect our most vulnerable. In the absence of a substantial (and recurring) increase in income, the EIJB needs to reduce the scale of the services it provides’.
There is no denying the tight financial situation that the public sector is facing but, given the particular challenges that we face in Scotland with an ageing population, cutting support which prevents or delays people needing to use higher cost statutory services seems a perverse way to go about balancing budgets.
The paper also states: ‘the evaluation method used does not consider the opportunity cost associated with the grant allocations (i.e. what evidence is there that the activities funded through the EIJB grants programme was the best use of that money?). In the current economic climate where the EIJB (along with the rest of the public sector) is facing severe and persistent financial pressure against a background of rising demand and demographic change, a greater level of critical analysis is needed. It is not enough to know that money spent has brought benefit, the EIJB need to be assured that every pound has been spent to best effect and done as much good as possible’.
SWBG would not disagree with the need to question how the way we spend money helps us to achieve our outcomes and if there are better ways to spend money. Questioning the impact of how we raise and spend money is a key principle of gender budgeting. However, we contend that for this assessment to be fully effective all early intervention and preventative spend should have been looked at to assess its value, rather than just those currently funded through the grant programme. It is important that as part of this assessment we understand how current active programmes interact and impact on other areas of the system, including where additional costs may arise because of these changes.
The questions used to assess value (as outlined in the paper) would benefit from some clarity on the criteria used, at the moment it appears that potentially we are measuring apples and pears. Addressing the following points would increase transparency:
- what outcomes Edinburgh IJB were measuring projects against, and how these relate to the outcomes the projects were funded to meet;
- what evidence Edinburgh IJB used to identify if projects contributed to meeting the outcomes;
- what evidence Edinburgh IJB used to allocate monetary values to the return on investment;
- how were the funded organisations involved in the assessment.
The fact that the Integrated Impact Assessment highlights this proposal will protect staff in statutory services does lead to questions about the underpinning assumptions made about the worth of different interventions funded by the EIJB.
Delegated Functions
The paper provides an explanation of the decision taken using the work of the Income Maximisation projects funded stating that, while a well-evidenced and effective intervention, income maximisation/poverty reduction is not one of the EIJBs delegated functions. Yet according to the scheme of integration[5] one of the delegated functions from the City of Edinburgh Council is the provision of general social welfare services under the Social Work Scotland Act 1968. The act describes these as the provision of advice, guidance and assistance on the scale as may be appropriate.[6] This therefore raises questions about what is seen as a core function of the EIJB and how this matches the objectives set out in the EIJBs draft strategic plan as well as the integration scheme.
The proposal also raises questions about how the benefit derived by health and social care from income maximisation was identified, as it is not clear what evidence the18p return is based on. Given the low value associated with this, it is likely that this could be contested. A report for Public Health England shows that for every £1 invested in financial inclusion £8.40 is generated and that:
- 41% of clients in receipt of money advice was linked to an improvement in their health;
- 67% of clients had noticed a reduction in their stress in response to the advice received.[7]
Preventative Approach
The 2023 inspection of adult social care services in Edinburgh found that there was an inconsistent and uncoordinated approach to early intervention and prevention services. This meant that there was little focus on preventing hospital admissions due to staff being focused on supporting those who have been discharged from hospital. The Inspection found that one aspect of good practice was in relation to building capacity in communities where an extended period of grant funding had assisted in the work to improve population health and tackle inequalities.[8]
This proposal to remove funding from the 64 community organisations will undo the good work in this area highlighted by the 2023 Inspection.
The EIJB paper sets out that ‘most individuals accessing services funded from the grants programme would not meet the criteria of critical or substantial need and therefore the discontinuation of the grants programme would not lead to an increase in statutory service provision.’ It is unclear over what time period they are basing this assertion on. If it means immediately, this may be correct but from a gender budgeting perspective it is important that we take a lifetime perspective wherever possible. It is unclear from the paper what consideration has been given to how soon those who are being supported by the community organisations would be likely to show up in higher cost statutory services. Likewise, the proposal does not mention anything about how long the savings (they believe) these cuts will make will be sustained for.
The lack of disaggregated data about those who use the funded services makes it difficult to fully understand how likely this proposal is to actually realise the savings it states will be made.
Gender budgeting encourages us to be transparent and to show the workings behind decisions/assessments. This proposal would benefit from greater transparency and detail in relation to how the impact of the removal of services will interact with people’s need to use statutory services and what this will mean for demand and unmet need. This is particularly important to assess if the proposal will actually lead to savings anywhere other than on a column on the balance sheet.
Section 12 of the proposal provides data on what the £4.5million saving could fund if used differently including additional GP appointments. Section 34 states that preventative work which stops people attending the GP or A&E does not ‘directly translate into financial savings as cash can only be released by reducing the provision within those areas.’
This assessment seems to misunderstand the nature of early intervention and preventative work, which aims to stop problems happening in the first place or reduces the level of harm[9]. Preventative work delays the need for individuals to use higher cost statutory services. While the assessment undertaken appears to miss the impact that this decision could have on demand, the Integrated Impact Assessment does recognise the inherent risks in this cut that ‘there is likely to be reduced opportunity to act to prevent future needs arising, which may in turn lead to higher demand for services to meet critical / substantial need and therefore less capacity to deliver a quality service for the existing high need population.’ However, the mitigation they suggest that users can be signposted to other community services seems to be based on an untested assumption that there are services available and that there is capacity within these.
Reducing Health Inequalities
The initial grant programme aimed to reduce health inequalities along with funding early intervention and preventative approaches. Yet the paper is largely silent on this issue and how the proposal made will impact on the IJB’s responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Both the paper and the Integrated Impact Assessment are largely silent on the number of people likely to be affected by this proposal, their characteristics and the areas they live in. The lack of disaggregated data means it is difficult to understand the potential longer-term impact of this and whether these savings will actually be realised or whether they will just result in money being spent in other areas. This is particularly important when it comes to a reduction in care services, and its likely impact on women’s economic inequality.
Conclusion
The IJB proposal highlights that the focus on the need to balance budgets year or year has led to a very short-term approach to assessing the value of investment and the impact of cuts. It misses out on identifying the impact these proposals will have on the public purse in the longer term, as well as on other parts of the system which can result in additional costs.
This approach has led to early intervention and prevention being deprioritised as found by the Accounts Commission, who are clear that tackling the issues facing IJBs must have early intervention and preventative approaches as its heart. Additionally, the Accounts Commission has stated that IJBs must ensure that the savings set out in its plans are actually achievable. We contend that this must be supported by the use of sex disaggregated data.[10]
To tackle the challenges currently faced in the public sector there must be a move away from the siloed approaches taken to the delivery of services and to consideration of costs and savings. Ensuring that decisions are based on the use and comprehensive analysis of sex-disaggregated data showing that savings are realistic and achievable is essential. Without this there is a very real risk of entrenching inequalities further.
[1] https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s76315/7.2%20Edinburgh%20Integration%20Joint%20Board%20Grants%20Programme%20and%20Public%20Social%20Partnership.pdf
[2] https://hscscotland.scot/integration/#:~:text=At%20its%20heart%2C%20integration%20is,community%2Dbased%20and%20preventative%20care.
[3] https://healthandcare.scot/stories/3766/k/
[5] https://www.edinburghhsc.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Integration-Scheme-1.pdf
[6] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/49/section/12
[7] https://observatory.leeds.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Improving-Public-Health-through-Income-Maximisation.pdf
[8] https://www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/6997/City%20of%20Edinburgh%20inspection%20report%20March%202023.pdf
[9] https://publichealthscotland.scot/our-areas-of-work/public-health-approach-to-prevention/the-three-levels-of-prevention/
[10] https://audit.scot/publications/integration-joint-boards-finance-and-performance-2024#:~:text=In%20this%20Account%20Commission%20briefing,the%20bodies%20providing%20these%20services.
Reflections on the UK Budget
Our Coordinator, Sara Cowan, shares her thoughts on the UK Autumn Statement
Reflecting on the Autumn statement leaves us with mixed feelings as we look forward to what it could mean for women in Scotland.
It’s great to hear a Chancellor call out our need to ‘invest, invest, invest’. Our public services sorely need this after years of real-term cuts and constrained budgets. It chimes with the First Minister’s recent speech also flagging the country’s need for investment in our public services. With the same message coming from Westminster and Holyrood now is the time to be optimistic about the change women can see in Scotland.
It is critical that the coming investment is in both physical and social infrastructure to support all aspects of our economy. This means that alongside roads and public buildings, services such as education, health, social care and childcare are recognised for the critical role they play in our economy.
With a further £3.4bn coming to next year’s Scottish budget, care services need to be included in where the money is invested. Alongside action to support the NHS in Scotland, investment must be made in preventative care.
Our sisters at the UK Women’s Budget Group have shared their initial reaction, with more detail coming soon, highlighting the promising green shoots of change but the need for greater ambition on both changes to taxes and levels and areas for investment.
There was disappointingly little change to social security with policies like the two-child limit and the benefits cap remaining in place, and no mention of a review of thresholds for accessing means-tested support as we called for in our Women’s Survey 2024 report. More positively, the changes to the maximum amount that can be taken from benefits to repay debt was a step in the right direction. However, the uplift of 1.7% to benefit rates alongside maintaining the sanctions regime gives little room for optimism for those who require support from the social security system. Women are more reliant on social security due to undertaking more unpaid care work. We need to see change at the UK level to ensure there’s a safety net that provides people with the essentials of life. Action in Scotland, including raising the Scottish Child Payment is vital to provide much needed additional support.
It is good news that the minimum wage will be rising with women more likely to be in low paid employment. However, it’s necessary that the Scottish Government continues to support delivery of a real living wage to workers in Scotland as part of the process of ensuring fair work that pays. Sadly, the changes to the rate of employer’s NI contributions will, if realised, severely impact the third sector, which is already drained by the impact of standstill and/or insufficient funding at a time of increasing demand. The Coalition of Care and Support Providers have already raised the alarm, drawing attention to the implications that this could have for the provision of formal care, which of course could see increasing demands placed on unpaid carers. But with more women being employed in the third sector, the repercussions of this decision would be far more damaging.
As a final point, the UK Budget made important steps to increase tax, including of wealth through changes to Capital Gains Tax and 50% increase in air passenger duty for private jets. This should set the tone for the Scottish Government to use powers available to it to raise further revenue in Scotland and work to tackle inequality through options at its disposal, including the need for a revaluation of property rates on which Council Tax is based and a private tax embedded as part of an operational Air Departure Tax.
We’ll be discussing these questions and more in our upcoming webinar The UK Autumn Statement: challenges and opportunities ahead of the Scottish Budget. Don’t forget to join us. Sign up here.
Reflecting on Challenge Poverty Week 2024
Our Policy and Engagement Lead, Carmen Martinez, reflects on this year’s Challenge Poverty Week. -180.png)
Today marks the end of Challenge Poverty Week 2024, the Poverty Alliance’s annual event aimed at highlighting the ‘injustice of poverty in wealthy Scotland’. It is a time to pause and reflect on the work currently ongoing to tackle poverty in the country. For us reflecting on this week means drawing attention to women’s experiences of inequality and poverty, which our Women’s Survey 2024 describes in detail.
This report, published ahead of Challenge Poverty Week, provides a clear picture of how the recent inflationary period has impacted women’s economic resilience in Scotland. Amongst the different findings captured in the report, two stood out to us:
- 69% of the total 1026 women who took the survey feel financially worse off compared to the same time last year;
- 55% of the 992 women responding to questions relating to debt told us they have some type of debt, and 35% said they have no savings[1].
But the cost-of-living crisis is not affecting women equally. Disabled women, single mothers and women from minority ethnic communities are struggling with energy bills and food costs in greater numbers, and so are those with an annual household income of less than £20k per year (46% of which are single households without children)[2].
While inflationary pressures are the main reason why women find themselves in an ever more precarious economic position, a closer look at the reasons why they feel financially worse off highlights the gendered aspects of this crisis. Women told us about the impact Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) had on them, with some respondents stating how SMP’s low rate at times made it impossible to meet overall household costs. Women also pointed to the cost of childcare as a barrier to their ability to increase paid work and/or as a drain to their finances. Other reasons for feeling worse off include lack of savings, or savings being used up, stagnating wages or pay increases not keeping in line with inflation, fixed rate mortgage deals ending, wage increases reducing Universal Credit (UC), moving to UC from legacy benefits, helping adult children and health impacting on their ability to work. These reasons might also be applicable to men, particularly marginalised men, however, women’s likelihood to work part time and/or to work in low-paid jobs or to report a disability increases the risk of entrenching gender inequalities.
The question is, where does this end? We need to see progress towards a more caring economy which supports and values women. Yet our joint report with The Young Women’s Movement (YWM) further highlights the challenge of making this caring economy a reality. On the contrary, this research is a stark reminder of how structural gender inequality disadvantages women early in their lives. Statistics show that young women on average earn £5,000 less per year in comparison with young men of their age, which makes it difficult for young women to become financially resilient in times of crisis[3]:
“I’ve realised that I need to retrain in a new career if I ever want to own a house and be more financially independent. I’m currently a youth worker, an industry predominantly worked in by women. Typical ‘women’s roles’ pay very little, despite being essential work”[4].
The young women who engaged with us shared a sense of hopelessness about their future, their ability to live alone, to afford a home and/or to plan for a family.
The findings of both surveys speak about an economy that does not support young people, and women particularly. Additionally, these findings should serve as a warning of the disadvantages and costs that an economy divorced of all social purpose can create. If we want to see an end to poverty in Scotland, we need to transform our economy so it can create thriving communities. With work on next year’s budget underway, it is a necessary time to keep reflecting on these issues and think about how budgetary decisions can better work for women.
Notes
Both reports make specific recommendations for the UK and the Scottish Governments as well as for Local Authorities. You can find these in full here:
- The Scottish Women’s Budget Group, “Women’s Survey 2024. Navigating increasing costs and debt”.
- The Young Women’s Movement and the Scottish Women’s Budget Group, “I am just keeping my head above water. Young women’s experiences of the cost-of-living crisis in Scotland”.
[1] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Womens-Survey-2024-FINAL.pdf
[2] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Womens-Survey-2024-FINAL.pdf
[3] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-YWM-Cost-of-Living-Young-Women-report.pdf
[4] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-YWM-Cost-of-Living-Young-Women-report.pdf
Is investing in childcare worth it? A summary
The Scottish Women’s Budget Group (SWBG) is hosting a series of events focusing on the need and rationales for further investment in childcare. Our first two events examined issues of affordability and lack of flexibility in childcare provision in Scotland. The third webinar in this series, “Is investing in childcare worth it?”, delved into how investing in childcare is crucial to supporting the creation of a more inclusive and prosperous economy, as well as child development.
Childcare as a solution to gender inequality and fiscal pressures
Our first speaker, Scherie Nicol, Policy Analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), discussed the work that her organisation has done to reduce countries’ fiscal costs, and explained the importance of using gender budgeting to close “gender gaps” as part of this. But what are gender gaps? Essentially, these are any differences between women and men’s levels of participation, rights, access, pay, etc., in any given area. For example, despite more women entering the labour market, men are more likely to be in work than women in every single OECD country and that’s despite women having higher educational outcomes. As a result, the population as a whole is not achieving its full potential in the labour market, which has an impact on the overall functioning of the economy across the OECD.
Scherie stressed that projecting forward over the next five years, if OECD countries closed the remaining gender gaps, the result could see an increase on average real GDP per capita of 9.2%. In the context of ageing populations, closing gender gaps can translate into fiscal gains for countries at a time of growing economic pressures.
But what can be done to reduce the employment gap? Women face multiple barriers and inequalities, so closing any gender gaps ultimately requires working in a holistic way to achieve gender equality, and for this to translate into fiscal gains. In relation to this, she pointed out that gender budgeting is one of the key policy tools at governments’ disposal to achieve their strategic objectives related to gender equality, and one that could help increase the effectiveness of the budget.
Canada is a prime example of this. In 2018, the country introduced a gender results framework designed to track how it performs on gender equality. When each new budget proposal is prepared, government departments need to carry out a gender impact assessment which involves:
- Assessing the impact of proposals on the population at large, and certain groups in particular.
- Being responsive, for example, by identifying barriers to gender equality and seeking to remove them, while flagging how each measure is going to drive progress in relation to each of the areas contained within the country’s gender results framework.
All the budget measures flagged as having the potential to improve gender equality are placed in a ‘map’, which is then analysed by the department of finance as well as the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister during the budget process.
As a result of this process, Canada has taken forward a brand-new policy in relation to affordable childcare where the cost of childcare across every province will reduce to $10 a day by 2025. This is a concrete outcome of using gender budgeting as a tool for closing gender gaps and suggests childcare provision can be the solution to some key current economic problems, such as closing the fiscal costs of gender inequality.
Tangible results: lessons from Vienna’s kindergarten model
While Scherie’s presentation focused on the ‘process’ and rationale that led Canada to investing in childcare, our second speaker, Peter Huber, Senior Researcher at the Austrian Institute of Economic Research, presented the results of a study on gender budgeting commissioned by the city of Vienna. This study was meant to evaluate a range of headline measures implemented in the city, including its free kindergarten model.
Peter explained that before the free model for kindergarten was introduced in 2009, there was an acute problem with a lack of places being available, and the political debate centered around the impact of this on the city’s increasing ethnic and social divides. A new kindergarten model was envisioned to tackle this issue.
On 1st September 2009, the council published its financial support package for childcare facilities. This support was dependent on the child’s age and ranged from €60 to €1,230 per child per month. Under the new scheme childcare facilities received:
- Fixed support for all children in Viennese kindergartens of between €60 and €240 per child;
- A care support payment for children with their main residence in Vienna (€137 - €226 per child);
- An administrative grant (per group) of between €500 - €1,500.
As the goal was to find new providers, this financial support particularly targeted the private and non-for-profit sectors. To avoid neighboring federal states taking advantage of the policy, there was an additional bonus for children who were residents in the city. The budget developed from the years 2009 and 2010, and the programme was sizeable: €1,250 million, which in the long-term represented 0.3% of the Vienna’s GDP.
The study looked at the impact of the kindergarten model on women’s labour supply, particularly women between 20-29 years of age. The study compared the participation rate in Vienna pre-reform with that in other provinces of Austria who did not introduce any changes, and the participation rate post reform. The results showed:
- An increase in women’s participation rate of 1.5%;
- An increase in women’s employment rate of 1.2%;
- An increase in women’s hours worked: 0.7 hours per woman;
- A reduction in women in overqualified employment of 0.8%; and
- Higher effects among:
- Single mothers (substantially);
- Women with children under 3 (moderately).
Regarding the macroeconomic effects of this expenditure, the study also captured the effects on employment and gross value added (GVA). Figures on return of investment were not part of the original study as the Austrian system of transfers within the state implies that all revenues are accrued by the central state and the regional government only profits marginally from any changes in the economy. However, upon our request, Peter and his team very kindly checked this ahead of the webinar. Based on investment of €360 million, there is a return from both taxes and social security contributions of approximately €302-320 million. This means that if the state is considered a unit, the policy was 80% self-financing. However, Austria is a federal system, which means that Vienna only gets €20 million of these revenues. Therefore, for the city, this was not a self-financed programme.
Peter’s presentation further attested to the efficacy of gender budgeting to increase gender equality and provided insights on the economic benefits of investing in childcare. Yet, Peter acknowledged some of the limitations of the study, including a lack of information on children’s educational outcomes. This question was, however, discussed as part of the webinar’s last presentation, as explored below.
Economic gains in the long term: investing in children
Our final speaker, Jonathan Broadbery, Director of Policy and Communications at NDNA Scotland, brought the focus back on to the UK and Scottish context, drawing attention to the potential of investing in childcare for tackling poverty in the long-term.
Jonathan started off by asking the question “is childcare expensive?” While OECD figures usually show that the UK has one of the most expensive childcare systems in proportion to average earnings, comparisons with other countries shine a light on the issue.In countries such as Germany, France or Sweden, increasing public investment sees a decrease in the cost of childcare to families, while in the UK and New Zealand, a relatively low level of investment from governments leads to a higher proportion of income being spent by parents on childcare. Therefore, the question is not whether childcare is expensive, but what happens when there is investment (or lack thereof) in this area.
Jonathan highlighted why investing in the first five years of a child’s life is crucial for the child’s development, and the impact that this has in the long term on the child and society. Research by the London School of Economics found that the lack of early years support costs England 16 million pound every year, and 40% of the disadvantage gap at age 16 has already emerged at age 5. This is well illustrated by Professor James Heckman whose research demonstrates that if we don’t get it right in early years, closing the inequalities gap becomes much harder (and costly). Jonathan argued that, with Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney, identifying the eradication of child poverty as his “first and foremost” priority, budgets should align with this commitment.
Yet not all interventions need to be costly. Evidence from NDNA’s Maths Champion programme, which is focused on embedding mathematics into play and activities in Early Years settings, showed that within the space of 9 months, children in this low-cost but high-impact programme were able to make an additional three-months’ progress in their learning.
However, when governments do not get it right, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve the full benefits of investing in early years. A recent survey by NDNA showed that 70% of providers expect to operate at a loss or merely break-even due to ELC funding not covering all costs for the delivery of the policy. Johnathan suggested that the adoption of the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 this year may become a crucial tool to correct some of the pitfalls in ELC implementation, and a mechanism to scrutinise the impact of policymakers’ decisions on children and children’s policies.
Conclusions
This webinar demonstrated that framing ELC as a cost to the economy misses the links between ELC investment and the fiscal and wider gains associated with greater gender equality and children’s development. Scotland has, until very recently, had the most generous ELC offer in the UK, yet the webinar showed that overall, the level of investment in childcare in the UK falls short compared to other countries, with parents paying the price for this shortfall. In times of tightening budgets, managing and planning for the delivery of public services is crucial. However, there is a need to start examining the resources required to improve and expand the current publicly-funded offer if we want to reap the economic benefits.
What more can we learn from other countries’ approach to childcare? Find out in our next (and last) webinar of this series!
This webinar series is supported by Oxfam Scotland
News! Fa'side Women and Girls Group Award Winning Work
-crop-1718808338-220.jpeg)
Fa'side Women and Girls Group has been recognised for its inter-generational approach to its cost-of-living project jointly delivered with Making Rights Real and The Scottish Women's Budget Group.
At the Generations Working Together awards in the Scottish Parliament the group were awarded the valuing generational inclusion and diversity prize.
This project aims to understand how the cost-of-living crisis is impacting on women in East Lothian and how this is exacerbating experiences of inequality. As well as identifying responses needed from East Lothian Council and other decision makers. The project has been running since 2021.
Clare McGillivary, Making Rights Real and member of Fa'side Women and Girls Group said:
'to be recognised in this way is fantastic, its testament to the hard work of all members over the last 12 years and shows the importance of us working across the generations to demand and protect each others human rights.'
Heather Willams from The Scottish Women's Budget Group said:
'This work has been truly innovative bringing women from across the generations together to use gender budgeting and human rights approaches, to address issues which are important to women and girls in the area.'
Jude Currie, Vice-Chair of Generation Working Together:
'Huge congratulations to Fa-side Women and Girls Group in Tranent on your GWT Generational Diversity & Inclusion Award. Ensuring there are safe, inclusive and supportive ways for groups of women and girls of all ages to gather, connect meaningfully, break down stereotypes, and empower each other just has to be celebrated. Seeing you work intergenerationally to identify needs and effect change has clearly been inspiring to so many in your community and beyond. Well done!'
Editors note
- Initial findings from the research can be found here https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-FWGG-Briefing-final.pdf
- Video from Generation Working Together https://vimeo.com/960281487
About the Organisations
- The Scottish Women’s Budget Group (SWBG) is an independent analysis and campaign group that aims to promote gender analysis in public policy and public finance decisions through budgetary processes.
- Making Rights Real is a grassroots human rights organisation that supports communities to name and claim their rights.
- Generation Working Together is the nationally recognised centre of excellence supporting the development and integration of intergenerational work across Scotland.
Picture from left to right: Heather Williams, Loreen Purdoe, Katie McFarlane, Clare MacGillivary, Charlie Steele, Kaukab Stewart MSP
RSSMailing list
To join our email list, simply enter your email address below.
