SWBG blog

Equalities, women and cuts to public services

Our Coordinator, Carmen Martinez, reflects on the way in which Aberdeenshire Council justified its decision to close their out-of-school-hours care service and the language used by the Glasgow HSCP in their EQIA Budget Report, and questions whether these are examples of a broader trend.  

A few weeks ago, Angela O’Hagan published her latest article ‘Gender Budgeting in Scotland since Devolution’ (O'Hagan, 2024), which reflects on how gender budgeting was introduced in Scotland, and its progress ever since. One of Angela’s points was about the “evaporation of gender in the framing of equalities" (O'Hagan, 2024), and the challenges that this has posed for advancing gender equality. She explains that this lack of focus has meant that the systemic issues that rely on women providing care, including unpaid care, are still to be tackled by the very economic strategies designed to transform or develop the economy (the Scottish Government’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation being a clear example of this) (O'Hagan, 2024). As a result, so much needed (and promised) change is still to materialize, at least to the extent of making a difference to women’s lives.  

The arguments and overall challenge described in the article certainly felt familiar. There is a lack of consistency in the way gender analysis is used in policymaking in Scotland, an issue that we (and other organisations across the women’s sector) often highlight through our work. Over the last few months, however, we have noticed what seems to be the beginning of a new trend which poses a further barrier to achieving the change that we want to see. I am referring to the way in which cuts to public services and/or policy programmes have been explained as a means to drive ‘equalities’ or how the co-option of language can hide the lack of public investment in services.    

A case on point is how Aberdeenshire Council has justified its decision to close their out of school care (OOSC) provision. A report written for the Council’s Education and Children’s Services Committee (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024) provides background information in relation to this service, which includes eight settings serving 15 of the 146 primary schools in Aberdeenshire and is used by 349 children (2% of primary school pupils). Current provision is down from the original 15 Council-run OOSC services set up in 2019. This is due to challenges with recruitment and retention of staff and to changing demand from parents/carers, partly explained by the impact of the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. The report also highlights that while the service was originally set up to recoup costs, this never happened, and with increasing budget pressures, it recommends that the remaining open settings close from July 2024, solving an expected overspend of £700,000 (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). From this perspective, the closure of this service is explained as a cost-management exercise. However, the report goes beyond this, citing inequities in service provision (both in terms of location of settings and the children the service is provided to), as another reason for stopping the council’s OOSC service:

“82% of children accessing local authority provision coming from Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) Deciles 8, 9 and 10 (least deprived) and no children from Deciles 1, 2 and 3 (most deprived)” (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). 

Additionally, the report refers to other issues with the current model, particularly how it "is limiting the scope of opportunity for developing the wider childcare sector", which involves private, voluntary, and independent (PVI) settings (Aberdeenshire Council, 2024). The key message is as follows. The Council are subsidising a small number of children in the least deprived areas, which isn't fair or equitable, while delivery is limiting the development of the wider sector. Thus, provision of such a costly service must come to an end, particularly at a time of tight budgets.  

There are several issues in relation to how the Committee’s report presents the information leading to the recommendation on the closure of the Council’s service. For example, the use of the SIMD, while helpful, does not tell us anything about ‘who’ will be directly affected and in what ways. The report’s impact assessment shows that some consideration has been given to the impact on women and low-income groups. While this is slightly at odds with the argument about ‘inequities in service provision’, the main issue here is the use of ‘equalities’ as a reason to close the service. Why? Because it detracts attention from the consequences that the lack of wraparound care will have on women, their ability to seek or retain paid work, and the repercussions of this for gender equality. In other words, the Council’s decision seems to miss sight of the systemic barriers that ultimately create the conditions for women’s inequality and poverty.  

The danger is that, with increasingly challenging budgets, this type of reasoning becomes the norm, resulting in more gender-blind approaches to policymaking and budget setting processes.  

Another case is the language used by the Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership in their Strategic Plan for 2023-26 (Glasgow IJB, 2023) and EQIA Budget Report 2024-2025 (Glasgow HSCP, 2024). "Maximising people’s independence" is the foundation of this HSCP’s Strategic Plan, which also acknowledges that "this doesn’t mean asking people to live without any support at all" (Glasgow IJB, 2023). However, the EQIA Budget Report concedes that 

“efficiencies have been identified through the implementation of the Maximising Independence Programme (…) This option includes a reduction of 20 FTE. As a result of work to minimise the need for escalation to higher levels of formal care, there is scope for a reduction in staff in line with demand” (Glasgow HSCP, 2024). 

This puts into question whether behind the Glasgow City HSCP’s objective of "maximising people’s independence" there was an intention to provide support only when strictly necessary, contravening one of the aims of the strategic plan to "deliver services within a human-rights based approach" (Glasgow IJB, 2023).. It also lends weight to our theory about this being a case where the co-option of language hides decreases in public service provision. As a result, the ‘status quo’ prevails, and with it, the challenges faced by disabled women as highlighted in our recent work with the Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA, SWBG, 2023).

What now? 

The Scottish Women’s Budget Group will continue questioning how public bodies make budget decisions and the impact of these. At a time when women are disproportionally being affected by the cost-of-living crisis, using gender budgeting tools to scrutinise policy interventions and budget decisions is as important as ever.  

References

1. O'Hagan, A. (2024) 'Gender Budgeting in Scotland since Devolution', in Scottish Affairs 33.1: 72–84 . Link: Scottish-Affairs-Gender-Budgeting-2024-AOH-aeab676f04b2b794.pdf (bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com)
2. Aberdeenshire Council, (2024) 'Report to Education and Children's Services Committee. Aberdeenshire Out-of-School Care (OOSC) Provision'. Link: 07 Aberdeenshire Out of School Care OOSC Provision.pdf (moderngov.co.uk)
   FEBRUARY 2024 07 Aberdeenshire Out of School Care OOSC Provision.pdf (moderngov.co.uk)
3. Glasgow City Integration  Joint Board (2023), "Strategic Plan for Health and Social Care 2023-2026". Link: https://glasgowcity.hscp.scot/sites/default/files/publications/IJB%20Financial%20Allocations%20and%20Budgets%202024-2025.pdf 
4. Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership (2024), "Outcome of Preliminary Equality Impact Assessments", Budget Financial Allocations. Link: IJB Financial Allocations and Budgets 2024-2025.pdf (hscp.scot) 
5. Glasgow Disability Alliance and Scottish Women's Budget Group (2023) Policy Briefing. Link: SWBG-GDA-BriefingPaper.pdf