Hi @Spoonie I am a bit confused here ...you stated that "With an agency, we conducted a brand review: consulting the SANE community, conducting surveys with service users including Forums members" then further on "...we understand the frustration from the community regarding being consulted on these changes".
I have several questions -
1. why was the community of over 32,000 members (now over 33,000) not consulted,
2. what was the actual sample number of those supposedly consulted,
3. how were they selected
4. what questions were asked
Furthermore ...and this is a question for our Community Manager @Former-Member - why was the Community Guide team not included here and therefore able to bring this process into the forums for others to have their say. This would seem to be just the occasion where CGs could advocate on behalf (and with) the wider forums membership.
It is further disappointing that stating being diverse and inclusive were important yet the process itself was NOT inclusive. The contradiction here is further exacerbated by the consistent defining of SANE as for people with 'complex mental health issues'. This is also not inclusive and does not equate to the new tag line 'We are people like you'.
There seems to be a lot of incongruity in what SANE 'wants' to be and what SANE actually is. I fully understand the difficulties in standing out and needing to appease a multitude of stake holders but having the courage to include those in such decisions that actually use the service I would see as the first (and major) step. This is not the first time that members of our community have asked to be consulted/included/informed, yet those requests seem to be ignored. I do hope that this is foremost in the Teams mind next time any changes are envisaged and/or changes to the service model are worked on. Transparency in both the processes and changes of the layout/design/service delivery, with the majority of those that use the service, is actually inclusion ...not just the mention of the word.
