1
Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................3
2. The Equality Act (2010) ...................................................................................................4
3. The council’s approach to its legal duties ........................................................................5
4. Promoting a fairer city ......................................................................................................5
5. Age and disability.............................................................................................................7
Commissioning.................................................................................................................8
Care packages for older and disabled people ..................................................................9
Access and inclusion......................................................................................................10
6. Carers ............................................................................................................................10
7. Welfare, housing and benefit support and advice. .........................................................11
General ..........................................................................................................................12
Age.................................................................................................................................12
Disability.........................................................................................................................12
Gender ...........................................................................................................................13
Sexual orientation ..........................................................................................................13
Race...............................................................................................................................13
8. Community cohesion .....................................................................................................13
9. Employment impacts......................................................................................................14
10. Fairness – investing in the city.....................................................................................15
Delivering a fit for purpose council ..............................................................................15
Investing in the economy.............................................................................................16
Investing in decent neighbourhoods............................................................................16
Protecting key services ...............................................................................................16
11. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................17
2
1. Introduction
As a council committed to promoting fairness in everything it does, it is important that
budget proposals are accompanied by a clear analysis of the impact on equalities and
fairness within the city. This document gives an overview of the council’s initial
assessment of that impact. It is based on equality impact and needs assessments of every
measure that the council is proposing, alongside additional analysis to look across the
wider social and economic impact of the budget as a whole, and on particular groups in
society.
Newcastle City Council is proposing a range of budget cuts, efficiency savings, increases
to fees and charges, reorganisations, job losses and service reductions, as a means of
meeting the financial limits set by central government, and to respond to cost pressures. In
total these cuts amount to £30.3m.
It will not always be possible to avoid an impact of cuts on the most vulnerable in society,
or on particular groups. The nature of local government is that its services are focused
particularly on those with most needs. 44% of the council’s spending is on social care,
specifically targeted on the people in society with the most serious needs for support.
Reductions in funding for local government will therefore inevitably be regressive, with
disproportionate impact on the poorest in society. This is particularly the case since the
distribution of central government cuts to local government budgets have been skewed
towards those councils with the highest levels of social and economic deprivation.
Nevertheless, councils have choices about how those cuts are implemented. They also
have an obligation to meet legal duties under the Equality Act 2010. These duties do not
prevent councils from making difficult financial decisions, but they do require all decisions
to be made in a fair, transparent and accountable way, considering the needs and rights of
different individuals and communities. Any disproportionate impact can then be addressed
by amending proposals, or by considering other actions which can reduce any negative
impact. This is achieved by assessing the impact that changes to policies, procedures and
practices could have on different groups of people, through the Equality Impact and Needs
Assessment (EINA) process. EINAs consider the impact on the protected characteristics
covered under the Act, which include age, disability, gender (including reassignment),
pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, and sexual orientation. They also look
at the impacts on community cohesion and social inclusion.
Newcastle City Council is meeting these obligations, not just because it is required to by
law, but because it’s the right thing to do. The council has also committed to go further
than the legal requirements of the Equality Act, and consider the wider social and
economic consequences of its work in Newcastle. This involves its impact on community
cohesion, social inclusion, and efforts to create a fairer city.
As part of this commitment, the council has set up a Fairness Commission, chaired by the
Vice-Chancellor of Newcastle University, Professor Chris Brink. The commission will report
in the spring on further steps that could be taken to help Newcastle become a fairer city.
The commission has now started its work, and this paper describes some of the issues
and ideas it will be considering over the next few months.
3
Alongside some other councils, Newcastle City Council is also exploring how to implement
provisions which were debated in parliament and included in the draft Equality Bill, but
which were not ultimately included in the final Act. These provisions would have required
councils and other public authorities to take account of the potential impact on socioeconomic equality of their key policies and decisions. Further steps to implement this
measure will be proposed to full Council early in 2012.
2. The Equality Act (2010)
Initial EINA screenings have been carried out for all 2012-13 budget proposals. This has
helped the council to identify emerging impacts and will lead to more detailed assessments
of where groups or communities could be disproportionally affected. These look at how
individual proposals might relate to one another and consider how a series of proposed
changes to services could impact cumulatively on particular groups of people.
EINAs are living documents that change and are updated as the equality implications of a
decision and any alternative options or proposals are considered. This report aims to
provide an overview on what our analysis is currently telling us and highlights emerging
themes that may have a wider impact on communities. It also considers how we can use
this data to inform the council’s further work to promote fairness and reduce socioeconomic inequalities.
The Equality Act (2010) requires relevant public bodies, when exercising their functions, to
have due regard to the need to:
• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and any other
conduct prohibited by the Act.
• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected
characteristic and people who do not share it.
• Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and
people who do not share it.
These are commonly known as the three aims of the duty. We must show that we
consciously consider these aims as part of the budget decision making process.
‘Having due regard’ involves considering the need to remove or minimise disadvantages
between those who share a particular characteristic and those who do not. It requires us to
take steps to meet the needs of people from these groups, where they are different to
those who do not have that characteristic. We need to encourage those with protected
characteristics to participate in public life. It also requires the council to tackle prejudice
and promote understanding.
The council must consider the equality implications of proposals when making decisions.
Whilst also giving regard to any countervailing factors, which it is reasonable to consider in
the relevant circumstances. These will incorporate budgetary pressures, economic and
practical factors.
The EINAs should help councillors to debate issues, review decisions and to look at the
viability of alternatives and mitigating measures to ensure that the council’s legal duties
have been met.
4
3. The council’s approach to its legal duties
A consistent approach to this is ensured through the use of a standard EINA form. Council
officers are able to adapt this, to incorporate further detail or information, when looking at
different types of service provision.
The EINA process ensures that thought is given to:
•
•
•
•
•
What the proposal is.
What evidence, information or other intelligence has been used to develop the
proposal (this includes information about who uses our services, who doesn’t use our
services, satisfaction surveys and national and local research and information).
What engagement has taken place or is needed with stakeholders around the
proposal.
How some groups could be impacted (positively or negatively) by the proposal (groups
include all protected characteristics as well as community cohesion and social
inclusion).
How any negative impacts can be removed, reduced or justified.
EINAs have been developed alongside the budget proposals. They have been drafted by
senior management of the council with support from the council’s specialist equality
advisors. EINAs have informed the proposals put to Cabinet, and have been used to help
decision making about which proposals to consult with the public on.
EINAs will continue to be reviewed as we consult with staff, service users and others on
our proposals. The feedback received through consultation will be incorporated into the
documents, in particular, the assessment of potential impacts.
Lead officers for equality and community cohesion have reviewed all of these EINAs. This
has helped to ensure quality, consistency and that consideration has been given so that
we meet our legal responsibilities. Feedback was given to directorates and this quality
assurance will continue as the EINAs develop through the consultation period.
The quality assurance process has provided a central overview of all proposals and their
potential impacts upon groups. This led to more detailed assessments on a series of
‘cross-cutting’ themes incorporating key areas, these cover:
• age and disability,
• carers, and
• welfare, housing, benefit advice and support provision.
Details of these themes and the key issues highlighted are included later in this report.
4. Promoting a fairer city
As well as these steps to meet its legal obligations, the council is committed to go further,
and to consider how its budget can best promote fairness and social and economic justice.
Given the requirement on the council to meet tough spending limits and make cuts across
its services, there is a significant risk that the 2012 budget will represent a step backwards,
rather than a move towards a fairer city.
5
But by making substantial efficiency improvements, by taking care to mitigate harmful
impacts, and taking positive steps where possible, the council aims to deliver a fair budget,
consistent with its values.
This analysis links to our on-going work to look at how we tackle socio-economic
disadvantage by reducing entrenched inequalities. By socio-economic disadvantage we
mean the state of being disadvantaged in life – in terms of getting on, getting educated,
getting a job, enjoying a reasonable standard of living etc – by one or more of a range of
external factors. These include factors such as poverty, health, housing, family
background for example. The interplay of these factors can often combine to keep people
in poverty, and limit people’s ambitions and life expectations. The World Health
Organisation’s ‘Social Determinants of health: the solid facts’ concludes that "life
expectancy is shorter and most diseases are more common further down the social ladder
in each society". ‘Fair Society, Healthy Lives, the Marmot review of health inequalities in
England’ also reinforced the message that those with less access to money, power and
resources have poorer health.
It is therefore vital that we tackle the social and economic inequalities that are negative
determinants of health, and make sure that we put more scale and intensity of effort into
ensuring that those with less access to money, power and resources can benefit
proportionately more from our interventions.
There are clear links between socio-economic inequalities and those associated with
particular protected characteristics with a resultant increased potential of poor wellbeing
and health, and reduced life expectancy. Analysis of the public sector spending cuts both
at a national and regional level shows that they will have a higher impact on the most
vulnerable in our society.
We will use the results of this cross-cutting analysis to help us deliver our commitment to
assessing the socio-economic impact of major decisions and identifying where policy
prioritisation and resource decisions could have a positive impact on reducing inequalities.
This will link to the work being undertaken by the Fairness Commission, which is looking at
ways to tackle socio-economic disadvantage and narrow gaps in wellbeing for people from
different backgrounds in Newcastle. This is wider in scope and incorporates geographic
and demographic factors and information / data contained within the Newcastle Future
Needs Assessment (NFNA). The Fairness Commission’s work was discussed at policy
cabinet on 11 January, and it is expected to publish its initial report in the spring. Emerging
findings have already informed the budget process and will help inform future planning.
The chart on page 7 illustrates in general terms the distribution of deprivation as measured
by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). This takes into consideration a total of 38
factors grouped under the headings of income, employment, health, education, crime,
access to services and living environment. It can be used as an overall picture of how
many of the inequalities that affect people’s lives cluster within particular geographical
areas.
6
Newcastle is ranked as the 40th most deprived local authority by IMD (2010, using data
from 2008). There are major variations between affluent areas within the city and those
areas classed as being in the most 10% deprived in the country. Over 72,000 people live
in these deprived areas which are concentrated in Byker, Walker and Walkergate in the
east, and Benwell and Scotswood and Elswick in the west.
The analysis within the cross-cutting EINAs brings together the cumulative impacts arising
out of separate decisions under different proposals. This combined information helps us to
look at potential impacts within a wider context including the existing socio-economic
disadvantage that affected service users may already face. These impacts would not be as
apparent when decisions are considered in isolation.
As budget proposals are reviewed and refined during the consultation process, we will,
wherever possible, analyse any impacts that are specific to particular parts of the city and
take this into account when we set the final budget.
5. Age and disability
Although in general terms there are higher proportions of older people living in the outer
west of the city where deprivation is not as concentrated as elsewhere, there are
significant pockets of older people living in the most deprived areas as the charts on page
8 show.
7
We should acknowledge that the potential negative impacts of some of our budget
proposals will fall on older people who may already be less resilient and less able to
absorb the consequences.
Commissioning
The council is proposing to make changes to the way we commission services to help
deliver budget efficiencies and savings.
8
Statutory services for disabled children and adults and older people will continue to be
provided. However, these could be potentially delivered in a different way or from a
different provider. This may have an impact on vulnerable groups with complex needs who
may not be able to deal easily with or react positively to change.
The council has learned lessons from previous changes to the way we deliver our services
and will continue to apply these. The needs of service users will be looked at through the
planning process and through individual assessments. The nature of these needs and
recommendations on how to address them will be fully communicated to new service
providers. One example where this worked well was the move of adult service users from
the Westerhope Day Centre to the Welford Day Centre. In this case, services were
provided to service users with very complex needs by members of staff that they were not
familiar with. Due to the planning undertaken, which considered both individual and wider
needs, service users did not react negatively to the change.
We will continue to provide support to adults identified as having higher care needs. As a
consequence of this, support and services to those identified as having lower care needs
are likely to be reduced.
Reductions in levels of funding to support the delivery of commissioned services,
compounded by the current economic climate, may impact on the level and variety of
services that external agencies are able to provide.
We propose to mitigate this through sensitive management, consultation with service
users and through the commissioning process itself. Contracts and service specifications
will help to ensure compliance with the need for services to be inclusive and accessible.
These will be designed to meet the requirements of service users and meet service
standard requirements.
Care packages for older and disabled people
There are proposals to review the provision of care support provided for older and disabled
adults. These include reduced times for care visits, a review of domestic care support and
the inclusion of a wider range of lower cost care package options taking advantage of
developments in technology.
The council will continue to improve our approach to prevention, to support people to
remain in their homes and stay independent for longer. The personalised approach to care
and support is to design services around people’s needs and the way they live.
Increasingly, social care will be arranged through personal budgets which provide choice
by enabling older and disabled people to buy in their own care and support services.
This approach helps us meet the needs of disabled and older people while also helping to
encourage participation in public life. However, the current economic climate will
potentially result in increased charges for services and benefit cuts may reduce income to
pay for care and recreational activities.
These potential risks will be mitigated by increasing the responsiveness of services
provided by the private, voluntary and community sector to the needs of service users.
9
Further analysis is required to assess whether they will be able meet the requirements of
increased demand for services.
The Newcastle Fund will specifically target grant funding to improve outcomes for the most
vulnerable people, and assist in helping the third sector to respond to these potentially
increased demands.
Access and inclusion
There are potential impacts on older and disabled people from the move to more generic
roles in Leisure Services, which could reduce specialist support for people in both groups.
However, a review to establish how many posts are required and affordable in the revised
service is being undertaken. This will take into account the support required by vulnerable
groups and individuals.
There are potential negative impacts on both older and disabled people from a reduction in
the number of public conveniences. The availability of public conveniences emerged as a
key issue for older people in Phase 2 of let's talk Newcastle. Any reduction can be
mitigated in part by ensuring the availability of alternatives through the "use our loos"
initiative and this will be promoted by staff within our Environmental Service function. The
risk of disproportionate impact particularly for disabled people if the alternatives are not
fully accessible remains.
The proper maintenance of pavements in particular was a key issue for older people in
let's talk Newcastle. As a result of the consultation process on the budget, significant
additional capital funding has been identified to continue to maintain highways and
footways.
6. Carers
There are approximately 26,270 carers living in Newcastle. Office of National Statistics
(ONS) data suggests that slightly more carers in Newcastle and the North East (25%) are
providing 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week compared to England average (20%).
The highest numbers of unpaid carers are found in some of the city’s more deprived
wards. Over half of all carers look after someone over the age of 75. ONS population
predictions for Newcastle predict a growth in the proportion of the population aged over 65
based on 2006 estimates. This suggests more people will be providing unpaid care year
on year. Approximately 13% of carers in Newcastle are aged 60 and over.
Reduced or changed services to older people and adults or children with disabilities may
impact upon carers as they may need to provide higher levels of care or provide care for
longer.
The council has considered the minimum time for a Homecare call and will reduce this
from 30 minutes to 20 minutes. People will still be assessed on an individual basis and
where someone is assessed as needing 30 minutes of support they will continue to
receive it. There may be some impact on those assessed as needing less support where
this is their only contact with another person during the day. This will also be included in
their assessment.
10
The introduction of a funding panel with the role of reducing residential care placements
for older people by 10% could impact upon carers of older people as they may be required
to provide care for longer or provide more care. Fairness will be a priority for the panel and
service users assessed as needing a service, will receive that service.
Children’s Services are proposing to review how social care packages are funded,
redesign services for children and young people with mental health problems, and
continue to implement changes to home to school travel arrangements for children with
disabilities and special educational needs.
Assessments will be undertaken on an individual basis and will take into account the family
circumstances and caring responsibilities. Work will be carried out to further develop our
staff and ensure they have the skills and knowledge to support disabled children.
Carer support services are provided by Healthy City Newcastle and delivered by the
Carers Centre Newcastle. As well as funding the service, we also pay £64,000 a year for
rent and utilities payments for their city centre location. This contract expires in March
2012. We are not proposing to decrease funding available to deliver the service but to stop
paying for rent and utilities at premium locations. This may have the potential to impact on
any level of service delivered as funding will have to be used to pay for premises. We plan
to work with the provider to see if there is potential to source cheaper premises to help
mitigate this impact.
46% of responders to a local carers survey could not work because of their caring role. We
need to undertake further work to understand what the issues are but these carers may
also be further impacted by the changes to welfare, housing and benefit support and
advice.
7. Welfare, housing and benefit support and advice
The cumulative impact of national policy changes relating to these service areas has the
potential to result in significant deterioration in the income available to some people, while
simultaneously reducing their ability to access advice and support to help them deal with
the impact. This in turn is likely to increase demand for the services in question.
Any reduction in the levels of service provided therefore has the potential to result in
further negative impact on service users who are vulnerable as a result of their socioeconomic disadvantages.
The chart below shows the distribution of housing and council tax benefit claimants, and
gives a reasonable picture of the likely overall locations of people who may be impacted by
these changes. As would be expected, they tend to be concentrated in areas of the city
already suffering from multiple deprivation and socio-economic disadvantage.
11
There is also evidence to show that people covered by some of the protected
characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 could suffer a disproportionate disadvantage. We
must be satisfied that all alternative means of delivering the required savings have been
considered, that the mitigation measures put in place will help to counteract the
disproportionate impact, and that any remaining risks are clearly identified and monitored.
General
Reduced or delayed benefits payments are likely to result in increased demand for advice
and support services, which will themselves be reduced. This is likely to impact on a wide
range of vulnerable groups. Although mitigations such as targeting advice and support to
the most vulnerable and focusing access to support through initiatives such the Newcastle
Gateway for housing and homelessness prevention services, will have some effect,
residual risks of disproportionate impact are likely to remain.
Age
Significant numbers of older people live in the most deprived wards of the city and are
likely to be affected by changes to advice and support services. Similarly, vulnerable
young people (such as LGB young people or those attempting to escape domestic
violence) are likely to be impacted by reductions in Supporting People and housing advice
and support services. The Newcastle Gateway and better targeted promotional and
information campaigns can mitigate these impacts, but again risks will remain.
Disability
People with learning disabilities or mental health issues are likely to be impacted by
reductions in welfare rights advice and support. The move to a single homeless day centre
is also likely to have a disproportionate impact on people who will have difficulty accessing
that centre.
12
Better targeted promotional and information campaigns can mitigate some of these
impacts, but risks of disproportionate impact remain. Work is ongoing to assess whether
there is potential to continue to support two centres. This approach would involve
partnership working between the current providers. If we agree to move to one centre, we
will seek to continue to deliver the range of services currently provided.
Gender
Research suggests that women are likely to be more adversely affected than men by
welfare reforms, and therefore more likely to be disproportionately impacted by changes to
advice and support services and homelessness prevention services, particularly when
escaping domestic violence. Services are being reduced rather than removed and will still
be available, but risks to women facing these disadvantages are likely to increase.
Sexual orientation
As noted above there may be a potential reduction in housing related support for young
LGB people through the Supporting People and Preventative Services Programmes. The
Newcastle Gateway and better targeted promotional and information campaigns can
mitigate these impacts, but residual risks will remain.
Race
Barriers to claiming benefit entitlement are more significant in some Black and Minority
Ethnic communities as a result of (for example) lower levels of literacy in English, refugee
status, ignorance about the benefits system and apprehension about contact with statutory
service providers. We should be able to mitigate this through the work of the specialist
ethnic minority service within Newcastle Welfare Rights. The effectiveness of this will need
to be monitored.
8. Community Cohesion
A number of proposals consider a move to increased targeting of services and reductions
in universal services. This is likely to raise community cohesion issues in any areas where
some individuals, groups or communities perceive that they are losing out whilst others
continue to receive services. This relates to perceptions of fairness, which can lead to
tensions regardless of how firmly we believe we can demonstrate the actual fairness of
any of our decisions.
The council’s proposals for Localised Services (for services such as street cleansing and
gully maintenance) are guided by the principles of proportionate universalism. Resources
for this service are broadly allocated at a ward level and an element of the proposal is to
look at alternative delivery methods and realigning resources from low need areas to those
of high need. In contrast to purely targeted service provision, the service will work to
Decent Neighbourhood Standards in all areas but will apply resources flexibly to areas of
greatest need.
The council’s proposals relating to grant provision seek to target resources at particular
groups or localities to address longstanding inequalities, or to invest in early intervention
programmes which try to prevent costly social problems from emerging.
13
When resources are limited, tensions can arise, for example, around highly visible and
less visible services and between respecting taxpayers’ views and contributions and
supporting those in greatest need.
Different perceptions of fairness or unfairness, including who we consider ‘deserving’, can
fuel tensions, distrust and conflict. Local evidence tells us that 75% of Newcastle residents
agree that the council ‘treats all types of people fairly’ to ‘some extent’ or to ‘a great
extent’. Whilst this citywide figure suggests we are doing relatively well on this question,
the ward-level figures demonstrate that agreement is consistently lower in the more
deprived wards.
We know as a result of informal community engagement that, at ward and neighbourhood
level, perceptions of fair access to services can cause significant tensions between groups
within the community, and between the community and the council.
In terms of preventative action, wherever there is a change to the amount of service we
provide, or to the basis on which we determine who receives it, we recognise more specific
cohesion 'proofing' needs to take place. There are usually relatively simple ways to do this,
for example through thinking in more detail about the way we communicate with
communities about any changes we're making.
However, not all tensions and conflict can be designed out and it is also important to take
a reactive approach. This means monitoring community reactions to our proposals and,
further down the line, to the actual implementation of any changes. We need to be
particularly attentive to where messages are received, and impacts felt, differently in
different sections of the community.
Where the quality assurance process has identified areas where tensions could arise,
advice and support has been offered from the lead cohesion policy officer to help apply
this thinking to specific service areas and activities. Let’s talk Newcastle is helping us to
engage and involve local people in our decision making processes. This on-going dialogue
will help us demonstrate that our budget seeks to ensure fair outcomes for all, by
mitigating the impact of the cuts where possible.
9. Employment impacts
As well as the EINAs completed on all proposals, Post Deletion Impact Assessments are
being carried out for all posts at risk of deletion or change through the proposals. This
assessment covers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key tasks and deliverables
Key contacts and relationships
Statutory and regulatory responsibilities
Knowledge and expertise
Processes / assets / systems
Delegated authority.
Details of these impacts and how they will be mitigated, as well as key issues around
equality, are also included in the assessment. We continually review our employment
14
practices to ensure that they are fair and transparent. During previous budget processes,
we carried out EINAs on two key elements of our practice; the Grievance Procedure and
the Managing Reorganisations Policy. The Grievance Procedure was simplified to reduce
the number of stages required to report a grievance and to make it quicker to resolve.
The Managing Reorganisations Policy provides guidance for managers. It includes advice
on how to consult with staff about changes to the service and new structures, how to
explore the potential to avoid compulsory redundancies and how to implement a structure.
It also outlines that all selection panels must be gender balanced, that any consideration of
sickness absence must include checking if it is related to an employees’ disability and
where possible, maintain any existing flexible working arrangements. All managers have
access to the guidance through our Human Resources intranet pages and detailed
management training on recruitment and selection.
Trade unions are engaged throughout the process. This includes briefing them on
proposals, the structures, the appointment process (if required) and the selection criteria.
We are committed to avoiding compulsory redundancies as far as possible. We have a
Redeployment Scheme that aims to provide suitable alternative employment whenever
possible for employees who are at risk of being made redundant. Employees on the
redeployment register will be offered the opportunity to submit preferential applications for
jobs for vacant posts at suitable grades, before they are advertised.
We also have an Employee Support Programme that all staff can access. It includes
information about setting up your own business, career workshops, interview preparation
and skills, job search sessions and access to Skills for Life training. We continually review
this package. We are holding workshops with managers to identify improvements that can
be made.
10. Fairness – investing in the city
The focus of this paper is rightly on how the principles of fairness are embedded in the
way that efficiencies and service reductions are implemented. However fairness is also
about making sure that we can continue to invest in priority services and initiatives and this
element of fairness is reflected in the budget in the following ways:
Delivering a fit for purpose council
The starting point in ensuring that we can sustain services across the city is ensuring the
organisation itself is as efficient and lean as possible. We are delivering this through:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Making reductions in management costs.
Delivering process improvements and better procurement and commissioning.
Making better use of fewer buildings.
Developing more streamlined customer service.
Reducing costs in central services.
Improving business management.
15
Investing in the economy
As a city council in the economic centre and capital of the wider North East region, we
must continue to promote jobs, investment and growth, particularly during challenging
economic conditions. This budget delivers continued investment in jobs and growth
including for example:
• A new funding arrangement for Newcastle Science City which will help to attract new
science and knowledge-intensive businesses into Newcastle, providing the future jobs
for the city.
• Additional resources (in partnership with Jobcentre Plus) to continue the work of
Newcastle Futures, which will provide additional support to those most in need to find
work. This is particularly important at a time of significant changes in the welfare system.
Investing in decent neighbourhoods
At a time of financial pressure, we remain committed to investing, in an affordable way, in
local service delivery, maintaining standards and engaging residents in decision making.
This is at the heart of our priority to deliver Decent Neighbourhood Standards. Examples of
our commitment include:
• Continuing weekly bin collections in 2012 whilst continuing to talk to residents on this
issue.
• Providing the funding to retain an effective Safe Newcastle programme, ensuring that
Newcastle remains one of the safest cities in the UK.
• Devolving more funding to ward committees.
Protecting key services
It was agreed at the outset of setting this budget that some areas of our work would not be
considered for efficiencies, cuts or increased charges proposals. These included:
• Neighbourhood Wardens, employment of Trainees and Apprentices and closure (as
opposed to changes in the operation of) of any leisure facilities.
• Front line children’s social care covering social work activity delivered directly with
families with children in need or at risk of harm, to keep families together where possible
and if necessary take children into care to keep them safe, or support the process of
fostering or adoption.
• Partial protection to in-house reablement capacity covering our three older people’s
resource centres and our in-house care service.
• We provide services for people with a substantial or critical level of need according to
Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) criteria set by the Department of Health. It was
agreed early on in the process that a move to providing services only to those with a
critical level of need was not acceptable.
• Maintaining the planned level of Newcastle Fund grants to the voluntary and community
sector and ward budgets, and allocating additional resources.
16
11. Conclusion
The severe reductions in government funding that we continue to face have meant that the
2012 budget has included many difficult choices about which elements of our work will
have to be reduced in volume, delivered in a different way or stopped altogether.
Legally we are required to assess the impact of our decision making against protected
characteristics. But our decisions have also been underpinned by the principles of
fairness, equity and social justice in line with our commitment to assess the socioeconomic impact of all major decisions. We have sought to ensure wherever possible that
social justice has not been compromised and that the budget has been assessed against
its impact on wider social and economic outcomes.
It is important that these principles have been established and implemented in the budget
process, because we will continue to face further reductions in resources for at least the
next two years of the current Comprehensive Spending Review, and in all probability
beyond that.
All our proposals have been assessed for their potential to impact on equality and fairness.
We are taking steps to mitigate or remove impacts wherever possible by trying to deliver
fair and progressive services.
If you need this information in another format or language please phone
0191 277 7682 or email letstalk@newcastle.gov.uk
17