Community Impact Assessment
End Supporting People funding to the Supported Tenancies Service
Directorate: Community Health & Social Care
May 2014
Names and roles of people carrying out the assessment.
Kerry Thornley, Lead Officer, Supporting People
Lindsay Barrett, Contracts Officer
Summary
Brief summary of proposal
As part of the economic climate/budget constraints and as a result the saving being requested for
the year 2014-15, it has been proposed to cease funding the in-house Supported Tenancies
Service and the Gypsy, Traveller, Roma and Show People service, and reduce the service to the
temporary accommodation part of the service.
How did you approach the CIA and what did you find?
A 12-week consultation took place from April to June 2014 via a questionnaire posted to service
users and also made available on line. One to one drop in session at the Gateways were also
arranged to offer service users support to complete the questionnaire.
Service staff and stakeholders were also consulted as part of the process.
Data collected on the St. Andrews system was used to analyse equality information to determine
utilisation and demand for the service, and information was taken from the National Drug & Alcohol
database.
The main areas requiring further attention
Further work is required with the registered providers to clarify and agree where they are able to
offer support to their existing tenants.
Summary of recommendations for improvement
Further consideration of the specific vulnerable groups that will be left with no support eg. Care
leavers, offenders, private tenants, gypsy, traveller, roma and show people and service users with
high/complex needs.
Section A – What are you impact assessing?
(Indicate with an “x” which applies):A decision to review or change a service
A strategy
A policy or procedure
A function, service or project
1/30
X
Are you impact assessing something that is?:New
Existing
Being reviewed
Being reviewed as a result of budget constraints
X
X
Describe the area you are impact assessing and, where appropriate, the changes you are
proposing?
The Supported Tenancy Service provide tenancy related floating support to service users with
extremely complex and high levels of need including offenders, people with mental health problems
and drug / alcohol issues. The service supports service users to maintain their home, avoid
homelessness and promote independence by providing the following functions and services:

Floating support to families and single people who have presented as homeless to the Housing
Options Service and are in need of accommodation so are placed in a dispersed property
(temporary accommodation) whilst their homeless application is being assessed.

A specialist worker to provide floating support to Gypsy, Traveller, Roma and Show People
service users mainly addressing the housing/site needs and around linking families in with local
services to address health, education, welfare/income related issues. Service also provides a
liaison service at illegal encampments enabling faster move-on and referring to legal
encampments.

Move-on support to young people in existing statutory supported accommodation to prevent
bed-blocking and prevent repeat admission and loss of tenancies.

Support to statutory single homeless service users and families in B&B and move on support to
accommodation based services to prevent bed blocking in both.

Responds immediately to reports of rough sleeping, and links them into the ‘No Second Night
Out’ project, to avoid entrenched rough sleeping.

Facilitates strong links with private landlords re-housing statutory homeless clients.

Supports care leavers with housing related support so this burden would fall to Children’s
Services (at higher cost).

Facilitates trial tenancies in dispersed housing for clients of Next Step, Learning Difficulties
team, and Adult Social Care where their ability to manage is uncertain.

Helps service user’s access and secure additional discretionary financial support from
charitable organisations (in the last financial year the Supported Tenancies service secured
£136,000 for their clients).

Assists in the signposting, liaison, and resettling travellers on illegal encampments

Supports service users who have lost their care package due to changes in the FACS criteria
as the Pathway to Independence document signposts service user to STS.
2/30
As part of the economic climate/budget constraints and as a result the saving being requested for
the year 2014-15, it has been proposed to cease funding the in-house Supported Tenancies
Service and the Gypsy, Traveller, Roma and Show People service from 1st July 2014 and reduce
the floating support to the temporary accommodation part of the service by 50% as of 1st July
2014..
3/30
Section B – Is a Community Impact Assessment required (Screening)?
Consider what you are impact assessing and mark “x” for all the statement(s) below which apply
Service or policy that people use or which apply to people (this could include staff)
X
Discretion is exercised or there is potential for people to experience different
outcomes. For example, planning applications and whether applications are approved
or not
Concerns at local, regional or national level of discrimination/inequalities
Major change, such as closure, reduction, removal or transfer
X
Community, regeneration and planning strategies, organisational or directorate
partnership strategies/plans
Employment policy – where discretion is not exercised
Employment policy – where discretion is exercised. For example, recruitment or
disciplinary process
Equality Areas
Indicate with an “x” which equality areas are likely to be affected, positively or negatively,
proposals
Age
X Religion and/or belief
Disability
X Sexual Identity
Gender (including pregnancy and X People on a low income (sociomaternity and marriage and civil
economic inequality)
partnership)
Gender reassignment
X Other (please state below) (For example
carers, ex offenders, refugees and
asylum seekers, gypsies and travellers)
Race
X Care leavers; Gypsy, Traveller, Roma
and Show People, Offenders
by the
X
X
X
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently monitor by
the
following
protected
characteristics
or
equality
areas?
Age
Disability
Gender (including pregnancy
and maternity and marriage and
civil partnership
Gender Reassignment
Race
Religion and/or belief
Sexual Identity
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
Other (please state) (For
example carers, ex offenders,
refugees and asylum seekers,
Yes (Y) If no, please explain why and / or detail in the
or No (N) action plan at Section E how you will prioritise
the gathering of this equality monitoring data.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
4/30
gypsies and travellers)
Section C Consultation
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals?
Yes
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
A 12-week consultation took place from March to May 2014 via a questionnaire posted to service
users and also made available on line. One to one drop in session at the Gateways were also
arranged to offer service users support to complete the questionnaire.
792 responses were received specifically in relation to this proposal using the questionnaire from a
combination of service users, carers, family members, friends or other interested parties
Consultation results
The council received 1,832 responses to the overall consultation, of which 1,096 referred to the Supported
Tenancy Service proposals.
Do you agree that it is fair that the council stops funding this service and instead provides
information and advice about how people can find support for themselves?
Of all those who responded about the Supported Tenancy Service, 25% (275) either strongly agreed or
agreed. The proportions were similar for users (5%, 15) and family and friends (5%, 5), but slightly higher for
carers of users of the service (15%, 6), confirming that overall there a majority strongly disagreed or
disagreed that it is fair.
Those who identified themselves as disabled people agreed slightly more than those who identified
themselves as not disabled, with 27% (116) of all disabled respondents supporting it, compared to 23% (87)
of non-disabled respondents. There was no difference between users, disabled people 5% (5) compared to
non-disabled people 4% (7), but there were slight variances amongst carers of users and family and friends
of users. For non-disabled carers of users more thought that it was fair (16%, 3) compared to disabled carers
of users (12%, 2). However, more disabled family and friends of users (8%, 2) thought it was fair compared
to non-disabled family and friends of users (3%, 2).
Agreement was generally lower amongst those aged 25-44 (8%, 14) and 45-64 (21%, 58) compared to
those aged over 65 (42%, 136). Support was lowest amongst those aged 45-64 whether as users (4%, 3),
carers of users (8%, 1) or family or friends of users (4%, 1). Support was highest amongst those aged over
65 whether as users (19%, 4), carers of users (40%, 2) or family or friends of users (40%, 2).
The proportions of men and women who strongly agreed and agreed that it is fair were very similar at 24%
(70) and 25% (131). The exception occurred for men who were family and friends of users where 13% (4)
strongly agreed or agreed compared to 0% (0) of women. There were no exceptions between users (men
5%, 5 – women 4%, 6) or carers of users (men 14%, 2 – women 15%, 3) by gender.
Approximately three quarters of respondents indicated whether or not they had a religious belief (74%, 741).
Of those who indicated that they had a religious belief 32% (145) strongly agreed and agreed that it is fair,
double the proportion as amongst those who indicated that they had no religious belief (16%, 48).
The majority of those who disclosed their religion (88%, 459) were Christian. 32% (145) agreed that it was
fair, with a similar significantly smaller proportion of those with Muslim (14%, 3) and Jewish faith (10%, 1)
faith.
Only three quarters of respondents revealed their ethnic heritage, and of those who did 93% (764) were
White British, 27% (205) of whom strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal, compared to only 5% (1) of
5/30
the much smaller number of people who identified themselves as White Irish.
Many respondents did not disclose their sexual identity (35%, 368). Of those who did 24% (148) strongly
agreed or agreed that it is fair that the council stops funding this service and instead provides information
and advice about how people can find support for themselves, compared to 33% (2) of those who identified
as lesbian/ gay women, and 22% (4) of those who identified as bisexual.
Question 16 – If you have received this service (Supported Tenancy Service), could you get
similar support from elsewhere in the future?
From family
From friends and neighbours
From your housing provider or landlord
From a community service, group or charity
Other (combined variations on the above options)
Other (please specify)
Total
You
(Nos)
56
11
29
31
61
0
188
You
(%)
30%
6%
15%
16%
32%
0%
100%
N.B. - these figures include responses only if Q15 (Supported
Tenancy Service), was answered.
Of the 188 responses, the remainder being ‘not answered’, the single most common source of
similar support from elsewhere in the future was ‘from family’ at 30%.
Question 17 – Any other comments on the proposal?
Main themes of the comments made are:
- No (to proposal to cut)
- Service a necessity for vulnerable people / unfair to stop
- No alternative support/ no friends or family to help or can't/ need
professional help
- Homelessness / evictions will increase, more failed tenancies
- More pressure on other services if cut / cost effective to retain service
- Don’t use or can't comment or don't know or general comment
Total *
18
56
61
23
23
50
231
Of the 231 comments made in response to this question, 78% (181) said ‘No’ to the proposal and
said that services are needed for vulnerable people, it would be unfair to stop, there is no
alternative support, friends or family to help, they would lose their tenancy and homelessness would
increase and it would put pressure on other services.
Service staff and stakeholders were also consulted as part of this process. A selection of examples
of the stakeholder comments made are shown below:
Anne Doyle, National Homelessness Practitioner (on behalf of the DCLG):
‘Since the Homelessness Act of 2002 made it a legal requirement for local authorities to develop
and implement a Homelessness Strategy, setting out their intentions for preventing and tackling
6/30
homeless, research has been undertaken by CLG, Homeless Link and Crisis, among others, which
demonstrate that it is much more cost effective to prevent a household from becoming homeless
than it is to assess, accept and discharge a statutory homeless duty. The statutory homelessness
duty includes the provision of temporary accommodation for a period of time, and this is
undoubtedly more expensive than prevention options such as rent deposit / rent bond schemes,
mediation or other measures to stay in the existing home, or a planned move to other stable
accommodation.
I am also aware that there is also a proposal to cut the Supported Tenancy Service. It is likely that
without this support, some of the tenants using this service could be future customers of your
Homelessness Service and that private landlords will not be so keen to accept vulnerable people as
their tenants. The downsizing of this service, coupled with the ceasing of prevention activities, will
more than likely have an immediate financial impact on the council, in addition to an increase in
rough sleeping and all the impacts that has.
I do urge you to think again about these proposals. I work across the North West, North East and
Yorkshire and Humber, and have colleagues working across the other regions of England, and
none of us has seen a council cease all prevention services.
Joe Kent, Head of Regions, Homeless Link:
‘In the homelessness sector in recent years a transformation took place to start providing
preventative services rather than a reactive approach to deliver the minimum requirements under
the legislation. This was adopted across the whole country because it was recognised that there
were two key benefits:
 Customers needs were met more effectively
 It is more cost effective for authorities to intervene and prevent homelessness instead of
following the minimum legislative requirements
I do not have access to Salford service data, but am aware from our work in the Greater
Manchester area that in excess of 300 people each year are supported to make the transition to live
independently in private sector tenancies thereby delivering a valuable service that prevents
homelessness. The costs of emergency placements into bed and breakfast provision and the
impact of increasing numbers of rough sleepers, for example, would impact on a range of services
and be extremely difficult to address if key prevention services were not present.
I am concerned that the loss of this service could have as yet unforeseen consequences .’
Ashley Property Services:
‘Not only do we take on a number of vulnerable tenants in Salford on the bond scheme, these
tenants are offered valuable support by your team.
We will not be able to take these tenants on without this support and certainly not without the bond
scheme. Many of these tenants, due to their history can cause considerable damage and ASBO
issues. We would not be willing to take them on with out support from the Housing Option team.
We can not do anything to mitigate this system of tenant referral. We simply would not be willing to
support many of the people who are referred without support.’
Next Step (Children’s Services, Looked After Young People)
‘The Next Step service is Salford’s Leaving Care Team and work with very vulnerable young people
7/30
in the transition from being in care to living independently. Salford young people in care are
expected to live independently at a very young age (often before they turn 18), and most of them do
not have any familial support, they are therefore really dependant on the support of professionals.
The supported tenancy team have played a key role in helping our young people to maintain their
tenancies, and avoid homelessness. Below is a list of the tasks the tenancy support team have
completed for our young people:



















Registration to Salford Home search
Bidding for properties
Viewing Properties
Signing up for properties
Liaising with and negotiating with utility providers
Setting up gas and electric payment schemes
Organising Repairs
Liaising with Landlords
Supporting young people to make housing benefit and council tax claims
Visiting young people up to 9pm (essential for those in college or at work)
Attended child in Need and team around the child meetings
Resourced private tenancies
Liaised with private landlords to accept our young people
Attended neighbourhood housing meetings
Challenged eviction notices
House Clearances
Supported DWP and hardship claims
Made applications for SDSS
Supported young people to access voluntary hardship programmes like Mustard Tree.
Staff in the leaving care team feel very strongly that if the tenancy support team were to be cut, our
young people and other vulnerable groups will become homeless due to the withdrawal of specialist
housing support. The work the supported tenancy team do for our young people is invaluable. The
cost of managing these young people through the Homeless system would be far greater than the
cost of maintaining them in their own tenancies. The withdrawal of tenancy support will undoubtedly
affect care leavers successful transition into communities due to competing service demands and
priorities.’
Salix Homes:
‘Tenants who are starting their tenancy and are vulnerable will not already have support in place
and so there is a higher risk of those tenancies failing during the fist 12 months probationary period.
This would have a knock on effect on costs with a higher turnover of tenancies costing more. For
tenants who need support to maintain their tenancies without this being in place they could have
problems with their tenancy and this costs more money in tenancy management and income/
arrears management.
Universal Credit is due to be introduced, this is going to increase the need for support around
managing money payments and paying rent. The loss of the supported tenancies service will
reduce the support available to people who need it. We will need to prioritise support in this area as
it has a direct impact on our rental income, which means we will have less capacity to pick up the
other support needs of tenants that would no longer be met by the ending of the supported tenancy
service.’
8/30
Places For People (Salford Foyer):
‘Since April 2012, 13% of our planned move on has been to private rented accommodation with
floating support being the reason for landlords accepting young people.
If this is withdrawn private landlords would not offer private rented accommodation to young people
so we will struggle to move them on, which will result in bed blocking.’
DWP/Job Centre Plus:
‘The risk of people becoming homeless impacts hugely on their ability to obtain and retain work.
The loss of these services will increase dependency on welfare benefits if people become
homeless as a result.
There is an increasing emphasis on conditionality if vulnerable people miss appointments, fail to
obey DWP directions, they will receive benefit sanctions which will put their tenancy at risk.
Under Universal Credit benefits they will be claimed on-line and updated on-line and change of
circumstances reported on-line. At present Supported Tenancies help with post from DWP, the
support to do this on-line will be limited.
There is no direct client support that Jobcentre Plus can provide. Generally, we would signpost
vulnerable customers/ people who are homeless to LA services. Under Universal Credit customers
will be increasingly vulnerable and liable to eviction if they are unable to manage single monthly
payments, including housing costs and paying their rent. DWP will implement time limited mitigation
(such as paying rent to landlords direct), if they know about the issues, but without support
customers may not be prepared to disclose their information to DWP.’
Housing Options Service:
‘Increased footfall as result of increased tenancy failure due to lack of support. Higher case loads
for staff, takes longer therefore to deal with individual cases. Greater numbers in temporary
accommodation as less prevention work undertaken by supported tenancy services and length of
stay will be longer. Landlords will be less willing to house, both private and social sector landlords,
which will bottleneck temporary/ supported accommodation contributing to longer stays. Also,
increased use of out of area B&B’s and potential stays of 6 weeks plus leading to longer challenges
(Westminster ombudsman case having to pay compensation). Reputationel risk. Increased number
of homelessness presentations and acceptances, therefore demand for statutory services will
increase. Cost of delivering statutory service far more expensive than prevention service.’
Salford’s Children in Care Council:
‘In the past there were a number of agencies that sought to help vulnerable people secure
accommodation such as: Beacon Support, Renaissance, Joan Lester House and SASH. With the
gradual dissolution of these services, support for people who need it has dwindled down to just one,
Salford Council’s Supported Tenancy Service (Housing).’
Other risks were highlighted during the consultation:
 Likelihood of increase in tenant rent arrears, evictions and homelessness due to benefits not
being in place, sanctions on benefits, the impact of the welfare reforms and service users not
receiving support to develop their skills and manage their tenancies or find more appropriate
housing and in turn creating higher demand on the Housing Options Service from homeless
families needing to be placed in temporary accommodation, as homelessness is a statutory
duty which very costly and creates increasing for the Council or families possibly ending up
in inappropriate housing that is unaffordable thus ending up in debt. This could also lead to
an increase in rough sleeping within the city.
9/30
















Loss of revenue in Housing Benefit for people being placed in dispersed properties and also
moving on into a permanent tenancies due to likelihood of forms not being filled in and
submitted on time due to literacy issues, language barriers, etc.
Service users not benefiting from the advocacy that the service provides to challenge or
overcome issues related to welfare reforms; technology used by other agencies which can
often be a barrier to accessing support from other services and not being able to go online
for some services and not being able to afford telephone calls eg. Benefits, Tax credits, etc.
Adverse impact on mental health of service users which is likely to increase in hospital
admissions.
Adverse impact on service users with mental health issues no longer being managed in the
community and can no longer access day care services or have a CPN – this is where the
STS fills a gap and supports a number of service users with mental health issues to sustain
their tenancy.
Adverse impact on clients with moderate care needs who have lost their support due to
changes in the FACS criteria.
Adverse impact on Housing Management Officers in City West and Salix, increase in visits to
vulnerable tenants – Potential that vulnerable people will be prevented from accessing
housing stock due to lack of support and prohibitive ‘local lettings policies’.
Risk to the sustainability of families living in the dispersed properties – if there is no support
in place from STS once homeless families are placed in the dispersed properties, there is a
likelihood that some families will perpetuate the cycle of homelessness with each homeless
application costing the local authority £9000 and the demand for the dispersed properties
increasing and possibly not being available so resulting in an increase in B&B usage, again
very costly for the local authority.
The negative impact on children in terms of the pressure and strain families will be under
and also from the withdrawal of a service that actively contributes to safeguarding within the
City eg. STS officers will often take on the role of the Lead Professional – this role would fall
on another agency and the absence of STS in the safeguarding processes and procedures
could place more strain upon social care.
Risk to the active contribution to other safeguarding campaigns such as the Safe Sleeping
campaign that was adopted by STS and consequently, safe sleeping checks may not be
carried out within the homes of some vulnerable service users where there may be higher
risks to newborns.
Increase in anti-social behaviour and the negative impacts this has on the community; the
Police and on the housing providers and with the likelihood of action being taken on
tenancies – more cases are likely to be taken to court for eviction but STS will not be there to
intervene to stop it progressing to this stage – again, this course of action is very costly.
Withdrawal of privately rented properties for service users/families coming through the
Housing Options Service if they no longer have a Tenancy Support Worker to support them
in their tenancy.
Withdrawal of privately rented properties that are made available to service users coming
through SHOP - landlords have explicitly stated that without the support of the Supported
Tenancies Team and a rental bond they will not consider renting their properties to these
clients.
No access to the rental deposit scheme for a high percentage of homeless people.
Lack of signposting to Salford Discretionary Support service – food banks, funding, etc.
Reductions of applications and grants awarded from charitable sources that have a
prerequisite that the applicant must be in receipt of a support package.
2 homelessness services were decommissioned 12/12/13 with STS due to replace with
existing provision in dispersed housing – as discussed in homelessness strategy, this is now
at risk meaning this is potentially affecting a statutory provision.
10/30






The negative impacts in terms of service users in hospital not being able to return to their
property without the support from STS therefore as a result there is a likelihood of an
increase in bed blocking with service users fit for discharge but unable to do so due to issues
with their tenancy.
Withdrawal of support to refugee families and the issues of not having a national insurance
number and the difficulties in obtaining this due to language barriers and the negative
impacts such as not being able to understand, complete the correct forms and respond
appropriately and the implications this has on housing benefit, family income, etc.
Lack of signposting to legal encampments and liaison with travellers on illegal encampments
meaning higher costs of removal.
Lack of specialist knowledge around housing legislation and limited understanding provided
by other agencies increases the risk of housing related actions not being carried out
appropriately.
Representation of ‘housing’ at the MARAC meetings will be at risk if STS ends and this can
be a crucial link in the planning and protection of service users at risk or fleeing domestic
abuse.
Ultimately, in the wake of other services closing, being reduced or reconfigured, STS props
up many other services through the support they deliver.
Some of the risks described above can be slightly mitigated (see Section E - Action Plan) for
tenants living in social landlord properties who will be able to provide low level support to their
tenants. However, this mitigation action does exclude care leavers, offenders, households living in
private rented accommodation, service userpos with complex needs and gypsy, travellers, roma
and show people who would be left with no tenancy related support in place should the proposal go
ahead.
In conclusion, in light of the consultation findings above, the CIA clearly identifies the impact and
risks of such proposal going ahead.
Section C– Analysis
C3 What information
has been analysed to
inform the content of
this CIA? What were
the findings?
Please include details
of,
for
example,
service or employee
monitoring
information,
consultation findings,
any national or local
research,
customer
feedback, inspection
reports, and any other
information which will
inform your CIA.
Please
The Supported Tenancy Service (STS) is a generic floating support service
and the only floating support service in the City. The service was reviewed
August 2012 by Supporting People as part of the on-going contract
monitoring process and achieved a Level B (Good) with some Level A
(excellent) features against the Quality Assessment Framework.
Following the review in July and August 2012 of the STS and also the review
of the Temporary Accommodation Project (TAP) which houses families
presenting as homeless and also being delivered from STS, a
recommendation to integrate the two services was made and approved by
the Assistant Mayor in order to be more efficient as they are delivered by the
same Provider, and there is considerable overlap in terms of the
management, the officers who deliver the services, policies and procedures
and the support methods and documentation used. In addition to this, to
achieve saving for 2013-14 from the SP programme, the Gypsy, Traveller,
Roma and Show-persons service previously delivered by ECHG was brought
in-house in August 2013 and is now delivered from the STS.
However, now the services are fully integrated, this has serious implications
specify when considering the future of the three services should the STS (inc.
11/30
whether this was
existing information or
was
obtained
specifically in relation
to
this
equality
analysis and CIA
process
GTRS) cease to exist and the TAP part of the service reduce and continue.
In particular, there would be difficulties in terms of the staffing, for example.
Some staff work part of their time delivering support to homeless families in
TAP and part of their time delivering support to statutory homeless families
who are housed permanently providing continuity of service for the families.
Both services are based at the Salford Housing Options Point contributing to
the One Stop Shop model offered by the City Council. Not only does this
clearly result in a more effective and efficient service for service users, but
facilitates more collaborative working with other co-located services. The
ending of the STS service would significantly impact negatively on service
users presenting as homeless and in need of housing related support and
would probably lead to an increase in failed tenancies and homeless
presentations.
The STS has worked flexibly with the Supporting People team to respond
proactively to reductions within the sector and across the sectors where
other services have ceased to exist, the STS has been the safety net to
mitigate previously identified risk factors and negative impacts. It is
considered that decommissioning the STS is likely to have a significantly
detrimental impact on service users and other services/agencies in the City.
Referrals and acceptances for the service are as follows (showing increases
in support provided, with
no increase in cost to the City):
Year
Number of
% Difference
Referrals
Number
Received
% Difference
Support
09/10
671
380
10/11
566
-15%
370
-3%
11/12
741
+30%
366
-1%
12/13
831
+12%
459
+25.5%
13/14
601 (qtr 1- 3)
518 qtr 1 - 3
+13% - so far
The above table shows the trend in increased acceptance and referrals due
to welfare reforms/increased unemployment/higher cost of living/bedroom
tax, etc. In 12/13, CHSC implemented the ‘Just Enough Support’ approach
resulting in increased service provision for STS with no extra staffing levels.
Data used in this assessment, has been taken from the St. Andrews system
where details of all service users entering and exiting the service are
12/30
recorded and also from the Supporting People annual equality and diversity
monitoring returns.
13/30
Section D – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Yes No
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
(Y) (N)
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to age
equality
Will people within certain age
ranges not be getting the outcome
they need?
Will people within certain age
ranges be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unaable to eliminate,
reduce
or
mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of age?
Y
As a result of the proposals, young people aged 16-24 years will be negatively impacted
on. Data taken from the St. Andrews system shows that in 2011-12 45% and in 2012-13,
49% of service users entering the STS were aged between 16-24 years.
Y
Young people already struggle to get a tenancy and without the floating support provided
by STS to help find and maintain a home, there may be a high number of failed tenancies
and issues around sustaining tenancies given that for most young people entering their first
tenancy with no support is very high risk. The costs to the local authority of a single
homeless application are £9000.
This proposal will result in bed-blocking in Young Peoples accommodation based services
as they facilitate prompt move on from services. The cots of these services are £350 per
week, compared to STS which costs on average £55 per person per week. (£17.00 per
hour).
Y
There are no mitigating factors to eliminate or reduce the negative impact that the proposal
has on young people as the STS is the only service in the City providing tenancy related
support.
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain age ranges
will experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact Y
on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
The proposals will impact negatively on community cohesion as if there is no support
available for young people in their tenancies; ASB is likely to increase causing
neighbourhood issues and potentially will impact on other services such as the Police.
N
This proposal will have a direct impact on the Next Step project and looked after young
people leaving care and will result in an increase of failed tenancies and an increase in
duties for Next Step workers.
Supports Teenage Parents in their own home for £55 per week, who would, as an
alternative be in an accommodation based service at a cost of £320 per week.
14/30
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
disability equality
Will people with a disability not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people with a disability be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of disability?
Yes
(Y)
No (N)
Y
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
In 2012-13, 27% of service users entering the STS defined themselves as having a
disability. While this is not necessarily a high percentage as such, when comparing
the figure of 5.7% for the population of Salford with a disability, the service works with
a higher number of disabled people. Also, the service is a generic service so
potentially, the closure of the service would mean than any person with a disability
with the need for support to live independently may fail in their independent living and
be forced into a residential support service.
Y
Also, where in the past adults with a disability classed as moderate needs would have
been able to access adult social care, service users with moderate needs would now
not be eligible unless they have substantial or critical needs. This is reflected in an
increase in the numbers of service users with a disability entering the service than
previous years.
Y
Therefore, there are no mitigating factors to reduce or eliminate the negative impact
that the proposal has on people with a disability.
Will the proposals mean that
people with a disability will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who
share
a
protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
N
N
15/30
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
gender equality?
Will men, women or boys and girls
not be getting the outcome they
need?
Will men, women or boys and girls
be disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce
or
mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of gender?
Will the proposals mean that men
or women, boys or girls will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Y
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
As a result of the proposals, women will be negatively impacted on. Data shows
that there are more women entering the service and more women benefiting from
the service and exiting the service in a planned way than men.
Data from St. Andrews shows that in 2011-12, 58% of the service users entering
the service were female and 67% of the service users exiting the service once
package of support has been completed were female and in 2012-13, 60% of
service users entering the service were female and 58% of service users exiting
the service was female. This shows that over a 2 year reporting period, there are
more women entering the service and also exiting the service in a planned way.
Y
Y
As a result of the proposals, women will be negatively impacted on as the STS is
the only service in the City providing tenancy related support.
N
N
Could your proposals have a differential Yes (Y)
impact relating to equality for people
planning, undergoing or who have
undergone gender reassignment?
Will people planning, undergoing or who Y
have undergone gender reassignment
not be getting the outcome they need?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your
analysis?
In 2012-13, 1% of service users exiting the STS service classified
themselves as transgendered in comparison to the UK figures for
transgendered people being 0.8% and Supporting People figures being
16/30
Will people planning, undergoing or who
have undergone gender reassignment
be disadvantaged as a result of your Y
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it be
reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate, reduce or
mitigate negative impacts, are your
proposals potentially discriminatory on Y
the grounds of gender reassignment?
0.9%.
A survey of 872 transgendered people carried out by NHS Choices found
that 34% of respondents had considered suicide. Transgendered people
are more likely to be a victim of Hate Crime so the closure of the STS
would negatively impact on transgendered service users who may be in this
position and may be in need of tenancy related support and this is where
other issues/needs are identified eg. (mental) health and wellbeing and
signposting to other services is carried out as part of the support.
There are no mitigating factors to reduce or eliminate risks as the STS is
the only floating support service in the City, therefore transgendered people
would be negatively impacted on.
Will the proposals mean that people
planning, undergoing or who have
undergone gender reassignment
will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact on
community cohesion?
Is
there
potential
to
enhance
relationships between people who share
a protected characteristic and those who
do not?
Identify areas where there is potential to
foster good relations
N
N
17/30
Could your proposals have a Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to
race equality
Will certain racial groups not be Y
getting the outcome they need?
Will certain racial groups be Y
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of race?
No (N)
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain racial
groups will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who
share
a
protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
Figures taken from the last census showed that 15.6% of the general population of
Salford are BME. In 2012-13, 19% of service users entering the service were BME
which is slightly higher than the Salford figure. These figures for the STS is fairly
reflective of the Salford population, therefore, the BME population are not over
represented in the usage of the service.
However, data does show that the BME population in Salford does benefit from the
STS, so it would still be a loss to the BME communities that may need to access
that support if the service continues to operate.
There are no mitigating factors to reduce or eliminate risks as the STS is the only
floating support service in the City, therefore BME service users would be
negatively impacted on.
N
18/30
Could your proposals have a Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to
religion or belief equality
Will people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of religion or belief?
Will the proposals mean that
people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who
share
a
protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
N
N
N
19/30
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
sexual identity equality
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people be disadvantaged
as a result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of sexual identity?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Y
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
There is a specialist LGBT worker based in the STS who over 2012-13 has
provided housing related support to 22 service users. LGB service users are more
likely to suffer hate crime and information obtained from the National Drug and
Alcohol database provides clear evidence of drug and alcohol issues amongst this
group. These are just some of the issues that the STS support the service users
with and also signpost to other services where appropriate.
Y
If the funding ceases to STS and the service is stopped, gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people will not be getting a valued and well utilised service and will
therefore not be getting the outcome they need and are therefore disadvantaged as
a result of the proposals as there is no other specialist floating support service in
Salford.
Y
Also a higher than average level of staff are LGBT.
Will the proposals mean that
gay, lesbian and/or bi-sexual
people will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to Y
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who
share
a
protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
STS is the only service in Salford which has integrated joint working procedure with
The Albert Kennedy Trust with one member of staff based in the service creating
strong cross authority links.
20/30
Could your proposals have a
differential impact on socio
economic equality (people on a
low income)?
Will people on a low income not be
getting the outcome they need?
Will people on a low income be
disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce
or
mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds
of
socio
economic
inequality?
Yes
(Y)
No
(N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
Y
As a result of the proposals, people on a low income will be negatively impacted on as the
majority of people using the service are out of work.
Y
The service currently works with people to help the into employment to counteract poverty.
Data has been collected from the St. Andrews system and the figures show a consistent
trend over the 2 year period. Looking at the data from 2011-12, 87% of service users
entering the service were out of work. In 2012-13, 86% of the service users entering the
service were out of work. A big part of the work is focused on supporting service users to
maximise their income (by ensuring that the right benefits are in place) and manage debt
better, this allows them to better manage and ultimately sustain their tenancies and avoid
homelessness.
Y
The figures demonstrate that a high percentage of the service users entering the service
are out of work and therefore on a low income and as result of the proposals, people on a
low income will be negatively impacted on as there are no mitigating risk factors that could
reduce or eliminate the negative impacts.
Will the proposals mean that
people on a low income will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
N
21/30
Could your proposals have a differential Yes
impact relating to any other equality (Y)
groups:
Care
leaver,
offenders,
refugees and asylum seekers, gypsies,
travellers, roma and show people
Will people within any other groups not Y
be getting the outcome they need?
Will people within any other groups be
disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it be Y
reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate, reduce
or mitigate negative impacts, are your
proposals potentially discriminatory for
people within any other groups?
Y
No
(N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
In addition to the STS service mainly operating as a generic service as opposed to
having a number of specialist target groups, the service also works with looked
after young people, offenders, refuges and asylum seekers and gypsies, travellers,
roma and show people service users. If the funding ceases to the STS, these
groups of service users will not be getting a well valued and utilised service and will
therefore not be getting the outcome they need and are disadvantaged as a result
of the proposals as there are no other floating support services in Salford to
support such groups with housing related issues.
With regard to Travellers, swift action on illegal encampments in Salford is a highly
emotive issue for residents and elected members and removal of this service will
have a direct impact on the liaison that takes place at illegal encampments and
impact upon the number and speed of applications to legal sites.
Post Asylum refugees are supported by STS, these are people who have been
used to using vouchers to live and have little or no knowledge of how to claim
benefits or mange a tenancy.
Care leavers are also supported by STS and will be negatively impacted on by the
proposal.
STS also works with offenders and this group will be negatively impacted on by the
proposal particularly given that a proposal has also put forward to cease funding
the Salford Offender Service.
The service currently works with families and is trained in identifying signs of abuse
and safeguarding issues and making necessary referrals to keep vulnerable
children and adult safe.
22/30
Will the proposals mean that people
within any other groups will experience
positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact on
community cohesion
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic and
those who do not?
identify areas where there is potential
to foster good relations
N
N
Section E – Action Plan and review
Detail in the plan below, actions that you have identified in your CIA, which will eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity
and/or foster good relations.
If you are unable to eliminate or reduce negative impact on any of the equality areas, you should explain why
Impact (positive or Proposed action
negative) identified
No tenancy related
support service in
the City for people
with
complex
needs
Where will action be monitored? Target
Person(s)
responsible (e.g., Directorate Business Plan, date
Service Plan, Equality
Plan)
City West / Salix and other Registered Registered
Providers to pick up the low level Providers
tenancy related support for tenants
living in their properties.
(However, this would not be available
to
care
leavers,
tenants
with
high/complex needs, gypsy/traveller
and roma service users and privately
rented service users who are likely to
experience negative impacts).
23/30
Action
Sub-group of Salford Housing 2014-15
Partnership
Required
outcome
Negative
equality impacts
mitigated
Impact (positive or Proposed action
negative) identified
Where will action be monitored? Target
Person(s)
responsible (e.g., Directorate Business Plan, date
Despite previous
mitigation,
no
support
service
available to care
leavers
Lindsay
Barrett
Despite previous
mitigation,
no
support
service
tenants
with
high/complex
needs
Despite previous
mitigation,
no
support
service
available to gypsy,
traveller,
Roma
and show people
Despite previous
mitigation,
no
support
service
available
to
service users who
are in privately
rented
accommodation
Explore support packages with Next
Step
*UPDATE – As part of the stakeholder
consultation Next Step have stated
that they do not have the capacity to
offer tenancy related support.
A scoping exercise was carried out
with CVS to identify alternative service
providers and there are no other
services in Salford offering tenancy
related floating support.
Service Plan, Equality
Plan)
Sharon
Worgan
A scoping exercise was carried out Sharon
with CVS to identify alternative service Worgan
providers and there are no other
services in Salford offering tenancy
related floating support.
A scoping exercise was carried out Sharon
with CVS to identify alternative service Worgan
providers and there are no other
services in Salford offering tenancy
related floating support.
24/30
Action
Required
outcome
Impact (positive or Proposed action
negative) identified
Despite previous
mitigation,
no
support
service
available
to
support offenders
particularly given
that a proposal
has
been
put
forward to cease
funding SOS and
also
reduce
funding to HOS
Increase
in
homeless families
placed
in
temporary
accommodation
with
reduced
support leading to
a
number
of
issues
with
claiming benefits,
housing benefit
Increase
in
numbers placed in
B&B
whilst
awaiting
a
homeless decision
Where will action be monitored? Target
Person(s)
responsible (e.g., Directorate Business Plan, date
Service Plan, Equality
Plan)
Action
A scoping exercise was carried out
with CVS to identify alternative service
providers and there are no other
services in Salford offering tenancy
related floating support.
*There are no mitigating actions due to
the proposal to reduce funding to the
Housing Options Service meaning
homelessness prevention services will
not exist therefore there will be an
increase in homeless families in
temporary accommodation.
Quarterly
monitoring 2014-15
meetings / team business
plan
*There are no mitigating actions due to
the proposal to reduce funding to the
Housing Options Service meaning
homelessness prevention services will
not exist therefore there will be an
increase in homeless families in
temporary accommodation.
25/30
Required
outcome
Impact (positive or Proposed action
negative) identified
Where will action be monitored? Target
Person(s)
responsible (e.g., Directorate Business Plan, date
Service Plan, Equality
Plan)
Bed-blocking
in To explore with existing service
accommodation
providers to develop resettlement
based services
provision within accommodation based
services.
Young people not *Only
for
young
people
in
being
able
to accommodation based services, it will
access
be explored with existing service
accommodation
providers to develop resettlement
and
sustain
a provision for a limited period
tenancy following
a
period
of
homelessness
Service users not For
service
users
in
an
being
able
to accommodation based service, they
access
certain may be able to access funds/services
funds to purchase with the support of staff from the
furniture eg. Buttle service.
Trust or access
certain
services For other service users not in receipt of
eg. Mental Health any other service, there are no
without the referral mitigating factors to reduce the
from a support negative impact.
worke
Vulnerable people A scoping exercise was carried out
who have lost their with CVS to identify alternative service
care
due
to providers and there are no other
changes in the services in Salford offering tenancy
FACS criteria now related floating support.
unable to access
alternative
low
level
temporary
transition support
26/30
Action
Required
outcome
Impact (positive or Proposed action
negative) identified
Where will action be monitored? Target
Person(s)
responsible (e.g., Directorate Business Plan, date
Service Plan, Equality
Plan)
Refugees unable
to access benefits
and assistance to
set up a tenancy
A scoping exercise was carried out
with CVS to identify alternative service
providers and there are no other
services in Salford offering tenancy
related floating support, however
service users may be able to seek
support from Refugee Action if they
have capacity.
Increase
in City West and Salix and other RP’s
homeless
may be able to provide homeless
presentations
prevention to their tenants only for low
putting additional needs cases.
strain
on
the
Housing Options There are no other agencies offering
Service which is homeless prevention in the city.
being reduced by
50% this year
A scoping exercise was carried out
with CVS to identify alternative service
providers and there are no other
services in Salford offering tenancy
related floating support.
27/30
Action
Required
outcome
Impact (positive or Proposed action
negative) identified
Where will action be monitored? Target
Person(s)
responsible (e.g., Directorate Business Plan, date
Service Plan, Equality
Plan)
City West and Salix and other RP’s
Increase in anti- may be able to provide homeless
social behaviour, prevention to their tenants only for low
rent arrears and needs cases.
evictions ultimately
leading
to
an There are no other agencies offering
increase
in homeless prevention in the city.
homelessness due
to failed tenancies A scoping exercise was carried out
with CVS to identify alternative service
providers and there are no other
services in Salford offering tenancy
related floating support.
Increased
City West and Salix and other RP’s
pressure on social may be able to provide homeless
housing providers prevention to their tenants only for low
due to increased needs cases.
anti-social
behaviour
and There are no other agencies offering
tenancy
related homeless prevention in the city.
issues
A scoping exercise was carried out
with CVS to identify alternative service
providers and there are no other
services in Salford offering tenancy
related floating support.
Travellers
not Explore with Salix their duties under
being
able
to the Equality Act in terms of enabling
access legitimate services
users
to
access
sites and setting ethinic/cultural specific services.
up
illegal
encampments
28/30
Action
Required
outcome
Impact (positive or Proposed action
negative) identified
Vulnerable, at risk
children
not
receiving a referral
to
the
safeguarding team
Due to
and the
homes,
reduce
area.
Where will action be monitored? Target
Person(s)
responsible (e.g., Directorate Business Plan, date
Service Plan, Equality
Plan)
Action
Required
outcome
the nature of the relationship
accessibility into service users
there are no mitigations to
the negative impact in this
The onus will be on other agencies
such as health visitors, schools,
midwives, etc to identify safeguarding
issues and make referrals, however,
the risks to pre-school children are
increased due to the closure of Sure
Start centres and high case loads of
health visitors.
Private landlords Service users in accommodation may
refusing to let be able to access privately rented
properties without properties if they have a resettlement
support from STS package of support in place from their
accommodation provider.
*However, contacts and positive
relationships between providers and
private landlords would need to be
established to allow this to happen.
Could making the changes in any of the above areas have a negative effect on other groups? Explain why and what you might do about
this.
No.
29/30
Name
Signature
Date
Senior Manager
Lead CIA Officer
30/30