1
Contents
Page
3
Foreword
1. Introduction and context
4
2. Knowing your city – Newcastle now and in 2016
7
3. People protected under the public sector equality duty
• Age
o Children and young people
o Older people
• Access to services and the environment
• Disability
o Disabled children
o Disabled adults
• Carers
• Women
• Black and Minority Ethnic (BME)
• Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB)
9
4. Socio-economic impacts
• Welfare reform
• Digital inclusion
• Businesses
• Voluntary and Community Sector
• Schools
23
5. Impacts on Communities
• Environment and sustainability
• Community cohesion
• Community safety
30
6. Next steps
35
2
Foreword
The government’s deficit reduction programme has hit local government harder than any
other part of the public sector, and councils in hard pressed communities like Newcastle
hardest of all.
Over the next three years the scale of cuts to Newcastle City Council’s budget will have a
disproportionate and devastating impact on our city and our citizens when compared to
other parts of the country.
But the fact that the council has been treated unfairly does not excuse us from our
responsibility to ensure that our decisions are fair. In tough times it is more important than
ever to ensure that scarce resources are prioritised fairly and that we do all we can to
minimise the harm that cuts to services cause for individuals and communities.
Under pressure to find savings it is all too easy to look inward and focus on structures,
buildings, processes and personnel. It is essential that councillors maintain a broader
outlook and take decisions based on a robust understanding of how cuts will impact on
people and places across our city.
This document is intended to help provide that ‘people perspective’. It explores the
combined impact of budget proposals on particular communities and on people with
particular characteristics such as the youngest, oldest and most vulnerable.
In many cases, the council has a legal duty under the Equalities Act 2010 to ensure that we
do not unfairly discriminate against people. It is very important that we consider the impact
of decisions on people with a protected characteristic. Beyond that we also believe it is
critical to consider the impact on socio-economic disadvantaged groups and in relation to
wellbeing and health, the environment, community cohesion, and community safety.
Each budget proposal has considered the potential impact of changes on different groups,
and through our let’s talk Newcastle budget consultation we have listened to what people
have told us about how they fear proposals might impact on them. This detail can be found
in the Integrated Impact Assessments published alongside the budget.
Over the next three years the council must save £100m – equivalent to more than a third of
its budget. It will not be possible to avoid painful decisions. The impact of reductions to
services will be felt across our city. But we will do all we can to ensure that all our decisions
take full account of the needs and concerns of our community.
Joyce McCarty
Deputy Leader
Newcastle City Council
3
1. Introduction and context
This report provides an overview of cumulative impacts that could arise out of Newcastle
City Council’s draft budget proposals for 2013 – 16. Our approach to how we propose to
make our savings is set out in the ‘Fair choices for tough times’ document. This explains
that this is a budget unlike any the council has previously published.
We need to make savings of around £100m over the next three years, equivalent to over a
third of our total budget. A significant part of this is caused by cuts to government grants,
with the rest a result of rising cost pressures. Making savings of this size will have an
impact on the type of services that we can deliver and on the people who use them.
Newcastle has seen a substantial cut in Government funding since the introduction of its
Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in 2010. This will equate to about £218 for every
adult in the city over the four years to 2014/15. In comparison some places are being cut by
less than a third of that amount. The map below shows the extent of the cuts nationally.
The scale of this financial challenge will require us to work differently across all of our
services. The 2016 Budget proposals affect people, communities, wards and the city as a
whole in many ways. The level of impact varies, depending on levels of need for our
services, and on capacity and willingness of communities, partners and stakeholders to
play a role in mitigating that impact.
4
To help us to make decisions in a fair, transparent and accountable way, we assessed what
impact our budget proposals would have on the needs and rights of individuals and
communities. We also looked at the potential wider social and economic consequences of
the Government’s austerity measures on Newcastle and on those residents who are most
vulnerable alongside our proposals.
From the beginning, every effort has been made to ensure that we have developed
proposals that strike the right balance in making sure we protect those in greatest need
whilst continuing to provide a service to the wider community. Our challenge is to deliver
services to a diverse range of people. In our budget proposals we tried, where possible, to
prioritise services for vulnerable people. However, the scale of government cuts means that
some reductions must be made in those services too.
Our approach has been to try to ensure that specialist services aimed at helping the most
vulnerable people in our community, such as care for older people, those with severe
disabilities, and young children at risk of harm, would face the lowest level of cut. Targeted
services aimed at helping those who are at risk of falling into harm and greater need, such
as welfare support or debt advice, would face the next lowest level of cut. This meant that
universal services that everyone recognizes like bin collection, litter clearing, parks, libraries
and leisure services faced a higher level of cut. Our support services were asked to operate
at the lowest cost possible to keep the council running and were asked to make the largest
cut.
By 2016 some services will face a ‘fiscal cliff’ in their funding. Some of the cuts that have
attracted most concern in Newcastle are only scheduled to take place towards the end of
the 2013-2016 period; including the closure of Sure Start centres, rationing of social care,
and the most damaging cuts in environmental and cleaning services. We share the
concerns about the cuts and will continue to do all we can to minimise their impact.
We know that the size and scope of our services will have to be more focused. Our longer
term approach to the budget is helping us to plan more effectively and decide what our core
services must be. Our longer term approach is helping us to protect those services which
support the most vulnerable people in the city, by giving us time to work with communities
and organisations to find new ways to keep a valued service or facility open. We will
explore all practical options to improve efficiency, and share services with other
organisations, including suggestions that we receive through the consultation process.
The other key aspect of response will be to focus on developing and building on a shared
understanding of the assets within the city and in our communities. This includes buildings
and other physical assets such as parks and open spaces, as well as less tangible but
equally significant assets such as ‘community spirit’, volunteering and people’s willingness
to come together on shared issues. There is growing evidence that asset-based
approaches could help us to develop and implement ways of working. We are already
working with our communities to look at what support is required to harness this potential
and to ultimately try to mitigate the impact of our proposals.
5
Making fair decisions
We have used a tool called an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) to assess the potential
effects of our budget proposals. This requires us to consider issues relating to different
groups, community cohesion, human rights, well-being and health, socio-economic
circumstances and the environment as part of the budget process so we can make fair
decisions. The IIAs help councillors to debate issues, review decisions, consider the
viability of alternatives and think about potential mitigating measures to ensure that legal
duties have been met and our decisions are fair.
Our budget sets out 85 proposals under 14 programme areas. IIAs have been carried out
for all budget proposals to help us identify potential impacts and enable more detailed
assessments to be undertaken. They used all available evidence, including consultation
feedback, to understand where groups or communities could be disproportionally affected.
They look at how individual proposals relate to one another and consider how a series of
proposed changes could impact cumulatively on particular groups of people and
communities of interest, identity and geography.
IIAs are living documents that change and are updated as the equality implications of a
decision and any alternative options or proposals are considered. We also look at how
individual IIAs relate to one another and consider areas where a series of proposed
changes could have a cumulative impact on particular groups or communities. We accept
that in these times of austerity we can’t avoid all possible impacts of our proposals.
However, it’s important to understand these cumulative impacts so that we can consider
potential mitigations in the areas where impact may be most significant.
As our IIAs have developed we have also been able to identify cross-cutting issues and
potential cumulative impacts. Feedback received through our consultation with residents,
stakeholders and service users has enabled us to build upon this analysis and has helped
us mitigate negative impacts or change our proposals. This report provides an overview on
what our analysis is telling us, highlights emerging themes that may have a wider impact on
communities and outlines the steps that we are taking to lessen or remove potential
impacts.
We decided to undertake a three-year budget to enable us plan the future of our services in
a longer-term, more sustainable way. We are only legally setting a one-year budget.
Proposals for years two and three will continue to evolve in response to ongoing
consultation, the changing financial situation, and our analysis of need. This report
describes what we believe the impacts could look like by 2016, but we will review our
position this time next year. This will allow us to take account of the actual impacts of year
one changes, and will help inform the council’s future decisions to ensure these remain fair
choices for tough times.
Fairness test
The recommendations of the Newcastle Fairness Commission underpin the Integrated
Impact Assessment process. Importantly, the Commission noted that making tough
decisions with shrinking resources is not in itself unfair – the purpose of the IIA is not to
challenge every difficult decision, but to ensure the process we go through is fair. To ensure
6
fairness, the IIA fits with the four of dimensions of fairness set out in the Fairness
Commission report:
•
Fair Share: where people can expect fair outcomes a fair share of services, according to
their needs.
•
Fair Play: where people can have confidence that decisions are made in an evenhanded, open and transparent manner, according to evidence.
•
Fair Go: where people have opportunities to participate, and a chance to fulfil their
aspirations for the future.
•
Fair Say: where people feel included in their city, communities and neighbourhoods,
given fair hearing and an effective voice in decision making.
2. Knowing your city - Newcastle now and in 2016
To understand the potential cumulative impact of our budget proposals on the people of
Newcastle as a whole and on particular parts of the population, it is important to understand
the context of key aspects of the city as it is now, and how we project it will be in 2016. We
have detailed information available in the ‘Know your city: a profile of Newcastle’s people’
part of the Newcastle Future Needs Assessment (NFNA) which helps to inform this.
A summary of the information relevant to assessing the impact of the budget is set out
below. More detailed context is also provided in each specific section of this report.
Social and economic circumstances
We know that poor social and economic circumstances have adverse impacts on people
and that socio-economic inequality is the main cause of social disadvantage in Newcastle.
This is why we committed to take forward the socio-economic duty and adopted the
principle of routinely including a socio-economic impact assessment in our key decision
making.
It is important to look in general terms at what the social and economic circumstances are
and how this might be impacted by any changes to or reductions in our services.
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) provides a picture of relative wealth and deprivation
in context to all other areas in the country. The IMD looks at 38 factors grouped under the
headings of income, employment, health, education, crime, access to services and living
environment. The latest IMD was published in 2010.
The IMD ranks Newcastle as the 40th most deprived local authority in the country.
Newcastle shows some major variations between affluent and deprived areas. Areas in the
most 10% deprived in the country are concentrated in Byker, Walker and Walkergate in the
east; Benwell and Scotswood and Elswick in the west and Kenton in the north. Over 72,000
people in Newcastle live in areas that are among the 10% most deprived in the country.
The map below shows the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation by small areas.
7
Newcastle and the North-East have long suffered from comparatively high rates of
unemployment. The North-East unemployment rate was above the national average before
the 2008 downturn and remains higher than other parts of the UK. The current UK
unemployment rate is 7.8% and the North-East unemployment rate is 9.5%, the highest of
any region in the UK. Survey data at a local authority level is slightly lagging. It shows that
in June 2012, unemployment in Newcastle was 10.6%. In the latest 2012 Residents’ Survey
responses further highlight the nature of the current economic situation: 65% of people
reported having experienced at least one adverse impact because of the economic climate,
ranging from being unable to afford a holiday to difficulty buying food and reliance on high
interest money lenders. 33% thought their personal financial circumstances would get
worse over the next 12 months.
In addition, since 2008 there has been a large increase in under-employment – more then
10% of people in the North-East who are working want to work more hours. Although
employment levels have recently stabilised, forecasts suggest that Newcastle is likely to
see close to double-digit unemployment rates into 2015. Good quality jobs, where people
feel secure in their employment and can put down roots in their local community, are the
best way of ensuring people have dignity, self-respect and hope for the future. More people
in work also mean fewer community tensions, fewer health and social problems, less crime,
and greater resilience of individuals and communities. Together, these factors will help
protect people and communities against potential or actual socio-economic disadvantage.
8
NFNA shows that Newcastle has a higher than average public sector employment rate but
a significantly lower than average private sector employment rate. Newcastle also has a
lower concentration of VAT/PAYE registered businesses than the national average. This
could mean the city’s economy could take some time to compensate for the public sector
jobs that are now being lost because any expansion of private sector employment will have
to start from a lower base than in many cities or city-regions.
Well-being and health
People’s well-being and health is influenced by a wide range of economic, social and
environmental factors. We as individuals cannot always control them and they influence
and often constrain the ‘choices' we make and the lifestyle we lead.
The wider determinants of health include the social, economic and environmental
conditions that influence the health of individuals and populations. They cover the
conditions of daily life and the structural influences on them, themselves shaped by the
distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. They
determine the extent to which a person has the right physical, social and personal
resources to achieve their goals, meet needs and deal with changes to their circumstances.
There is a clear link between the social determinants of health and health inequalities.
Low income, inappropriate housing, unsafe workplaces and poor access to healthcare are
some of the factors that affect the health of individuals and communities. Where possible
we considered the inter-relationship between people and these wider determinants of
health when exploring the potential for cumulative impacts arising from the budget
proposals. These can be found in more detail in the individual IIA documents and within this
report.
3. People protected under the public sector equality duty
Our analysis of the potential impacts of all of our budget proposals has shown that there
may be some cumulative impacts on the following groups of people with protected
characteristics.
Age
Children and young people
The number of children aged 0-14 will continue to increase by a further 7% to 2016. In
Newcastle in 2010, 29.9% of children in Newcastle, aged under 16, live in poverty
compared with 31.4% in 2009. The geographical range between wards is from 3.5% to
54.1%. Wards with the highest number of children living in poverty include Walker 1,445,
Byker 1,370, Elswick 1,250, Benwell and Scotswood 1,100, Kenton 955 with localized child
poverty “hot spots” (60%+) in parts of Benwell and Scotswood, Lemington, Wingrove and
Kenton. Children of lone parents, disabled children and those from certain (but not all) BME
backgrounds are at a greater risk of living in poverty.
9
Continued economic and social pressures on children, young people and families, including
the impact of the recession and welfare benefit cuts, are likely to continue to put pressure
on the city’s support services.
In recent years, we have worked with partners to develop better and earlier types of help
and services to support children, young people and families to prevent their needs from
escalating. We ensured that all children and young people in the city have access to the
widest range of opportunities to achieve their potential. Increasingly, as resources reduce,
we will be targeting our resources on the most vulnerable children and families.
Our budget proposals will impact directly on children and young people, on those services
specifically designed and targeted for them and those more generally available. Services
that support children and young people with specific needs will be reduced, and there will
be fewer opportunities for all children and young people to access as wide a range of
opportunities and activities within their own communities. Engagement of children and
young people in decision making at service and community level is also likely to decrease.
However, the council has now adopted the Newcastle Children’s Rights Charter which
guarantees a strong voice for children and young people in the delivery of services in the
future.
A reduction in the range and availability of positive opportunities and activities for young
people may impact on their life chances and aspirations. It could lead to worsening health
outcomes and inequalities (such as obesity or alcohol and drug misuse or sexual health
and teenage pregnancy), social outcomes (such as involvement in crime or anti-social
behaviour) and economic outcomes (such as engagement in education, training or
employment). The proposals that are most likely to impact on young people are: the
reductions in or closure of youth, libraries, sports, leisure, arts and cultural activities and
facilities; reduced early intervention around community safety, school attendance and antisocial behaviour; and reduced access to free home to school travel, apprenticeships and
Connexions support.
Although we have tried to protect these types of services there is a risk that reductions in
services that support early identification of needs and interventions to prevent issues
escalating will lead to increased demand for higher level, intensive and more costly
specialist services. These proposals include the reduction in homelessness prevention,
despite increased demand from numbers of young people facing homelessness in recent
years and government plans to cut housing benefit to under 25s. There will potentially be
reductions in Sure Start Children Centres by 2015/16, where parents can currently access
integrated health, parenting, education and employment support and the educational
psychology service. This will reduce support for pre-school children and may increase
pressure on specialist mental health services; reductions in advice and guidance provided
through youth services.
The proposed reduction in free, readily accessible, local services and support for families
with younger children, including Sure Start Children’s Centres, may lead to worse wellbeing and health outcomes (such as increased obesity, reduced opportunities for
socialisation). It could possibly increase safeguarding risks as there could be fewer safe
supervised local places to play. There may be reduced support for families to learn
parenting skills; and fewer educational and aspirational opportunities.
10
These opportunities will be affected by the closures of services in local communities that
offer free or very low cost services to families, such as libraries, leisure centres, and
swimming pools. Reduced funding to arts and cultural organisations could lead to the end
of some organisations and activities or mean that charges increase and become accessible
only to those who can afford them. Reduced maintenance for parks and playgrounds,
including potential non-replacement of damaged play equipment and closure of open
access play provision will result in fewer opportunities to play and socialise.
However, although there may be fewer libraries, leisure centres and swimming pools there
will still be a core offer of services in the city. Where some services are no longer directly
provided by the council we hope that partnership and community initiatives will be able to
provide these types of services. Skills and expertise will still exist to address health
inequalities such as obesity albeit on a reduced basis. We will work with local sports groups
and community groups to provide extra capacity for activities. We will continue to work hard
with partners such as the PCT to ensure health inequalities are addressed through
programmes of physical activity.
Although we will no longer directly provide youth services, we will retain our £4m
programme of youth services over the next three years commissioned from other
organisations. This targeted programme will be developed in partnership with young
people, neighbourhood projects and local community providers to ensure that young
people's needs are met and they are supported to achieve their full potential.
Older people
Office for National Statistics projections show the number of people aged over 65 will
increase both absolutely and as a proportion of the population by 2016. From 2012 to 2016
it is projected there will be an increase of 6.7% (40,100 to 42,800) in the over 65s.
People in later life are more likely to rely, to some extent, on council services both citywide
and where they live. They may be more vulnerable than the population as a whole to
reductions in those services. This vulnerability could be made worse if older people also
suffer from poor social and economic circumstances.
11
The map below shows where people aged over 65 live:
The number of people aged 65 and over predicted to be unable to manage at least one
activity on their own in 2011 was 8,147, increasing over the short term to around 8,500 by
2016 and continuing to over 10,700 by 2030. By 2030, 40% of these will be aged 85 and
over.
The ageing population and the rising cost of social care means many of our proposals could
impact on care services for older people. The council’s budget proposals give greater
financial protection to those social care services which support vulnerable people. Although
allowances have been made for many of the cost pressures we face the scale of the
government cuts means that reductions must be made to those services too.
Social care services from the council will be re-shaped over the next three years to ensure
the most vulnerable people continue to be supported. In terms of specialist housing for
older people we propose increasing the scale and diversity of provision through another
extra care scheme for rent (40 + units), two Assisted Living schemes (extra care to buy on a
long lease, 100 units) and purpose built housing for people with dementia developed by a
charitable organisation.
However, eligibility criteria for social care services may have to be tightened. This would
mean council staff focusing on people with the greatest need. If there is no extra
Government funding support by 2016, care budgets may only be available to those people
whose care needs are assessed as ‘Critical’ under the Fair Access to Care Services
(FACS) guidance. This would mean people currently receiving support from Adult Services,
12
that is, those who have ‘Substantial’ care needs (less needs than ‘Critical’) would no longer
receive care from the council.
Changing the eligibility criteria for social care to meeting only ‘Critical’ need would be a
huge cultural shift for Newcastle, and we plan to do everything that we can to avoid these
particularly damaging cuts. Using the definitions of ‘Critical’ and ‘Substantial’ from the FACS
guidance, not providing services to people with ‘Substantial’ need, would mean not
providing services to people who still have considerable social care needs. This would
mean that although our social workers will continue to assess people’s support needs, they
will only be able to help people with ‘Substantial’ needs identify what their needs are and
what support would help. People will then need to arrange to get those services from
elsewhere. We will continue to review our budget after the government’s spending review
has fully reported and we know the consequences for us. We plan to consult on a full 3 year
budget for 2015-2018. This longer-term planning cycle will help us maximise the
opportunities to avoid the most damaging cuts and invest where we can for the future.
Where alternative arrangements are being implemented there is potential for an adverse
short-term impact on emotional and mental well-being and possible deterioration of existing
physical ill-health. Any increases in charges for social care and narrowing eligibility are
likely to impact on emotional well-being, by raising levels of anxiety and stress about the
ability to afford these services. Also, the likely reduction in the number of people receiving
social care support may impact on physical and emotional well-being.
Access to services and the environment
Older people are also likely to be affected by proposals to reduce the number of libraries,
leisure centres, swimming pools and customer service centres. Many older people prefer to
use council services or seek advice on a face-to-face basis. The proposed re-design of the
Customer Service Centres will mean some older people having to travel further to use this
service at an alternative centre. Similarly, using an alternative library becomes more difficult
mainly because of travel. There will potentially be less capacity to deliver programmes
within remaining libraries of ICT support and guidance that support older people to become
digitally aware as access to services are increasingly becoming available on-line.
Although there will be fewer libraries, the home delivery service will be maintained and
electronic access channels improved and promoted. Work on digital inclusion will help
support older people to use electronic services to ensure they can access them.
Dedicated leisure, fitness and lifestyle support for older people could also reduce. This
includes swimming classes and fitness activities specifically for older people to help them
keep active and fit. However, keeping older people fit and active will be a key consideration
in our leisure provision. We will continue to support health and fitness initiatives for older
people prioritised by need. These activities are not tied to leisure facilities specifically, and
can be delivered from community buildings across the city.
The transfer of public health responsibilities from the Primary Care Trust to the council from
April 2013 will give us an opportunity to tackle the root causes of health inequalities. As well
as commissioning public health services, we will look to provide additional grants for
voluntary and community sector organisations through the Newcastle Fund, and provide
additional support for sport and leisure activities where there is a clear public health benefit.
13
Getting around the city could become more difficult for older people and increase the risk of
isolation. This is for several reasons. Less winter maintenance, like snow clearance, could
put older people off from going out or services reaching them. We will continue to grit all
priority routes during bad weather. Less planned maintenance of pavements and roads
could mean more defects resulting in more slips, trips and falls. Results from the Residents’
survey show that older people are the most likely group to be concerned about the state of
roads and pavements. We have secured capital investment in our roads and pavements
over the next three years to continue a good level of maintenance, and will work with the
Elders Council to identify where older people live and visit in order that maintenance in
these areas can be targeted.
The move to weekly alternating bin collections will mean that bins are heavier and present
more of a challenge to some older people to put them out on collection days. However, we
will continue to provide our assisted bin lift scheme to help those who need it. The focus on
enabling older people to continue living at home while positive, could increase the potential
negative impact of some of these changes if there is less support available.
We are putting in place extra arrangements to mitigate any potential negative impacts as far
as possible. The ‘Chain Reaction’ initiative aims to reduce social exclusion and maximise
independence by encouraging and supporting older people to use resources in their
communities to meet their social care needs. Investment in specialist housing for older
people will increase choice of accommodation and care.
We will focus on developing preventative services to reduce demand for care and enable
people to support themselves more effectively, underpinned by proven assistive
technology. We will take a fair and balanced approach to charging for services where we
have to, so only those who can afford to contribute are asked to do so.
We will work with our partners, particularly the NHS, through the Wellbeing for Life Board to
improve the effectiveness of the whole care system in Newcastle. We will also look at how
we can move towards a cooperative, community led approach to providing some services.
This has the potential to increase flexibility, innovation and efficiency while ensuring the
needs of service users are the primary driver of provision. However, the ability of the
voluntary and community sector to support this transition will need to be carefully assessed
given the pressure this sector faces overall.
Disability
Disabled children
As well as the general impacts on children, young people and families, there are further
potential issues for families with disabled children, alongside changes to welfare reform.
There will be increased challenges for disabled young adults with the transition in support
between Children’s and Adults Services, if the eligibility criteria for adult social care support
are revised, including changes to providing integrated assisted living equipment and aids.
There is a potential change to the leisure offer across the city, including specialist and
inclusive programmes for disabled young people. Our leisure services programmes will be
targeted at those with greatest need. There will be changes to home to school transport for
14
some children with additional needs. Peer mentoring schemes will be developed to support
pupils with disabilities travelling independently to school. There will also be reduced holiday
play provision for disabled children.
Disabled adults
Although overall numbers of people with a limiting health problem or disability has reduced
since 2001, Newcastle still has a higher then average level. 18.7% of people have a longterm health problem or disability that limits their day-to-day activity to some degree, which
has reduced from 21.6% in 2001. Of the 18.7%, just over half are limited ‘a lot’ (26,661
people) and the rest ‘a little’ (25,916). Also, half are aged between 16 and 64 years.
The number of people aged 65 and over predicted to be unable to manage at least one
activity on their own in 2011 was 8,147, increasing over the short term to around 8,500 by
2016 and continuing to over 10,700 by 2030. By 2030, 40% of these will be aged 85 and
over. As people get older, they are more likely to become disabled or to need higher levels
of support.
Budget reductions and the rising cost of social care, means that many of our proposals
could impact on the care available for disabled people. As explained in the section on older
people, changing the eligibility criteria for social care, to meeting only ‘Critical’ need would
be a major change for Newcastle City Council.
Disabled people with ‘Substantial’ needs would still have significant social care needs,
which the council would no longer meet. This will place demands on disabled people
themselves, their families and the community.
Changes in arrangements for care at home and introduction of charging for the ‘personal
care’ elements of Reablement, may reduce take-up. The council proposes increasing or
removing altogether, the maximum charge for social care services. This, with the plan to
reduce people’s Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) allowance, will mean higher costs for
disabled people who receive social care services from the council.
The changes described, may increase the impact on carers who may have to take on more
responsibility for care needs.
The Personalised approach to care and support is to design services around people’s
needs and the way they want to live. Increasingly, social care will be arranged through
personal budgets, which enable disabled people to buy their own care and support
services. However, the current economic climate could mean increased charges for all care
services, and the Government’s national Welfare Reforms may reduce people’s income and
their ability to pay for care and recreational activities.
As the council provides more services online, for example, by the internet, some people
with disabilities may not be able to use them although this could improve service provision
for others. This may be made worse by library closures, which provide internet access and
support for many people. We will retain internet access in our core library network and
customer service centres.
15
Travel around the city could become more difficult for disabled people and could mean they
become more isolated. Reducing planned maintenance of pavements and roads could
mean more defects resulting in more slips, trips and falls. Reducing grounds maintenance
and street cleansing may also mean an increase in litter and fly tipping, which could affect
mobility. The move to weekly alternating bin collections will mean that bins are heavier and
it could be more difficult for some disabled people to put them out on collection days. To
address we have secured capital investment in our roads and pavements over the next
three years to continue a good level of maintenance and the council will work hard to look
at alternative funding models for the future. We will also maintain our assisted bin lift
scheme to help those who need it.
Proposals to reduce the number of leisure centres and swimming pools will also impact on
disabled people. Using an alternative service may be more difficult. But the focus of the
revised service will be to focus on health inequality. There may be opportunities to use
public health funding to support localised health initiatives as we review how we
commission for public health in 2013-14.
The proposed changes to Customer Service Centres will mean some disabled people have
to travel further to use this service at alternative centres. Less winter maintenance of
footpaths and roads could deter disabled people from going out or services reaching them.
We will continue to grit priority routes.
However, the council is committed to supporting all residents to lead independent and
active lives. It recognises that disabled people can face extra challenges to leading
independent lives, in housing, employment and in their social lives. We expect a positive
impact for disabled people will come from our proposal for new housing models for people
with a disability. The council will invest in alternative housing models for adults with learning
and/or physical disabilities in Newcastle, to promote their independence and reduce social
care costs. The supported employment scheme in Newcastle, which supports people with
disabilities in finding and keeping jobs, will continue and develop.
The council proposes changing the equipment services into a new integrated assisted living
equipment, aids and adaptation service. The council will work with Community Health
services to create an integrated service. There will be a review of the equipment provided
and of staff roles to remove duplication, and create a streamlined service.
Carers
9.2% of people provide some kind of unpaid care each week, compared with 10.1% in 2001
(around 450 more people). The highest numbers of unpaid carers are found in some of
Newcastle’s more deprived wards. This data reflects regional evidence suggesting that
carers who provide 20 or more hours of care per week were considerably more likely to live
in Social Housing; live in a household with no working adult; and live in a household with a
person with a limiting long-term illness (LLTI).
Older carers are some of the poorest people in the UK and are most likely to be managing
alone. Around 13% of carers in Newcastle upon Tyne are aged 60 and over. We know
about the needs of carers of older people because of the statutory duty to survey residents
who have home care services. A key gap in knowledge is our understanding of the needs of
16
carers form black and ethnic minorities, working carers, emerging/refugee communities;
carers who have a disability themselves; carers who live in poverty and same sex
partnership carers
The 2001 Census identified 475 young carers in Newcastle under 16 giving 1–50+ hours of
care per week. This figure increases with the inclusion of 17-18 year olds. However,
extrapolating from national figures suggests there are between 1,200 and 2,000 young
carers in Newcastle.
The contextual information provided under Newcastle now and in 2016 above shows the
number of people in Newcastle that may have unpaid caring responsibilities. The potential
impacts of our budget on both children and adults either as carers or as the recipients of
care are summarised below.
Carers of children
The cumulative impact of the proposals will be felt significantly by parents with childcare
responsibilities. Many of these are the same issues as those described in the section on
children and young people. Closure of a number of facilities and/ or reduction in
maintenance means fewer safe, local places for children to play. There will be increased
travel costs and reliance on public transport as fewer facilities will be within walking
distance. There is the potential for increased costs or reduced access to activities such as
play, leisure, arts and museums that used to be free or low cost. These may place strain on
vulnerable families who are also likely to have reducing opportunities to access support in
their local communities. Parents who need support to develop effective parenting skills may
find it more difficult to access support when it’s needed, due to reductions in Sure Start
Children’s Centres and family support services. In general, there will be less contact with
the council in local communities which may mean that issues and problems are not
identified and referred early.
For parents with disabled children, these problems are compounded as for example,
childcare costs tend to be more expensive than for non-disabled children and there is less
choice overall as not all settings or activities are inclusive or provided for children with
disabilities. This is why we are protecting the Cheviot View short break care centre for
2013-14 while we explore options for sustaining the services it provides.
There is no change to the commissioned service that works directly with young carers, as a
result of the budget proposals. But young carers may be more impacted by the budget than
other young people, due to their increased vulnerability. For example, some may no longer
receive direct support if they do not meet the revised vulnerability criteria for the targeted
service. A reduction in activities in their local area may hit young carers harder as they may
not have enough free time or money to travel further afield to access alternatives. The
refocused Attendance Service will have less capacity for support and intervention and there
is a risk that parents of young carers may face legal proceedings at an earlier stage for their
child’s non-attendance. We will work with schools to identify any young carers with
attendance issues and provide appropriate support directly.
17
Carers of adults
Carers play a vital role in supporting older and disabled people. Council services in turn
support many of them either directly or indirectly, and any change to these services will
impact on carers to some extent, even if only to cause uncertainty and anxiety. Potential
continuing reductions in support levels are very likely to increase the time and commitment
demands on carers.
Not all proposals, however, will have an adverse impact. For example, our proposed new
housing model for learning and physical disability will prevent out of area placements that
put strain on relationships, and help reduce the stress experienced by carers trying to
provide care at home. The new contractual arrangements for learning disability will reduce
some strain on carers by providing appropriate services to support home care. Proposed
specialist housing for older people could have similar benefits in improved support. Carers
could also benefit from stakeholder involvement in the governance and design of services
for the potential social enterprise for adult social care delivery.
The impact of some changes is uncertain – the “chain reaction” approach to provision of
care may be uncomfortable for carers who prefer a traditional building based approach, but
others may prefer the alternative.
Nevertheless, many changes are likely to have a negative impact on carers, and often
these impacts will be compounded by the impacts of welfare reform and the fact the highest
numbers of unpaid carers are found in some of Newcastle’s more deprived wards. The
potential for the removal of services for people with ‘Substantial’ needs would have a
significant impact on their carers.
Reductions in assisted living equipment, aids and adaptations will reduce the preventive
benefits of these services and lead to some people progressing to require a community
care assessment as their needs escalate. On the other hand, a more streamlined and
efficient service should make it easier for older people and their carers to get the right
information, advice and support.
The introduction of charging for elements of the Reablement services may place them out
of the reach of some service users and place extra strain on carers, particularly when the
carers’ own financial circumstances may also be constrained.
Gender
Cumulative impact on women
In the UK today, economic inequality between women and men remains persistent and
entrenched. In general, women earn less, own less and are more likely to live in poverty
than men.
There is a range of national-level information which applies to women in Newcastle, with
some locally more specific data already available.
Public sector job losses will impact heavily on women in the north-east, as 46% of women
work in public sector occupations – one of the highest percentages in any region of the UK.
18
Women are more likely than men to work part-time, particularly if they have dependent
children. In Newcastle 41.4% of females are in part-time work compared to 17.8% of males
(Annual Population Survey, September 2012). Nationally, women account for 54% of the
1.4 million workers on temporary contracts, making them more vulnerable to
unemployment.
The number of women claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance nationally has risen to 474,000, the
highest number for 15 years. BME women are more likely to be unemployed than BME men
and white women – 52.8% of ethnic minority women are unemployed.
Lone mothers are less likely to be in employment than married or cohabiting mothers. 30%
of disabled lone mothers are in employment, compared to 65% of non-disabled lone
mothers.
We know that many public services are vital in mitigating gender inequalities that exist in
families, communities, employment and the wider economy. Reducing funding for these
services therefore increases the risk of a widening inequality between men and women.
Impacts relating to welfare reform
Welfare reform is considered in more detail later in this report, with a wide range of potential
negative impacts on households, families and people who rely to a greater or lesser extent
on welfare payments. Evidence nationally shows that in many such cases, the burden of
managing finances falls on women, and women already experiencing the effects of
deprivation are likely to be harder hit.
Impacts relating to deprivation
We know the city has 20,000 children (or 34% of families with dependent children) who
receive means-tested child and working families tax credit, both of which are set for real
terms cuts in the next few years.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that, locally, many people, who are working often part-time,
are using pay day loans as informal overdrafts. Many are then struggling to repay charges
for loans, leading to increasing shortfalls, month on month. Those people with low incomes
or poor credit ratings often turn to money lenders or ‘loan sharks’ for extra money. They are
then charged very high rates of interest and are often unable to pay back the money.
Information provided by the national Illegal Money Team shows that 85% of those who
approach loan sharks have received benefits, with most victims (74%) being women. These
women often report that they needed the money to pay for food, clothes or toys for their
children.
More and more families are finding it difficult to manage in the current economic climate.
Evidence tells us that mothers are going without food so their children can eat. Newcastle
Council for Voluntary Services has reported there has been a dramatic increase in the use
of food banks in Newcastle.
The food banks have found that an increasing number of working people on low incomes
are accessing their service, with demand rising over the summer period. This is potentially
19
because of parents struggling to feed their children in the school holidays who would
normally eat free school meals during term-time.
We have continued to invest in our Welfare Rights and Crisis Response services even
though they are not statutory services in order to support people in times of need.
Impacts relating to caring responsibilities
Women have a 50:50 likelihood of having substantial caring responsibilities before they are
59. Men reach this point at 79. Of course, many women have primary caring responsibility
for their children, and sometimes other children in the extended family, at a much younger
age. 12.5 – 15% of women in the UK provide informal care to an elderly person. Research
finds the main reasons for the higher numbers of female informal carers are traditional
expectations of women’s role and the lower level of participation of women in the labour
market.
Sure Start Children’s Centres are open to all children and parents and offer free and low
cost services including early education, health and family support services and advice on
training and job opportunities. The Centres also offer affordable childcare. This provision
has been crucial in enabling women to combine work and childcare responsibilities. Both in
Newcastle and nationally the overall majority of users of the Centres are women.
Funding for these centres was traditionally ‘ring fenced’, as part of the government funding.
This funding has now been merged into the new Early Intervention Grant (EIG), which also
provides funding for teenage pregnancy, mental health and youth crime programmes. EIG
funding also has to be used to fund new government commitments to nursery places ready
for introducing the ‘two year old’ offer. There has been an overall cut in this funding in real
terms of 25% over the last few years. The combined effect of these changes for
Newcastle’s EIG has seen the money available significantly reduce from £14.9m in 2012/13
to £10.6m in 2013-14.
Because of this we are will have to reduce services offered by our Sure Start Centres.
Newcastle’s Centres mainly provide support to those children and families with low
incomes, any reduction of services will hit the poorest the hardest. By 2016 we may have to
reduce service support or close many of our Centres across the city. We will continue to
resist these cuts, and do all we can to avoid them taking effect.
These cuts would impact on women’s ability to combine work and family life. Women who
cannot meet higher private childcare costs or for whom the alternatives to the Sure Start
centre are not suitable would face the possibility of having to leave the labour market to
look after their children. This could potentially also have a negative impact on Newcastle’s
businesses through higher staff turnover or unavailability of appropriate employees.
20
Impacts relating to age and gender
Newcastle mirrors the national picture of life expectancy difference between genders, with
men having a life expectancy at birth of 76.8 years and women 81.1. For both genders,
there is a wide disparity between more deprived and better-off areas, with the range for
men being 70 to 84 years, and women 76 to 87. Current projections show that by 2016
there will be nearly 43,000 over 65s in the city, with 4,000 more women than men.
In Newcastle over 65s are more likely to need some element of support to live their lives. In
2012, there were 9,152 clients of adult social services, 3,511 were male and 5,641 were
female.
In Newcastle females at age16 have a disability free life expectancy of 46 years compared
to the national average of 50 years. This means that women in Newcastle have 3.8 years
less disability free life expectancy than the England average. In addition women in more
deprived areas not only have shorter lives, but spend a higher proportion of years living with
a disability. Evidence suggests the disability life expectancy between women who live in the
most and least disadvantaged areas is 13.3 years. There are more women living in lowincome households than men across the city.
The overall effect of the combination of age, disability and deprivation means that changes
to support services, particularly social care, could increasingly impact disproportionately on
women by 2016. However, we will still increase the proportion of our net budget devoted to
social care and will consider how innovative changes in local arrangements can contribute
to securing a more sustainable future.
Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities
Newcastle has become a more ethnically diverse place compared to 10 years ago, 14.7%
are non-white compared with 6.9% in 2001, equivalent to 40,644 people. This diversity is
likely to continue to increase in the short and medium term. School Census data shows that
the proportion of black and minority ethnic (BME) children is much higher than for adults,
and continues to rise. In 2012 BME children accounted for 23% of the school population; in
2007 the figure was 16%.
It may also be significant that BME communities tend to form a higher proportion of the
population in some of the most deprived areas of the city, and may therefore be more
vulnerable to reductions in some of our services.
21
However, based on our engagement feedback and research, there is no evidence to
suggest that our proposals will have a disproportionately negative cumulative impact on
people because of their ethnicity, rather than because of where they live. Specific impacts
we have identified include:
•
•
Barriers to accessing information and services digitally (lower levels of literacy in
English)
Reduction/removal of tailored services to meet user needs
We will continue to review the potential impacts of our budget on BME people as it
becomes clearer which services we will continue to be able to deliver in different parts of
city. This review will also take into account progress on working with communities so that
they can take a greater role in determining their own future and services, and on
transferring appropriate assets to the ownership and management of communities.
Lesbian, Gay or Bi-sexual (LGB)
No full survey or census has yet been undertaken on this, but the Government estimates
that 5-7% of the population are Lesbian, Gay or Bi-sexual. This would equate to between
13,500 and 18,900 people in Newcastle, but as the estimates are based on those who feel
comfortable disclosing their sexual orientation the actual figure may be higher. Our
engagement feedback and research doesn’t suggest, at this stage, that our budget would
have a disproportionately cumulative negative impact on people because of their sexual
orientation specifically. We will continue to review this evidence over the next year. We do
recognise the loss of services affects whole communities.
22
4. Socio-economic impacts
The levels of deprivation that affect some parts of Newcastle result in profound inequalities
of opportunity and life experience for the people of the city. Working to change some of the
social and economic factors that combine to cause deprivation represents the most
significant challenge the council and our partners face. The changes we are being forced to
make in response to funding reductions make the challenge even more difficult. This is
compounded by the effects of government economic policy and the national as well local
economic situation on people.
Almost any change to a council service will have some socio-economic impact. This is
because of the nature of our responsibilities and the extent to which the more deprived
communities and more vulnerable people in the city rely on our services.
To understand the overall cumulative impact of the decisions we take we need to consider
the wider impacts on people who are likely to be particularly vulnerable to socio-economic
disadvantage because of government policy changes. We also need to consider how our
budget proposals might relate to these impacts.
Our budget proposals could also impact on organisations active in the city as well as
directly on people. These organisations might be our partners, working with us to try to
improve outcomes, despite the financial pressures we face, or they might be users of our
services themselves. In either case, any negative impact on an organisation or group of
organisations is also likely to have some impact on people, for example, changes or
reductions in services or potentially further loss of employment and opportunities.
We have tried to consider the inter-relationships between these wider socio-economic
impacts, and their possible implications, on businesses, the voluntary and community
sector, and Newcastle schools as well as on groups of people.
Whilst we face some tough decisions about cuts to services, we’ll still be doing our bit to
invest in the jobs and infrastructure our city needs to be ambitious and lead the region’s
economic recovery. Our capital spending plan for the next three years will see millions
invested in our city which will play an important role in improving economic opportunities
across all parts of Newcastle.
This will provide an important economic stimulus, making a significant contribution to
Newcastle’s economic recovery. We estimate that the programme will directly support
around 2,500 jobs, at a time when construction output has been falling more steeply in the
North East than in any other region. Taking into account the wider impact on the economy –
through supply chains and consumer expenditure – our investment will stimulate an overall
increase in the economy of around £1bn, in Newcastle and across the wider region.
23
Welfare Reform – national context and local impacts
Government is implementing profound changes to the tax and benefit system. We estimate
that Government’s welfare reform programme will impact on around 27,000 households in
Newcastle and remove around £80 million a year from the local economy. This does not
include the added freeze announced as part of the Chancellor’s 2012 Autumn Statement.
At first, changes to welfare are likely to mean that residents will find the new system more
complex and remote. There will also be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ as exceptions and other
benefits will remain. This could result in complications and requests for help and advice to
understand this new system and to ensure correct entitlement.
Government changes include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Council Tax support
Employment and Support Allowance
Introduction of Personal Independence Payments (PIP).
Housing Benefit
Introduction of Universal Credit
New schemes for Crisis Loans and Community Care Grants.
Responding to welfare cuts and supporting those in crisis
The council provides both directly delivered and commissioned services for people who
face financial and social exclusion and the risk of homelessness. These services currently
help over 13,000 people per year. These are people who have suffered disadvantage, for
example job loss, or those who are vulnerable such as lone parents, workless households
and unemployed, sick and disabled people and younger people. It includes those in social
housing, people who have left education early, people with complex needs, and those who
face multiple-exclusion.
Some groups may be particularly disadvantaged because of the combined effect of the
reductions in housing entitlement and changing nature of support available as funding
reduces. Reducing Housing Benefit entitlement available for younger people may result in
them being unable to find affordable properties and increase their risk of becoming
homeless. Nearly half of homelessness services (44%) and councils (48%) have seen an
increase in younger people seeking help because they are homeless or are at risk of
becoming homeless. This may also have a greater impact on some groups such as young
lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people who because of their sexual orientation and/or
gender identity are often unable to remain in the family home.
Worry caused by financial and/or housing problems can have a significant impact on
people’s lives which can lead to stress, depression and anxiety. We recognise that there is
a potential that reducing services, when demand remains high, could worsen the risk of
mental health problems for some. Homeless people experience some of the poorest health
in our communities; 8 out of 10 have one or more physical conditions, 7 out of 10 have a
mental health problem.
24
Our Crisis Response budget workstream builds on the work of the Active Inclusion
Newcastle project. We propose developing a delivery model to provide the foundations for
stability – an income, somewhere to live, freedom from excessive debt, and employment
opportunities. This will be based on an understanding of the pathways into crises and work
with partners to demonstrably support those who suffer poverty related disadvantage and
unfairness. This will link housing related support and housing and money advice to support
the most vulnerable of people and families. We will support people at risk of becoming
homeless by providing them with advice and assistance, accommodating those who are in
priority need, and helping those who aren’t in priority need to secure accommodation and
other support services. Where possible we will continue to support specialist services which
provide support to those groups most at risk of homelessness, such as young LGBT
people. However, there will be a continuing reduction in our ability to do this, which in turn
may limit the range of options available for us to signpost people to in the future.
Over the next year there will be a reduction in the council’s welfare rights service and that of
VCS partners. However, we recognise its key role in mitigating the impacts of other
reductions and have protected it as much as possible. This means there will be less council
support available to provide income maximisation and debt advice. Over the last year this
service helped people claim almost £20 million in benefits and other income entitlements.
Changes to welfare reform and a reduction in services is likely to mean that more
vulnerable people may wait longer to access face-to-face or telephone support. We
anticipate demand for advice and support to grow as the changes to the benefits system
are implemented, and Legal Aid funding is cut. The focus of the service will have to be on
people with greater levels of need, on emergency response, and avoiding repeat episodes
of crisis. Prevention and advice services for people who do not meet our priority categories
will inevitably have a lower priority and could be referred to a partner organisation for
advice.
It is vital we continue to help people understand their full entitlement to benefits; therefore
we plan to help to mitigate some of these impacts by building on successful collaborative
working arrangements with other advice providers.
This multi-agency approach has led to more people being able to access affordable credit
through agencies such as the MoneyWise Credit Union. This sort of approach is likely to
become more important as the cumulative impact of changes to the welfare system are felt
by people. We have an example of how joint working can help improve prevention
initiatives: we have funded a pilot initiative to increase access to credit to those people who
are considered more than 10% more risky to lend to than existing Credit Union Clients.
Digital Inclusion
The socio-economic advantages available to those who can access and use on-line
services are widely recognised. They range from straightforward financial benefits to social
connectivity and access to information and knowledge. The city’s economic well-being will
also be significantly improved if the digital skills of its workforce are seen as attractive to
inward investors. Increased emphasis on the digital services nationally and locally has the
potential for a negative impact on some residents. Those impacts must be considered as
part of the cumulative effects of our budget proposals.
25
Under current budget proposals we plan to continue to move many of our services on-line
as opposed to face-to-face or telephone provision. For many people, this will offer a greater
flexibility around how they chose to engage with the council. This approach will however not
immediately be suitable for everyone, particularly those groups we have identified as
potentially being digitally excluded. In Newcastle - about 17.5% of the city’s adult population
- have never been online (ONS 2011).
Research suggests that people living in areas with high levels of deprivation are more likely
to experience digital exclusion. Other people likely to be digitally excluded include the over
65s, some disabled people, people with no formal qualifications, people from lower socioeconomic groups and some BME communities. These communities are more likely to need
support to get online when Universal Credit is introduced from October 2013 because the
new single benefit will be administered largely online.
We are working to ensure that appropriate support in place to prevent people being digitally
exclude as far as possible. Through the public library network, and the council’s superfast
broad project, Go Digital Newcastle, we will provide the access to digital equipment, and
provide digital literacy and inclusion programmes in our buildings and throughout the
community.
As we move to a ‘digital by default’ approach, some face-to-face and phone contact will still
be available, although access to services through these methods will be reduced and
mainly provided to those who have specific access needs.
In the last few years, one element of our approach to digital inclusion has been providing
free internet access in libraries and customer service centres, supported by staff available
to help people use on-line services.
The proposed closure of 10 libraries will mean there are fewer places to go with free public
access computers, and importantly, help available to support people to get online. Although
there is a proposed reduction of the Library network, we will continue to deliver sessions to
those who require support to access services and information on line. Where appropriate,
this will be delivered through community buildings other than council buildings such as
libraries.
Under our budget proposals, in 2016 96% of Newcastle residents would live within 1.5
miles of a library which will continue to provide free internet access and support. Where
libraries have to close, we will look at the potential for continuing to provide some support in
those localities through other facilities such as Sure Start Children’s Centres and other key
local buildings. However, our ability to do this will be limited as many of these facilities may
also have to be closed. Support programme will be provide in a range of community
buildings and we will work with community groups, voluntary and community sector
organisations and others to consider how to support residents to get online.
26
Impacts on other organisations
The council works with many organisations to help mitigate the impacts of deprivation
generally and of specific changes in national and local services. The activities of many
other organisations can either help people avoid socio-economic disadvantage directly
through providing employment or the skills to obtain employment, or support them if they do
experience it.
Businesses
Newcastle’s business sector will be critical to sustaining and growing the city’s economy as
it begins to recover from the current recession and the impact of public sector funding
reductions. The council’s ‘a working city – promoting opportunity in tough times’ sets out our
future economic plans. It explains how we will work with businesses, universities and other
institutions to help bring in investment and promote world-class businesses and
technologies. It also shows how we will connect residents to opportunities and support
people to acquire the skills needed to realise their potential, which will help to sustain
economic growth across the region.
Our budget for the next three years includes proposals that will help better support a
healthy business sector in Newcastle. It also includes service changes and reductions that
need to be considered in the wider economic context, both national and regional, so any
potential negative impacts on businesses can be properly assessed and taken into account.
The short-term impact of government spending cuts will inevitably mean high job losses in
Newcastle in the council’s and other public sector workforces. It is also likely that private
sector parts of the supply chain for public services could also experience reductions in
business, leading to further job losses.
Reductions in the spending power of families affected by job losses will reduce turnover for
some businesses. The changes to the welfare system (a projected £83m loss of income to
the city) are likely to have similar impacts as spending power reduces.
Some of our longer-term budget proposals could also impact on Newcastle’s businesses.
For example, by 2016 the potential reduction in affordable childcare places in Sure Start
Centres may impact on the availability of employees, particularly women, causing
difficulties for employers as well as for individuals and their families. This may be
compounded by the potential for reduced availability of school holiday childcare across the
city.
With more children and young people living in poverty we may see an increase in low
educational attainment, with young people from low-income backgrounds not being able to
afford further education or training opportunities. Reduced capacity to support skills
development, through the reducing support provided by organisations such as Connexions,
could mean the skills base of the city’s workforce may not develop as quickly as it otherwise
would.
27
As our workforce reduces there will be less opportunity for us to directly provide
apprenticeship places in the council. Working in partnership with Newcastle City Learning,
we will work to increase the number of apprenticeships we support alongside other
organisations and businesses. We plan to set up a Skills and Apprenticeship Hub at the
City Library, to work with organisations like Connexions and the National Careers Service to
improve access to both face-to-face support and information to residents.
The budget will also provide some new business opportunities. Investment in the new
homes construction or renovation of existing properties will generate contracting and job
opportunities for businesses in the construction trade and supply chains. Investment in new
models of preventative and residential care, and assistive technology will also open new
business opportunities. Investment in dedicated housing for people with learning and
physical disability will also create more jobs in the care and support sector and increase
spending on local services by moving people back into area.
In 2012 the council introduced the living wage to help support its lowest paid staff increase
their family income at a time of severe economic hardship. We are also introducing a new
council management structure which, when fully implemented, will save around £1.5 million:
more than enough to fund the introduction of a living wage. We plan to work with local
employers to encourage them to adopt the principle of paying the living wage to help tackle
socio-economic disadvantage. We acknowledge this may not be feasible in the short term,
but hope that in the future Newcastle’s businesses can establish themselves at the forefront
of fair employment practices.
Voluntary and Community Sector
The Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) makes a significant contribution to people’s
quality of life. The VCS in Newcastle is estimated to have (at least) 2,300 organisations,
7,000 staff, with income of at least £70 million, and involves many thousands of volunteers.
Of the 2,300 organisations, only around 900 have formalised structures (charities, social
enterprises, Community Interest Companies, Industrial and Provident Societies etc) and
employ staff. The rest (60%) have relatively small incomes (less than £10,000) and rarely
employ people but provide significant community benefit and social action.
Despite the challenging financial environment the council has been clear in our budget
proposals that support for vulnerable members of the community needs to be protected
wherever possible. Many of our budget proposals involve plans to increasingly work with
the sector as a co-provider of services. We will commission around £50m of services from
the VCS annually and will continue that relationship with them.
To minimise the negative impact of many of the reductions we are being forced to make,
the council will seek to introduce a cooperative model of service delivery. Communities and
community organisations will be more closely involved in shaping services and how they
are managed and provided, in particular neighbourhoods, as well as across the city.
However, many voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations face grave
uncertainties about the future of their funding.
28
This is because of a combination of central and local government funding cuts, the removal
of ring-fencing, reductions in independent grant giving combined with increased
competitiveness for these funds, and a reduction in the levels of personal donations.
Research shows that North-East VCOs are more reliant on public funding than the sector is
nationally. Ending government funding streams meant a loss of £11.2m in grant aid to
Newcastle VCOs over the last few years. This dramatic decrease in grant aid, with the
continuing reduction in public spending, means many of Newcastle’s VCOs are having to
do more with less, and some are having to stop providing services altogether.
We know the current financial climate tends to exacerbate the problems people have to
deal with. Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service has reported that many organisations
face a huge increase in demand for their services as the sector looks to support people
through difficult circumstances. We will continue to purchase around £50m of services from
the voluntary and community sector.
We recognise the role that grant-aid can play to support and deliver community-led
projects, or services for which a fully commissioned service is not yet developed. We plan
to continue to support grant aid for VCS groups, through the Newcastle Fund and have
already allocated £6m over the next three years to projects which focus on prevention and
inclusion. The next round of applications opens in autumn 2013.
To help support small and medium size voluntary organisations we have set up a task
group on procurement and commissioning VCS services. It will look at how the processes
used can further support the role of the VCS in Newcastle while complying with national
and European legislation.
Schools
As key partners and providers of services and support to children, young people and
families, it is important we recognise the cumulative impact of our budget proposals on
schools. Some of the proposals will have a direct impact on schools and the services they
access or receive from the council, some will be more indirect through the impact that the
proposals have on particular children, young people, families and communities for whom
the schools provide.
There are several reductions in universal and early intervention support services for
children, schools and families likely to result in increased demand for direct support from
schools and increasing levels of higher need. These include reductions in support for
school attendance and educational psychology, support provided through Sure Start
Children Centres for young children and parents. There will be less Connexions support for
young people’s progression, employment and skills, and reduced access to free home to
school transport. Less directly, reduced funding for services such as targeted community
safety interventions and homelessness prevention are likely to impact on the school
attendance and attainment of affected young people. Reductions in youth, leisure, play and
library facilities may impact all children, potentially placing additional pressure on schools to
replace some of the educational and wellbeing benefits of these services.
29
Many schools will be affected by the closure or reduction in community-based facilities they
use to deliver or enhance the curriculum, provide after school activities and to expand
young people’s aspirations and achievements. These include swimming and other sports
and leisure facilities, libraries, art galleries and museums, both the facilities themselves and
the range of educational activities and work many of them do with schools.
Development of School-led Trusts and reduced strategic school improvement provided by
the local authority is part of a new approach to the national education changes. In
Newcastle, we are working with schools to adapt our services to the new environment, and
encouraging a co-operative approach which brings schools together to continue to improve
the quality of education across the city. We are working with schools to establish a citywide
Learning Trust, alongside co-operative and collaborative trusts between different groups of
schools. These collaborative trust arrangements provide new opportunities to deliver
support services, led by the schools themselves. They may also provide the opportunity for
closer working between School Trusts and other external partners such as health services,
voluntary and community groups or businesses.
5. Impact on Communities
Environmental and sustainability
Several of our proposals would have an impact on the appearance and quality of life in
different neighbourhoods and on the wider environmental sustainability of the city.
Deterioration of the quality of the local environment has been shown to have a long-lasting
impact on quality of life and wellbeing in communities affected. Services such as street
cleaning, graffiti removal, general environmental maintenance, horticulture, grounds
maintenance, will continue to be provided in all areas.
Resources, including staff with broader, more enabling roles, will be used flexibly where
hotspots are and to fulfil statutory requirements, rather than carrying out routine
maintenance. This does mean that streets will be cleaned less frequently, only offensive
graffiti will be removed as a priority, fly-tipping and rubbish in back lanes will be less easy to
tackle and there will be fewer people to help with floods and street gritting in winter.
Vulnerability to severe weather is one of the city’s key challenges, and we will work to
increase the resilience of the city to a changing climate, developing new funding streams to
support this work.
Open air leisure and sport facilities and play space for all children will be retained with
essential repairs to ensure health and safety standards are met, but damaged equipment
will be removed without provision for replacement. We intend to maintain a core provision
so that everyone in the city will live within 600m of a playground. The parks with the
greatest public use – Ouseburn Park, Leazes Park, Walker Park, Exhibition Park, Tyne
Riverside Park and Elswick Park – will continue to be maintained to a good standard based
fully upon Green Flag principles, but other parks will move to a more affordable, lower
maintenance regime still in accord with the principles of decent neighbourhood standards
30
Prioritisation of the areas of green space that will continue to be maintained have been
made on the basis of which areas are most well used and therefore provide most benefit to
residents in terms of health and wellbeing. Wider proposals in the Local Development
Framework (LDF) seek to reduce the proposed building in the green belt and prioritise
building on brownfield land. This will limit sprawl and increase in the number of residents
living near green spaces, which in turn should increase the impact of remaining parks and
open spaces in terms of the benefits they provide to residents.
There will be a distinct change in the feel of other green spaces. Grass will be cut much
less frequently, and most shrub beds and landscaping schemes will be removed. However
the council will aim to replace existing space with attractive lower maintenance features
such as wild flowers. The city has 69 allotment sites all of which are independently run by
committees and support will continue. The council will seek to introduce more temporary
allotments as interim land uses in areas like Scotswood and more allotments and growing
areas in parks and other civic green space.
We will seek to build on the assets of each community, including the skills, knowledge and
commitment of local residents, to help them develop their own solutions to issues that they
see as priorities.
We will invest £300,000 in a programme aimed at changing attitudes and behaviours to
reduce the need to clean the city, supported by enforcement activity and by work with
communities to sustain and potentially increase volunteering. We will work with partners,
particularly the police, to look at ways to help people feel safe when using parks and open
spaces. We will seek to generate additional funding to support these key services from
commercial activity and sponsorship, a potential contribution from a night time levy and
possibly the application of localised funding from sources such as ward budgets and parish
precepts.
We will ensure a strong green thread runs throughout all our procurement activity to better
understand our carbon and ecological footprints. We will build sustainability considerations
into our contracts based on the positive impact reduced carbon emissions will bring to the
city and the environment. We are working with suppliers where appropriate to ensure they
understand our aspirations and to encourage a similar commitment.
The size of the council’s planned capital programme will result in a high carbon footprint.
However, guidance is in place to minimise the emissions and wider environmental impact of
this work in each of the business cases. Also several major projects aimed at reducing the
city’s emissions from across the domestic and non-domestic, and transport sectors will
begin delivery this year. These include Warm Up North, (the council’s Housing Retrofit
programme), commissioning the first stage of Regenerate Newcastle (developing a District
Heat Network), and the proposed changes in Transport 2030, the city’s new transport
strategy. Similarly, work undertaken under the Low Carbon Pioneer Cities programme of
the City Deal will look to generate the next round of programmes and projects to drive
emissions reduction. The council is retaining capacity for this work, meaning that overall,
the council is confident of the ability to keep the city on its trajectory of reducing emissions.
While reducing the council’s own contribution to Climate Change, the closure, sale or asset
transfer of council buildings presents a risk of increasing the city’s overall emissions.
31
Many buildings could benefit from investment to reduce energy bills. Support to mitigate this
issue is available, including exploring the potential for individual buildings to be included in
Warm Up North the council’s Green Deal scheme, or to use Energy Performance
Contracting. Where buildings are transferred or sold, the council will advise on energy
projects to inward investment inquiries for business and the Communities team has agreed
to include Energy Efficiency as a theme as part of its support to services and groups.
Transport
With the proposed closure of a range of locally-based services accessing many services
will involve additional travel. It is therefore important that we work with our partners to
ensure that transport links in the city are accessible and flexible enough to enable all our
service users to travel inexpensively and conveniently.
Transport in the city is a key element of the economic competitiveness of Newcastle, and is
a significant part of our City Deal with government. We propose investing in public areas
and roads in the city centre, to attract new jobs and businesses. Successful delivery of the
Integrated Transport Authority’s Bus Strategy Project will support economic development
and regeneration and safe and sustainable communities by maintaining or growing access
to key facilities, services and employment sites.
We are consulting on ambitious proposals to improve access and reduce traffic congestion.
We are assessing options for improving bus routes across Tyne and Wear, working with
bus operators in different ways to help stop the decline in bus usage, maintain and
preferably increase network accessibility and deliver better value for public money. We
have also secured substantial investment in the future of the Metro, and are working with
Nexus to improve access at Metro stations.
Community cohesion
The 2012 Residents’ Survey found that 59% of people agreed that ‘people from different
backgrounds get on well together in their local area – similar the regional but slightly below
the national average. At ward level there are big variations – from 38% in the ward with the
least positive perceptions of cohesion, to 84% in the most positive. Cohesion is a complex
subject and several other indicators are relevant. In Newcastle:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
77% are satisfied with their local area as a place to live, but this also varies a lot
between wards (from 57% to 95%)
Two in three (66%) feel they belong in their local area
Most have friendships or close associations (69%) and stop to talk (61%) with people
near where they live. 61% are comfortable asking a neighbour for help.
35% agree they can influence decisions affecting their area. This is higher than the
regional average but has declined from 41% in 2010
A third agree that local people pull together to improve things locally, but the same
number disagree
62% trust the council, 38% do not
20% did some formal volunteering, and 33% gave informal unpaid help to others, in the
month before the survey – close to national averages.
32
There can be significant variations between different groups as well:
•
•
•
People aged 45-64 are less likely to say their area is cohesive, and more likely to say it
is not, than other age groups
Private tenants are much more likely than either homeowners or social housing tenants
to have positive views of cohesion in their neighbourhood; people in social housing are
significantly more likely to have negative views on cohesion and to be less satisfied with
their area as a place to live
However, social housing tenants have stronger ties to their neighbourhood – they are
more likely to have friendships and close associations there. The same is true of over65s.
This is a picture of a city with some cohesion challenges, but certainly not a widespread
breakdown of cohesion. However, rapid demographic change, welfare reform, the
economic climate and council cuts all make the ‘conditions for cohesion’ much harder to
maintain in future.
Concerns about fairness are at the forefront of communities’ minds when looking at our
proposals. This has implications in terms of the way that we respond to individual groups
organising to express their concerns or anger to us. Almost everyone will be affected in
some way by the proposals, and we have very little leeway to make concessions to one
group, without increasing the negative impact on another. There’s therefore a risk, if we
lose sight of the ‘bigger picture’ and are not consistent and coordinated in the way we
respond to campaigning, lobbying, etc, that we privilege those who are most vocal or best
organised (not necessarily those most in need) with more access and influence than others.
The consultation process confirmed our expectation that many universal services such as
libraries or leisure facilities, which people often value in an emotive way, not necessarily or
solely linked to their own dependence on the service in question, attract a lot of vocal
concern and attention, whilst more targeted and specialist services, whose users have
fewer opportunities to be publicly heard, get less airplay. This doesn’t necessarily reflect
their relative importance or greatest risk of negative impact, and we need to ensure our
response doesn’t entrench inequalities or fuel resentments by simply focusing attention on
responding to the most vocally expressed responses.
Contact and interaction between groups is either an opportunity to build community
cohesion or the point at which it can break down. The council’s Community Cohesion
Framework, and supporting tools, help to identify some of the conditions required to make
this contact meaningful and constructive rather than an opportunity for tensions to play out
in destructive ways and we will continue to work to embed this approach across the
organisation. Our current network of local offices and other access points gives us a
relatively extensive reach in communities and neighbourhoods, helping us to be involved in
building cohesion as well as providing an early warning system when tensions escalate.
A range of budget proposals could impact on this. Council services will increasingly either
shift to online delivery or be concentrated in fewer locations serving larger areas. A byproduct of this is the loss of neighbourhood-based sites where communities can encounter
each other and interact with the council in a relatively safe environment.
33
This applies regardless of the main purpose of a site – for example, libraries are often
valued as much for their role in creating community and strengthening social fabric as they
are for their book-lending function. Feedback we received during consultation has
confirmed this. This has implications in terms of how we think about mitigating the closure
of those buildings providing cohesion and inclusion benefits to communities, the loss of
which may be just as significant as their core purpose.
As well as this loss of neighbourhood-based opportunities to interact with communities and
bring them together with each other, the concentration of a larger number of services in a
smaller number of locations, serving wider areas, also presents a risk. It will result in
different sections of the community coming into contact with each other. They will come into
contact with each other in spaces that are less local and familiar and therefore less ‘owned’
by the communities using them. This will be in a climate where people are generally more
attentive to ‘who’s getting what’ and perceptions that others are benefiting at their expense.
The council’s approach to community cohesion is based on an understanding of what
makes ‘good contact’ and we will need to embed this understanding in any locations where
different groups are brought into new or different contact with each other as a result of our
budget proposals.
The proposal to withdraw direct support from some large public events such as the Mela,
Northern Pride and Chinese New Year celebrations, which have a role in bringing different
groups together, will also create a cumulative negative impact. In mitigation the council will
work with the organisers of the events in question to assist them in a transition to alternative
business models. We will ensure that we are fair and consistent in the way we make this
reduction and provide any mitigating support.
Community Safety
It is possible that the recession and austerity measures will lead to increases in crime,
particularly in volume acquisitive crime and violent crimes, including domestic violence, as
evidenced in previous economic downturns. While the vast majority of people will not turn to
crime to supplement lower incomes, there is the potential for an increased demand for
black market goods. This may drive further acquisitive crime and sales of counterfeit goods.
There is also a threat that community tensions may increase if the more deprived areas are
disproportionately affected.
Suitable accommodation has been identified as important in the prevention of re-offending.
The impacts of welfare reform could compound the effects of the economic situation so that
people cannot afford suitable accommodation for themselves or their families, or may even
become homeless.
At the same time, Safe Newcastle’s capacity to work with the most persistent offenders will
be reduced, and SNAPS will focus on locations most in need. This will reduce our ability to
respond to some neighbourhood issues, and may result in the dispersal of anti-social
behaviour.
As well as potential direct increases in crime, it is likely that reductions in local
environmental services will result in higher levels of graffiti, litter and fly tipping, with parks
and open spaces less well maintained.
34
In combination with many people having less money to look after their own properties, this
could result in a more negative look and feel for many neighbourhoods. All of these factors
will lead to increased fear of crime as well as potentially encouraging or facilitating antisocial behaviour (the “broken window” factor).
Although the 2012 Residents’ Survey shows that 60% of people agree that Newcastle as a
whole is a safe area, people living in more deprived wards generally reported much lower
perceptions of safety. Litter and rubbish lying around was rated as the biggest problem for
people’s local area rather than more direct types of anti-social behaviour. The changes to
environmental maintenance noted above may well exacerbate this.
We will establish a new unit to tackle complex and/or persistent anti-social behaviour and
environmental crime. The new unit will integrate prevention and early intervention, including
mediation and restorative justice, with the greater use of enforcement powers to deliver
timely cost effective solutions for residents and communities and to support vulnerable
victims of anti-social behaviour.
We will also work with the new Police and Crime Commissioner to build upon our
partnership with the police and other community safety partners to continue to support and
develop our work around community safety.
6. Next Steps
We will review our financial position this time next year, to set a budget for 2014-15. The
council will continue to build on its analysis of the potential emerging cumulative impacts of
proposals as they are implemented as part of its commitment to reduce inequalities. By this
time we will have a clearer understanding of the actual impact of welfare reform on our city.
The opportunities and implications of the transfer of public health will have also enabled the
council to develop new ways of providing services to help tackle health inequalities.
Our IIAs will be updated to reflect actual impacts on those groups who are most vulnerable
within our city. Feedback from on-going engagement with individuals, organisations and
communities will help to inform this. This will also enable us to assess what effect our
mitigations have had in helping to reduce impacts. We will continue to look at ways to avoid
making the most damaging cuts to those services that we have tried to protect and invest
where we can for the future.
35