Community Impact Assessment Form
For a summary of this Community Impact Assessment, click here
Title of Community Impact Assessment (CIA): Sheltered Housing Sector
Directorate: Community, Health and Social Care Services
Date of assessment: 21.12.12 – V1
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment. (Please identify Lead Officer):
Julie Craik Principle Officer Supporting People
Kerry Thornley
Section A – What are you impact assessing?
(Indicate with an “x” which applies):A decision to review or change a service
A strategy
A policy or procedure
A function, service or project
x
Are you impact assessing something that is?:New
Existing
Being reviewed
Being reviewed as a result of budget constraints
x
1
Describe the area you are impact assessing and, where appropriate, the changes you are proposing?
i.
Sheltered Housing Support: The current provision includes 11 Providers, who own 27 schemes, and provide 853 units of
accommodation (some of which may be double units). This does proposal does not include the sheltered support service
delivered within Salix Homes and City West Housing Trust schemes, which are addressed in an alternative proposal.
ii. Contracts were renegotiated from October 2011 on the basis of a standard rate capped at £8 per unit per week. Some providers
kept their costs below this rate, while one provider is classed as being different from a standard sheltered scheme, offering
easier access to higher levels of care and support (while not able to deliver a full extra care housing model) and were allowed
a higher rate.
iii. A reduction in Supporting People funding to Sheltered Housing Providers, reducing the current cap of £8 per unit per week to £7
per unit per week would achieve £79,383.14 savings if implemented from 01.04.2013. As the model for the capped rate has
already been agreed, it would be simply necessary to notify providers of the proposed change to the cap and ask for their
feedback in relation to what that reduction would mean for their services/service users.
Section B – Is a Community Impact Assessment required (Screening)?
Consider what you are impact assessing and mark “x” for all the statement(s) below which apply
Service or policy that people use or which apply to people (this could include staff)
Discretion is exercised or there is potential for people to experience different outcomes. For example,
planning applications and whether applications are approved or not
Concerns at local, regional or national level of discrimination/inequalities
Major change, such as closure, reduction, removal or transfer
Community, regeneration and planning strategies, organisational or directorate partnership
strategies/plans
Employment policy – where discretion is not exercised
Employment policy – where discretion is exercised. For example, recruitment or disciplinary process
2
x
If none of the areas above apply to your proposals, you will not be required to undertake a full CIA. Please summarise below why a full
CIA is not required and send this form to your directorate equality link officer. If you have identified one or more of the above areas, you
should conduct a full CIA and complete this form.
Equality Areas
Indicate with an “x” which equality areas are likely to be affected, positively or negatively, by the proposals
Age
x
Religion and/or belief
Disability
Sexual Identity
Gender (including pregnancy and maternity and
marriage and civil partnership)
People on a low income (socio-economic inequality)
Gender reassignment
Other (please state below) (For example carers, ex
offenders, refugees and asylum seekers, gypsies and
travellers)
None
Race
x
If any of the equality areas above have been identified as being likely to be affected by the proposals, you will be required to undertake a
CIA. You will need only to consider those areas which you have indicated are likely to be affected by the proposals
3
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently monitor by the
following protected characteristics or
equality areas?
Age
Yes (Y) or
No (N)
Disability
Y
Gender (including pregnancy and
maternity and marriage and civil
partnership)
Y
Gender Reassignment
Y
Race
Y
Religion and/or belief
Y
Sexual Identity
Y
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
Y
If no, please explain why and / or detail in the action plan at Section E how
you will prioritise the gathering of this equality monitoring data.
Y
Y
Other (please state) (For example
carers, ex offenders, refugees and
asylum seekers, gypsies and travellers)
4
Section C (continued) – Consultation
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals?
Yes
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
Consultation has taken place with the Providers affected and the responses are detailed below:
PROVIDER 1 report that they have so far managed to financially support the service and mitigated any losses through its own funding. PROVIDER 1 has given a
commitment for a full-time member of staff at each scheme to service users. However, because reductions in funding are being implemented across other Local
Authorities PROVIDER 1 report that there will come a point when they might have to reduce staff or de-commission services in the future. PROVIDER 1 report
that the financial impact on staffing is the recruitment of less experienced staff. PROVIDER 1 report that while there will be no impact on services and service
users in the short term. However, eventually there will be an incremental impact and when the reduced finances will have an impact.
PROVIDER 2 reports that without committal, a reduction in funding will not influence the service they deliver at any great extent. PROVIDER 2 reports that they
currently subsidise this service already. PROVIDER 2 reports that currently their organisation is able to absorb the proposed reduced funding, but continued
reductions in funding are likely to have an impact in the longer term. This might include rent increases. Additional information supplied
1) The current support payments net deficit is circa £7,000 per annum. The proposed 12.5% reduction in subsidy from £8 to £7 will augment our deficit to
£14,000 pa (not £17,000 as suggested at the meeting) after our revised adjustment for voids and self-funders.
2) As outlined at our meeting, in the short term, the deficit will be absorbed / funded by reserves and the level of service will remain unchanged.
3) In the longer term, the dual affect of a reducing subsidy coupled with rising inflationary costs, will inevitably result in a service which is not sustainable at the
same levels as before.
4) It may be possible to reduce the number of support hours without adversely affecting the service, although any variation to the terms of current employment
may be costly.
5) Our residents' profile and demand for support is a changing dynamic, which we will continue to monitor and explore options.
PROVIDER 3 reports that compared to other Local Authorities the proposed reduction from £8 to £7 pupw was not too bad. PROVIDER 3 is currently considering
increasing their Housing Benefit / rent charges. PROVIDER 3 states that they would absorb any reduction in funding but would look at other options for the
future, for example there could be scope to reduce hours at their 2 Salford schemes due to their proximity to one another. The rents have already been set for
2013 so there would be no changes in the coming year.
5
PROVIDER 4 has confirmed that they intend to absorb the proposed financial reductions for the next financial year, as their charges have already been set for
2013/14. However, they will review this later in the year, when they commence budget planning for 2014/15. This could result in changes to the service model or
increased charges to residents.
PROVIDER 5 has confirmed that they will absorb the reduction by their own organisation for 2013/14. However, they already subsidise this service and they will
explore the potential to increase their Housing Benefit rates / rents for 2014/15, in order to mitigate against these financial reductions in the longer term.
PROVIDER 6 feedback that the proposals were not as bad as could have been expected (other L.A's have made more significant reductions to their contributions).
PROVIDER 6 has been planning for further reductions. They noted that they do already subsidise the service. They completed their rent review already for
2013/14 so they would not be planning to make any changes to their rents/charges this financial year. However, they will be considering the options in the future
and this may include reconfiguring their charges including claiming through eligible service charges through Housing Benefit.
PROVIDER 7 reported that they have kept their costs low and have been working to achieve added value, by working and engaging with older people in the local
communities. PROVIDER 7 reports that the proposed changes in funding would not have a massive impact. However, they have agreed with residents that
reductions in funding would be met by individuals.
PROVIDER 8 has taken the decision to make no change to the scheme manager role for 2013/14. It is difficult for them to make any economies of scale given they
only have one scheme in the area. They are currently reviewing all their sheltered services across the Greater Manchester, piloting a floating support scheme
manager service in some schemes in other local authorities and will review options during the new financial year.
Section C (continued) – Analysis
C3 What information has been analysed
to inform the content of this CIA? What
were the findings?
Please include details of, for example,
service or employee monitoring
information, consultation findings, any
national or local research, customer
Supporting People Commissioning Priorities:
The Supporting People budget and the planned spend for this is governed by the Supporting People
commissioning Body (who meet on a quarterly basis), which is made up of the following representatives:
 Strategic Director for Community, Health and Social Care;
 Assistant Director – Joint Commissioner (Community, Health and Social Care);
 Manjit Seale – Probation Assistant Chief Executive;

Karen Proctor - NHS Salford / CCG
6
feedback, inspection reports, and any
other information which will inform your
CIA.
Please specify whether this was existing
information or was obtained specifically
in relation to this equality analysis and
CIA process




Community Voluntary Service representative – Part A of the meeting only;
Provider representative – Part A of the meeting only;
Strategic Housing Partnership representative – Part A of the meeting only
Relevant Officer support
Since March 2012, Commissioning Body has been developing a set of Commissioning Priorities which are
intended to help inform future commissioning and funding plans for the Supporting People
budget/programme which include:
 The Cost Benefits of Supporting People Funding – focussing Supporting People spend where the
greatest wider savings can be achieved.
 Health and Wellbeing Strategy Priorities including: early years/parenting;
wellbeing & lifestyle; and access to care & support
 Consideration of the Impact of the welfare reforms on need and demand and in particular on: families
with children; people with disabilities; and those with long term health problems.
 A preventative approach, with a focus on those services which offer the greatest levels of prevention.
 The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment priorities including: Employment / worklessness; promoting
healthy lifestyles; the importance of the role of the family and the need to reduce child poverty; focus
on starting life well as part of a family, developing young people; promoting healthy lifestyle
behaviours; the impact of housing on health; adult wellbeing
 Reducing re-offending priorities including: access to info about accommodation pathways; children &
families; victims & witnesses; drugs & alcohol; young offenders.
As a result of this work Commissioning Body has been able to apply these commissioning priorities to a toolkit,
which has then highlighted the priorities for future Supporting People funding.
This process identified the following sectors as being of greatest priority for future commissioning: young
people’s services; domestic abuse services; intensive family support services; floating support services for
families in temporary accommodation; and generic floating support.
Consultation with Providers:
PROVIDER 1 report that they have so far managed to financially support the service and mitigated any losses
through its own funding. PROVIDER 1 has given a commitment for a full-time member of staff at each scheme
to service users. However, because reductions in funding are being implemented across other Local
Authorities PROVIDER 1 report that there will come a point when they might have to reduce staff or decommission services in the future. PROVIDER 1 report that the financial impact on staffing is the recruitment
of less experienced staff. PROVIDER 1 report that while there will be no impact on services and service users in
7
the short term. However, eventually there will be an incremental impact and when the reduced finances will
have an impact.
PROVIDER 2 reports that without committal, a reduction in funding will not influence the service they deliver
at any great extent. PROVIDER 2 reports that they currently subsidise this service already. PROVIDER 2 report
that currently their organisation is able to absorb the proposed reduced funding, but continued reductions in
funding is likely to have an impact in the longer term. This might include rent increases. Additional information
supplied
1) The current support payments net deficit is circa £7,000 per annum. The proposed 12.5% reduction in
subsidy from £8 to £7 will augment our deficit to £14,000 pa (not £17,000 as suggested at the meeting) after
our revised adjustment for voids and self funders.
2) As outlined at our meeting, in the short term, the deficit will be absorbed / funded by reserves and the level
of service will remain unchanged.
3) In the longer term, the dual affect of a reducing subsidy coupled with rising inflationary costs, will inevitably
result in a service which is not sustainable at the same levels as before.
4) It may be possible to reduce the number of support hours without adversely affecting the service, although
any variation to the terms of current employment may be costly.
5) Our residents' profile and demand for support is a changing dynamic, which we will continue to monitor
and explore options.
PROVIDER 3 report that compared to other Local Authorities the proposed reduction from £8 to £7 p.u./p.w.
was not too bad. PROVIDER 3 is currently considering increasing their Housing Benefit / rent charges.
PROVIDER 3 states that they would absorb any reduction in funding but would look at other options for the
future, for example there could be scope to reduce hours at their 2 Salford schemes due to their proximity to
one another. The rents have already been set for 2013 so there would be no changes in the coming year.
PROVIDER 4 has confirmed that they intend to absorb the proposed financial reductions for the next financial
year, as their charges have already been set for 2013/14. However, they will review this later in the year, when
they commence budget planning for 2014/15. This could result in changes to the service model or increased
charges to residents.
PROVIDER 5 has confirmed that they will absorb the reduction by their own organisation for 2013/14.
However, they already subsidise this service and they will explore the potential to increase their Housing
Benefit rates / rents for 2014/15, in order to mitigate against these financial reductions in the longer term.
PROVIDER 6 feedback that the proposals were not as bad as could have been expected (other L.A's have made
more significant reductions to their contributions). PROVIDER 6 has been planning for further reductions. They
noted that they do already subsidise the service. They completed their rent review already for 2013/14 so they
8
would not be planning to make any changes to their rents/charges this financial year. However, they will be
considering the options in the future and this may include reconfiguring their charges including claiming
through eligible service charges through Housing Benefit.
PROVIDER 7 reported that they have kept their costs low and have been working to achieve added value, by
working and engaging with older people in the local communities. PROVIDER 7 reports that the proposed
changes in funding would not have a massive impact. However, they have agreed with residents that
reductions in funding would be met by individuals.
PROVIDER 8 has taken the decision to make no change to the scheme manager role for 2013/14. It is difficult
for them to make any economies of scale given they only have one scheme in the area. They are currently
reviewing all their sheltered services across the Greater Manchester, piloting a floating support scheme
manager service in some schemes in other local authorities and will review options during the new financial
year.
Section D – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
age equality
Will people within certain age
ranges not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will people within certain age
ranges be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Providers have confirmed that there will be no direct impact on service users in
2013/14, mainly because they have already implemented their rent reviews for
2013/14.
However, the majority of Providers have confirmed that: because their services
extend beyond the boundaries of a range of Local Authorities, the majority of whom
are reducing their funding; and Provider organisations already subsidise these
service; there is likely to be an incremental impact, and that over time organisations
will be unable to continue to absorb the reduced funding. Provider organisations
confirm that they will have to consider the options in the longer term and these
could potentially include increase service charges and rents to service users, as
well as reduced hours of support available or move towards a floating support
model.
N
9
grounds of age?
N
No change as a result of these proposals.
N
No change / impact.
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain age ranges
will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
disability equality
Will people with a disability not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people with a disability be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
No change to service.
10
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of disability?
Will the proposals mean that
people with a disability will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
N
No change to service.
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
No change to service.
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
gender equality (this includes
pregnancy and maternity and
marriage and civil
partnership)
Will men, women or boys and
girls not be getting the outcome
they need?
Will men, women or boys and
girls be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
No impact
11
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of gender?
Will the proposals mean that
men or women, boys or girls will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
No Impact
N
No impact
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a differential
impact relating to equality for people
planning, undergoing or who have
undergone gender reassignment?
Will people planning, undergoing or who
have undergone gender reassignment
not be getting the outcome they need?
Will people planning, undergoing or who
have undergone gender reassignment
be disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it be
reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate, reduce or
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your
analysis?
N
No impact
12
mitigate negative impacts, are your
proposals potentially discriminatory on
the grounds of gender reassignment?
N
No impact
N
No impact
Will the proposals mean that people
planning, undergoing or who have
undergone gender reassignment will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact on
community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who share
a protected characteristic and those who
do not?
Identify areas where there is potential to
foster good relations
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
race equality
Will certain racial groups not be
getting the outcome they need?
Will certain racial groups be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
No impact
13
grounds of race?
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain racial
groups will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
N
No impact
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
No impact
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to
religion or belief equality
Will people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
No impact
14
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of religion or belief?
Will the proposals mean that
people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
No impact
N
No impact
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
sexual identity equality
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people be disadvantaged
as a result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
No impact
15
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of sexual identity?
Will the proposals mean that
gay, lesbian and/or bi-sexual
people will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
No impact
N
No impact
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact on socio
economic equality (people on
a low income)?
Will people on a low income not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people on a low income be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Providers have confirmed that there will be no direct impact on service users in
2013/14, mainly because they have already implemented their rent reviews for
2013/14.
However, the majority of Providers have confirmed that: because their services
extend beyond the boundaries of a range of Local Authorities, the majority of whom
are reducing their funding; and Provider organisations already subsidise these
services, there is likely to be an incremental impact, and that over time
organisations will be unable to continue to absorb the reduced funding.
Organisations confirm that they will have to consider the options in the longer term
and these could potentially include increase service charges and rents to service
users, which is more likely to impact on self payers, in addition to the potential to
N
16
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of socio economic
inequality?
Will the proposals mean that
people on a low income will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
reduce scheme managers hours or move towards a floating support model.
N
No impact – see above
N
No impact.
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to any
other equality groups, for
example, carers, ex offenders,
refugees and asylum seekers,
gypsies and travellers)?
Will people within any other
groups not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will people within any other
groups be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
No impact
17
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory for
people within any other groups?
Will the proposals mean that
people within any other groups
will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
N
No impact
N
No impact
Section E – Action Plan and review
Detail in the plan below, actions that you have identified in your CIA, which will eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity
and/or foster good relations.
If you are unable to eliminate or reduce negative impact on any of the equality areas, you should explain why
Impact (positive or
negative) identified
Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Providers have confirmed
that there will be no direct
impact on service users
in 2013/14.
Supporting People to
continue to liaise and
work closely with
Providers to inform any
K Thornley
18
Where will action
Target date
be monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate
Business Plan,
Service Plan,
Equality Action
Plan)
Weekly Team
On-going
Meetings.
Required outcome
Providers continue to
be able to achieve
the contractual
outcomes for their
However, the majority of
future action that they
Providers have confirmed may wish to take.
that because their
services extend beyond
the boundaries of a range
of Local Authorities, the
majority of whom are
reducing their funding,
there is likely to be an
incremental impact, and
that over time
organisations will be
unable to continue to
absorb the reduced
funding. Organisations
confirm that they will have
to consider the options in
the longer term and these
could potentially include
increase service charges
and rents to service
users, as well as reduced
hours of support available
or a move towards a
floating support model.
services.
Could making the changes in any of the above areas have a negative effect on other groups? Explain why and what you will do about
this.
No.
Review
Your CIA should be reviewed at least every three years, less if it has a significant impact on people.
Please enter the date your CIA will be reviewed March 2016 You should review progress on your CIA action plan annually.
19
Section F – Summary of your CIA
As your CIA will be published on the council’s website and accessible to the general public, a summary of your CIA is required. Please
provide a summary of your CIA in the box below.
Summary of Community Impact Assessment
Brief summary of proposal or what you are impact assessing
A reduction in Supporting People funding to the majority of Sheltered Housing Providers (with the exception of City West and Salix
Homes schemes, reducing the current cap of £8 per unit per week to £7 per unit per week.
How did you approach the CIA and what did you find?
As the model for the capped rate has already been agreed, it would be simply necessary to notify providers of the proposed change to
the cap and ask for their feedback in relation to what that reduction would mean for their organisations and services/service users.
What are the main areas requiring further attention?
Consultation with Providers.
Summary of recommendations for improvement
None yet identified
Section G – Next Steps
Quality Assurance
20
When you have completed your CIA, you should send it to your directorate Equality Link Officer who will arrange for it to be quality
assured. Your CIA will be returned to you if further work is required. It is important that your CIA is robust and of good quality as it may
be challenged
“Sign off” within your directorate
Your directorate Equality Link Officer will then arrange for your CIA to be “signed off” within your directorate (see below). Your directorate
Equality Lead Officer or other senior manager within your directorate should “sign off” your CIA (below).
Name
Signature
Date
Senior Manager
Lead CIA Officer
Publishing
When your CIA has been signed off within your directorate, your directorate Equality Link Officer will send it to Elaine Barber in the
Equalities and Cohesion Team for publishing on the council’s website.
Monitoring
Your directorate Equality Link Officer will also send your CIA to your directorate Performance Officer where the actions identified within
your CIA will be entered into Covalent, the council’s performance management monitoring software so that progress can be monitored
as appropriate.
21