Community Impact Assessment Form
For a summary of this Community Impact Assessment, click here
Title of Community Impact Assessment (CIA): Personalisation Framework
Directorate: Service Area 2 (Community, Health and Social Care)
Date of assessment: November 2013
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment. (Please identify Lead Officer):
Jennifer McGovern – Assistant Director (Adult Services Commissioning)
Deborah Siddique – Principal Officer (Commissioning)
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?
The Commissioning cycle involves a continuous activity of assessing need, identifying provision, identifying gaps, specifying service
requirements, identifying a budget, agreeing the contract, monitoring performance and reviewing the service.
CHSC commission a range of services for vulnerable adults from Third Sector providers, including advocacy; advice and information;
support for carers; support for people with dementia and other conditions such as stroke; hospital aftercare and support for people using
Direct Payments. Other services, currently commissioned under block contract arrangements, include day care; breaks for carers.
These services help people to live in the community and maintain their independence, preventing or delaying their need for specialist
interventions.
The health and social care services provided by these Third Sector organisations were reviewed in 2010/11 in response to the
Comprehensive Spending Review, which necessitated efficiency savings equivalent to 8%. Whilst this meant that most organisations
had to make adjustments to the way they carried out their services the actual level of services received by vulnerable adults was largely
unaffected in 2011/12.
However the continuing requirement for efficiencies meant that the level of service provision was further affected in 2012/13 when
services were reconfigured and a procurement process was undertaken. A further 22% efficiency was required at this time. At the same
time a number of organisations were deemed to be providing services that people would, in future, be able to purchase with their
Personal Budget / Direct Payment. These organisations were given a two year extension to their block contract to facilitate the transition
to this new market model. This impact assessment is considering services commissioned under Personalisation.
The review established that there were a number of contracts in place which provided the type of service that could either be accessed
by a personal budget or direct payment or a person could self fund if not eligible for support through Adult Social Care. It was confirmed
with the sector in 2011 that commissioners intended to decommission these contracts by March 2014 and that those organisations could
move to the Personalisation Framework in 2014. The contracts affected are:
Age UK – Day Care
Autistic Society – Carer Breaks & Autism Support
Crossroads – Support for Carers
Give Us A Break (BME Women) – Carers Support Group
Manchester Jewish Community Care – Day Care
Salford Link Project – Social Day Centre
Swinton Worsley MENCAP – Community Activity Support for Learning Disabled Adults
Wai Yin Chinese Women’s Society – Carers Support for Chinese Women
2
During the past two years Commissioners have provided the following support to ensure that there is minimal risk to organisations as a
result of this change:
(a) Workshops and 1:1 meetings to prepare the market for Personalisation
(b) Make sure the organisations applied to be put on the Personalisation Framework
(c) Work with the organisations to understand how many of their current service users are known to adult social care services
and their eligibility for service under ‘Fair Access to Care’ (FACs)
(d) Use the information gathered to calculate how much money could be transferred to the mainstream community care budget to
fund each individual’s personal budget / direct payment
The FACS budget efficiency proposal to cease providing services to people assessed as moderate has significant implications for this
plan of action. A risk assessment process has been undertaken with each organisation.
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
X
X
X
X
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.
3
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
X
Disability
X
Sexual Identity
X
Gender (including pregnancy and maternity)
X
People on a low income (socio-economic inequality)
X
Gender reassignment
X
X
Race
X
Other (please state below) (For example carers, ex
offenders)
Carers
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
4
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently monitor by the
following protected characteristics or
equality areas?
Age
Yes (Y) or
No (N)
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
Please note that whilst the information is requested from providers it is not
always available as individuals can refuse to give the information
Disability
Y
Please note that whilst the information is requested from providers it is not
always available as individuals can refuse to give the information
Gender (including pregnancy and
maternity)
Y
Please note that whilst the information is requested from providers it is not
always available as individuals can refuse to give the information
Gender Reassignment
N
We will add this to our equality monitoring section of the evaluation forms
from 1st April 2014
Race
Y
Please note that whilst the information is requested from providers it is not
always available as individuals can refuse to give the information
Religion and/or belief
Y
Please note that whilst the information is requested from providers it is not
always available as individuals can refuse to give the information
Sexual Identity
Y
Please note that whilst the information is requested from providers it is not
always available as individuals can refuse to give the information
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
Y
Other (please state) (For example
carers, ex offenders)
Y
We ask for employment status, not income level. It should also be noted that
whilst the information is requested from providers it is not always available as
individuals can refuse to give the information
Please note that whilst the information is requested from providers it is not
always available as individuals can refuse to give the information
5
Section C (continued) – Consultation
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals?
No
If “no”, please explain your reason(s) why
The provider organisations involved have been involved in the process at all stages and the views of stakeholders and service users was
sought during the consultation process as part of the strategic review in 2011/12. No additional changes are being proposed so no
further stakeholder / service user consultation has been undertaken by the City Council. However during the on-going involvement and
support undertaken with providers it has been made clear that they need to maintain dialogue with their service users. In relation to
Salford Link Project the City Council provided a questionnaire for them to use with their service users.
All organisations, through their meetings with commissioners, have suggested that they will be carrying on their service in one form or
another. In addition the FACS proposal, which has obviously been the major driver to the reductions in funding, was fully consulted on.
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
6
Section C (continued) – Analysis
C3 What information has been analysed
to inform the content of this CIA? What
were the findings?
Mid-Year Census data; 2011 Census data; Government data; Service User data from
providers; Service Provider Contract Monitoring / Evaluation Forms. All the information used
is existing information.
Please include details of, for example,
service or employee monitoring
information, consultation findings, any
national or local research, customer
feedback, inspection reports, and any
other information which will inform your
CIA.
Older People
The information tells us that there are approximately 33,100 people over the age of 65 in
Salford (14.1%) of the population. This is expected to rise to 15.2% by 2030. It is predicted
that 35.8% (11,893) of people over 65 live alone, 10.7% (3,581) are carers and 32.4%
(10,780) are unable to manage at least one self-care activity on their own.
In 2008 there were 14,400 (43.2%) men and 18,900 (56.8%) women over the age of 65 in
Salford.
Disabled People
The majority of people with a Learning Disability are in the 18 – 64 age range.
Please specify whether this was existing Studies have shown that 0.35 – 0.46% of the population will have a moderate to profound
information or was specifically in relation learning disability and be likely to use services of some kind. It is expected that due to
to this equality analysis and CIA process medical and health care advances this is likely to increase by 14% by 2021 and that the
majority of growth will be in the 65+ age group.
This means that in Salford we can expect there to be between 751 and 987 individuals with a
moderate to profound learning disability.
There were 14,999 people on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Register in June
2008 and 18.5% of these were under 65. 1,034 are registered with a hearing loss, 220 are
profoundly deaf, 989 are registered blind and 1,055 are partially sighted; 175 people are deaf
and blind.
The prevalence of disability in those aged 55 – 74 is slightly higher for men than women, but
in those aged 75+ more women than men have serious disabilities. Therefore more women
access these services.
25,709 people (11%) of the population are very limited in being able to carry out day to day
activities and 17,710 (7.6%) describe their health as bad or very bad.
Gender
In 2008 there were 14,400 (43.2%) men and 56.8% women over the age of 65 in Salford.
Women generally live longer than men and it is the very elderly that are more likely to need
7
services.
Gender Reassignment
The Gender Identity Research and Education Society estimates that the prevalence of
gender dysphoria is 20 per 100,000 population. This would equate to 43 in Salford. This is
an area of growing demand for medical treatment (doubles every 5 years).
Race
The 2001 census showed that the older BME population in Salford was very small – 72
people; although this does not include the Jewish population. It is known that the BME
population has grown since 2001 and according to the 2007 ONS population estimate 7.98%
of the population in Salford is from a BME community. The 2011 census shows that the BME
population is now 23,264 (9.9%) but this does not include the Jewish community.
Religion
The 2001 census indicated that 76.46% of the population in Salford was Christian, 2.4%
Jewish, 1.22% Muslim. It is known that these figures have changed – for example it is
believed that the Jewish population is now 5.5%.
Sexual Identity
Information on sexual identity was not collected in the 2001 census but the Government
figure is that 5.7% of the population is lesbian, gay or bisexual.
Most services for disabled people are targeted at heterosexuals.
People on Low Income (Socio-economic Inequality)
All service users have access to welfare benefits checks through the providers and will either
be pensioners or people who are not working due to their condition (cancer, stroke, early onset dementia). Older people, disabled people and carers, particularly those living on a state
pension or other benefits, experience higher levels of deprivation as they become frailer and
need services due to other conditions. Health inequalities are also closely linked with levels
of deprivation.
Carers
It is estimated that there are 20,000+ carers in Salford of whom approximately 3,500 receive
a service through Community, Health and Social Care Directorate. Whist some carers will
manage to work as well as undertake their caring role many do not – 14% of carers provide
20 -49 hours of care each week and 24% provide over 50 hours.
8
Health inequalities are also closely linked with levels of deprivation and carers often have
additional health problems – 15% describe themselves as not being in good health.
Section D – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to age
equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
age?
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?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain age ranges
will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
N
Impact: The nature of the services provided by Age UK, Manchester Jewish
Community Care and Salford Link Project means that they are targeted at Older
People, although some people, age 50+ will use the services due to issues
affecting their health or mobility.
The move from block contract to individuals purchasing the services with their
Personal Budget / Direct Payment means that service providers are re-configuring
their services to manage this new model.
121 older people use the services of the provider organisations; of these 45 have
been assessed as having Substantial or Critical needs under the FACS criteria and
will be able to continue using the services with their indicative budget should they
wish to do so; 44 are funding their services independently (i.e. they have not
requested an assessment of their needs); 26 have been assessed as Moderate
and 6 have not been assessed and are currently receiving services under the block
contract arrangement.
Individuals who are currently assessed as having Moderate needs under the FACS
criteria will be reassessed. These individuals will not be funded if their level of
need remains Moderate and as such may stop using services.
This means that up to 32 people may not be funded to receive a service from April
2014 which could have a potential impact on them as individuals and the
organisations as service providers.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
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
Y
Action to reduce impact: Provider organisations have had regular meetings and
workshops to prepare for Personalisation and have been advised to encourage
their service users to request an assessment, if they have not been assessed;
existing Moderate service users will be re-assessed to determine whether or not
their needs have increased to enable them to continue receiving services;
9
individuals who no longer meet the criteria for Adult Social Care Services will be
directed to information and advice services to help them find suitable services /
activities in their community. All service specifications require that services are
accessible to the protected groups.
Community Cohesion: This will be enhanced by older people, who no longer
qualify for Adult Social Care Services but access universal services within their
community, being more connected to the wider community in their local area.
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
disability equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
disability?
Will people with disabilities not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people with disabilities be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
Will the proposals mean that
people with disabilities 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
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Impact: The nature of the services provided by the Autistic Society, Swinton
Worsley MENCAP, Crossroads and Salford Link Project means that they are
targeted at Disabled People.
The move from block contract to individuals purchasing the services with their
Personal Budget / Direct Payment means that service providers are re-configuring
their services to manage this new model.
198 disabled people use the services of the provider organisations; of these 54
have been assessed as having Substantial or Critical needs under the FACS
criteria and will be able to continue using the services with their indicative budget
should they wish to do so; 87 have been assessed as Moderate and 57 have not
been assessed and are currently receiving services under the block contract
arrangement.
Individuals who are currently assessed as having Moderate needs under the FACS
criteria will be reassessed. These individuals will not be funded if their level of
need remains Moderate and as such may stop using services.
This means that up to 57 people may not be funded to receive a service from April
2014 which could have a potential impact on them as individuals and the
organisations as service providers.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
N
Y
Action to reduce impact: Provider organisations have had regular meetings and
10
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
workshops to prepare for Personalisation and have been advised to encourage
their service users to request an assessment, if they have not been assessed;
existing Moderate service users will be re-assessed to determine whether or not
their needs have increased to enable them to continue receiving services;
individuals who no longer meet the criteria for Adult Social Care Services will be
directed to information and advice services to help them find suitable services /
activities in their community. All service specifications require that services are
accessible to the protected groups.
Community Cohesion: This will be enhanced by disabled people, who no longer
qualify for Adult Social Care Services but access universal services within their
community, being more connected to the wider community in their local area.
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to
gender equality (this includes
pregnancy and maternity)
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
gender?
Will men or women, boys or girls
not be getting the outcome they
need?
Will men or women, boys or girls
be disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Will the proposals mean that
men or women, boys or girls will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
N
Impact: The nature of the services provided by Age UK, the Autistic Society,
Crossroads, Manchester Jewish Community Care, Salford Link Project are
accessible to both men and women, however the fact that women generally live
longer than men means that more women use the services, with the exception of
the Autistic Society which has more men using the service due to the prevalence of
Autistic Spectrum Disorders in the male population. Give Us A Break (BME
Women) and Wai Yin Chinese Women’s Society are services specifically targeted
at women.
The move from block contract to individuals purchasing the services with their
Personal Budget / Direct Payment means that service providers are re-configuring
their services to manage this new model.
349 people use the services of the provider organisations, of which 122 are men
and 227 are women; of these 100 have been assessed as having Substantial or
Critical needs under the FACS criteria and will be able to continue using the
services with their indicative budget should they wish to do so; 98 have been
assessed as Moderate and 151 have not been assessed of whom 107 and are
currently receiving services under the block contract arrangement and 44 are self-
11
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
funders.
Individuals who are currently assessed as having Moderate needs under the FACS
criteria will be reassessed. These individuals will not be funded if their level of
need remains Moderate and as such may stop using services.
This means that up to 215 people may not be funded to receive a service from April
2014 which could have a potential impact on them as individuals and the
organisations as service providers.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
Y
Action to reduce impact: Provider organisations have had regular meetings and
workshops to prepare for Personalisation and have been advised to encourage
their service users to request an assessment, if they have not been assessed;
existing Moderate service users will be re-assessed to determine whether or not
their needs have increased to enable them to continue receiving services;
individuals who no longer meet the criteria for Adult Social Care Services will be
directed to information and advice services to help them find suitable services /
activities in their community. All service specifications require that services are
accessible to the protected groups.
Community Cohesion: This will be enhanced by people, who no longer qualify
for Adult Social Care Services but access universal services within their
community, being more connected to the wider community in their local area.
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?
Are your proposals discriminatory 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?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your
analysis?
N
Impact: The nature of the services provided by Age UK, the Autistic
Society, Crossroads, Manchester Jewish Community Care, Salford Link
Project are accessible to both men and women. Give Us A Break (BME
Women) and Wai Yin Chinese Women’s Society are services specifically
targeted at women.
349 people use the services of the provider organisations, of which 122
12
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?
are men and 227 are women. However as gender reassignment is not
recorded it is not known if any of these individuals have undergone or are
planning to undergo gender reassignment.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
Action to reduce impact: Gender reassignment will be added to the
contract monitoring documentation from April 2014.
Will the proposals mean that people
planning, undergoing or who have
undergone gender reassignment will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact on
community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who share
a protected characteristic and those who
do not?
Identify areas where there is potential to
foster good relations
N
Community Cohesion: This will be enhanced by people, who no longer
qualify for Adult Social Care Services but access universal services within
their community, being more connected to the wider community in their
local area.
Y
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
race equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
race?
Will people within certain racial
groups not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will people within certain racial
groups be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Impact: The nature of the services provided by Give Us A Break (BME Women),
Manchester Jewish Community Care, Salford Link Project and Wai Yin Chinese
Women’s Society means that they are specifically targeted at BME communities
and are culturally sensitive to the needs of their communities.
The move from block contract to individuals purchasing the services with their
Personal Budget / Direct Payment means that service providers are re-configuring
their services to manage this new model.
124 people from BME communities use the services of these providers of which 3
have been assessed as having Substantial or Critical needs under the FACS
13
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain racial
groups will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
N
Y
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
criteria and will be able to continue using the services with their indicative budget
should they wish to do so; 8 have been assessed as Moderate and will be
reassessed; 69 have not been assessed and are currently receiving services under
the block contract arrangement and 44 are self-funders.
Individuals who are currently assessed as having Moderate needs under the FACS
criteria will be reassessed and those who have not been assessed will be
assessed if they request an assessment. These individuals will not be funded if
their level of need is Moderate and as such may stop using services.
This means that up to 77 people may not be funded to receive a service from April
2014 which could have a potential impact on them as individuals and the
organisations as service providers.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
Action to reduce impact: Provider organisations have had regular meetings and
workshops to prepare for Personalisation and have been advised to encourage
their service users to request an assessment, if they have not been assessed;
existing Moderate service users will be re-assessed to determine whether or not
their needs have increased to enable them to continue receiving services;
individuals who no longer meet the criteria for Adult Social Care Services will be
directed to information and advice services to help them find suitable services /
activities in their community. All service specifications require that services are
accessible to the protected groups.
Community Cohesion: This may be enhanced by service providers diversifying
their service provision to the wider community and by people from BME
communities, who no longer qualify for Adult Social Care Services, accessing
universal services and being more connected to the wider community in their local
area.
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
religion or belief equality
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
14
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
religion or belief?
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?
N
Will the proposals mean that
people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
N
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
Y
Impact: The nature of the services provided by Give Us A Break (BME Women),
Manchester Jewish Community Care, Salford Link Project and Wai Yin Chinese
Women’s Society means that they are specifically targeted at BME communities
and are sensitive to the religious needs of their communities.
The move from block contract to individuals purchasing the services with their
Personal Budget / Direct Payment means that service providers are re-configuring
their services to manage this new model.
124 people from BME communities use the services of these providers of which 3
have been assessed as having Substantial or Critical needs under the FACS
criteria and will be able to continue using the services with their indicative budget
should they wish to do so; 8 have been assessed as Moderate and will be
reassessed; 69 have not been assessed and are currently receiving services under
the block contract arrangement and 44 are self-funders.
Individuals who are currently assessed as having Moderate needs under the FACS
criteria will be reassessed and those who have not been assessed will be
assessed if they request an assessment. These individuals will not be funded if
their level of need is Moderate and as such may stop using services.
This means that up to 77 people may not be funded to receive a service from April
2014 which could have a potential impact on them as individuals and the
organisations as service providers.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
Action to reduce impact: Provider organisations have had regular meetings and
workshops to prepare for Personalisation and have been advised to encourage
their service users to request an assessment, if they have not been assessed;
existing Moderate service users will be re-assessed to determine whether or not
their needs have increased to enable them to continue receiving services;
individuals who no longer meet the criteria for Adult Social Care Services will be
directed to information and advice services to help them find suitable services /
activities in their community. All service specifications require that services are
accessible to the protected groups.
Community Cohesion: This may be enhanced by service providers diversifying
their service provision to the wider community and by people from different
religious communities, who no longer qualify for Adult Social Care Services,
accessing universal services and being more connected to the wider community in
15
their local area.
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
sexual identity equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
sexual identity?
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?
Yes (Y)
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
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Impact: The services provided by Age UK, the Autistic Society, Crossroads, Give
Us A Break (BME Women), Manchester Jewish Community Care, Salford Link
Project, Swinton Worsley Mencap and Wai Yin Chinese Women’s Society are
expected to be accessible to individuals who are gay, lesbian and / or bi-sexual.
However, although the data is included in the service monitoring there is very little
information available on the sexual identity of service users.
The move from block contract to individuals purchasing the services with their
Personal Budget / Direct Payment means that service providers are re-configuring
their services to manage this new model.
349 people use the services of the provider organisations of which 122 are men
and 227 are women; of these 100 have been assessed as having Substantial or
Critical needs under the FACS criteria and will be able to continue using the
services with their indicative budget should they wish to do so; 98 have been
assessed as Moderate and 151 have not been assessed of whom 107 and are
currently receiving services under the block contract arrangement and 44 are selffunders. Although it is not known if any of these individuals are gay, lesbian and /
or bi-sexual the assessment process should not disadvantage them.
Individuals who are currently assessed as having Moderate needs under the FACS
criteria will be reassessed. These individuals will not be funded if their level of
need remains Moderate and as such may stop using services.
This means that up to 215 people may not be funded to receive a service from April
2014 which could have a potential impact on them as individuals and the
organisations as service providers.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
N
Y
Action to reduce impact: Provider organisations have had regular meetings and
workshops to prepare for Personalisation and have been advised to encourage
their service users to request an assessment, if they have not been assessed;
16
existing Moderate service users will be re-assessed to determine whether or not
their needs have increased to enable them to continue receiving services;
individuals who no longer meet the criteria for Adult Social Care Services will be
directed to information and advice services to help them find suitable services /
activities in their community. All service specifications require that services are
accessible to the protected groups.
Community Cohesion: This could be enhanced by people, who no longer qualify
for Adult Social Care Services but access universal services within their
community, being more connected to the wider community in their local area.
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)?
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
socio economic inequality?
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?
Yes (Y)
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?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Impact: The services provided by Age UK, the Autistic Society, Crossroads, Give
Us A Break (BME Women), Manchester Jewish Community Care, Salford Link
Project, Swinton Worsley Mencap and Wai Yin Chinese Women’s Society are
accessible to people on low income as the majority of service users are people
who are not working due to their age, disability or caring responsibilities. However,
although the data is included in the service monitoring there is very little information
available on the income level of service users.
The move from block contract to individuals purchasing the services with their
Personal Budget / Direct Payment means that service providers are re-configuring
their services to manage this new model.
349 people use the services of the provider organisations of which 100 have been
assessed as having Substantial or Critical needs under the FACS criteria and will
be able to continue using the services with their indicative budget should they wish
to do so; 98 have been assessed as Moderate and 151 have not been assessed of
whom 107 and are currently receiving services under the block contract
arrangement and 44 are self-funders. The majority of these people will be on state
benefits and will not be disadvantaged by the assessment process.
Individuals who are currently assessed as having Moderate needs under the FACS
criteria will be reassessed. These individuals will not be funded if their level of
N
Y
17
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
need remains Moderate and as such may stop using services.
This means that up to 215 people may not be funded to receive a service from April
2014 which could have a potential impact on them as individuals and the
organisations as service providers.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
Action to reduce impact: Provider organisations have had regular meetings and
workshops to prepare for Personalisation and have been advised to encourage
their service users to request an assessment, if they have not been assessed;
existing Moderate service users will be re-assessed to determine whether or not
their needs have increased to enable them to continue receiving services;
individuals who no longer meet the criteria for Adult Social Care Services will be
directed to information and advice services to help them find suitable services /
activities in their community. All service specifications require that services are
accessible to the protected groups.
Community Cohesion: This could be enhanced by people, who no longer qualify
for Adult Social Care Services but access universal services within their
community, being more connected to the wider community in their local area.
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?
Are your proposals
discriminatory in relation to any
other groups?
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?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Carers will be affected by the proposal.
Impact: The nature of the services provided by the Autistic Society, Crossroads,
Give Us A Break (BME Women), Salford Link Project and Wai Yin Chinese
Women’s Society means that they are targeted at adult Carers.
The move from block contract to individuals purchasing the services with their
Personal Budget / Direct Payment means that service providers are re-configuring
their services to manage this new model.
179 Carers use the services of the provider organisations; of these 55 have been
18
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
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
Y
assessed as having Substantial or Critical needs under the FACS criteria and will
be able to continue using the services with their indicative budget should they wish
to do so; 17 have been assessed as Moderate and 107 have not been assessed
and are currently receiving services under the block contract arrangement.
Individuals who are currently assessed as having Moderate needs under the FACS
criteria will be reassessed. These individuals will not be funded if their level of
need remains Moderate and as such may stop using services.
This means that up to 124 people may not be funded to receive a service from April
2014 which could have a potential impact on them as individuals and the
organisations as service providers.
For those that are funded there will potentially be a wider choice of services
available.
Action to reduce impact: Provider organisations have had regular meetings and
workshops to prepare for Personalisation and have been advised to encourage
their service users to request an assessment, if they have not been assessed;
existing Moderate service users will be re-assessed to determine whether or not
their needs have increased to enable them to continue receiving services;
individuals who no longer meet the criteria for Adult Social Care Services will be
directed to information and advice services to help them find suitable services /
activities in their community. All service specifications require that services are
accessible to the protected groups.
Community Cohesion: This could be enhanced by carers, who no longer access
block funded services / choose not to access services with their Carers Personal
Budget, but access universal services within their community, being more
connected to the wider community in their local area.
Section E – Action Plan and review
19
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
Market uncertainty (in
terms of number of
service users and
income) for provider
organisations due to the
move from block
contracts to individuals
purchasing services with
their personal Budget /
Direct Payment
Continue to work in
partnership with Salford
CVS to support provider
organisations with
individual meetings and
workshops on topics
such as marketing and
business planning
N Johnson
D Siddique
Where will action
Target date
be monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate
Business Plan,
Service Plan,
Equality Action
Plan)
Business Plan
31st March
2015
Continue to monitor the
market and the take up
of services
N Johnson
Business Plan
31st March
2015
Improved awareness
of the market
Encourage provider
organisations to apply
for inclusion on the
Personalisation
Framework
Integrated
Commissioning
Managers
Business Plan
31st January
2014
Majority of provider
organisations are
accepted onto the
Personalisation
Framework
Individuals who are
currently assessed as
having moderate needs
will be reassessed to
determine whether or
not their needs have
Social Workers
in the FACS
Team
Business Plan
30th April 2014
All Moderate service
users will have been
reassessed
Loss of service for
individuals who are
assessed as having
Moderate needs
20
Required outcome
Provider
organisations are
supported and have
the knowledge to
operate in the new
market
increased and they can
continue to receive
services
People who have not
been assessed under
FACS before will be
assessed if they wish
Appropriate
Social Work
Team
Business Plan
30th April 2014
All those who wish to
be assessed will be
assessed
Individuals who do not
meet the criteria for
Adult Social Care will be
directed to the
Information and Advice
Service to help them find
suitable services /
activities in their
community
Appropriate
Social Work
Team
Salford CABx
Business Plan
Contract Monitoring
Meetings
30th April 2014
People will be able to
find alternative
services / activities in
the community with
the help of Salford
CABx
More choice for
individuals as more
providers enter the
market
Organisations are being Integrated
encouraged to diversify
Commissioning
their service provision
Managers
and to ensure they apply
for inclusion on the
Personalisation
Framework (which will
be open to a wide range
of providers not currently
providing services to
Salford residents)
Business Plan
31st January
2014
A wider and diverse
range of services is
available for
individuals
Possible positive impact
on Community Cohesion
People who no longer
qualify for Adult Social
Care Services will be
encouraged to access
universal services in the
community through the
Contract Monitoring
Meetings
30th April 2014
People will be more
connected / included
in their community
Salford CABx
21
Information and Advice
Service
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 in March 2015. You should review progress on your CIA action plan annually.
22
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
How did you approach the CIA and what did you find?
The CIA was approached by looking at the 8 provider organisations affected by Personalisation; obtaining details of the people who
used their services and working individually with the organisations to understand the possible impact of the new market for adult social
care.
We found that of the 349 people using the services of the providers 124 had been assessed as having substantial or critical needs, 61
had moderate needs, 120 had not been assessed under the FACS criteria, and 44 were self funding their care. This means that 124
people would continue to qualify for adult social care and could potentially continue using the existing services if they wished. The 61
individuals who have moderate needs and the 120 people who have not been assessed under the FACS criteria, will no longer qualify
for adult social care so would not be able to use the services unless they paid for them with their own funds. This represents a
significant risk to the organisations in terms of income and the individuals in terms of loss of services.
What are the main areas requiring further attention?
The main issue for organisations is improved knowledge and confidence to operate in the Personalisation market.
The main issue for individuals is improved access to universal services and activities in local communities.
Summary of recommendations for improvement
Continued support for organisations through joint working with Salford CVS to improve knowledge and confidence in provider
organisations e.g. workshops on topics such as marketing and business planning; individual meetings / support.
Encourage organisations to apply for inclusion on the Personalisation Framework.
Monitor the market in terms of diversity of provision and take up of services.
Reassess all those who have moderate needs and assess those who have not been assessed under the FACS criteria if they wish to
be assessed.
Ensure those who do not meet the criteria for adult social care services are directed to Information and Advice services to help them
identify resources within their community.
23
Section G – Next Steps
Quality Assurance
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
Keith Darragh
03.12.2013
Lead CIA Officer
Anne Roberts
03.12.2013
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.
24