Community Impact Assessment
Redefined offer for vulnerable adults
Proposal to charge for Care on Call and to end visiting services
Community Health and Social Care.
May 2014
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment.
Lead Officer : Angie Allan, Principal Manager Independent living Services,
Lesley Thomas, Care on Call Manager
Summary of community impact assessment
The assessment considered the impacts on staff, service users and carers of charging for the
emergency response service and ceasing the weekend and weekday visiting service that is
currently provided by Care on Call.
The formal resident 12 week consultation began in March 2014 and ended in May. All existing
service users were sent a consultation pack call the vulnerable Persons Offer, which contained
details of the proposal for Care on Call and asked a series of questions such as is it fair to pay?
Would you pay £4.82 pw for the emergency response service? Would you pay £10.00 pw for a
visiting service?
The same consultation documentation was sent to Carers and a reminder letter was sent to all
service users in May 2014
We approached the assessment by ensuring we found out who the people were who would be
affected, what the communications issues might be due to disability or language and then
considered how we would best find out people's views on the proposal.
The emergency and visiting services are still in operation during the consultation period so there
were ample opportunities for people to ask questions and for wardens to give advice. Wardens also
encouraged service users during phone calls and visits to return the questionnaire.
The council received a total of 1832 responses to its proposals to redefine its offer for vulnerable
adults, of which 1364 variously referred to the care on call proposals. Just under half of
respondents felt that it was fair to expect people to pay for the service, nearly two thirds said that
they would pay £4.82 a week to continue the emergency response service, but only about a fifth
said they would pay £10 a week to continue the visiting service.
Staff engagement is in the form of team meetings with Management. Individual meetings for staff
members is also available with either SCC staff and\or Unions. It has been established that there
are no anticipated staff changes at this time as a result of previous changes to staff numbers and
the requirement to have enough staff numbers to provide a 27 \ 7service.
Partner organisations such as landlords, Age UK and Citizens advice have been consulted with to
ensure they are made aware of the changes.
219511640
1/21
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
x
x
Are you impact assessing something that is?:New
Existing
Being reviewed
Being reviewed as a result of budget constraints
X
X
The area you are impact assessing and the changes you are proposing
‘Care on Call’ is a service provided by Salford City Council. The service offers an emergency
response and monitoring service, as well as a 7 day warden visiting service. The service also
offers a key holding service to enable quick access to a service user’s home by the Wardens and/or
emergency services in the case of an emergency such as fall or no response.
Care on Call Service
Total number of service users, of which
- sheltered tenants
- housing association tenants
- service users
Extra care tenants. Minimal out of hours response.
No. of service
users
4462
1104
57
3301
161
The proposal focuses Care on Call on its core business of community alarm and telecare service
providing an installation, monitoring and emergency response to people living in Salford. Currently
it is provided free of charge to people who have a qualifying benefit. It is proposed that from August
2014 the service will be fully chargeable. There is also a possibility that the weekly and weekend
visiting services will cease.
130 service users have weekend visits, 3 couples, 127 live alone, 110 service users are aged over
70. Age groups and numbers of service users in those groups are:
50 + - 2
80+ - 43
60+ - 15
90+ - 20
70+ - 45
100+ - 2
8 self payers @ £2.70 per week for a weekend visit, (48 wks), £1,036.80 p.a.
130 have one or more medical condition or disability: dementia, diabetes, heart problems, reduced
mobility, visually and hearing impaired, amputees, COPD, arthritis, mental health problems etc
Total number of service users having weekly visits 399 @ 29th October 2013. 340 of the 399
service users are aged 70+
Number of customers listed as living alone (who receive the visiting service) 380
Under 50 – 9
Under 90 – 159
Under 60 – 12
Under 100 – 52
219511640
2/21
Under 70 – 37
Under 80 – 89
100 + 3
Proposed timescale.
 July 2014 - four weeks formal notice of introduction of charging for all service users and
cessation of visiting service
 August 2014 – charging commences and visiting service ends.
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
X
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
x
discrimination/inequalities
Major change, such as closure, reduction, removal or transfer
X
Community, regeneration and planning strategies, organisational or
directorate partnership strategies/plans
Employment policy – where discretion is not exercised
x
Employment policy – where discretion is exercised. For example,
recruitment or disciplinary process
Equality Areas
Indicate with an “x” which equality areas are likely to be affected, positively or negatively, by the
proposals
Age
X
Religion and/or belief
X
Disability
X
Sexual Identity
X
Gender (including pregnancy and X
People on a low income (socioX
maternity)
economic inequality)
Gender reassignment
X
Other (please state below) (For
X carers
stakeholders
example carers, ex offenders)
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
219511640
3/21
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently
monitor by the following
protected characteristics or
equality areas?
Age
Disability
Gender (including
pregnancy and maternity)
Gender Reassignment
Race
Religion and/or belief
Sexual Identity
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
Other (please state) (For
example carers, ex
offenders)
Yes (Y) If no, please explain why and / or detail in the action
or No
plan at Section E how you will prioritise the gathering
(N)
of this equality monitoring data.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Staff – information held centrally in Humanagement
Service users – information held on Care on Call
system (where provided)
Y
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals? - Yes
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
The council has consulted about its Care on Call proposals as part of its proposed Redefined
Offer for Vulnerable Adults. It posted an initial pack to 3221 service users and carers whose
addresses it had. Approximately 8 weeks into the process it sent reminder to 3227 service
users, and published an advert about the consultation at the same time. Stakeholders were
contacted and advised of the consultation and proposed changes to the service.
The council received 1832 responses to the overall consultation, of which 1364 referred to the
care on call proposals. 995 of the responses were from users of the care on call services, 217
were from carers of users of the service, and 385 were from family or friends of users.
In addition, Care on Call staff spoke to 444 service users about the proposals during phone
calls and when visiting them to help with any queries about the consultation, some of whom
had perhaps already responded to consultation letters.
Q7 Fair to expect people to pay?
Of all those who responded about whether it is fair to expect people to pay for care on call,
46% (630) either strongly agreed or agreed. The proportions were similar for users (47%,
465), carers (43%, 94) and family and friends (48%, 185). So, overall a slight majority
disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is fair.
Those who identified themselves as disabled people agreed less than those who identified
themselves as not disabled, with only 42% (136) of all disabled respondents supporting it,
compared to 51% (193) of non-disabled respondents. This difference was similar amongst
users, but more pronounced amongst disabled carers (35%, 27) compared to other carers
(50%, 32) and amongst disabled friends and family of service users (38%, 42) compared to
other family and friends ((51%, 76).
219511640
4/21
Agreement was generally lower amongst those aged 45-64 (40%, 121) compared to those
aged over 65 (49%, 241). It was lowest amongst those aged 25-44 who were users (29%,
10), carers of users (23%, 3) or family of friends of users (29%, 6).
The proportions of men and women who strongly agreed and agreed that it is fair were very
similar at between 46% and 48%. The exception was men who were carers amongst whom
only 37% (20) strongly agreed or agreed.
Only about half of respondents indicated whether or not they had a religious belief. Of those
who indicated that they had a religious belief 47% (285) strongly agreed and agreed that it is
fair, exactly the same proportion as amongst those who indicated that they had no religious
belief (47%, 123). The majority of those who disclosed their religion (88%) were Christian.
48%(294) agreed that it was fair, with a similar proportion of Muslims (44%, 7). A much lower
proportion strongly agreed and agreed of those who identified their religion as Jewish (25%,
3) and of those who identified their religion as other (28%, 7).
Only about three quarters of respondents revealed their ethnic heritage, and of those who did
94% (910) were White British, 47% (428) of whom strongly agreed or agreed with the
proposal, compared to only 35% (9) of the much smaller number of people who identified
themselves as White Irish.
Many respondents did not disclose their sexual identity (42%, 549). Of 46% (316) strongly
agreed or agreed that it is fair to expect people to pay, compared to 59% (13) of those who
identified as gay men, and 38% (6) of those who identified as bisexual. those who did
Q8 Would you pay £4.82 a week?
A total of 1085 people responded on this question. 915 people identified themselves as
service users, 203 as carers of service users and 347 as family or friends of service users.
These total more than the number of respondents on the question because some
respondents indicated that they fulfilled more than one role.
Of the 1085 respondents 63% (685) indicated that they would pay to continue the service.
Higher proportions of users (68%, 623), carers of users (69%, 140) and family and friends of
users (73%, 347) indicated that they would be willing to pay.
60% (283) of all those who identified themselves as disabled people indicated that they would
pay to continue the service, rising to 66% (264) of disabled service users, 64% (49) of
disabled carers and 68% (69)of disabled family and friends. These proportions were lower
than for people who identified that they were not disabled with 68% (175) of all non-disabled
respondents, 77% (150) of non-disabled users, 76% (42) of non-disabled carers and 76% (97)
of non-disabled family and friends of users.
Willingness to pay for the service generally increased with respondents’ ages. Only 37% of all
respondents aged 25-44 said that they would pay, rising to 52% (16) of users in that age
group and 50% (6) of carers and 47% (9) of family and friends. By contrast, comparable
figures for those aged over 65 were 72% (320) of all respondents in that age groups, 73%
(305), of users, 75% (47) of carers and 82% (79) of friends and family.
69% of respondents who indicated that they were women said that they would continue to
pay, compared to 55% of respondents who indicated that they were men. These proportions
increased to 73% and 63% respectively for users who indicated their gender, and to 76% and
219511640
5/21
60% for carers, and to 76% and 65% for family and friends.
66% (676) of respondents to this question indicated whether or not they had a religious belief.
Of those who indicated that they had a religious belief 68% (350) said that they would
continue to pay, compared to 52% (86) of those who indicated that they did not have a
religious belief. The majority of those who indicated their religion 92% (516) indicated that
they were Christian, of whom 69% (356) said that they would pay, compared to 56% (5) of the
small number of respondents who indicated that they were Jewish, and 20% (2) of the similar
number of people who indicated that they were Muslim. 59% (13) of those who indicated their
religion as other said that they would pay.
Only about three quarters of respondents revealed their ethnic heritage, and of those who did
and responded to this question 97% (705) were White British, 68% (459) said that they would
pay.
Many respondents to this question did not disclose their sexual identity (45%, 469). Of those
who did 63% (333) of those who identified themselves as heterosexual or straight indicated
that they would pay, compared to 50% (6) who identified as bisexual, 33% (4) who identified
as gay men.
Q10 Would you pay £10 pw for the visiting service
A total of 727people responded on this question, of whom 567 identified themselves as
service users, 134 as carers of service users and 208 as family or friends of service users.
These total more than the number of respondents on the question because some
respondents indicated that they fulfilled more than one role.
Of the 727 respondents 18% (134) indicated that they would pay to continue the service, with
19% (109) of users willing to pay, 17% (23) of carers and 23% (48) of family and friends.
Lower proportions of those who identified themselves as disabled indicated that they would
pay compared to those who indicated that they had no disability. 19% (50) of disabled users
said they would pay compared to 28% (28) of non disabled users, 15% (8) of disabled carers
compared to 27% (9) non-disabled carers and 23%(16) of disabled family and friends
compared to 27% (18) of non-disabled family and friends.
Respondents’ willingness to pay for the service was fairly similar across all age groups and
statuses, generally ranging between 17% and 23% apart from in a couple of age groups and
status categories in which there were few respondents. The other exception was amongst
family and friends aged over 65, of whom 27% (16) said they would pay.
21% (63) of respondents who indicated that they were women said that they would continue
to pay, compared to 19% (33) of respondents who indicated that they were men. The
proportions were similar for users who indicated their gender, but 24% (14) of respondents
who indicated that they were women and carers would pay compared to only 9% (3) of
respondents who indicated that they were men and carers. The highest proportions were
amongst respondents who indicated their gender and that they were family and friends of
service users at 25% (22) of women and 26% (12) of men.
66% (449) of respondents to this question indicated whether or not they had a religious belief.
Of those who indicated that they had a religious belief 19% (63) said that they would continue
to pay, compared to 22% (28) of those who indicated that they did not have a religious belief.
219511640
6/21
The majority of those who indicated their religion indicated that they were Christian 91%
(325), of whom 20% (65) said that they would pay, compared to none of the 7 respondents
who indicated that they were Jewish, and none of the 10 respondents who indicated that they
were Muslim. 19% (3) of those who indicated their religion as other said that they would pay.
Only about three quarters of respondents revealed their ethnic heritage, and of those who did
and responded to this question 97% (462) indicated that they were White British, of whom
21% (96) said that they would pay.
Many respondents to this question did not disclose their sexual identity (39%, 321). Of those
who did, 21% (73) of those who identified themselves as heterosexual or straight indicated
that they would pay, compared to none of the 6 who identified as bisexual, 18% (2) who
identified as gay men and 11% (1) of those who identified their sexuality as other.
but 360 said they would pay for the service, with 74 willing to pay £7.66 a week for a weekly
visit and the alarm service but not £10.00 a week. On the other hand 84 said that they would
not pay.
Staff engagement
Staff engagement began on in February 2014. Four sessions have been held including a
session with some staff members to discuss business ideas. It has been established that
there are no anticipated staff changes at this time as a result of previous changes to staff
numbers and the requirement to have enough staff numbers to provide a 27 \ 7service.
Analysis
C3 What information has been analysed to inform the content of this CIA? What were the
findings?
The
Service user age Number of service users in age range*(excl. service
collects
ranges
sheltered tenants who are all over 55)
20 - 29
4
30 - 44
45
45 - 49
201
60 - 64
115
65 - 74
511
75 - 84
1102
85 - 94
1124
95+
95
information from service users and it is held on the Care on Call system.
The information that has been analysed is customer held information and staff information.
Service Type
Cost
per Number of service
week
users
24 hour monitoring and emergency response
£4.82
4462
A weekly visit plus monitoring
£7.66
399
Weekend visit
130
Pop in visit
£3.35
1
Out of Hours service provision for other
65
landlords and 6 LD Supported Housing
219511640
7/21
Section D – Potential impacts and how these might be addressed
Could your proposals have
a 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?
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
Yes (Y)
No
(N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
Y
N
N
The visiting service is provided to a wide age range although predominately to people over 70
years. Care on Call will still provide an emergency call monitoring and response service. The
support the visit has offered people has focussed on helping people to help themselves. If
people require help they will still be able to contact Care on Call who can sign post people to
organisations who can assist them.
380 of the 399 people who receive weekly visit currenlty live alone. 127 of the 130 people who
receive a weekend visit currenlty live alone. People often wait in for the Warden to do their
visit which although are usually on the same day are not always at the same time. If people
do not receive a visit they will be able to do other things instead of waiting in.
Y
Of the service users who provided their age and responded to the question Would you pay
£4.82 per week? The data shows that 317 people would pay for the emergency response
service against 187 who have said they would not.
N
219511640
8/21
219511640
9/21
The majority group of people in Care on Call are age 65 and over. The responses received
reflect that position.
219511640
10/21
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
disability equality?
Yes
(Y)
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?
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
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?
The consultation will ensure that the details of organisations that can assist people with
disabilities are shared with service users.
y
The Care on Call emergency response service will still be available on a 24/7 basis.
y
Within the data held within Care on Call some service users have told us that they have specific
needs when being communicated with. For example people with a hearing impairment may
need a signer to be available if they require further information after receiving written information.
13 people have told Care on Call that they are profoundly deaf whilst 339 have told us they deaf
or have issues with hearing.
N
There are 119 people identified with a mental health illness, dementia. Many others on the
system report having some short term memory loss. A proportion of these service users may not
understand the written information or remain unaware of the changes even after they have
received it. The information will be sent to Carers too as in most cases a carer is listed as the
service users next of kin.
N
The Care on Call service will continue as normal whilst the consultation is ongoing so advice and
reassurance can be given by the Wardens to both service users and carers.
If the proposal is approved a 28 day notice letter will be sent to all service users. Wardens will be
available to talk through the implications of the change in the service and will also discuss any
concerns if ultimately the service user cancels the service.
Of the respondents who were service users 157 identified themselves as being disabled and 44
stated they were not. 116 people did not disclose this information.
219511640
11/21
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
The service employs 27 women and 5 men.
Will the proposals mean that
men or women, boys or girls 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
The proposals affect all staff and service users regardless of gender.
N
N
Whole Service gender make up (service users)
Female
2950
Male
1513
Unknown 10
Of those respondents who provided comments 99 said that they already pay, 123
felt it was not affordable, 91 felt the service should be means or age tested, 16
stated they had already paid their taxes and 66 said it is a vital service and would
pay.
The responses to this question are proportionately representative of the whole
service make up.
N
219511640
12/21
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?
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?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your
analysis?
N
The proposals affect all staff and service users in the same way.
N
N
Will the proposals mean that people planning,
undergoing or who have undergone gender
reassignment 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
N
219511640
13/21
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?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Y
N
N
N
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain racial
groups will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community
cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good
relations
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Care on Call service user monitoring
Service users
Ethnic origin
Number %
White British
3194
71.58
Unknown
1082
24.25
White other
59
1.32
White Irish
58
1.30
White Scottish
12
0.27
Other
11
0.25
Black African
8
0.18
Asian Pakistani
6
0.13
Asian other
5
0.11
Mixed other
4
0.09
Polish
4
0.09
Mixed white and black Caribbean
3
0.07
Asian Chinese
2
0.04
Black Caribbean
2
0.04
Chinese
2
0.04
Mixed white and black African
2
0.04
White Welsh
2
0.04
Asian Bangladeshi
1
0.02
Asian Indian
1
0.02
Indian
1
0.02
Mixed white and Asian
1
0.02
Vietnamese
1
0.02
White Eastern European
1
0.02
Total
4462
99.96
219511640
14/21
The service assists people where English is not their first language and \ or they
cannot read or write. On these occasions, where appropriate, we have :
 asked that a family member reads it to them and responds on their behalf
 provided literature in a suitable language
 undertaken meetings in peoples own homes with a family member who
can translate on their behalf
The literature will be sent to all service users and their next of kin to aid this
process.
Could your proposals have a
Yes
differential impact relating to
(Y)
religion or belief equality
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?
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
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Care on Call service user Religious make up
N
N
N
C of E
Roman Catholic
Christian
Unknown
Methodist
Jewish
Atheist
Muslim
Jehovah witness
Hindu
Orthodox
Pentecostal
Buddhist
C of Scotland
Unitarian
Islamic
219511640
15/21
2832
769
309
278
99
76
36
14
12
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
63.47
17.23
6.93
6.23
2.22
1.70
0.81
0.31
0.27
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.07
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
Presbyterian
Mormon
Lutheran
Salvation Army
Total
3
2
1
1
4462
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.02
100.00
Total
Religious Belief Yes
Buddhist
Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Hindu
Sikh
Other
Total
Religious belief not disclosed
Did
not
respo
nd
1
118
3
7
0
0
5
370
236
Yes
0
270
3
2
0
0
5
571
291
User
No
0
114
3
4
0
0
6
311
184
Did
not
respo
nd
0
58
2
7
0
0
5
207
135
Yes
0
165
1
1
0
0
4
317
146
No
0
72
2
4
0
0
4
187
105
The Buddhist and Christian responses are proportionate. The response rate for Muslim
is approximately 50% and the response rate for Jewish service users is proportionately
lower than expected. A third more people have not disclosed their religious belief than
is indicated in the service numbers. It could be that those groups are underrepresented
and it could also be that they are represented in the significantly larger unknown
consultation response numbers.
219511640
16/21
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 bi-sexual people not be
getting the outcome they need?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bi-sexual people be
disadvantaged as a result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it be reduced or
eliminated?
Yes
(Y)
No (N)
N
N
N
Will the proposals mean that gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people 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
N
219511640
17/21
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support
your analysis?
The proposals affect both staff and service users.
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)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
y
Over 80% of total service users receive the service at nil cost as a result of being in
receipt of a qualifying benefit.
Y
The proposal to charge for the service will affect people who have a low incomes.
All service users will be sent a 28 day notice letter following ratification of the
decision which will include contact details to access a fairer charging assessment.
Y
Will the proposals mean that
people on a low income 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
N
The service currently operates on a 48 week payment schedule because
historically it was a property based housing service which aligned with the rent
payment schedules of the landlord. The proposal intends to charge for each week
of the service therefore it will be a 52 week minimum charge. It is proposed that
the service maintains the 48 week charging policy for existing service users until
the last pay week in March 2015. This will hopefully allow service users time to
realign their finances. From the 01.04.15, all service users will be subject to a 52
week charge. Following the decision all new service users will be charged on a 52
week minimum basis.
90%+ of service users receive the visiting service at no cost to themselves
because they are on a qualifying benefit. The consultation has highlighted that
although people value the service the proposed charge of £10.00 is too expensive.
60 service users said they would pay it and 294 said they would not. 114 of total
respondents would pay for it and 505 would not. Further feedback from service
users has indicated that they would still like a visit and would pay for it if it
remained at the £7.66 charge and if it included the 24\7 emergency response
service.
219511640
18/21
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
Y
groups 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
A small proportion of service users do not have family living close by and take
comfort knowing that someone is looking in on their family once a week. If service
users do not wish to pay for the visiting service they are still able to access the
emergency response service for a cheaper cost.
Will the proposals mean that
people within any other groups
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
N
N
Carers - as above.
219511640
19/21
Section E – Action Plan
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
People
responsible
Where will action be
monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate Business
Plan, Service Plan,
Equality Action Plan)
Targe
t date
Required outcome
Impact on people
with a mental
health disability
or physical
disability
Ensure 121 consultation is available
with identified people and carers.
Ensure signers are available.
Lesley
Thomas
Assistant Mayoral
process
Communication plan
review
TSA
26.05.
14
Lesley
Thomas
Communication plan
review
26.05.
14
Everyone identified by
business intelligence or who
requests it gets a 121
meeting to explain the
changes.
Help discussing and taking
options available.
Ensure information and
access to all support groups
is readily available.
Impact on
service users
 increased
isolation
 support with
official
documentatio
n
 support with
finances
Ensure written information is sent to
carers, where an address has been
provided.
 Ensure landlords and support
organisations such as welfare
rights, Citizens advice and
AgeUK are informed of the
proposal to cease the visiting
service.
 Give all service users details to
access a fairer charging
assessment.
 Delay implementing 52 week
payment plan and keep payment
schedule of 48 weeks for existing
service users until 01.04.15.
 Consider keeping the charge for
the visiting service and mobile
response at £7.66 per week.
Benefit maximisation.
Lesley
Thomas
Consultation process
review
219511640
20/21
Impact (positive
or negative)
identified
Proposed action
People
responsible
Where will action be
monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate Business
Plan, Service Plan,
Equality Action Plan)
Targe
t date
Required outcome
Impact on carers
 Communicate as soon as
possible giving people time for
alternative arrangements by
writing to carers.
 Ensure literature explains
changes and possible impacts on
them and their family members.
Ensure staff are engaged with as
early as possible so that they have
as much time as possible to
consider the range of options
available to them.
 Team meetings
 121’s with HR
Angie Allan
Communication plan
review
TSA
26.05.
14
Minimised carer stress.
Angie Allan
Assistant Mayoral
process
Communication plan
review
DMG
Union consultation
26.05.
14
Staff have time to seek advice
from all parties which will
allow them to make informed
choices about their future.


Increased
calls
increased
stress
Impact on staff
Consult with unions so that support
can be offered to staff as early as
possible.
Support staff through process and
ensure they are aware of all of the
options available to them.
Name
Senior Manager
Signature
Date
Lead CIA Officer
219511640
21/21