Community Impact Assessment
Transport for adults to day centres
Community Health & Social Care
Date of assessment: May 2014
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment:
Lead officer: Kim Drummond-Smith Service Manager, Day Services
Summary of assessment
Brief summary of proposal or what you are impact assessing
The proposal is for the Passenger Transport Unit to save £600,000 in a full year, saving
£500,000 in 2014/15 by reviewing each service user’s transport needs, and applying the
Council’s revised passenger transport policy ‘Criteria for Transport’. As appropriate, service
users would have access to Ring and Ride, taxis (with adaptations to support individual
need), ordinary public transport or assistance from friends and family.
How did you approach the CIA and what did you find?
 considered findings from of public consultation on the proposal as part of the council’s
overall consultation on its proposed revised offer for vulnerable adults
 discussed alternative transport options with current users
 took into account the experience of previous users whom the council helped to move to
alternative services
What are the main areas requiring further attention?
Continued support with travel planning and developing travel skills to use alternative means of
transport.
Summary of recommendations for improvement
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
x
Are you impact assessing something that is
New ?
Existing?
Being reviewed?
Being reviewed as a result of budget constraints?
x
x
Describe the area you are impact assessing and, where appropriate, the changes you
are proposing?
A total of 209 people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and mental health
problems use the Passenger Transport Unit to either get to day services or Granville respite
1/13
centre. The proposal for the Passenger Transport Unit is to save £600,000 in a full year,
saving with £500,000 in 2014/15. This proposal will not affect the Home to School Transport
service for children.
The efficiency will be achieved by reviewing each service user’s transport needs, and
applying the Council’s revised passenger transport policy ‘Criteria for Transport’. This would
mean that service users would, if appropriate, have access to Ring and Ride, taxis (with
adaptations to support individual need), ordinary public transport or assistance from friends
and family. Discussions with the 209 service users have found that 169 of them could make
adequate alternative arrangements, and that the other 40 could use an alternative form of
transport with some support.
A review of day services over the last few years has reduced building usage and focussed
support on the most vulnerable adults whom the council has assessed as having either
substantial or critical needs. They include people with learning difficulties, autism specific
needs, challenging behaviours, profound and multiple complex needs and those who are over
the age of 65 with dementia and other disabilities associated with health difficulties.
In line with Just Enough Support and with Think Local Act Personal, during the review the
Council helped over 300 people with moderate or low needs to move from social care settings
in designated buildings to general community settings in local facilities and to start using
alternative forms of transport to get there. Using facilities as near as possible to their homes
has cut the length of their journeys, made them more independent of specialist transport
services, and given them more transport choices.
we have helped users and their families to decide how users can best reach their
destinations. Full travel assessments identify any risks and the support needed to remove or
mitigate them. Once agreed with users and their families, the council helps users to travel
independently. We have been working towards this strategy following the re-structure of day
services and so far over 90 people have moved to ordinary forms of transport.
In March 2014, the Council approved its criteria for transport assistance which clarifies
application of the criteria to provide a strategic, consistent and transparent approach to
transport support for individuals’ transport needs.
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
2/13
x
x
x
x
x
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
x
Sexual Identity
Gender (including pregnancy X
People on a low income (socio-economic
X
and maternity and marriage
inequality)
and civil partnership)
Gender reassignment
Other (please state below) (For example carers,
x
ex offenders, refugees and asylum seekers,
gypsies and travellers)
Race
X
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you monitor by
these protected
characteristics or
equality areas?
Yes (Y)
or No (N)
Age
Disability
Gender
Gender reassignment
Y
Y
Y
N
Race
Religion and/or belief
Sexual Identity
Y
Y
N
People on a low
income
(socio-economic
inequality)
Other (please state)
(e.g. carers, ex
offenders, refugees
and asylum seekers,
gypsies and travellers)
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.
Assessments of needs take into account all aspects of
people’s conditions, circumstances and characteristics,
including protected characteristics.
Assessments of needs take into account all aspects of
people’s conditions, circumstances and characteristics,
including protected characteristics.
Assessments of needs take into account all aspects of
people’s conditions, circumstances and characteristics,
including their income.
N
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals?
Yes, as part of the savings proposal of the redefined offer to vulnerable people
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
During March, April and May 2014 the council consulting on this proposal as one of several in
its overall consultation on a redefined offer for vulnerable people. The council wrote to
everyone who was using transport to day services inviting their views. Officers also currently
attended forums and carers’ groups to gather views directly.
Specifically, about transport to day services the council asked:
Q5. Do you agree that it is fair that people use available alternative transport options if
they are able (e.g. transport from family or friends, bus, taxi, tram, Ring and Ride)
3/13
before the council provides a specialist service?
To augment the consultation process, during April and May, officers discussed transport
alternatives with individual service users to better understand what the impacts might be if the
council decided to implement this savings proposal. The options include transport by families
and friends, public transport, Ring and Ride services and community links, developing travel
skills and using mobility benefits.
Consultation results
The Council received 1,832 responses to the overall consultation, of which 1,242 referred to
the transport proposals. 172 respondents indicated that they were users of this service, 89
that they were carers of users of the service, and 98 that they were family or friends of users
of the service.
Of all those who responded about whether it is fair that people use available alternative
transport options if they are able, 73% (630) either strongly agreed or agreed. This was in
marked contrast to users of whom only 37% (64) strongly agreed or agreed, carers at 31%
(28) and family and friends 35% (36).
72% (377) of respondents who identified themselves as disabled strongly agreed or agreed
that it was fair, the same proportion as who indicated that they had no disabilities ((256). This
similarity of response was maintained between disabled users and non-disabled users at 36%
(26) and 35% (21) respectively. 36% (14) carers with disabilities strongly agreed or agreed
that it was fair, compared to 23% (7) of carers without disabilities. The difference in views was
smaller amongst family and friends, with 33% (11) of those with disabilities in support
compared to 36% (16) of those without disabilities.
Overall, lower proportions agreed amongst respondents aged 25-44 (66%, 98) and aged 4564 (67%, 192) than amongst those aged over 65 (78%, 336). 41% of respondents aged 45-64
agreed with the proposal whether they were users (23), carers (12) or family and friends (15).
There was a wider variation between these statuses for those aged over 65 ranging from 39%
(14) of users to 25% (4) of carers, with 35% (6) family and friends in agreement. The same
figures for those aged 25-44 were 30% (11), 24% (5) and 29% (6).
The proportions of men and women who strongly agreed and agreed that it is fair were similar
at between 74% (416) for women and 71% ((215) for men. These proportions remained
similar for respondents who identified that they had a disability and those who had not, and
across all age groups. The numbers reflect that nearly twice as many respondents to this
question identified their gender as female (559) as male (304). There were differences
between the genders, however, amongst users, cares and family or friends, with a smaller
proportion of women strongly agreeing or agreeing that it is fair in each case. 32% (22) of
women who were users did so, compared to 42% (21)of male users, with 19% (6) women
carers compared to 45% (15) of male carers. The exception was men who were carers
amongst whom only 37% (20) strongly agreed or agreed.
About two thirds of respondents to this question indicated whether or not they had a religious
belief. Of those who indicated that they had a religious belief 74% (402) strongly agreed and
agreed that it is fair, similar to the 72% (186) of those who indicated that they had no religious
belief. 94% (555) of those who disclosed their religion were Christian, of whom 74% (410)
strongly agreed or agreed, with similar proportions of Jewish respondents (70%, 7) and
4/13
Muslim respondents (71%, 12). The proportions of users, carers and family or friend who
identified themselves as Christian were much lower at 37% (27 ), 39% (15 ) and 41% (18 )
respectively.
About three quarters of respondents to this question revealed their ethnic heritage, and of
those who did 95% (842) were White British, 73% (615) of whom strongly agreed or agreed
with the proposal, compared to only 83% (18) of those who identified themselves as White
Irish. The proportions of White British users, carers and friends and family who strongly
agreed and agreed were much lower at 38% (46), 33% (21) and 36% (26.)
42% (486) of respondents to this question did not disclose their sexual identity. Of those who
did, 93% (647) identified themselves as heterosexual/straight, of whom 74% (486) strongly
agreed or agreed, compared to 75% (15) of those who identified as gay men, and 67% (10) of
those who identified as bisexual.
C3 What
information has
been analysed to
inform the content
of this CIA? What
were the findings?
Please include
details of, for
example, service
or employee
monitoring
information,
consultation
findings, any
national or local
research,
customer
feedback,
inspection reports,
and any other
information which
will inform your
CIA.
Please specify
whether this was
existing
information or was
obtained
specifically in
relation to this
equality analysis
and CIA process
Comments from the consultation were grouped into common themes. 120
comments were associated with Ring & Ride and Taxis. The concerns
raised were in the following areas of reliability / availability / costs and
safety. The Community Impact Assessment recognises that information
regarding these services was not always readily available; usage of R&R
and Taxis gives more choice to the user but it has been acknowledge that
day centres need to be more flexible with arrival and departure times to
give more scope to individual arrangement. If the proposal is agreed these
points will be taken up individually with people to see there are adequate
solutions in place to meet the required need. Where people have access
to bus passes they can travel on R&R at minimal or no costs. Travel
Vouchers are available and we are able to sign post people to these
various options. In addition to this we have been developing our
relationships with Taxis firms to ensure there is understanding of individual
need and the vehicles are adapted / adaptable to support individual
requirements if necessary. Overall of the current 209 people using the
passenger transport 169 could make adequate alternative arrangements.
As part of the consultation there were 79 comments made in regard to
specialist services needed. Recent meetings conducted by the
commissioning teams and our Mobility Officer have used the ‘Criteria for
Transport Assistance’ as guidance and identified that 40 people need
some form of support to enable them to use an alternative form of
transport to the Passenger Transport Unit. In particular 25 people have
expressed concerns around safety and support offered to those who live
on their own. Individual support plans would need to be in place for the 40
people concerned should the proposal be agreed .
A further 76 comments were around costs / benefits. This would be
assessed on individual circumstances; annual reviews would take place to
ensure any changes to personal circumstances have been taken into
account.
In general there have been several concerns raised by carers / families
which have been around safety and support offered to those who live on
their own where there were no family members. This would require
5/13
collaboration between service providers to look at individual support plans
and solve any difficulties. Recent meetings, with those using this service
have identified 25. There is already a project team in place to take this
forward following the decision.
Of the people using day services at the time, 128 were already accessing
alternative forms of transport on different days and their positive comments
were around their experiences, greater independence, choice and control
and accessing their local community.
In addition to the above comments which were collated outside of the
consultation format, these centred around individuals attending various
forums/ groups, concerns raised as to whether there would follow closure
of day centres. There are no plans in place for any further reduction in day
services. Where people are attending more than one day centre this can
be looked at to ensure people are not disadvantaged by the proposals. In
planning with regards to any changes we work in a person centred way to
ensure all aspects of people’s lives are taken into account e.g. maintaining
friendships / contacts so that people can continue to live their lives as they
choose.
All information was gathered specifically for the proposal and CIA to help
us in the decision making process
6/13
Section D – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y) No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
differential impact relating to
age equality
Just over 70% of current service users are aged 25-64, with 38% aged 25-44, 32% aged
Will people within certain age
N
over 65 and 24% aged 45-64. The remaining 6% are aged 18-24.
ranges not be getting the
outcome they need?
Encouraging more people to use alternative forms of transport might stretch the
Will people within certain age
capacity and the criteria of some alternatives. For instance, Ring & Ride sets
ranges be disadvantaged as a
distance limits, but people attending their nearest day centres should minimise the
result of your proposals?
effect of this.
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Most older people are attending their nearest day centre
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of age?
Will the proposals mean that
Y
Experience so far suggests that younger people benefited most from the flexibility
people within certain age ranges
and greater independence that alternative transport methods offer them.
will experience positive
outcomes?
Older people are more inclined to use Ring and Ride for their daily tasks which has
Highlight any positive impacts
made the transition more positive.
Are the proposals likely to
Y
Where people are encouraged to use local services provided within their
impact on community cohesion?
community. Using local transport services has led to greater involvement within
Is there potential to enhance
people’s communities.
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
7/13
disability equality
Will people with a disability not be
getting the outcome they need?
Will people with a disability be
disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of disability?
Y
Will the proposals mean that
people with a disability will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
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
The proposal will disproportionately impact people with learning difficulties, who
form just over 70% of current service users. Of the other users, 16% have a
physical disability and 12% have mental health problems.
There is a risk that people with disabilities might be isolated and unable to get
about for want of knowledge about other forms of transport. Knowledge about
various local links and about local buses and other transport, including the range of
taxis that offer supportive transport, might mitigate this risk.
Recent travel assessments by our Mobility Officer have encouraged people with a
disability to consider alternatives and to plan how to develop skills to enable them
to travel differently. As a result, over 90 no longer needing specialist transport.
People will have more choice, control and independence.
Alternative means of travelling has often not been an option open to those with a
disability due to lack of knowledge as to what is available, issues of safety and
support.
Positive outcomes have been the flexibility to the times people want to travel to and
from the day centres, ensuring people have access to bus passes and where
appropriate use of supportive taxis and Ring and Ride. Over time we have been
developing our relationships with Taxis firms to ensure greater understanding of
learning / physical disabilities. We can offer training to companies who seek to offer
this service to those who have additional needs.
Through the training offered and the relationships we are developing this will help
bring about greater awareness as to the community’s understanding of the needs
of vulnerable people
Y
Could your proposals have a differential
impact relating to gender equality
Yes
(Y)
No
(N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
8/13
Will men, women or boys and girls not be
getting the outcome they need?
Will men, women or boys and girls be
disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it be
reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate, reduce or
mitigate negative impacts, are your
proposals potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of gender?
Will the proposals mean that men or
women, boys or girls will experience
positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact on
community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance relationships
between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not?
Identify areas where there is potential to
foster good relations
N
Women form 52% of service users.
Neither women nor men will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the proposal
because gender is not a factor in sourcing alternative transport.
y
As gender is not a factor the outcomes would be the same as outlined in both age
and disability.
y
There is a need to protect and preserve known friendships that have grown up over
several years. For some people these have been forged since childhood. For
people to share new experiences together will cement these friendships and
encourage people to try other new activities. Our experience so far has shown that
there is more opportunity for people to arrange activities between themselves when
not confined to service structures / times, community involvement plays a great
part in people’s lives and we have seen a difference to the way people are
perceived by the public when engaging with someone who has different needs.
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 grounds of race?
Will the proposals mean that people within certain
racial groups will experience positive outcomes?
Yes
(Y)
Y
No Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your
(N) analysis?
N
99% of service users describe themselves as White British or White English
so these proposals will disproportionately affect those groups.
Person- centred approaches mean constructing individual support for
peoples specific needs, taking into account their conditions, circumstance
and characteristics, including their race.
Our experience informs us that where people have moved away from
specialist services and are less dependent on building based activities it
9/13
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
Y
Could your proposals have a differential
impact relating to religion or belief equality
Will people of certain religions or who have
particular beliefs not be getting the outcome
they need?
Will people of certain religions or who have
particular beliefs be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it be
reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate, reduce or
mitigate negative impacts, are your
proposals potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of religion or belief?
Will the proposals mean that people of
certain religions or who have particular
beliefs will experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Yes (Y) No (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?
Y
n
y
has given people more choice and control over their lives
There is a need to protect and preserve known friendships that have grown
up over years, and for some since childhood. Sharing new experiences
together can cement these friendships and encourage people to try other
new activities.
Experience that users start to arrange activities between themselves
outside transport services’ structures and times.
Community involvement plays a great part in people’s lives and we have
seen positive differences in how people who do not use our services
perceive those who do as a result of engaging with them.
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your
analysis?
When we are supporting people through change we use Person centred
approaches which means that individual support can be constructed for
people who have specific needs, therefore this will take into account
religion or belief.
Our experience informs us that where people have moved away from
specialist services and are less dependent on building based activities it
has given people more choice and control over their lives
Should people wish to follow their religion or belief community support can
be accessed to encourage people to integrate more into their community.
Accessing support from a religious community can be a very positive
outcome for people who require this form of integration
There is a need to protect and preserve known friendships that have grown
up over years, and for some since childhood. Sharing new experiences
together can cement these friendships and encourage people to try other
new activities.
10/13
Identify areas where there is potential to
foster good relations
Could your proposals have a differential
impact on socio economic equality
(people on a low income)?
Will people on a low income not be getting
the outcome they need?
Will people on a low income be
disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it be
reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate, reduce or
mitigate negative impacts, are your
proposals potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of socio economic inequality?
Experience that users start to arrange activities between themselves
outside transport services’ structures and times.
Community involvement plays a great part in people’s lives and we have
seen positive differences in how people who do not use our services
perceive those who do as a result of engaging with them.
Yes
(Y)
Y
Could your proposals have a differential
impact relating to any other equality
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
The council’s fairer charging policy takes into account income and ability to pay.
People pay for all of their services.
Some people may be assessed as not needing a service provided by the council
so they might get a direct payment or be able to access community services at a
lower cost than at present.
In relation to transport, all people with learning difficulties are eligible for bus
passes and there is a component within DLA that takes mobility into account.
Some might be getting mobility allowance or have mobility cars,.
Other mobility support is offered through the use of taxis vouchers.
We will be looking at people using their own resources to assist in their support
network. Alternative forms of transport are available in the wider community and
therefore not needed from social services.
People having access to bus passes for perhaps the first time can feel liberated
and benefit enormously from having the freedom to travel around without the
restrictions placed on them by the times dictated by the transport service.
Where people are encouraged to use local services provided within their
community. Using local transport services has led to greater involvement within
people’s communities.
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
No
(N)
Y
Yes
(Y)
No Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
(N)
11/13
groups, for example, carers, ex offenders,
refugees and asylum seekers, gypsies
and travellers)? Carers
Will people within any other groups not be
Y
getting the outcome they need?
Carers
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, reduce or
mitigate negative impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory for people within
any other groups?
Will the proposals mean that people within
Y
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
Carers might need to help the person they are caring for to travel to and from
day centres.
Some people have Mobility vehicles and this is down to choice and all
consideration should be given to how best to support the individual. Information
can be provided to assist with this.
Further collaboration between services with family, friends and neighbours to get
the best outcome could help.
Where carers are supporting people who attend more than one day centre we
can arrange for the person to attend the centre of choice or where there are
individuals who would like to attend together the same day centre we can look at
how transport can be shared to reduce costs and also provide a more person
centred service.
Where people are encouraged to use local services provided within their
community. Using local transport services has led to greater involvement within
people’s communities. The relationships that will form as a result of local
services to local people will foster good relations and reinforce the safety and
stability of the people it supports.
Section E – Action Plan and review
If you are unable to eliminate or reduce negative impact on any of the equality areas, you should explain why
Possible positive
or negative
impacts identified
Possible action
Person(s)
responsible
Where will action be
monitored? (e.g., Directorate
Business Plan, Service Plan,
Equality Action Plan)
Target
date
Required outcome
Greater choice of
transport and
independence
(positive)

K. DrummondSmith, Service
Manager.
As above
2014
A reduction in the
number of people
needing specialist
transport services,
where alternatives
can be used.

Assess people’s ability to
travel independently
Help people to move from
specialist transport to
ordinary services where
possible.
12/13
Shorter journey
times
(positive)
Carers might need
to help cared for
people to and from
services more.
Review the current transport
provision in line with people
attending local centres
Pete Hardman,
Transport
Manager.
As above
Individual meetings to discuss
alternatives to meet assessed
transport needs which leads to
greater choice being given
Further collaboration between
services with family, friends and
neighbours to get the best
outcome could help.
Commissioning
teams for LD
Integrated teams
for OP and PD
Project planning
Directorate Business Plan
Savings Proposal
June 2014
Revise journeys to
support people
attending local
centres and reduce
travelling time.
Implement changes if
the savings proposal
agreed.
Could the changes in any of the above areas have a negative effect on other groups? Explain why and what might be done about it.
No.
Name
Senior Manager
Signature
Date
Lead CIA Officer
13/13