Community Impact Assessment
Home Improvement Agency/Housing Choice/Navigator Service
Community, Health and Social Care Services
Date of assessment: May 2014
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment.:
Kerry Thornley, Lead Officer, Supporting People
Lindsay Barrett, Contracts Officer
Clare Ibbeson, Team Leader Urban Renewal
Summary
Brief summary of proposal or what you are impact assessing
The Home Improvement Agency/Housing Options/Navigator service is a unique service that
provides advice and support to older and vulnerable people around their housing: providing support
to identify and move to a more appropriate home if required; practical support including access to
financial advice; and project management for major home repairs.
This service has been identified as an area to achieve Supporting People saving targets set for
2014/15 and therefore it is proposed that funding to this service should be withdrawn from
Supporting People and the relevant saving achieved.
How did you approach the CIA and what did you find?
The service Provider was consulted initially to identify potential impact of this proposal on service,
service delivery and service users. Depending upon the outcome of this initial consultation, further
consultation may take place with service users, staff members and Union reps.
What are the main areas requiring further attention?


Removal of staffing to the service providing access to preferential rate loans and practical
assistance to address major repairs for older home owners, even though funding to service the
loans remains in place
Removal of the staffing supporting the hospital discharge Navigator, disrupting the service
helping to re-house or de-clutter homes of older patients, preventing delayed discharge and
supporting reduced readmissions.
Summary of recommendations for improvement
To reconsider alternative funding sources, in discussion with CHSC, supporting the Integrated Care
Programme and Public Health, supporting the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment priority of fuel
poverty and housing need.
1/23
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
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?
The Home Improvement Agency, Housing Options/Choice, Navigator service is an integrated
service funded from Supporting People (£112k) and Community Health and Social Care (£96.5k)
that provides advice and support to older and vulnerable people around their practical housing
needs.
The following services are currently provided by the Provider:

Home Improvement is offered to older people (aged 60+) to tackle major repairs to their homes
such as leaking roofs, damp or electrical problems. This includes advice, support and project
management of larger jobs, including helping service users to find the money for the work.
Home Improvement is provided where the customer’s home is the sustainable option.

Housing Options/Choice is offered to older people (aged 55+) seeking information and advice
to help them decide about moving home. This includes helping service users identify
somewhere more suitable to live and help with the practical steps to move. This service will be
offered where low level navigation does not provide a long term outcome and where service
users identify that a house move is the right choice for them, but have no other support to
enable this. Housing choice is also offered in cases where a home improvement has been
requested but where sustainability of the current home is assessed as an issue.

The Navigator service is publicised to professionals and responds to low level maintenance
requests, including landlord liaison, cleaning up of homes, and minor repairs, co-ordination of
agencies and the Navigator service facilitates practical work in order to reduce bed blocking and
support hospital discharge. Advice and signposting also takes place for all clients using the
service including self-referrals.
Currently, the staffing for the service consists of 1 technical officer (Surveyor), 3.5 FTE Case
Workers who divide their time between HIA and Housing Options activity and 1 FTE Principal
Officer. All members of staff undertake an element of the Navigator role.
This service has been identified as a non-statutory service and as such it is proposed that the
Supporting People contribution of £112,000 per annum will be withdrawn and the relevant saving
achieved from 1st September 2014 and the service will continue to be delivered on a reduced
budget with the remaining contribution of £96,500 from Community, Health and Social Care.
2/23
The impact of removal of the Supporting People funding on the service is a reduction in staffing
from 5.5.FTE total to 2.5FTE total. A restructure will therefore need to take place to review staffing
and management structures of the HIA service and it supporting division Urban Renewal, in the
Environment Directorate. The remaining 2.5 FTE is funded from mainstream CHSC revenue budget
and it will be necessary to confirm the future of this funding stream before completion of the
restructure consultation.
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
If none of the areas above apply to your proposals, you will not be required to undertake a full CIA.
Please summarise below why a full CIA is not required and send this form to your directorate
equality link officer. If you have identified one or more of the above areas, you should conduct a full
CIA and complete this form.
Equality Areas
Indicate with an “x” which equality areas are likely to be affected, positively or negatively, by the
proposals
Age
Disability
Gender (including pregnancy and
maternity and marriage and civil
partnership)
Gender reassignment
Race
X
X
X
Religion and/or belief
Sexual Identity
People on a low income (socioeconomic inequality)
Other (please state below) (For
example carers, ex offenders,
refugees and asylum seekers,
gypsies and travellers)
None
3/23
X
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently monitor by the
following protected characteristics or
equality areas?
Yes
(Y) or
No (N)
Age
Disability
Gender
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, refugees and asylum
seekers, gypsies and travellers)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
If no, please explain why and / or detail
in the action plan at Section E how you
will prioritise the gathering of this
equality monitoring data.
Y
Section C Consultation
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals? Yes
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
Consultation has taken place with the Provider of the service; also the Advisory Group was made
aware of the proposal. A 12-week consultation took place from April to June 2014 via a
questionnaire posted to service users and also made available on line. Stakeholders were also
consulted as part of this process.
Consultation results
The council has consulted about its Home Improvement Agency proposals as part of its proposed Redefined
Offer for Vulnerable Adults.
The council received 1,832 responses to the overall consultation, of which 996 (54%) referred to the Home
Improvement Agency proposals. 392 (39%) of the responses were in agreement with the proposal.
Do you agree that it is fair that the council reduces the funding available for this service so that
some people will need to seek alternative support for themselves?
Of all those who responded about the Home Improvement Agency proposals, 39% (392) either strongly
agreed or agreed that it is fair that the council reduces the funding available for this service so that some
people will need to seek alternative support for themselves. The proportions were similar for users (16%, 14)
and carers of users (12%, 4) but is slightly higher by family or friends of users (21%, 9), confirming that
overall there was a majority of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is fair.
Those who identified themselves as disabled people agreed virtually equally with those who identified
themselves as not disabled, with 24% (107) of all disabled respondents supporting it, compared to 26% (83)
of non-disabled respondents. Whilst there was similarity between disabled and non-disabled users of the
service, 10% (4) compared to 15% (5), this was not the case between family and friends of users of the
service. The family and friends of non-disabled users agreed more with the proposal 24% (4) than the family
and friends of disabled users 6% (1). There were no carers of disabled people who use this service who
supported the proposal, but 14% (2) of carers of non-disabled people who use the service did.
4/23
Those who identified themselves as non-disabled people agreed slightly more than those who identified
themselves as disabled, with 53% (161) of all disabled respondents supporting it, compared to 33% (138) of
non-disabled respondents. These proportions of more agreement by non-disabled people than disabled
people were maintained by users (28%, 6 – 15%, 7), carers of users (20%, 2 – 7%, 1) and family or friends
of users (50%, 5 – 12%, 3).
Agreement was lower amongst those aged 25-44 (36%, 47) and aged over 65 (41%, 137) compared to
those aged 45-64 (44%, 106). Support was lowest amongst those aged 25-44 whether as users (12%, 2) or
family or friends of users (13%, 1). Support was highest amongst those aged over 65 whether as users
(21%, 6) or family or friends of users (40%, 2). There were no supportive responses from carers of users,
apart from those aged 45-64 (20%, 2).
The proportion of women who strongly agreed and agreed that it is fair was slightly higher at 45% (201) than
men 38% (96). The proportions were also similar between the women and men as users (16%, 6 – 14%, 4)
and carers of users (8%, 1 both). There was a difference as family or friends of users where more women
than men were supportive (26%, 4 – 17%, 3).
Approximately 47% (437) of respondents indicated that they had a religious belief. Of these 40% (174)
strongly agreed and agreed that it is fair, which is more than those who indicated that they had no religious
belief (25%, 111). The majority of those who disclosed their religion (91%, 442) were Christian. 37% (180) of
these agreed that it was fair. For other religions, there were significantly smaller proportions, with the Jewish
faith (30%, 3), other religions (26%, 5) and Muslims (46%, 6).
Only three quarters of respondents revealed their ethnic heritage (73%, 730), and of those who did 94%
(685) were White British and 42% (291) strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal. This compares to 30%
(6) of the much smaller number of people who identified themselves as White Irish and 50% (4) people who
identified themselves as mixed heritage, who supported the proposal.
Many respondents did not disclose their sexual identity (38%, 365). Of the 39% (371) who strongly agreed or
agreed that it is fair that the council reduces the funding available for this service so that some people will
need to seek alternative support for themselves, 61% (227) were heterosexual/ straight, 3% (10) gay men,
1% (3) lesbian/ gay women and 2% (7) bisexual.
Q19. If you have received this service (Home Improvement Agency), could you get similar
support from elsewhere in the future?
From family
From friends and neighbours
From a community service, group or charity
Other (combined variations on the above options)
Other (please specify)
Total
You
(Nos)
49
18
51
33
0
151
You
(%)
32%
12%
34%
22%
0%
100%
N.B. - these figures include responses only if Q18 (Home
Improvement Agency) was answered.
Of the 151 responses, the remainder being ‘not answered’, the single most common source of
similar support from elsewhere in the future was ‘from community service, group or charity’ at 34%
closely followed by ‘from family’ at 32%.
5/23
53 comments mentioned that this service was needed for people were vulnerable or elderly or
without the means to pay or with no family to help.
12 comments mentioned that if this service was not available, the cost would be greater in the long
term due to safety issues or poorer health.
16 comments queried where else help could be obtained from.
21 respondents said that they have to pay for this work or that friends and family should help
Comments
Examples of the comments are:
 “Continual support in maintaining property helps alleviate need for rehousing and in some cases
deterioration of health”
 “As a couple with significant disabilities our home environment needs maintenance we do not
have savings to meet or constitute to this”
 “Some vulnerable people do not have access to family/friends to complete routine or major jobs.
I think you are expecting a great deal of an increasingly aging population - many of whom are
isolated”
 “This service is the only one that allows people who have no savings and low income to keep
their property reasonably up to date”
 “Vulnerable people must be allowed to live in a safe environment. Priority should be based on
the degree and type of vulnerability, whether the work to be addresses health and safety
problems or is cosmetic, the person’s total income and other people living in the house to share
the costs. Perhaps a loan system would work - maybe run by a building society sort of like the
student loan system”
 “The service provides professional help, if needed you could charge a minimum amount”
 “Many people do not have access to or would need support to access community services etc.
Many would be willing to pay a contribution to the provision through the Home Imp Service
rather than find other services for themselves”.
 “I would like to see a scheme where someone got all the required materials and maybe a
student from a college could do the work to gain experience at a low cost”
 “I feel that people should pay for their own improvements to the actual property if they own it (or
the council should if they are the landlord). However the issue about getting advice/ help with
getting quotes is different and maybe the Citizen's advice bureau can help with that?”
 “Family friends help when they can but cannot always be there so help for the over 85's should
be mandatory”
Section C– Analysis
C3 What information 
has been analysed to
inform the content of
this CIA? What were
the findings?

Please include
details of, for
example, service or
employee monitoring
information,
consultation findings,
any national or local
research, customer

The Supporting People funding and other funding streams have chosen
to remove funding from services defined as ‘non-statutory’. However the
Home Improvement Agency supports the work of statutory social care
and health teams
The current staffing structure – currently funded through a combination
of funding sources, will reduce from 5.5FTE delivering across 3 service
areas to 2.5FTE potentially losing the Navigator service and making it
difficult to deliver the HIA/HO services.
Performance data held for the hospital discharge Navigator – the service
is meeting key health outcomes, particularly the navigator pilot service
with hospital discharges. The service has supported 33 service users in
a 6 month pilot period to be discharged and return home following an
intervention from the service. Currently the hospital is fined in the region
of £500 per night for a delayed hospital discharge, therefore the hospital
6/23
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


would be potentially facing a minimum fine of £16,500 for those cases,
but in reality significantly more. Referrals from the hospital discharge
teams have been steadily increasing over the last 6 months as the value
of the service has been established.
The Integrated Care Programme – states that its primary outcomes are
to reduce the length of time that older people spend in hospital and
reduce the use of residential care homes. The implicit alternative to
these is that older people remain in their own home. The practical
housing services provided by the Home Improvement Agency uniquely
support this agenda, ensuring access to repairs and funding and access
to suitable housing is maximised for older people. A further aim of the
Integrated Care Programme is to prevent readmissions, as the majority
of readmissions are made after the patient is discharged back to their
home it is important to ensure the home is suitable to support them and
their care needs. The cost of a de-clutter is approximately £500 and the
cost of a home move approximately £300, plus £250 staff cost,
significantly lower than the cost of a hospital readmission.
The most recent National Home Improvement Agency validation visit
report highlights the success of the service in achieving the Quality Mark
for the Core Module and the Support for Choice Model, awarded in 2011
and is valid for 3 years. The overall score was a solid Level B with
many Level A features (7 ‘A’ and 7 ‘B’ scores). The validation report
also suggests the HIA and the Housing Options and Navigator scheme
are integrated. This recommendation was implemented and all services
are now fully integrated.
Equality Monitoring data was collected from the HIA’s client
management system and analysed in order to gain an understanding of
the breakdown of service users accessing the service and to inform this
report.
7/23
Section D – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to age
equality
Will people within certain age
ranges not be getting the outcome
they need?
Will people within certain age
ranges be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of age?
Yes (Y)
Y
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
The service predominantly provides support to older people. 70% of service users
accessing the service, for the period 2012-13, were aged over 50 years, therefore
older people will be affected negatively and may not get the outcome they need
and will be disadvantaged as a result of the proposal.
Older home owners have reduced options as they are often described as ‘asset
rich and cash poor’. They are more likely to live in a property that needs repair and
are more likely to live in an older property that is more expensive to heat and
maintain. They are unable to fund the repairs as they have only basic income. They
are unable to secure commercial ‘High Street’ loans because they have no income
(even equity release products often require some form of repayment e.g. ’rent your
house back’ schemes). Worries and concerns about finance, and fears about
‘cowboy’ builders often prevent older home owners seeking help to repair their
home.
There is often little income to ‘employ’ estate agents or to fund a house removal
and often infirmity prevents an older person from preparing for a house move,
whether a home owner or a home renter.
Repairs and clutter accumulate.
These circumstances will severely impair an older person’s health and well being,
accelerating conditions that put them at risk of hospital admission and preventing
hospital discharge.
Housing Options: There would be a reduced service to vulnerable older people
and therefore this group will no longer receive the same level of assistance with
moves to more appropriate accommodation and may possible lead to older people
living in unsuitable accommodation for their needs. There will be reduced access to
specialist support to move home preventing delayed discharge.
Navigator: Hospital discharges will be delayed for those service users who would
8/23
have been referred into the service for housing issues including the de-cluttering
service, thus costing the hospital in the region of a £500 fine per night for a delayed
discharge.
HIA: Older people with housing repairs will have a significantly reduced service to
access help and support and will be unable to access the capital funding available
in order to fund the repairs.
There are no actions that can eliminate the risks and reduce the negative impacts
as this is a unique service.
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
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
disability equality
Will people with a disability not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people with a disability be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
N
N
Yes (Y)
Y
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
1 in 5 service users accessing the service have a disability, therefore service users
with a disability will be affected negatively and may not get the outcome they need
and will be disadvantaged as a result of the proposal.
Housing Options: There would be a reduced service to people with a disability
and therefore this group will no longer receive the same level of assistance with
moves to more appropriate accommodation and may possible lead to older people
living in unsuitable accommodation for their needs. There will be reduced access to
specialist support to move home preventing delayed discharge.
Navigator: Hospital discharges will be delayed for those service users who would
9/23
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of disability?
have been referred into the service for housing issues including the de-cluttering
service, thus costing the hospital a £500 fine per night for a delayed discharge.
HIA: Disabled people with housing repairs will have a significantly reduced service
to access help and support and will be unable to access the capital funding
available in order to fund the repairs.
There are no actions that can eliminate the risks and reduce the negative impacts
as this is a unique service.
Will the proposals mean that
people with a disability 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
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
gender equality (this includes
pregnancy and maternity and
marriage and civil partnership)
Will men, women or boys and girls
not be getting the outcome they
need?
Will men, women or boys and girls
be disadvantaged as a result of
Yes (Y)
Y
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
In 2012-13, 63% of service users accessing the service were women. This figure
reflects that there are more older woman than men due to women outliving their
male partners and who may be living in unsuitable accommodation but do not want
to move property following their husbands death. This can be an major issue as
they have not learnt the technical and handy person skills to maintain and repair
10/23
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?
their home, or how to secure and manage a contractor, as this would often be a
task that their husbands carried out, therefore older female service users will be
affected negatively and may not get the outcome they need and will be
disadvantaged as a result of the proposal.
Housing Options/Choice: There would be a reduced service to women and
therefore this group will no longer receive the same level of assistance with moves
to more appropriate accommodation and may possible lead to older people living in
unsuitable accommodation for their needs. There will be reduced access to
specialist support to move home preventing delayed discharge.
Navigator: Hospital discharges will be delayed for those service users who would
have been referred into the service for housing issues including the de-cluttering
service, thus costing the hospital a £500 fine per night for a delayed discharge.
HIA: Older woman with housing repair needs will have a significantly reduced
service to access help and support and will be unable to access the capital funding
available in order to fund the repairs.
There are no actions that can eliminate the risks and reduce the negative impacts
as this is a unique service.
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
N
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
11/23
Could your proposals have a differential
impact relating to equality for people
planning, undergoing or who have
undergone gender reassignment?
Will people planning, undergoing or who
have undergone gender reassignment
not be getting the outcome they need?
Will people planning, undergoing or who
have undergone gender reassignment
be disadvantaged as a result of your
proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it be
reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate, reduce or
mitigate negative impacts, are your
proposals potentially discriminatory on
the grounds of gender reassignment?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your
analysis?
N
N
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
12/23
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?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain racial
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
13/23
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to
religion or belief equality
Will people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of religion or belief?
Will the proposals mean that
people of certain religions or
who have particular beliefs will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
N
N
14/23
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
sexual identity equality
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people be disadvantaged
as a result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory on the
grounds of sexual identity?
Will the proposals mean that
gay, lesbian and/or bi-sexual
people will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
N
N
15/23
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?
Yes (Y)
Y
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
100% of the service users accessing the service are on a low income, facing some
of the most expensive costs of home repair and home move. Their income will be
further affected by remaining in a larger more costly home for longer if there are
unable to access support. Older people who have retired and who own their own
homes but only have a basic pension, may be left with an expensive older property
in need of repair but without the support or funds to do it. Also, this group would
not receive financial assistance for a move to more appropriate accommodation
and therefore service users on a low income will be affected negatively and may
not get the outcome they need and will be disadvantaged as a result of the
proposal.
It is important to note that the Council’s policy on providing financial and practical
assistance to support older and vulnerable home owners has not changed and the
capital support from the Housing Capital Programme, to support home
improvements has not been withdrawn, but the reduction in staffing will make it
very difficult to deliver.
The Integrated Care Programme has a priority to reduce the number of older
people in hospital and to keep them in their own homes – this will be affected due
to older people, on a low income, cant stay in their own home, if they are unable to
afford the repair/maintenance costs.
Housing Options/Choice: There would be a reduced service to people on a low
income and therefore this group will no longer receive the same level of assistance
with moves to more appropriate accommodation and may possible lead to service
users on a low income living in unsuitable accommodation for their needs and not
able to move. There will be reduced access to specialist support to move home
preventing delayed discharge.
Navigator: Hospital discharges will be delayed for those service users who would
have been referred into the service for housing issues including the de-cluttering
16/23
service, thus costing the hospital a £500 fine per night for a delayed discharge.
HIA: People on a low income with housing repair needs will have a significantly
reduced service to access help and support and will be unable to access the
capital funding available in order to fund the repairs. The service will no longer be
able to support older home owners on a low income to access the preferential rate
loan products offered by the Council specifically aimed at this target group. There
will be a negative impact on the well-being of these home owners and subsequent
ill-health costs may outweigh the cost of removing the service.
There are no actions that can eliminate the risks and reduce the negative impacts
as this is a unique service.
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
N
N
17/23
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to any
other equality groups, for
example, carers, ex offenders,
refugees and asylum seekers,
gypsies and travellers)?
Will people within any other groups
not be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people within any other groups
be disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how will it
be reduced or eliminated?
If you are unable to eliminate,
reduce or mitigate negative
impacts, are your proposals
potentially discriminatory for people
within any other groups?
Will the proposals mean that
people within any other groups will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to impact
on community cohesion
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people who
share a protected characteristic
and those who do not?
identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
N
N
18/23
19/23
Section E – Action Plan and review
Detail in the plan below, actions that you have identified in your CIA, which will eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity
and/or foster good relations.
If you are unable to eliminate or reduce negative impact on any of the equality areas, you should explain why
Impact (positive
or negative)
identified


Reduced
team
Reduced
service
available

Longer waiting
time for a
service

Targeted
service for
highest need
Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Where will action be
monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate Business
Plan, Service Plan,
Equality Action Plan)
Target date
Required outcome

Service budget is being cut
not possible to mitigate
negative impact
Team Business Plan
2014-2015
Negative equality impact
mitigation

Service budget is being cut
not possible to mitigate
negative impact
Team
Manager
Urban
Renewal will
monitor
service
impact

Service budget is being cut
not possible to mitigate
negative impact

Service budget is being cut
not possible to mitigate
negative impact on lower
needs

Service users could possibly
be signposted to other
services such as Health
Improvement, and charities
like Age Concern, but they
will not be able to provide
specific support around the
practical housing
20/23
Impact (positive
or negative)
identified

People living in
unsuitable
accommodatio
n

Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Where will action be
monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate Business
Plan, Service Plan,
Equality Action Plan)
issues/needs

The consultation responses
contained some suggestions
that will be discussed with
the HIA as mitigations to the
impacts of reduced funding.
These include:

(1) An approved list of
reliable tradesmen
Reduced
funding so
that some
people will
need to
seek
alternative
support for
themselves


(2) Supply materials to
students
21/23
The service
already provides
a list for people
can self fund;
where people
cannot self fund
or do not have
the capacity to
project manage
the repairs, the
caseworker and
technical officer
who currently
Target date
Required outcome
Impact (positive
or negative)
identified
Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Where will action be
monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate Business
Plan, Service Plan,
Equality Action Plan)
arrange the
funding and
manage the
repair would be
withdrawn under
this proposal






The caseworker
and technical
officer who
currently arrange
funding and
would need to
manage and
oversee the work
would be
withdrawn under
this proposal

If CAB had
capacity to do
this, the
caseworker and
technical officer
who currently
arrange funding
and manage the
repair would be
withdrawn under
this proposal
(3) CAB to provide help
getting quotes for work
(4) Making loans available
(5) Prioritise according to
vulnerability and essential
nature of work required
(6)Charge according to the
total income of the household
(7) Charge a minimal amount
or contribution
22/23
Target date
Required outcome
Impact (positive
or negative)
identified
Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Where will action be
monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate Business
Plan, Service Plan,
Equality Action Plan)

Target date
Required outcome
Re 4,5,6,and 7,
the service
already does this,
however the
capacity to do
this would be lost
as a result of the
funding cuts
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.
Name
Signature
Date
Senior Manager
Lead CIA Officer
23/23