Community Impact Assessment Form
For a summary of this Community Impact Assessment, click here
Title of Community Impact Assessment (CIA): Redefined Offer for Vulnerable People – Proposal for Housing Options
Services
Directorate: Community Health & Social Care
Date of assessment: May 2014
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment. (Please identify Lead Officer):
Mike Wright, Head of Housing Choice
Section A – What are you impact assessing?
(Indicate with an “x” which applies):A decision to review or change a service
A strategy
A policy or procedure
A function, service or project
X
Are you impact assessing something that is?:New
Existing
Being reviewed
Being reviewed as a result of budget constraints
X
X
1
Summary
Brief summary of proposal
As part of the current response to ongoing government funding reductions, it is proposed to reduce the Council’s Housing Options
service to a minimum, with a reduction of £294k.
How did you approach the CIA and what did you find?
We approached the CIA from the point of assessing the existing data on homelessness, which is considerable. From this, we have been
able to better assess the proposal, to ensure that impacts are minimised. For example, the proposal maximises front line service delivery
to vulnerable groups across the city within a reduced financial envelope.
The main areas requiring further attention
The main areas for attention or monitoring are performance monitoring are key indicators, such as homelessness and use of temporary
accommodation. Both of these levy a cost on the local authority and this can be quantified. Of particular interest will be the performance
on the prevention of homelessness. It will also be essential to monitor the impact of this change on other services in the city, to maximise
the impact of remaining resources during a period of continued welfare reform and housing market pressure.
Summary of recommendations for improvement
Development of alternative advice services
Revision of Allocations Policy
Describe the area you are impact assessing and, where appropriate, the changes you are proposing?
The CIA is being conducted to assess the impact of the proposal to reduce funding to the Council’s Housing Options service area by
£294k. This service area delivers the Council’s statutory homelessness duties.
This proposal has been developed because of the need to deliver services more efficiently due to continuing budget pressures. This is at
a time of likely increases in demand due to the current economic climate, pressure on the housing stock and the Welfare Reform
Programme.
It is anticipated that there will be increased demand for advice and support services and the role of the local authority will be critical to
building personal financial resilience, assisting the prevention of homelessness, combating family poverty, and linking residents to
training and work opportunities. There have already been increasing numbers presenting as homeless and for advice on housing options
2
and registering on the Housing Register.
This CIA is intended to assess the impacts (both positive and negative) of the proposed changes to the service delivery arrangements in
these service areas. This is within a context of:
 Continuing excess demand for social housing
 Increased indebtedness
 Increased rents in the private rented sector affecting affordability of this tenure
 Increased homelessness presentations and homes at risk of repossession.
 Increased pressure on household finances.
 Increases in possession orders
 Salford remaining a repossession hot-spot.
 Increasing reliance on partner delivery and co-operation
 Continuing pressure to maintain access routes into Housing Options services
This means that the City Council has to reorganise the way that it organises its Housing Options function. The changes proposed focus
strongly on the way in which services are managed, to protect front line delivery as far as possible, to respond to potential increases in
demand.
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
3
X
X
X
If none of the areas above apply to your proposals, you will not be required to undertake a full CIA. Please summarise below why a full
CIA is not required and send this form to your directorate equality link officer. If you have identified one or more of the above areas, you
should conduct a full CIA and complete this form.
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 and maternity)
X
People on a low income (socio-economic inequality)
X
X
X
Other (please state below) (For example carers, ex
offenders)
Carers and intermediaries,
Gender reassignment
Race
If any of the equality areas above have been identified as being likely to be affected by the proposals, you will be required to undertake a
CIA. You will need only to consider those areas which you have indicated are likely to be affected by the proposals
4
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently monitor by the
following protected characteristics or
equality areas?
Age
Yes (Y) or
No (N)
Disability
Y
Gender (including pregnancy and
maternity)
Y
Gender Reassignment
N
Race
Y
Religion and/ or belief
Y
Sexual Identity
Y
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
Y
Other (please state) (For example
carers, ex offenders)
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
We are intending to amend the hosing registration form to ask further
information on this question.
Section C (continued) – Consultation
C2 Are you intending to carry out consultation on your proposals?
Yes
If “no”, please explain your reason(s) why
5
If “yes”, please give details of your consultation exercise and results below
The council received 1,832 responses to the overall consultation, of which 974 (53%) referred to the Housing Options proposals. 320
(34%) of the responses were in agreement with the proposal.
Is it fair that the council reduces the funding available for this service so that some people will need to seek alternative funding
themselves?
Of all those who responded about Housing Options, 33% (320) 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 funding themselves. The proportions were similar for
users (6%, 10) and carers (7%, 2) with the family and friends proportion being slightly higher (12%, 6), confirming that overall there was
a majority who disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is fair.
The same proportion of respondents those who identified themselves as disabled strongly agreed or agreed with the proposals (33%,
130) as the proportion of those who identified themselves as non-disabled (33% 106). This similarity was also evident amongst users
(non-disabled 7%, 6 - disabled 6%, 3). Agreement amongst disabled friends and family of service users (12%, 2) was higher compared
to non-disabled family and friends of service users (8%, 4).
Agreement was generally lower amongst those aged 45-64 (29%, 69) compared to those aged over 65 (48%, 145). It was lowest
amongst those aged 25-44 (17%, 26). Carers of users who agreed was highest in the 25-44 age group (9%, 1) compared to 0 in the 4564 and 65+ age groups. Family and friends of users who agreed was higher in the 65+ age group (67%, 2) compared to the 45-64 age
group (11%, 2) and 0 in the 25-44 age group.
The proportion of women who agreed was slightly higher than men at 36% (163) and 31% (78) respectively. The proportion of male
users of the service who strongly agreed or agreed (8%, 3) was slightly higher than women (5%, 4). This was also the case with male
family and friends (14%, 2) who agreed compared to women (8%, 2).
The proportion of women who strongly agreed and agreed that it is fair was slightly higher at 31% (137) than men 27% (67).
Approximately 45% (412) of respondents indicated that they had a religious belief. Of these 54% (167) strongly agreed and agreed that it
is fair, which is more than those who indicated that they had no religious belief (22%, 68). The majority of those who disclosed their
religion (91%, 421) were Christian. 41% (173) of these agreed that it was fair. For other religions, there were significantly smaller
proportions, with the Jewish faith (75%, 4), other religions (18%, 3) and Muslims (13%, 2).
Less than three quarters of respondents revealed their ethnic heritage (72%, 720). Of the 93% (673) who identified as White British 36%
6
(241) strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal. This compares to 24% (5) of those who identified as White Irish and 27% (3) people
who identified as mixed heritage.
Many respondents did not disclose their sexual identity (35%, 511). Of those who did, (92%, 541) identified themselves as
heterosexual/straight, of whom 36% (193) strongly agreed or agreed, compared to 14% (3) of those who identified as gay men and 33%
(4) of those who identified as bisexual.
Q28. If you have received this service (Housing Options), 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)
38
10
36
47
0
131
You
(%)
29%
8%
27%
36%
0%
100%
N.B. - these figures include responses only if Q27 (Housing Options) was answered.
Of the 131 responses, the remainder being ‘not answered’, the single most common sources of similar support from elsewhere in the
future was ‘from family’ at 29% and ‘from a community service, group or charity’ at 27%.
Formal consultation will take place with all staff teams within the Housing Options service. There will also be formal consultation with the
Trade Unions. This consultation will take the form of collective and individual meetings made available to all staff. Assistant Mayors will
also be consulted through the Workforce Panel process.
Any employees affected by the changes will be managed in line with the Workforce Change policy arrangements. In line with the
Council’s approach to creating capacity for those at risk of redundancy every effort will be made to identify reasonable suitable
alternative employment throughout the process.
7
Section C (continued) – Analysis
C3 What information has been analysed to inform The impact of the Welfare Reform Act on citizens Salford city council and other
the content of this CIA? What were the findings?
agencies:
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.
Welfare Reform Act
2012 and Impact on Salford - FISG briefing paper .doc
The P1E Homelessness statistics which are compiled by local authorities and
collated nationally and regionally by Department for Communities and Local
Government.
Performance data compiled for the service to outline all areas of performance,
including rehousing registrations, homelessness preventions, homelessness
acceptances and homelessness relief.
Please specify whether this was existing
information or was specifically in relation to this
equality analysis and CIA process
Ministry of Justice data on possession orders.
This information is routinely collected.
Section D – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to age
equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
age?
Will people within certain age
ranges not be getting the
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
There proposal is unlikely to discriminate against any Salford resident on the
grounds of age. The reduction in front line service delivery will be kept to the
minimum possible.
The service is accessed in the main by 16-44age group, with very little presentation
to the service by older people. 91% of homelessness acceptances are for clients
8
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?
aged 16-44.
Young people (18-25 yrs) will affected by the proposal to decommission Petrie
Court. However, there will be a continued support for the Young Persons Housing
Pathway, and continued additional priority under the Allocations Policy for care
leavers. SCC is anticipating an increase in demand for services from this age
group, and the Council is committed to ensuring that front line and support workers
from partner agencies are equipped to give accurate advice.
Some young people are more likely to be able to self serve and access advice online, and vulnerable young people may also have a support worker to advise them.
The proposal does not change the level of resource dedicated to young people.
The new Wuu2 website managed by Integrated Youth Services will be a valuable
resource for youth workers to interact with young people and provide advice and
information.
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
No
No
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
9
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
disability equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
disability?
Will people with disabilities not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people with disabilities be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
The proposal does not change the level of resource dedicated to this client group.
It is recognised that people with disabilities have wide ranging and complex needs
including physical, mental and sensory. However, there is relatively little
dependence on this service from this client group. The proposal will continue with
the existing Accessible Housing Register arrangements for disabled people, and
therefore, there will be no specific impact on this group.
Will the proposals mean that
people with disabilities will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
No
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
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
10
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?
Will the proposals mean that
men or women, boys or girls will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
N
There is no specific gender impact as a result of these proposals. However, a
major reason for homelessness continues to be domestic abuse suffered by
women. Therefore, the proposal reflects that the Council intends to maintain a
statutory homelessness service which will deal with demand from this group, and
will continue to deliver measures in response such as a sanctuary scheme and an
enhanced domestic abuse service to be delivered as part of the Housing Options
portfolio. Most statutory homeless acceptances continue to be of women, due to
the nature of the legislation surrounding this area, and there is a small majority of
applications from women.
No
No
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
11
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
There is no specific impact on this group as a result of these proposals.
Information on gender reassignment is not routinely collected at present,
and this will be an area of future development in respect of equality
monitoring.
Will the proposals mean that people
planning, undergoing or who have
undergone gender reassignment will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
There will be an opportunity to record and monitor customers who have
undergone gender reassignment to more accurately assess demand and
take-up within this community.
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
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
12
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?
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain racial
groups will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
The proposal will not discriminate on the grounds of race. Although former asylum
seekers represent a significant group who present as homeless due to their
housing circumstances, the Council will continue to deliver a statutory
homelessness service as a safety net. The restructured service will continue to
have access to interpreters and will continue to publish documentation and advice
in community languages where appropriate. Approximately 71% of statutory
homelessness decisions are for households who identify as white, and this figure
also broadly reflects the make-up of the housing Register, where approximately
78% of applicants are white. There is therefore a statistically greater demand for
this service from non-white households when compared to the make-up of the
general population. However, this reflects the disproportionate take-up of this
service from some BME groups whose housing circumstances are insecure.
No
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
13
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to
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
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
There is no specific impact on religious groups as a result of these proposals.
No
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
14
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
sexual identity equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
sexual identity?
Will gay, lesbian and/ or bisexual people not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will gay, lesbian and/ or bisexual people be disadvantaged
as a result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Will the proposals mean that
gay, lesbian and/ or bi-sexual
people will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
The proposal will not discriminate on the grounds of sexual identity.
No
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
15
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
differential impact on socio
economic equality (people on a
low income)?
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
socio economic inequality?
Will people on a low income not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people on a low income be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Will the proposals mean that
people on a low income will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
The proposal does not discriminate on the grounds of socio-economic inequality.
However, the customer base of these service areas is significantly of households
on low incomes, with lower levels of choice and greater commensurate pressure on
their finances and economic situation. Therefore, the impact of any service change
will be felt disproportionately by this group.
The main issue for this client group is the affordability of housing in the city, and
this is not impacted on by these proposals. The proposal intends to maintain the
Council’s Rental Bond Scheme, which assists access to private-sector housing
stock, as a mitigation for this situation, although the loss of the Mortgage Rescue
Scheme may have an impact on this client group which will be mitigated in part by
referring customers to other agencies for debt advice.
No
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
16
Section D (continued) – Potential impacts and how these will be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to any
other equality groups, for
example, carers, ex offenders?
Are your proposals
discriminatory in relation to any
other groups?
Will people within any other
groups not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will people within any other
groups be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
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?
The proposal does not discriminate on other grounds of equality.
Salford Carers Centre provides a range of services for adult, young adult and
young carers, and the council will continue to work closely with them, and help
them to monitor the impact of the changes on this group.
No
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
17
Section E – Action Plan and review
Detail in the plan below, actions that you have identified in your CIA, which will eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity
and/ or foster good relations.
If you are unable to eliminate or reduce negative impact on any of the equality areas, you should explain why
Impact (positive or
negative) identified
Proposed action
Person(s)
responsible
Target date
Required outcome
Service
Management
Where will action
be monitored? (e.g.
Directorate
Business Plan,
Service Plan,
Equality Action
Plan)
Business Plan and
Partner forums
Removal of Mortgage
Rescue Scheme
Referral to other
agencies for debt advice
01 December
2014
Customers receive
appropriate advice
Increase in waiting times
for appointments
Improved web advice
Service
Management
Performance
reporting
01 January
2015
Access to
appointments
maximised
Increase in
homelessness and
temporary
accommodation
Targeted work to
improve throughput in
temporary
accommodation and
revised Allocations
Policy
Service
Management
Performance
reporting
01 April 2015
Increases minimised
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.
N/A
18
Review
Your CIA should be reviewed at least every three years, less if it has a significant impact on people.
Please enter the date your CIA will be reviewed – 01 June 2016. You should review progress on your CIA action plan annually.
Section F – Summary of your CIA
As your CIA will be published on the council’s website and accessible to the general public, a summary of your CIA is required. Please
provide a summary of your CIA in the box below.
Summary of Community Impact Assessment
How did you approach the CIA and what did you find?
We approached the CIA from the point of assessing the existing data on homelessness, which is considerable. From this, we have
been able to better assess the proposal to ensure that impacts are minimised. For example, the proposal maximises front line service
delivery to vulnerable groups across the city within a reduced financial envelope.
A copy of this assessment will be made available to Trades Unions and the Council will continuously monitor the impact of its
proposals and where possible take measures to mitigate, reduce or eliminate any anticipated and adverse impact of the proposals.
What are the main areas requiring further attention?
The main areas for attention or monitoring are performance monitoring of key indicators such as homelessness and use of temporary
accommodation. Both of these levy a cost on the local authority and this can be quantified. Of particular interest will be the
performance on the prevention of homelessness. It will also be essential to monitor the impact of this change on remaining services in
the city, to maximise the impact of remaining resources during a period of continuing welfare reform and housing market pressure.
Summary of recommendations for improvement
Development of alternative advice services
Revision of Allocations Policy
Section G – Next Steps
Quality Assurance
When you have completed your CIA, you should send it to your directorate Equality Link Officer who will arrange for it to be quality
assured. Your CIA will be returned to you if further work is required. It is important that your CIA is robust and of good quality as it may be
challenged
19
“Sign off” within your directorate
Your directorate Equality Link Officer will then arrange for your CIA to be “signed off” within your directorate (see below). Your directorate
Equality Lead Officer or other senior manager within your directorate should “sign off” your CIA (below).
Name
Signature
Senior Manager
Keith Darragh
Lead CIA Officer
Mike Wright
Date
Publishing
When your CIA has been signed off within your directorate, your directorate Equality Link Officer will send it to Elaine Barber in the
Equalities and Cohesion Team for publishing on the council’s website.
Monitoring
Your directorate Equality Link Officer will also send your CIA to your directorate Performance Officer where the actions identified within
your CIA will be entered into Covalent, the council’s performance management monitoring software so that progress can be monitored as
appropriate.
20