Community Impact Assessment
Decommissioning Plan Riverside Housing Association – Salford Offender Service
Date of assessment: May 2014
Names and roles of people carrying out the community impact assessment:
Sharon Worgan – Supporting People Contract Officer
Summary
Riverside English Churches successfully bid for Salford Offender Service and took over the
contract on 1st March 2011.
The service was reviewed at the mid-term of the contract and was assessed as being a
very good service, with excellent outcome exceeding its targets and fulfilled all of its
contractual obligations. The service offered good value for money when compared to like
for like services.
The initial contract was due to expire in February 2014 a tender for the contract was carried
out at the end of 2013 with Riverside winning back their contract. There was a lot of
interest in the service with 27 organisations bidding at PQQ stage.
SCC Procurement team wrote to Riverside on the 24th October 2013 to inform them of their
success in winning the tender.
As part of the economic climate/budget constraints and as a result the saving being
requested for the year 2014-15, it has been proposed to cease funding Salford Offender
Service. As a result of the service recently winning a tender legal advice needs to be
sought to identify the most appropriate way of ceasing the funding to the service in light of
the fact a tender process has taken place and the provider notified.
Salford Offender Service delivers a housing options service, support and signposting to
offenders and those at risk of offending. The service will work with a variety of offenders
but mainly those with probation involvement and those serving sentences of less than 12
months. The intention of the service will be to reduce homelessness and re-offending and
thus reduce the impact of these service users on the community and assist them to
reintegrate successfully.
The service works with the following people as a priority;
 Male & female offenders who have probation involvement and are over the age of 18
and have been identified as having no suitable accommodation on release
 Male & female offenders who are managed under the Integrated Offender Management
Scheme which includes Prolific Offenders (PPO), Multi Agency Public Protection
Agency (MAPPA) and High Risk Offenders (RMX).
1/29
 Male & female offenders who are aged 18 and over and have drug rehabilitation
requirements (DRR) or are problematic drug users (PDU)
 Male & Female Offenders who have served a sentence of less than 12 months who
have no accommodation.
There will be a negative impact primarily upon male offenders aged 20 – 44.
Removal of this service has a range of significant risks including:
 It is likely that there will be delayed discharge from prison for some potential service users.
 There will be an impact upon offenders accessing suitable accommodation when their
movements are restricted.
 There is a risk that some offenders may slip through net in terms of where they are
accommodated.
There is a risk that some service users may be refused accommodation due to a lack of support
– currently some landlords refuse to accommodate offenders without a support worker.
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
Describe the area you are impact assessing and, where appropriate, the changes you are
proposing?
Riverside English Churches successfully bid for Salford Offender Service and took over the
contract on 1st March 2011.
The service was reviewed at the mid-term of the contract and was assessed as being a
very good service, with excellent outcome exceeding its targets and fulfilled all of its
contractual obligations. The service offered good value for money when compared to like
for like services.
The initial contract was due to expire in February 2014 a tender for the contract was carried
out at the end of 2013 with Riverside winning back their contract. There was a lot of
interest in the service with 27 organisations bidding at PQQ stage.
SCC Procurement team wrote to Riverside on the 24th October 2013 to inform them of their
success in winning the tender.
2/29
As part of the economic climate/budget constraints and as a result the saving being
requested for the year 2014-15, it has been proposed to cease funding Salford Offender
Service. As a result of the service recently winning a tender legal advice needs to be
sought to identify the most appropriate way of ceasing the funding to the service in light of
the fact a tender process has taken place and the provider notified.
Salford Offender Service delivers a housing options service, support and signposting to
offenders and those at risk of offending. The service will work with a variety of offenders
but mainly those with probation involvement and those serving sentences of less than 12
months. The intention of the service will be to reduce homelessness and re-offending and
thus reduce the impact of these service users on the community and assist them to
reintegrate successfully.
The service works with the following people as a priority;
Male & female offenders who have probation involvement and are over the age of 18 and
have been identified as having no suitable accommodation on release
Male & female offenders who are managed under the Integrated Offender Management
Scheme which includes Prolific Offenders (PPO), Multi Agency Public Protection Agency
(MAPPA) and High Risk Offenders (RMX).
Male & female offenders who are aged 18 and over and have drug rehabilitation
requirements (DRR) or are problematic drug users (PDU)
Male & Female Offenders who have served a sentence of less than 12 months who have
no accommodation.
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
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
3/29
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
Sexual Identity
Gender (including pregnancy and
X People on a low income (socio-economic
maternity)
inequality)
Gender reassignment
Other (please state below) (For example
X
carers, ex offenders)
Race
Offenders. Children and vulnerable
people.
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
Section C – Monitoring information
C1 Do you currently
monitor by the following
protected characteristics or
equality areas?
Age
Disability
Gender (including
pregnancy and maternity
Gender Reassignment
Race
Religion and/or belief
Sexual Identity
People on a low income
(socio-economic inequality)
Other (please state) (For
example carers, ex
offenders)
Yes (Y) If no, please explain why and / or detail in the action
or No
plan at Section E how you will prioritise the gathering
(N)
of this equality monitoring data.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
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 was be carried out with a snap shot of service users actively being supported by the
service in March 2014. All service users received a questionnaire relating to their needs and the
impact on removing services will have on their lives. The consultation investigated other types of
support that might be available for service users. The supporting team facilitated a drop in service
to help service users complete their questionnaire.
City wide consultation was available online for service users, their family or friends. The
consultation began on 3rd March 2014 for 12 weeks.
Consultation results
The council received 1,832 responses to the overall consultation, of which 905 (49%) referred to
this proposal. 534 (59%) of the responses were in agreement with the proposal.
4/29
Q 21 Do you agree that it is fair that the council stops funding this service and instead
provides information and advice about how people can find support for themselves?
Of all those who responded about the Salford Offender Service proposals, 59% (534) either
strongly agreed or agreed that it is fair that the council stops funding this service and instead
provides information and advice about how people can find support for themselves. The proportions
were similar for users (8%, 3) and family or friends of users (7%, 1), but there was no support from
carers of users. Thereby confirming that overall there was a majority of respondents who support
and think that this proposal is fair.
Those who identified themselves as disabled people agreed virtually equally with those who
identified themselves as not disabled, with 61% (235) of all disabled respondents supporting it,
compared to 56% (165) of non-disabled respondents. However, 15% (2) disabled users of the
service supported the proposal compared to 4% (1) non-disabled users. There was no support from
either disabled or non-disabled carers of users. 14% (1) non-disabled family or friend of a user
agreed but no disabled family or friend of a user.
Agreement was lower amongst those aged 25-44 (43%, 58) and aged 45-64 (56%, 124) compared
to those aged over 65 (70%, 209). There was no support in any age group by carers of users. The
only other responses were that 8% (2) of users aged 25-44 supported the proposals compared to
33% (1) of users aged over 65. 13% (1) family or friend of a user thought that it was fair.
The proportion of women who strongly agreed and agreed that it is fair was slightly higher at 31%
(137) than men 27% (67). There was no support by either gender by carers of users. The
proportions were similar between the women and men as users (7%, 1 – 11%, 2). There was a
difference as family or friends of users where men were supportive compared to women (17%, 1 –
0%, 0).
Approximately 48% (401) of respondents indicated that they had a religious belief. Of these 65%
(259) strongly agreed and agreed that it is fair, which is more than those who indicated that they
had no religious belief (52%, 113) but that it is fair. The majority of those who disclosed their
religion (92%, 416) were Christian. 64% (268) of these agreed that it was fair. For other religions,
there were significantly smaller proportions, with the Jewish faith (65%, 5), other religions (71%, 10)
and Muslims (46%, 6).
Less than three quarters of respondents revealed their ethnic heritage (69%, 684), and of those
who did 94% (641) were White British and 62% (395) strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal.
This compares to 37% (7) of the much smaller number of people who identified themselves as
White Irish and 50% (5) people who identified themselves as mixed heritage, who supported the
proposal.
Many respondents did not disclose their sexual identity (40%, 569). Of the 58% (508) who strongly
agreed or agreed that it is fair that the council stops funding this service and instead provides
information and advice about how people can find support for themselves, 61% (310) were
heterosexual/ straight, 2% (10) gay men, 2% (9) bisexual and 1% (4) lesbian/ gay women.
Main themes are:
- must continue to help offenders, many have poor literacy and
/or English
- cost effective to help offenders and if we don't will put pressure
on other services
-re-offending will increase if help is cut
5/29
29
18
14
-ok to cut if other organisations can help or other organisations
should provide
- don’t use or can't comment or don't know
- Offenders should not be helped
Total *
18
9
25
113
* some responses are counted in more than more category.
Q22. If you have received this service (Salford Offender Service), 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
Respondents to this
question
32
28%
14
12%
44
38%
26
22%
0
0%
116
100%
N.B. - these figures include responses only if Q21 (Salford
Offender Service), was answered.
Of the 116 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 38%
followed by ‘from family’ at 28%.
Stakeholder consultation was carried out alongside the public consultation which included a
consultation event that 170 stakeholders were invited to. 20 people from 12 organisations attended
and provided feedback. The stakeholders that were unable to attend the event were given the
opportunity to provide feedback on an electronic questionnaire.
Full details of all comments from stakeholders are included in Appendix 1 however common
concerns include:
 The closure of the service will impact upon homelessness and place pressure on other
already oversubscribed resources such as Abbott Lodge.
 An increase in workload for Probation Officers who do not specialise in this area of work and
do not have the relevant contacts.
 Concerns that there is very little that can be done to mitigate the risks due to lack of
alternatives to this service;
 Concerns that high risk offenders may be housed in unsuitable area due to the loss of the
MAPPA worker;
 The proposal will have a serious impact on the rates of re-offending which will have an
impact on communities and other resources.
One person however commented:
 There are a number of services already available for different agencies, including DWP
Prison Advisers based in Forrest Bank and Manchester Prison. It would seem sensible for
the Council to investigate what help is already out there and co-ordinate appropriately
6/29
As part of the consultation process the current service provider Riverside English Churches was
invited to provide information on the possible impact of the proposal. Its full feedback is included in
Appendix 2.
Supporting People Commissioning Body will be consulted on 23rd May 2014 where their comments
on the proposal will be gathered from inclusion in the CIA.
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
feedback, inspection
reports, and any
other information
which will inform your
CIA.
Please specify
whether this was
existing information
or was specifically in
relation to this
equality analysis and
CIA process
SPI returns 1st April – 5th January 2014
The SPI returns for the service shows that there is a 289.3% throughput at
the service with an average of 150 service users being supported each
quarter. 217 service users have received support from the service in the
period.
Data taken from the equality monitoring form submitted snapshot 1st
April 2013
Age:
16 - 19: 2
20 – 24: 13
25 - 34 : 35
35 – 44 : 18
45 – 54 : 6
55 – 64 : 0
Religion
The table below shows the religious demographics of the service users that
have used the service in the previous financial year:
Christian
0
Buddhist
0
Hindu
0
Jewish
0
Muslim
0
Sikh
0
Any other
0
Not Stated
71
None
3
The data indicates the religion of the service users is comparative to the
demographics of Salford therefore will have no impact upon any particular
group.
Race
White British
67
White Irish
4
White and Black Caribbean
2
Other Mixed Background
1
Data from the annual E&D submission shows an average proportion of
7/29
BME service users than in Supporting People services at 9%
Gender
Male
Female
69
5
8/29
Section D – Potential impacts and how these might be addressed
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to age
equality
Are your proposals
(Y)
discriminatory on the grounds of
age?
Will people within certain age
ranges not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will people within certain age
ranges be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
The main cohort of service users is 20 – 44. It is likely this proposal will have a
negative impact upon med wishing to access this service as no alternative service
is available to facilitate move on from Prison.
More consultation is required to seek impact reduction.
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
9/29
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)
Will the proposals mean that
people with disabilities will
experience positive outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
10/29
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to
gender equality (this includes
pregnancy and maternity)
Are your proposals
(Y)
discriminatory on the grounds of
gender?
Will men or women, boys or girls
not be getting the outcome they
need?
Will men or women, boys or girls
be disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
The majority of the service user that access this service are men. It is likely this
proposal will have a negative impact upon med wishing to access this service as
no alternative service is available to facilitate move on from Prison.
More consultation is required to seek impact reduction.
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
11/29
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
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
12/29
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
race equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
race?
Will people within certain racial
groups not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will people within certain racial
groups be disadvantaged as a
result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
(N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
There a very minimal numbers of ethnic minority groups accessing the services
both currently and historically.
Will the proposals mean that
people within certain racial
groups will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
Are the proposals likely to
impact on community cohesion?
Is there potential to enhance
relationships between people
who share a protected
characteristic and those who do
not?
Identify areas where there is
potential to foster good relations
13/29
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?
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
(N)
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
14/29
Could your proposals have a
differential impact relating to
sexual identity equality
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
sexual identity?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people not be getting the
outcome they need?
Will gay, lesbian and/or bisexual people be disadvantaged
as a result of your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
(N)
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
15/29
Could your proposals have a
differential impact on socio
economic equality (people on a
low income)?
Are your proposals
discriminatory on the grounds of
socio economic inequality?
Will people on a low income not
be getting the outcome they
need?
Will people on a low income be
disadvantaged as a result of
your proposals?
If the impact is negative, how
will it be reduced or eliminated?
Yes (Y)
(Y)
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
All service users that access this service are all in receipt of benefits. The service
assists the service user to complete benefit forms on their release from prison to
maximise their income. Removal of this service will mean essentially mean the
removal of support to assess income.
This service also assists the service users to access grants and funds which can
only be accessed via referral from an agency or support worker.
More consultation is required to seek impact reduction.
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
16/29
Could your proposals have a
Yes (Y)
differential impact relating to any
other equality groups, for
example, carers, ex offenders?
Are your proposals
(Y)
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?
Will the proposals mean that
people within any other groups
will experience positive
outcomes?
Highlight any positive impacts
No (N)
Explain impact(s) and what evidence or data exists to support your analysis?
As this service is an offender service there is an obvious impact upon offenders.
It is likely that there will be delayed discharge from prison for some potential
service users.
There will be an impact upon offenders accessing suitable accommodation when
their movements are restricted.
There is a risk that some offenders may slip through net in terms of where they are
accommodated.
There is a risk that some service users may be refused accommodation due to
there being a lack of support – currently some landlords refuse to accommodate
offenders without a support worker.
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
17/29
18/29
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
Person(s)
responsible
Where will action be
monitored? (e.g.,
Directorate Business
Plan, Service Plan,
Equality Action Plan)
Impact (positive or
negative) identified
Proposed action
The main cohort of
service users is 20 –
44. It is likely this
proposal will have a
negative impact upon
those wishing to
access this service as
no alternative service
is available to facilitate
move on from Prison.
Discussion between
probation service and all
prisons to identify similar
services already being
provided within prisons.
Consultation highlights the
DWP may provide a similar
service.
Potential for Probation
officers to attempt to
minimise the impact by
working with prisons, DWP,
SHOP, and accommodation
based services already in
existence.
Supporting People
Commissioning Body
with input from Greater
Manchester Probation
Trust, Salford Local
Delivery Unit.
The majority of the
service user that
access this service are
men. It is likely this
proposal will have a
negative impact upon
those wishing to
access this service as
no alternative service
Discussion between
probation service and all
prisons to identify similar
services already being
provided within prisons.
Consultation highlights the
DWP may provide a similar
service.
Potential for Probation
Supporting People
Commissioning Body
with input from Greater
Manchester Probation
Trust, Salford Local
Delivery Unit.
19/29
Target
date
Required outcome
Minimisation of the
impact on prisoners
leaving prison with no
accommodation in place
by the function being
provided by the prison in
partnership with the
probation service in the
short to medium term. In
the long term, with the
proposed changes to the
probation trust, if the
service is deemed
necessary, for it to be
considered for
commissioning by
probation.
Minimisation of the
impact on prisoners
leaving prison with no
accommodation in place
by the function being
provided by the prison in
partnership with the
probation service in the
short to medium term. In
is available to facilitate
move on from Prison.
officers to attempt to
minimise the impact by
working with prisons, DWP,
SHOP, and accommodation
based services already in
existence.
All service users that
access this service are
all in receipt of
benefits. The service
assists the service
user to complete
benefit forms on their
release from prison to
maximise their
income. Removal of
this service will mean
essentially mean the
removal of support to
assess income.
There is potential for
service users to manage
this function independently
by attending the job centre
on their release from prison.
Where the client has
learning impairment, have
literacy problems or for
those finding access to
benefits difficult, attending
the CAB for support in this
area is an option.
This service also
assists the service
users to access grants
and funds which can
only be accessed via
referral from an
agency or support
worker
There is potential for the
Probation service or CAB to
carry out this function.
Alternatively they could
provide information in order
for the client to access this
independently.
There is still a risk that
some grants will still not be
accessible if they are reliant
on the client being in receipt
of a support package. This
cannot be mitigated against
as it is due to the funding
upporting People
Commissioning Body
with input from Greater
Manchester Probation
Trust, Salford Local
Delivery Unit.
Greater Manchester
Probation Trust,
Salford Local Delivery
Unit.
20/29
the long term, with the
proposed changes to the
probation trust, if the
service is deemed
necessary, for it to be
considered for
commissioning by
probation.
Minimisation of the
impact on prisoners
leaving prison with no
income or benefits in
place by accessing
alternative services in
the short to medium
term. In the long term,
with the proposed
changes to the probation
trust, if the service is
deemed necessary, for it
to be considered for
commissioning by
probation.
In the interim there is
potential for this impact
to be mitigated by
voluntary agencies
providing relevant
information and support.
In the long term, with the
proposed changes to the
probation trust, if the
service is deemed
necessary, for it to be
considered for
commissioning by
probation.
restrictions and regulations.
It is likely that there
will be delayed
discharge from prison
for some potential
service users
There will be an
impact upon offenders
accessing suitable
accommodation when
their movements are
restricted. There is a
risk that some
offenders may slip
through net in terms of
There is potential for the
Probation Trust to enter
discussions with fund
holders to negotiate
changes to their restrictions
due to the changing nature
of services in the current
economic climate.
Discussion between
probation service and all
prisons to identify similar
services already being
provided within prisons.
Consultation highlights the
DWP may provide a similar
service.
Potential for Probation
officers to attempt to
minimise the impact by
working with prisons, DWP,
SHOP, and accommodation
based services already in
existence.
Riverside English Churches
are only part of the MAPPA
functions. The existing
group will need to work
closely with Salford
Housing Options team and
housing providers to
mitigate any potential risks
in this area.
Greater Manchester
Probation Trust,
Salford Local Delivery
Unit.
Greater Manchester
Probation Trust,
Salford Local Delivery
Unit in partnership with
RP’s, Salix, and City
West.
21/29
Minimisation of the
impact on delays to
prisoners leaving prison
due to having no
accommodation in place
by the function being
provided by the prison in
partnership with the
probation service in the
short to medium term. In
the long term, with the
proposed changes to the
probation trust, if the
service is deemed
necessary, for it to be
considered for
commissioning by
probation.
Minimised risk posed to
the general public and
the prevention of high
risk offenders being
housed in inappropriate
areas.
where they are
accommodated.
There is a risk that
some service users
may be refused
accommodation due to
there being a lack of
support – currently
some landlords refuse
to accommodate
offenders without a
support worker.
At the present time there is
no mitigation in this area. A
scoping exercise took place
which identified there are
no alternative housing
related support services
offering visiting support and
providing a package that
would replace the current
function. The
decommissioning of Salford
Supported Tenancies
Service which also provides
this function is being
consulted on at the present
time, which may have been
able to mitigate some of this
risk for high needs service
users.
Greater Manchester
Probation Trust,
Salford Local Delivery
Unit.
Monitoring of the actual
number of landlords
refusing to
accommodate offenders
without support in place
should be carried out in
order for the impact of
this to be measured
more accurately as at
the present time it is
unknown.
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.
There is potential for the closure of this service to impact negatively on the general public and communities. The service works to ensure
that offenders are housed appropriately, therefore, if this function is not being carried out there is a high risk of offenders gaining
accommodation in inappropriate areas which may pose a risk for children or at risk groups.
By Housing Providers carrying out relevant checks on potential tenants this risk can be reduced. Guidelines and agreements should be
developed between the probation trust and RP’s to ensure relevant information can be shared to ensure appropriate allocation of
properties.
22/29
Name
Signature
Date
Senior Manager
Lead CIA Officer
23/29
Appendix 1
1.
28
April
2014
13:13
The withdrawal of this service/ having Riverside members of staff
located at our office would have a detrimental effect on our ability to
provide an effective service to our service users. Riverside currently
provide a vital service in that they directly support vulnerable people
secure accommodation, thereby assisting us, as Probation Officers,
effectively manage potential risk and successfully reintegrating people
back into the community. Many of our service users have issues such
as poor literacy, no access to computers, drug and alcohol issues,
convictions for violence, etc and therefore require assistance in
navigating different organisations processes and procedures.
Salford
Probatio
n
Whilst the needs of offenders may not be ‘top of the list’, the
prevention of crime is key for a safe and productive community.
Accommodation is absolutely vital in providing a stable foundation on
which to build, so if this service is lost we will struggle to assist people
make the necessary changes to their lives, which will have a direct
effect on the wider community.
If these cuts are about saving money, I believe that removing the
service, may make savings on paper, however the financial and social
cost of these changes will be felt by us as front line workers and as
members of the wider community.
2.
3
April
2014
13:15
We are already working very hard to manage our current
responsibilities within our role as a Probation Officer, and from
experience, helping service users with accommodation issues takes
up a significant amount of time – which in the current climate is just
not doable. Therefore there will be a significant impact of service
users, and the most vulnerable will be effected.
Riverside is an invaluable service that supports both staff for
information and services users for housing support and guidance. The
Riverside team at Salford not only provide a front line service that
helps to reduce re-offending but they then go on to support service
users in other ways such as food vouchers, furniture packs and
signpost staff to organisations that can offer additional support.
Should this service be removed then I have concerns that the limited
resources that services users have in relation to housing will then be
non existent. This is an already diminished resources in this area and
the team have done and continue to do an amazing job helping some
of the most vulnerable people in society who other service providers
have deemed as unworkable. There are other housing organisation
that will not take direct referrals from Probation and as such we will
struggle to plug the gap of housing our services uses which is proven
to stabilise and reduce re-offending.
As stated as other organisations do not take direct referrals from
Probation, we do not have the knowledge, contacts and skill base to
be able to offer such a well ran and useful services. If the service is
removed the only solution I would be able to give a homeless offender
24/29
Greater
Manche
ster
Probatio
n Trust.
would be to present as homeless as Abbott Lodge. This service is
also over subscribed and cannot offer the same level of service
Riverside do. I do not see a way to mitigate the impact of the removal
of Riverside and feel this will be detrimental not only to our service but
to Salford as a community and as a whole.
3.
4.
3
April
2014
9:58
4
April
2014
15:06
If we lose the amazing support from the housing support officers at
Salford
Riverside, I would notice a significant amount of additional work in
Probatio
referring my service users to the various housing associations for their n Office.
accommodation needs. I have been at Salford Office for the last 2
years and I have relied on them for support with managing some of
my riskiest clients throughout this time. Some offenders simply need
advice, of which I can not offer them in relation to this specialist area.
Without help, advice and support from this team we loose a valuable
protective factor for our offenders and this is likely to lead to loss of
motivation and possible further offending. I would be extremely sad to
loose such a brilliant service. The staff have always been able to help
me, despite sometimes having little notice. They are always
professional and do as much as they can to assist the risk
management of the vast range of our offenders.
I feel there is very little we will be able to do to mitigate this impact on
the offenders we work with. If the proposal goes ahead, we, as
offender managers would have to attempt to complete the work
ourselves, adding to a vast increasing workload which we already
have, which may mean that this work does not get prioritised and
offenders will loose out on something which could potentially reduce
their risk of re-offending.
The risk of people becoming homeless impacts hugely on their ability
to obtain and retain work. The loss of these services will increase
dependency on welfare benefits if people become homeless as a
result.
For many vulnerable people (ex-offenders, people with mental health
issues, etc) work is stabilising and in itself mitigates the impact of their
vulnerabilities. The impact of withdrawing this service will therefore
cause additional adverse impacts if they lose their job.
There is an increasing emphasis on conditionality if vulnerable people
miss appointments, fail to obey DWP directions, they will receive
benefit sanctions which will put their tenancy at risk.
Under Universal Credit benefits they will be claimed on-line and
updated on-line and change of circumstances reported on-line. At
present supported tenancies help with post from DWP, the support to
do this on-line will be limited.
There is no direct client support that Jobcentre Plus can provide.
Generally, we would signpost vulnerable customers/ people who are
homeless to LA services. Under Universal Credit customers will be
increasingly vulnerable and liable to eviction if they are unable to
manage single monthly payments, including housing costs and paying
25/29
DWP/
JC+.
5.
6.
4
April
2014
15:07
4
April
2014
15:08
their rent. DWP will implement time limited mitigation (such as paying
rent to landlords direct), if they know about the issues, but without
support customers may not be prepared to disclose their information
to DWP.
Offenders will not have access to the support they desperately need.
Our organisation has a number of clients who after their release from
prison need help accessing accommodation which helps them to stay
focused, especially because they are focused on other things other
than committing crimes. If they do not get the service we are currently
providing they will fall back on crime as they have no where to go.
 speak on behalf of their clients;
 our organisation can only continue to provide the services that its
already providing – this will make our commitments safer and
there is already evidence that our services have helped reduce
the amount of re-offenders.
This proposal will impact significantly on reducing risk of re-offending
and risk of serious harm to the Salford community. The Salford
Offender Service works closely with offender managers and Salford
probation to constructively address the accommodation needs of high,
medium and low risk of serious harm offenders. They have assisted
with prison releases working flexibly and quickly to reduce the risk to
the community. Withdrawal of the service will put victims of crime at
increased risk and the creation of new victims will become a
possibility as stable accommodation is a significant factor in reducing
re-offending and the risk of serious harm.
This proposal coincides with the transforming rehabilitation agenda.
This will result in the creation of the national probation service who
will work solely with high and very high risk and serious harm
offenders and the community rehabilitation companies who will work
with low and medium risk or harm offenders. The Government has
given its commitment to maintaining the Integrated Offender
Management model. This is driven by the probation service and the
police but is a partnership model to ensure the delivery of premium
services in addition to swift enforcement. Accommodation should be a
premium service as it is so important to the rehabilitation of offenders.
Salford probation service’s performance is very positive and
especially in terms of stable accommodation at the end of the
probation order and licence. This is mainly attributable to the
effectiveness of the Salford Offender Service. The proposal to
withdraw the service at this critical time will have significant
implications not only for keeping Salford residents safe but in ensuring
their offenders are given the opportunity to rehabilitate within the
Salford area.
There will be very little that the national probation service will be able
to do to ensure that high and very high risk offenders are not
accommodated in unsuitable accommodation. The risk process
currently offered by the Salford Offender Service ensures that suitable
accommodation is found and that landlords are aware of the risks.
The community rehabilitation company (which will be eventually taken
26/29
Salford
Probatio
n.
Greater
Manche
ster
Probatio
n Trust
–
Salford
Probatio
n Office.
7.
4
April
2014
15:09
over by a private company) will work with medium and low risk of
harm offenders. This company will need access to a service such as
the Salford Offender Service in order to achieve reduced re-offending
rates and assist service users in re-integrating back into Salford.
The service currently coordinates the risk process for the city of
Salford which keeps tabs on the most high risk offenders applying for
accessing accommodation in Salford. It fields all applications for
prisoners returning to Salford on release. It eases the pressure on
Salford Housing Options by assessing need and making the
appropriate interventions.
Riversid
e
ECHG.
The changes to the probation service (nationally) need to be borne in
mind. The proposal as it stands makes mention of a service funded by
probation, the impact of the changes to probation are such tat it is
impossible to predict that this funding will be available and who will
provide it.
8.
4
April
2014
15:11
This is also the case for services, such as Supported Tenancies, the
onus is being put on landlords to provide support when landlords are
business people, not support services and its not necessarily in their
interests to provide this support. This is doubly true when there is
such pressure on (especially) 1 bed accommodation and landlords
have an enormous choice of prospective tenants.
.
The proposals are impacting the same client groups so it’s difficult to
answer. Our service is proposed to go so we may not be here either.
The clients who are supported by Salford Offending Service would
also lose any alternative service. Cutting services to offenders has a
huge impact on the community – helping them secure
accommodation, help reduce re-offending. Cuts to Housing Options is
also going to impact on the same service users. All the alternative
sources of advice and support are also included in the proposals –
massive impact on homelessness so will cost far more in the future
than is proposed to save and increase in rough sleeping.
If Supported Tenancies is decommissioned we would not be able to
help mitigate the impact on service users.
27/29
Support
ed
Tenanci
es
team.
Appendix 2
Service Provider Consultation – Riverside English Churches Feedback on the proposed
closure of Salford Offender Service
Salford Offender Service offers an intensive accommodation and housing advice service based in
Salford Probation. We have a preventative function, working with people before they enter the
category of being in priority need rather than waiting for this to occur, therefore reducing the
number of homeless preventions to the council, saving resources and the potential for more costly
interventions at a later date.
In addition, we work with high risk offenders and work closely with Probation to ensure that they are
accommodated appropriately and able them to engage with the appropriate services in order to
reduce the risk to themselves and the wider community. In providing this role, the Salford Offender
Service plays an important role in community safety and public protection.
As well as supporting clients to access accommodation we work with clients whose current
accommodation may be at risk and provide timely interventions in order to prevent service users
losing their accommodation, thereby minimising the risk of homelessness and, by extension, the
risk to the wider community and service users.
The City’s proposal to withdraw its funding for this service is in effect a proposal to withdraw 84% of
its current funding; the proportion that Probation currently funds is just 16%. This will clearly result
in a major reduction of this service. Also, there can no guarantee of continued funding from
Probation at this moment in time due to the changes brought about by the Transforming
Rehabilitation initiative.
The Salford Homelessness Strategy 2013-18 commits to:
Tender for Single Homeless Offender Resettlement Service to reduce delayed discharge and
ensure homeless offenders are suitably housed (page 17 Salford Homelessness Strategy 201318)
The vision for this new Homelessness Strategy is to:
Support and promote a partnership approach to prevent homelessness and provide quality
housing in Salford (page 21 Salford Homeless Strategy 2013-18)
The vision is underpinned by the following strategic priorities:
Strategic Priority 1 – Improve early intervention to prevent homelessness with effective
partnership working (page 21 Salford Homeless Strategy 2013-18)
There are numerous examples of ways in which the Service delivers this strategy through effective
partnership working. Firstly, as part of Salford’s Single Homeless Pathway, the Salford Offender
Service has developed close links with all prisons from which offenders are discharged back into
Salford. Contacts within the prisons send Single Homeless Pathway referrals direct to Salford
Offender Service which then ensures that referrals are appropriate and correctly filled in, thus
speeding up the process, preventing inappropriate referrals jamming the system and easing the
pressure on Housing Options staff. In the nine months since we have been providing that service
we have processed 31 custody referrals.
Secondly, Service staff have been sufficiently trained around Housing Legislation to enable them to
carry out homelessness assessments. Although we are not able to grant priority homeless status
we can make informed judgements, for example when assessing clients in custody; again this
eases pressure on Housing Options staff by preventing inappropriate presentations.
28/29
Thirdly, the service co-ordinates the RMX process within Salford; RMX is the mechanism by which
the accommodation and placement of high-risk offenders are managed. As part of the process we
work closely with SHOP and major RSLs, ensure Probation are aware of their responsibilities,
monitor applications to Homesearch from outside Salford to ensure any RMX clients are picked up
and co-ordinate the monthly RMX meetings.
Fourthly, members of service staff are invited to MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection
Arrangements) meetings for our service users and also in an advisory capacity (pre-referral) where
accommodation is an issue. The Service prioritises actions arising from MAPPA meetings
concerning these clients.
The proposal for the City to withdraw funding for this service is therefore not in line with the
Strategy which was compiled in consultation with homelessness service providers and partners,
and is a commitment to the citizens of Salford.
Our performance figures, submitted to Greater Manchester Probation Trust over the past year,
illustrate the effectiveness of our partnership approach:
2013 - 14
Number of referrals received
Number of referrals seen
Number of non-attendees
Nature of presenting problem
Street Homeless
Approved premises
Deemed homeless living with family or friends
Not homeless but accommodation unsuitable
Living with family/friends but want to move
Referrals from custody
Numbers requiring follow up work
Numbers of offenders for whom
accommodation is found
Number of temporary accommodation found
Number of permanent accommodation found
Annual data
Providers of temporary accommodation found
Providers of permanent accommodation found
29/29
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Total
78
57
61
77
273
78
55
59
76
268
0
2
2
1
5
0
6
0
56
0
13
77
23
2
7
0
43
0
5
53
25
1
11
0
41
0
8
59
44
4
7
0
49
8
9
75
30
5
33
0
189
8
35
264
122
9
14
13
12
13
31
15
22
50
79
Liberty House
Alexandra House
Stonham
Project 34
SASH
Positive Lifestyles
Foyer
Abbott Lodge
Salix
Citywest
Family and Friends
Private
6
2
1
18
16
2
2
3
21
12
29
17