2016-17 Budget proposal
Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA)
Informing our approach to fairness
Title of proposal
Reduce funding for Lunch Clubs
Date of original assessment 29 September 2015
Officer responsible for
Alison McDowell
Impact Assessment
Assessment Team
Angela Jamson; Kathryn Williams; Claire Alder
Review Date
30 September 2016
Version Control
Version
Date
Replaces version
4
12 February 2016
3
1
The following 2016/17 budget proposal is put forward in a context of continued financial austerity.
Due to cuts in government funding and unfunded cost pressures we have already been forced to
make £191m savings. We anticipate having to make similarly significant savings over 2016-2019,
£32m of which are needed in 2016-17.
This IIA should be read in conjunction with ‘Newcastle – a great city: Ambition in the face of
austerity’ which explains more broadly how we are responding to the financial challenges we face.
Section A: Current service
1. What does the service do?
In recent years, we have moved away from traditional models of service delivery towards a range
of services based in communities. People have asked for alternatives to traditional services and we
have placed greater emphasis on giving people choice about their support arrangements and the
services offered, as well as adopting a more community orientated approach.
At the moment we have the following lunch clubs across the city:
 10 groups which are supported by staff. These have the capacity to support 200 people per
week. On average, they have an average attendance of 132 people per week*. These
groups operate 50 weeks of the year, excluding bank holidays.
 10 groups which are led by volunteers. These have the capacity to support 220 people per
week. On average, 181 people attend each week*. These groups operate 48 weeks of the
year, excluding bank holidays.
 4 volunteer led groups who specifically meet the needs of people who come from black and
minority ethnic backgrounds. These have the capacity to support 160 people per week. On
average, 111 people attend each week*. These groups operate 50 weeks of the year,
excluding bank holidays.
*Please note, some people may attend more than one lunch club or may attend more than once a
week so the numbers of people supported will be lower than the attendance figures shown.
Lunch clubs form part of our community based offer and provide support which can prevent the
need for statutory services but are currently commissioned and delivered in a very traditional
manner.
2. Who do you deliver this service for?
These services are delivered for older people who live in Newcastle. Some of these people may be
eligible for care and support services as defined by the Care Act and access day opportunities to
meet those needs; others may not have eligible needs for services and may access community
offers. The user group is open to anyone over the age of 55 whether they have an assessed
eligible need or not.
3. Do you have any statutory requirements?
The Care Act 2014 provides the legal framework within which we commission care and support for
the people who live in Newcastle. Under this Act, we have a responsibility to provide or arrange
services, facilities or resources or take other steps to prevent, delay or reduce needs for care and
support for adults and carers and, undertake an assessment, where an adult has an appearance of
need for care and support, to determine whether those needs are eligible and therefore whether
the person requires services.
4. How much do you spend on this service?
Gross expenditure
Gross income
Net budget
Capital projects
£273,000
0
£273,000
0
0
These services are provided
by the community and
voluntary sector.
2
Section B: Change proposal
1. What is the proposal to change the service?
We propose to reduce our funding for the provision of lunch clubs across the City.
We recognise the contribution the community and voluntary sector play in supporting people’s
emotional health and well-being allowing them to remain in their own communities, however at a
time when we are having to make tough choices we need to look at where the biggest impact from
our spending can be felt.
We do not propose to make any changes to the meals at home service.
In response to people telling us they wanted community based alternative services, we recently
commissioned Chain Reaction. This service is the main offer for people who do not need a high
level of support or require a building based service. Chain Reaction’s service aims include the
need to:
 Promote independence
 Support and sustain links and friendship groups between service-users
 Promote social inclusion and support people to increase their sense of good emotional
health and wellbeing
 Reduce social isolation
 Support voluntary and community providers in local neighbourhoods by developing
sustainable peer networks
As these reflect both the expectation and ethos of lunch clubs, we hope to be able to reduce the
impact of this change by building on these services to develop a Chain Reaction lunch club offer
which focusses on creating sustainable peer networks. This offer will support local communities to
develop social capital and resilience while recognising the skills and assets people have. It will
move the service to a coordinated, volunteer led opportunity which will ensure the offer is
sustainable in the longer term while recognising our financial pressures.
During our consultation process we worked with the current provider to agree an extension of our
current arrangements for the delivery of lunch clubs to 30th September 2016. This will give us the
opportunity to work with people who use the lunch clubs as well as their family carers, the current
provider and any other organisations to shape the service for the future.
2. What evidence has informed this proposal?
Information source
What has this told you?
Care Act 2014
This has informed us about changes to the
Community Care Legislation that came into
force in April 2015 and allowed us to understand
potential increases in demand for services.
Finance Partners
Current gross and net budget information.
Monitoring Information from services
This has indicated the likely impact of any
changes to services
3. How much will you spend on this service?
Gross expenditure
Gross income
2016/17
£183,000
£0
4. What will the net savings be of this proposal?
Net budget
£183,000
Capital projects
£0
3
Gross Saving
Implementation Cost
2016/17
£90,000
£0
5. What impact will this have on the workforce?
No. FTEs
% workforce
2016/17
0
0
Net Saving
£90,000
4
6. Who have you engaged with about this proposal?
Date
Who
No. of people
13/11/15
Current provider organisation
3
Dec 2015 to
Jan 2016
Discussions with people who use lunch clubs and their
carers – facilitated by the lunch club provider
All lunch club
attendees
Dec 2015 to
Jan 2016
Individual responses - Let’s talk
27
Individual responses – letters
Dec 2015 to
Jan 2016
28

Individual responses – emails
Dec 2015 to
Jan 2016
Main issues raised
The provider understood the reasons behind the
proposal. They did however raise issues around
cumulative impact of service cuts and the need to
support lunch club users to understand any
potential impacts.
During the sessions, the provider advised people
to feed directly into the budget consultation
process. These issues and responses are
detailed below.
We have had 76 individual responses to this
proposal across the areas described. Rather than
detail those separately, responses have been
grouped into the following areas as most
reflected similar concerns and issues, these were
that:
9
Individual responses – telephone calls
Dec 2015 to
Jan 2016
9

Individual response – complaint
18/01/16
1
the proposal will mean a reduction in the
quality of life for people. This includes
increasing the effects of social isolation for
those people whose main social contact is
through the lunch club they attend. Many
people said that they relied wholly on the
lunch club they attended and that they did not
get any other services. They said that without
it they would not see anyone during the week;
the proposal does not recognise the additional
health benefits the lunch clubs offer. These
include the offer of a nutritious and well
balanced meal; the recognition of increasing
health needs and referral to appropriate
services; the reduction of potential hospital
5


January 16
Individual response – email via Elected Members
2


admissions by offering medication prompts,
preventative information, advice, guidance
and signposting;
the proposal does not reflect or recognise the
cumulative impact all adult services proposals
will have on this group of people;
the proposal does not recognise the additional
impact it will have on family carers who rely
on the service;
most people said they did not want their
service to change and did not know what they
would do without it;
family carers expressed concern on behalf of
their family members who used the service as
they relied on it to help their family member
continue to live independently
Concerns in this response included:

18/01/16 and
29/01/16

Response from Chinese Elders lunch club
1


that the premise of the proposal seems to be
contradictory to national research on the
effects of deprivation and health inequalities
for older people;
the fact that Chain Reaction is a relatively new
approach which needs to be tested;
that lunch clubs based in commercial
premises are financially unviable. It should be
noted however that there was no reference to
this as an approach within the proposal;
that older people are likely to be the most
vulnerable however, they have contributed
significantly to the City over their life, so it
6

28/01/16
29/01/16
Response from the Milna Julna Group
Response from the DOSTI
20
20
would be unethical to scarify their welfare and
well-being when they are least able to defend
themselves;
that the current provider, as a national charity,
has been a very credible contractor and
supporter to other voluntary groups. The
withdrawal of funding from the Council will
inevitably affect very negatively to its
corporate well-being including staff job losses,
and damage to its trust in the Council.
20 people signed a petition from this group who
strongly objected to closure. Petitioners stated it
was the only time they could get out to socialise.
That some people are isolated and don’t get out
much. They said the club is very important to
people and that they value the council providing
this service, especially as some people have
attended for many years. They asked the Council
to reconsider the proposal.
The President wrote on behalf of his members.
The main issues related to:
 the cultural cohesion the group offers as it
consists of retired people from India-Pakistan
and Bangladesh and has offered this
integration for 15 years;
 the club helps reduce the social isolation its
members experience by giving them a
purpose and focus for the day. The support
offered also reduces health needs and
supports people’s emotional health and
7

22/01/16
Healthwatch Newcastle
Not known –
event held by
stakeholder
organisation
November 15 to
January 16
Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service (NCVS)
over 60
wellbeing. Without the club, members feels
these needs are likely to increase;
members asked the Council to reconsider this
proposal
Specific issues raised were:
 given that the funding for lunch clubs is being
withdrawn have their benefits been fully
assessed?
 have the VCS providers been consulted about
this?
 has the impact of those affected by this
reduction, moving to meals at home, been
measured?
 how many would have to move to change the
measure from a saving to an increase in
costs?
NCVS indicated that this was an area where
there should have been much earlier discussions
with voluntary sector providers. As it is probably
too late to realistically bring in new models of
delivery before these services close in two
months’ time. This was not the intention of this
proposal and we have clarified this above.
NCVS also referenced the fact that Chain
Reaction had not been established for long
enough to be audited, as well as raising concerns
that the move to a free alternative would not be
feasible.
A key concern was that clubs provide a major
role in combatting social isolation and loneliness
8
felt by a number of older people. That they can
be the key element of prevention that support
people to live independently in the community.
This proposal could therefore have a knock-on
impact on health and social care services.
The posts cut are all in the voluntary sector and
contribute towards income for voluntary
organisations e.g. hiring of community based
halls. This loss of income could destabilise some
organisations.
NCVS also queried if there had been any
analysis on the geography, socio-economic and
diversity of the users of this service? What about
the impact on carers?
January 2016
Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) feedback
Stakeholder
responses
They suggest further work to be done on this to
look at different solutions. Could there not be a
discussion with some restaurant owners,
hoteliers, cultural venues, food providers e.g.
Greggs about social value and a more
philanthropic way of approaching this issue.
One VCS provider said they would welcome the
opportunity to work with the Council to find ways
to support lunch clubs. The issues they raise
concerned the fact that social interaction is
proven to be a key element in aging well and
delaying the onset of dementia and lunch clubs
support the well-being principle of the Care Act.
They strongly urged the Council to find ways to
retain the current lunch clubs as removing this
service will inevitably result in negative impact on
well-being in future years.
9
21/01/16
Carers Feedback – facilitated by Newcastle Carers
13
One group also commented that Chain Reaction
was a new service and it will take time for the
service to realise its potential and build the
capacity to deliver peer-led activities/lunch
groups. They stated there was a need to
continue to develop innovative, grassroots
responses and to learn from other places where
these have been successful (e.g. areas which
were successful in securing Big Lottery Fulfilling
Lives, Ageing Better funding). We also know that
peer-led activities need on-going infrastructure
support if they are to deliver good quality and
sustainable activities, particularly for frailer older
people. Further consideration needs to be given
to the withdrawal of funding for the current lunch
club provision in the city, before alternative
models have been established. We know that for
the people who attend the lunch clubs, they
provide an important (if not the only) opportunity
for maintaining social connections and
participating in community life. There is plenty of
evidence to show how important this is to
maintaining people’s independence, wellbeing
and their ability to manage long-term conditions.
This group were also concerned that the
proposals to reduce the level of funding for
advice services will hit the most vulnerable
people in our city, and were very concerned
about the impact this will have.
The group felt this will have a terrible impact on
those that use lunch clubs – they may not then
have a nutritional meal and it will increase
loneliness. There was also a negative impact on
10
29/01/16
Stakeholder
response
Newcastle Carers
carers – it reduces carer stress to know someone
is supported at a lunch club.
While the response raised no specific issues on
this proposal, it did highlight the negative
cumulative impact the proposals would have on
carers across the city.
We recognise that there may be a cumulative impact as a result of a range of proposals. This is described in the Cumulative Impact Assessment
that accompanies the budget report.
7. What are the potential impacts of the proposal?
Staff /
Specific group / subject
Impact
service
(actual / potential disadvantage,
users
beneficial outcome or none)
People with protected characteristics
Newcastle Younger people and / or
residents
older people (age)
with
eligible
needs
Newcastle
residents
with
eligible
needs
Detail of impact
Potential Disadvantage
This proposal is focused on
people aged over 55. It is
based on changes to an
existing offer which may have
a detrimental impact on
people’s mental health and
well-being.
Potential Disadvantage
This proposal is focused on
people aged over 55. It is
based on changes to an
existing offer which may have
a detrimental impact on
Disabled people
How will you address or
mitigate disadvantage?
We will seek to work with
partners to find alternative service
model. Some respondents to the
consultation have asked us to
look at whether the amount they
pay for the service could be
increased in order to protect it
and ensure its long-term
sustainability. Others have asked
us to look at the breakdown of
costs for each group. We will
work with people and explore all
viable options, including
alternative financing.
We will seek to work with
partners to find alternative service
model. Some respondents to the
consultation have asked us to
look at whether the amount they
pay for the service could be
11
people’s mental health and
well-being.
Carers
who
support
Newcastle
residents
with
eligible
needs
Carers
Potential Disadvantage
People who are married or
in civil partnerships
None
Sex or gender (including
transgender, pregnancy and
maternity)
None
This proposal is focused on
people aged over 55 and will
therefore be likely to have an
adverse impact on carers
where changes to an existing
offer may have a detrimental
impact on people’s mental
health and well-being.
increased in order to protect it
and ensure its long-term
sustainability. Others have asked
us to look at the breakdown of
costs for each group. We will
work with people and explore all
viable options, including
alternative financing.
We will seek to work with
partners to find alternative service
model. Some respondents to the
consultation have asked us to
look at whether the amount they
pay for the service could be
increased in order to protect it
and ensure its long-term
sustainability. Others have asked
us to look at the breakdown of
costs for each group. We will
work with people and explore all
viable options, including
alternative financing.
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on people because of
their partnership status
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
12
People’s sexual orientation
None
People of different races
None
People who have different
religions or beliefs
None
People vulnerable to socio-economic disadvantage
People living in deprived
areas
disproportionately negative
impact on people because of
their their sex or gender
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on people because of
their sexual orientation
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on people because of
their race
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on people because of
their religion or belief
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on people because of
where they live.
13
People in low paid
employment or in
households with low
incomes
People facing barriers to
gaining employment, such
as low levels of educational
attainment
Looked after children
People facing multiple
deprivation, through a
combination of factors such
as poor health or poor
housing / homelessness
N/A
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on people because of
their low income.
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on people because of
the barriers they face.
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on people because of
their looked after status.
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on people facing
multiple deprivation.
Businesses providing
current or future jobs in the
city
Geography
14
N/A
Area, wards,
neighbourhoods
Community cohesion
N/A
Community cohesion
N/A
Community safety
Environment
N/A
Environment
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on groups or whole
populations.
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on community
cohesion.
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on community safety.
Based on our engagement
feedback and research, there
is no evidence to suggest the
proposal will have a
disproportionately negative
impact on the environment.
15