SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL Report to South Community 10 Assembly

Report of: South Community Assembly Manager ______

Date: 7th October 2010 ______

Subject: South Community Assembly Discretionary Budget 2010/11

______

Author of Report: Martin Hughes, South Community Assembly Manager ______

Summary: The South Community Assembly has £50,000 Discretionary Budget unallocated for the 2010/11 financial year. There is also £40,000 Discretionary Budget ringfenced for Older People’s Services which has yet to be allocated. The Assembly is now in position to allocate this funding following the completion of the ‘Area Wide Review of Service Provision for Older People’ (Appendix 1).

In addition to this the South Community Assembly has been asked to recommend how to allocate £10,000 of Parks and Countryside’s budget towards improvements of local parks.

This report provides recommendations regarding the allocation of £90,000 of the discretionary budget. It also recommends a reallocation of £2,300 for activities for Children and Young People in Abbeydale, as a result of the original project not being delivered. The report also recommends how the £10,000 parks contribution should be utilised.

All allocations will need to be spent by any recipients by 31 st March 2011. ______

Reasons for Recommendations:

1 • Improve facilities and increase activities for Children and Young People • Improving local and district shopping centres • Reducing anti-social behaviour and crime • Improve the health and wellbeing of older people • Tackling health inequalities in targeted areas • Provide increased opportunities for people to access learning and employment • Contribute to the development of the Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector • Provide residents with advice and information about services in their area

Recommendations:

That the South Community Assembly:

(1) regard having been had to the Sheffield City Strategy and to the relevant Secretary of State’s guidance, confirms its belief that the granting of funding as envisaged in this report is likely to achieve the promotion and improvement of the economic, social and environmental well-being of residents of the wards of Gleadless Valley, Graves Park, Nether Edge and Beauchief & Greenhill;

(2) considers the information contained within this report and allocates £90,000 of the 2010/11 Discretionary Budget to the projects identified in Section 4 of this report, namely:

• Four part-time lengthspeople £25,000 • Coating of Virgin Media cabinets £3,500 • Environmental Improvements at Herdings Shops £5,000 • Speed Indication Device £5,000 • Bluetooth Kit £3,000 • Support and promotion of local VCF groups £3,000 • Awareness Raising for Older People’s Services £5,000 • Advice Services for Older People £10,000 • Provision of additional activities for Older People £25,000 • Contingency £5,500 Total £90,000

(3) agrees to reallocate £2,300.00 to Activity Sheffield to support their work with children and young people within the Abbeydale area

2 • provide the Director of Parks and Countryside with recommendations as to the allocation of the £10,000 Parks Budget in line with the priorities in the South Community Plan and following the completion of the Uplift Assessment Programme. • manage and allocate the £5,500 contingency budget

(4) authorises the Director of Neighbourhood Renewal and Partnerships, in consultation with the Director of Legal Services, to agree the terms on which all funding in this report is made available and to complete funding agreements for the projects mentioned within this report and any other related documents that he considers appropriate.

Background Papers: None

Category of Report: OPEN

3 Statutory and Council Policy Checklist

Financial implications

YES Cleared by: Liz Orme

Legal im plications

YES Cleared by: Elen Williams

Equality of Opportunity implications

YES (South Community Plan EIA) Cleared by: Phil Read

Tackling Health Inequalities implications

YES

Human rights implications

Environmental and Sustainability implications

YES

Economic impact

Community safety implications

YES

Human resources implications

YES

Property implications

4 1. Summary:

The South Community Assembly has £50,000 Discretionary Budget unallocated for the 2010/11 financial year. There is also £40,000 Discretionary Budget ringfenced for Older People’s Services which has yet to be allocated. The Assembly is now in position to allocate this funding following the completion of the ‘Area Wide Review of Service Provision for Older People’ (Appendix 1).

In addition to this the South Community Assembly has been asked to recommend how to allocate £10,000 of Parks and Countryside’s budget towards improvements of local parks.

All allocations will need to be spent by any recipients by 31 st March 2011.

2. What does this mean for people within the South Community Assembly Area?

The 2010/12 Community Plan, based as it is on consultation with local people, reflects the priorities of the local community in making the area a better place to live. The projects identified for funding in this report will benefit residents in the South Community Assembly. In particular it will – • Improving the streetscene • Increasing the mobility and provide safer routes for pedestrians • Improve facilities and increase activities for Children and Young People • Improving local and district shopping centres • Reducing anti-social behaviour and crime • Improve the health and wellbeing of older people • Tackling health inequalities in targeted areas • Provide increased opportunities for people to access learning and employment • Contribute to the development of the Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector • Provide residents with advice and information about services in their area

3. Outcomes and Sustainability

The funding identified in this report will contribute to the delivery of the priorities in the South Community Assembly Plan, thus benefiting residents in the South Community Assembly Area.

The projects and activity within this report contribute to all six of the Council’s ambitions as indicated in the Corporate Plan –

• Leading Sheffield’s Transformation • Vibrant, Safe and Strong Communities • Protecting and Enhancing the Environment • A Better Life for Children and Young People • Supporting People to be Healthy and Independent • Putting the Customer First and Achieving best Value for Money

4. Full Proposal

4.1 2010/11 Discretionary Budget – new allocation

During the development of the new Community Assembly Plan the following activities have been identified for £90,000 of funding:

Improving the Streetscene (Top 5 Priority)

• Lengthspeople – to improve the streetscene and provide a high profile presence illustrating that the South Community Assembly is responding to residents’ priorities. Proposal is to have four part-time lengthspeople (one per ward) that will also help distribute information promoting community weeks of action, clean-ups and recruiting street champions. The ‘hub’ locations for these lengthspeople are likely to be – Meadowhead, Newfield Green, Nether Edge shops and Derbyshire Lane shops. Provider - Streetforce. Amount - £25,000

• Virgin Media Cabinets – Anti-Graffiti Coating Scheme. £1,000 for 25 cabinets (matched by Virgin Media). There are 250 uncoated cabinets within the South area. Proposal is to target approximately 90 cabinets in the Meersbrook and Herdings area. Provider - Streetforce. Amount - £3,500

Increase mobility and provide safer routes for pedestrians

• Speed Indication Devices (SIDs) - installation of road signs that display the speed of approaching traffic, and that also display a ‘smiley’ or ‘sad’ face depending upon whether the speed is below or above the speed limit. They are moved around from site to site at fixed intervals, to maximise their effect. Provider – Highways & Transport Service. Amount - £5,000 (per unit).

Improving local and district shopping centres (Top 5 Priority)

• Herdings Shops – environmental improvements including fencing, barriers, landscaping, bench, etc. Provider - Streetforce. Amount - £5,000

Reducing Anti-social Behaviour and Crime (Top 5 Priority) • Bluetooth Kit - for disseminating Community Safety and South Community Assembly related text messages. Provider - SY Police. Amount - £3,000

Contribute to the development of the Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector • Nether Edge Farmers Market – request to fund the Road Closure notice that currently has to appear in The Star. Provider – Nether Edge Neighbourhood Group. Amount - £2,000

• Camcorder – purchase of a camcorder (and training) that can be loaned to Community Groups to record activities that have been funded by the Community Assembly. Edited videos can then be placed on You Tube with links from the South Community Assembly webpage. Provider – South Community Assembly Team. Amount - £1,000

Improve the health and wellbeing of older people

• Awareness Raising’ Project – invite expressions of interest from organisations to deliver an Assembly wide publicity and volunteer recruitment campaign around Older People’s activities and services. Amount - £5,000

• Advice Services – invite expressions of interest from organisations to develop satellite / neighbourhood services focusing on advice for older people, in partnership with organisations responsible for local community buildings. Amount - £10,000

• Additional Activities / Services – invite Expressions of Interest from organisations within the public and voluntary sectors to provide additional or enhanced activities / services for older people across the South Community Assembly. This could include lunch clubs, non-accredited learning, general activity (physical, craft, etc.), volunteer driving schemes, community leaf / snow clearance, etc. Amount - £25,000

Contingency - will be used to fund one-off small scale activities that help to deliver the priorities identified within the Community Assembly Plan. Amount £5,500

4.2 2010/11 Discretionary Budget – reallocation

In March 2010 the South Community Assembly allocated £2,300 to Sheffield Futures to deliver activities for Children and Young People in Abbeydale. Sheffield Futures have been unable to deliver this activity. It is therefore suggested that this is reallocated to Activity Sheffield to enhance their work with Children and Young People in this particular neighbourhood.

4.3 £10,000 Parks Allocation

The South Community Assembly has been asked to recommend how to allocate £10,000 of Parks and Countryside’s budget towards improvements of local parks. Parks and Countryside staff are currently conducting an Uplift Assessment Programme of the local parks which will indicate key areas of improvements needed for these parks.

It is proposed that the South Community Assembly authorises the Community Assembly Manager, in consultation with the Community Assembly Chair, to provide the Director of Parks and Countryside with recommendations as to the allocation of the £10,000 Parks Budget in line with the priorities in the South Community Plan and following the completion of the Uplift Assessment Programme.

5. Financial Implications

The Discretionary Budget for the South Community Assembly for 2010/11 is £342,000. This report advises how the Assembly may wish to allocate the £90,000 of this budget, and reallocate £2,300 of the budget previously allocated in March 2010. This will be monitored in accordance with Sheffield City Council financial procedures.

The South Community Assembly has been asked to recommend how to allocate £10,000 of Parks and Countryside’s budget towards improvements of local parks this report indicates the process that the Community Assembly wishes to allocate this funding

6. Legal Implications

If the Community Assembly takes the view that the funding of the projects mentioned in this report is likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of Sheffield or any persons present or resident in the city the Council will have the power to make this funding available pursuant to section 2, Local Government Act 2000. In exercising this power, the guidance issued by the Secretary of State has to have been considered: the proposals in this report are not at variance with this guidance

In exercising the Section 2 power regard must also be had to the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy ("the Sheffield City Strategy") prepared pursuant to section 4, Local Government Act 2000. The projects recommended in this report are supportive of one or more of the five aims of the Sheffield City Strategy: Strong Economy, Successful Neighbourhoods, Inclusive, Healthy Communities, Great Place to Grow Up and Environmental Excellence.

Where decisions are to be taken by Council officers the necessary delegations will have to be given by the Community Assembly.

7. Equality of Opportunity Implications

The South Community Assembly Discretionary budget has been allocated to help address a range of needs in the area, as dictated by the South Community Assembly Plan (which is supported by an Equality Impact Assessment). There are measures funded which will benefit: • Children and Young People • Older people • People with reduced mobility • Those with specific health needs • Everyone

8. Human Resource Implications

Funding provided for Lengthspeople, additional activities for children and young people, additional activities for older people and improvements to Parks are likely to impact on the staffing resources within Streetforce, Activity Sheffield and Parks & Countryside.

9. Environmental and Sustainability Implications

Funding provided for improving the streetscene (including local shopping areas) and activity around improving parks will have a positive impact on the local environment.

10. Mitigation of risk

The risks relating to this proposal have been considered by the South Community Assembly Team. These risks will be regularly reviewed and monitored.

The projects funded may not lead to noticeable improvement in the priority issue. The Assembly Team (and the Accountable Bodies Team which administers funding) will monitor the impact of activity throughout the coming year, to assess whether projects have been effective.

Financial and Performance Management – The Accountable Body Team within the Neighbourhood Renewal and Partnership Service, Sheffield City Council will administer the distribution of funding and ensure agreed targets and outcomes are being met. They will do this through the receipt of monitoring forms from providers and by visiting projects / activity on the ground in conjunction with the Community Assembly Planning and Performance Officer. All the Service Deliverers identified have a strong track record of delivering these services.

9 11. Alternative Options

As a result of the ongoing community consultation and Councillors local intelligence and surgeries, a number of priorities were identified for possible inclusion in the budget. In order to ensure that the budget is sufficiently targeted and focused, the proposed projects are recommended on the basis that they deliver against the priorities identified in the refreshed Community Assembly Plan.

Consideration was given to –

• Improvements to Parks and Open Spaces including Batemoor Open Space (£24,000), Herdings Park (£56,000) and Graves Park (£20,000). Small improvements could be addressed through the £10,000 Parks budget, otherwise it is suggested these large schemes are reconsidered in March 2011, once the 2011/12 Discretionary Budget is known.

• Installation of dog waste or litter bins (£1,000). Suggested that alternative funding could be sought in conjunction with those that have requested bins.

• Christmas lights and markets (£3,000). Suggested this becomes part of the Improving Local and District Service project (which was approved by the South Community Assembly in March 2010)

• Food Growing project (£5,000). Suggested that alternative funding could be sought, potentially via the Climate Change Fund underspend

• Community Engagement activity in Gleadless Valley (£31,000). Not progressed due to the significant amount identified. In addition the VCF review was considered by the South Community Assembly in June 2010 and, as such, considerable resources were allocated to the VCF sector for Community Engagement in the priority neighbourhoods identified (Lowedges, Batemoor and Jordanthorpe).

12 Reasons for Recommendations

The activity highlighted in this report will contribute to a number of priorities in the refreshed South Community Plan, namely; • Improving the streetscene • Increasing the mobility and provide safer routes for pedestrians • Improve facilities and increase activities for Children and Young People • Improving local and district shopping centres • Reducing anti-social behaviour and crime • Improve the health and wellbeing of older people • Tackling health inequalities in targeted areas • Provide increased opportunities for people to access learning and employment • Contribute to the development of the Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector 10 • Provide residents with advice and information about services in their area

13 Recommendations

That the South Community Assembly:

(2) considers the information contained within this report and allocates £90,000 of the 2010/11 Discretionary Budget to the projects identified in Section 4 of this report, namely:

(3) agrees to reallocate £2,300.00 to Activity Sheffield to support their work with children and young people within the Abbeydale area

(4) considers the information contained within this report and authorises the Community Assembly Manager, in consultation with the Community Assembly Chair, to • allocate grant funding to organisations to deliver the ‘Awareness Raising’ project, Advice Services and Additional Activities for older people. • provide the Director of Parks and Countryside with recommendations as to the allocation of the £10,000 Parks Budget in line with the priorities in the South Community Plan and following the completion of the Uplift Assessment Programme. • manage and allocate the £5,500 contingency budget

11 the projects mentioned within this report and any other related documents that he considers appropriate.

12 Appendix 1

Area Wide Review of Service Provision for Older People

Report for the South Community Assembly – August 2010

Completed by - DF Enterprises August 2010

13 1 Following up the 2004 Pilot Study in Gleadless Valley In 2004 a pilot study in Gleadless Valley made recommendations for a survey of the services for older people in the wider South Area. It identified gaps in transport for older people, and shortages of volunteers to support them and venues for group activities. It also showed that there wasn’t enough capacity to meet the demand for services for older people, and that the statutory sector wasn’t liaising adequately with the voluntary sector to close the gaps in service provision.

Older people were concerned about crime, housing that wasn’t appropriate to their needs, inflexible or unsuitable homecare, difficulty accessing services and finding reputable tradespeople and the isolation of people unable to leave their homes on a regular basis.

Proposals to fill some of the gaps which were identified included • more community transport services, • more flexible home care, • help with cleaning, gardening and making adaptations to people’s homes, • and more social activities for old people

The research recommended that more work should be done, not only across the whole of South Area but also in Gleadless Valley, with a particular focus on finding out the opinions of older people rather than asking experts about them, and on consulting the most isolated people.

An acknowledged weakness of the method was that interviews were carried out in small groups rather than individually and no specific measures were taken to prevent the opinions of the most vocal members of the groups from dominating the discussion.

2 Our Method To ensure that the results of the new research are comparable with the 2004 study we used the original questionnaires as a starting point for our own questions. We made some changes, so that the questions being answered by the Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector and the Statutory Sector had more in common. We also reduced the number of questions which allowed respondents to give a simple Yes/No answer in favour of open questions, as we wanted them to think about their responses and give us their opinions. Finally, we took out the very few tick box questions because these limited people’s responses and prevented them from telling us about potential gaps in services that had not already occurred to us.

For the benefit of older people who were on-line respondents, or who were responding at home and giving their replies to friends, neighbours or home care workers, we included one example – right at the very end – of the sort of need they might have. This could have skewed the results from these respondents, if they had agreed that it is a valuable service which is not being provided. However it does not appear to have had any impact.

14 No attempt was made to sample the target population, (residents of the South Community Assembly area who are aged over 65 years), nor to survey specific segments of the population. Instead, the survey was distributed as widely as possible and by a variety of means – electronically on the South Community Assembly website, through advertising in e-newsletters and community magazines such as Active8, by circulating all of the local community groups on the various databases available to us which could conceivably include or be working with significant numbers of older people, by contacting nursing homes and GPs’ surgeries, and by a direct mailing to all of the members of Sheffield 50 Plus who live in the target area. We asked members of Sheffield 50 Plus, and other residents who took an interest in the questionnaire, to respond only if they were themselves over 65, or were assisting someone aged 65 or over, or were responding on their behalf. Some responses were made on behalf of a couple but these have not been counted as two responses because there is no way of knowing whether they were actually completed by one person or as a collaborative effort, nor of differentiating their responses.

As well as being asked to distribute the questionnaire to their members and service users, the organisations themselves received one of two special questionnaires designed to elicit an organisational response. There were separate versions for voluntary, community and faith organisations and statutory organisations.

In total, more than 1,800 paper copies of the questionnaire were circulated, alongside the on-line questionnaire, newsletter adverts and email circulars. The questionnaire was presented in three formats, electronically, in a paper and pencil format and – where this was requested by organisations because of the age or infirmity of the respondents – by face-to-face interview. We used this method as little as possible because of the potential, noted above, for one person’s views to influence other respondents and bias their response. For example, elderly people at a lunch club who were unable to complete the paper and pencil exercise because of various disabilities were prone to answer loudly if responding to a face-to-face interview, thus tending to suggest potential answers to some of the more biddable or unimaginative eavesdroppers.

We tested the results by conducting two focus groups which considered the same questions but in greater depth and with the support of a facilitator. Focus group members were selected in three ways • by targeted invitations to participate in a 65 Plus roadshow on 26 May • a focus group at Roshni Women’s Resource Centre, • an open invitation to roadshow visitors to join the invited members of that focus group

The results of the survey and focus group work are not statistically rigorous. They are designed to give an impression of how older people feel about the issues covered in the questionnaire. They will need to continue to be tested, by circulating the findings in newsletters and reflecting them back to groups of older people. This should not be done in such a way as to suggest that they represent a definitive account of how people are feeling, but to invite a further response. 15

A comparison of our results with quantitative research about older people in the South Community Assembly conducted by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and Sheffield City Council is contained in a later section of this report called ‘Putting the research in context’. Some of these studies surveyed a random sample, enabling them to draw very precise conclusions about the population they were surveying. However, these surveys have limitations of their own which are discussed in that section.

The questionnaires are reproduced in full at the end of the report. On reflection we feel that the questionnaires addressed to voluntary, community and faith groups and to statutory groups were probably too long. Although respondents were not required to answer every question, their length may have intimated busy people. Nonetheless, we note that staff and volunteers from the VCF sector were much more likely to respond than statutory sector staff.

3 Our key findings As the Community Assembly has limited funding available with which to respond directly to the needs of the over 65s, we think it is encouraging that many of the needs identified in the survey would be relatively inexpensive to address.

3.1) Independence A key finding was that respondents were fiercely independent. By and large they do not want a great deal of help from outside agencies, preferring to look after themselves even when this is difficult, or to rely on family members for support. This begs the question as to whether the family members concerned would nonetheless appreciate more outside intervention, as they were not consulted. It was also unclear whether the respondents’ expectation of being cared for by their family was always being fulfilled in practice, or whether there was an element of wish-fulfilment for some, like the respondent who said that her daughter looked after her needs even though she lives in Surrey. The most extreme expression of independence came from the person who wrote, “I would be extremely annoyed to require help and would probably not ask for it or allow anyone into the house!”

3.2) Not knowing where to turn for help (“Above all, I need advice!”) Many respondents expressed the view that, if they did need help, they would not know where to turn for information, advice and guidance. Some had approached their GP. Others had contacted the Town Hall. But a number of respondents made the very reasonable point that, if you do not know what help is actually available, it is difficult to know how access it or even to realise that you need it. The Expert Elders’ ‘Simplified Access Project’ has sought to address this issue and the booklet “Ageing Well in Sheffield” is full of useful advice. There are other similar publications available from libraries and health centres.

For Consideration Is sufficient attention being given to placing these in the hands of older people and – in an age of information overload – explaining why they might be useful and should be kept safe for future reference?

16 From the Focus Groups came the suggestion that facilitating the wider circulation of local newsletters would be a relatively inexpensive way of making sure that older people have good up-to-date information and of reminding them about other resources that are available. This would mean providing a contribution towards the cost of larger print runs and door-to- door delivery.

There were predictable complaints about helplines and automated telephone systems, which can be especially confusing for older people. One respondent complained that “nearly everything that you want says you are to go on the Internet or press a lot of numbers. If you have to phone for help, then you get cut off. It took me months to find out what the hash key was on my phone dial!”

For consideration Wherever possible, telephone helplines designed for older people, or where they make up the majority of service users, should not be automated.

3.3) Being able to meet other people Many respondents said that their only problem was loneliness and that they would like to have more places where they could go to meet people. This was especially true in the more affluent communities where there are fewer community activities already taking place. A resident of Lowedges commented that “there is no need to be lonely here as there are lots of groups to join on the estate.” This situation may change, however, as cuts in services begin to bite.

Single people frequently talked about feeling isolated, especially during the bad weather last winter. Couples recognised that they were fortunate by comparison. “As my husband and I are together,” one respondent said, “We have no reason to feel isolated.” Another said, “I don’t feel isolated because I live with my wife.” But others talked about having “little human contact” outside of occasional lunch clubs and group meetings.

In many neighbourhoods churches play a key role, either by organising activities for older people or by providing venue. One person said, “Unless you go to church, there isn’t anything to do.”

Some respondents said how much they valued the small band of dedicated volunteers, often elderly themselves, who run these services for isolated people. There was a feeling that a relatively small amount of additional funding would improve these services and make the volunteers feel more valued. It would be a relatively inexpensive way of addressing social isolation for many older people.

Other respondents wanted the chance to attend more than one lunch club as a way of relieving their sense of isolation and older members of the South Asian community complained that they have no regular opportunities to socialise with their peers at all. This finding was reinforced by the focus group with older Asian women organised by Roshni.

17 For Consideration The lunch clubs for older White residents are run by elderly volunteers and are very cost effective to support. They could be improved at very little additional cost by making grants for kitchen equipment and to subsidise the quality of the food.

Asian volunteers, and White volunteers in areas where there are fewer lunch cubs for White elders, would need to be identified and funded to run any new clubs. They would need start-up funding for equipment, food hygiene training and publicity. (A map showing the distribution of the current lunch club venues is included in the detailed findings.)

Where they are able, many people liked to attend more than one lunch club each week. Some clubs have closed – and are much missed - because their volunteers simply got too old and tired to continue. Is there potential to organise a lunch club which crosses cultural and faith divides and brings older people together to share their experiences?

3.4) Public Transport A related issue, and one which features separately in the community plan, was public transport and especially bus services. Some respondents claimed that bus services were not frequent enough or did not take them to the right places, where there are local shops and other community facilities. One respondent said, “Buses are too irregular and they are not dependable.” These concerns were highlighted by questions from the local residents who attended the older people’s roadshow.

However, many of the respondents who completed the questionnaires in community venues had got there by community transport. For them public transport was irrelevant as they could not access it at all, but the community transport service was highly appreciated. Some of the older Asian women at the focus group organised by Roshni were reluctant to use public transport and felt more comfortable if family members could transport them.

3.5) Home care and community nursing Some respondents took home care so much for granted that they overlooked it when talking about their need for, or access to, support services. However, several respondents felt that home carers did not do some of the things that people really needed help with or did not have enough time to do things the way they would like them to be done.

“He has had a stroke,” one respondent commented, “But his carers are useless. They won’t button his shirt.” Another said, “Some carers are very good but some don’t seem very well trained.” Another said, “The in-house team were not bad but they had insufficient training about medication. They would let us run out of medication without it being reordered and weekend cover was problematic.” Another, talking about the care provided for his wife during her terminal illness, said, “My wife got good support before she died but there was no proper system. There was no help in the middle of the night. The standby person took an hour to 18 arrive.” Another said, “I would like to have more support but I can’t afford what I have to pay now... I just want help with everyday things – shopping, company, things like that.” Another wrote about having to cope with “pain and immobility”.

Respondents admitted that they are not necessarily willing to pay, either out of fees or taxation, for a level of service where corners do not need to be cut or where fully comprehensive support can be provided.

The focus group at Roshni bore out the research finding that clients feel home care services are of variable and inconsistent quality and believe this is because some carers do not seem as well trained or considerate as others.

For Consideration Do we sometimes forget, when we are providing services or training people to provide them, that the little details are important to service users as well as the big things? Is there scope for some in-depth research about this issue next time that clients of home care services are being surveyed?

3.6) Personal safety Generally speaking, older people do feel safe in the South Community Assembly area although one respondent was unaware of the irony when she wrote, “I don’t feel unsafe as I have plenty of locks on the doors.” An untypical response was from the unfortunate person who no longer felt safe after witnessing her “neighbour’s door being kicked in! Now I’m concerned about how to pay the milkman,” she said. Another had been mugged in the underpass at the junction of Gleadless Road and Blackstock Road.

These disturbing experiences were balanced however, by the many people who said that they felt very safe, especially during the day. But many respondents did not go out at night. One person spoke for many others when they wrote, “I feel safe when my door is locked at night.” Another said, “I do not go out at night unaccompanied.” This too was typical, although during the daytime the same respondent found “local people are most helpful.” “I feel safe as houses,” said one stoical resident of Norton Lees, “Even when posses of school children traipse past dropping fish and chip papers and soft drinks’ bottles.”

The focus groups bore out the finding that most people feel safe from crime and serious anti-social behaviour. A disturbing exception was a South Asian woman living in Gleadless Valley whose family had experienced racially motivated crime and anti-social behaviour.

The focus group organised by Roshni identified only one concern about anti- social behaviour, and this related to students living in Sharrow, who could sometimes be noisy and inconsiderate. Loud parties at night and drunkenness were singled out as concerns, and the participants said that they looked forward to the summer when most students were not around.

However, the focus groups did highlight other concerns about personal safety:

19 • People were concerned about falling, or becoming ill, while they out of the house • Pot-holes and untreated icy pavements were identified as particular hazards • The inconsiderate parking of cars on pavements sometimes causes a hazard and is often a serious nuisance for people using wheelchairs and mobility vehicles

For consideration Gritting more pavements in icy weather and enforcing, or drawing attention to, the law when drivers have parked so far onto the pavement that a wheelchair, mobility vehicle or pushchair can no longer use the pavement.

Pot-holes in pavements, at junctions or very close to the kerb, where they may not threaten cyclists or drivers, can still present a serious hazard to pedestrians and can be an obstacle to people in wheelchairs and mobility vehicles.

Focus group members wondered whether neighbourhood wardens are encouraged to pay particular attention to elderly tenants when they are patrolling local estates. Could they do more to deal with hazards such as icy pavements and obstructions?

3.7) Reliable cleaners, tradespeople and emergency services Some respondents seemed more afraid of being ‘ripped off’ by unscrupulous tradespeople than being the victims of crime. One respondent said, “Help in emergencies would be best, especially after the troubles I’ve had accessing help when my pipes burst.” Another needed reliable help to trim trees in the front and back garden but didn’t know whom to ask. The need for reliable cleaners and domestic helpers was mentioned by 33 respondents, and 14 wanted helped with shopping. These findings were borne out by the focus groups, especially the one held at the older people’s Roadshow.

For consideration Operating a local list of approved tradespeople has legal and safety implications. However, there are ways in which the Council, and other organisations, could draw attention to trade bodies which oversee the standard of work and conduct of their members and take sanctions or arbitrate between a tradesperson and their customer when there are concerns or complaints.

3.8) Some people just wanted to say ‘Thank you!’ One person wrote, “This Council was fantastic in providing help... They were so caring. What a City we live! I have a stairlift and a level access shower, all done [because of] my late wife’s needs and conditions. ‘Even when she has passed away,’ they said, ‘These things will help you because of your predicament.’”

Another wrote: “I think this is an excellent form. At the present time we are OK but it is comforting to know that we are not alone.”

20 3.9) What the organisations said There was a patchy response from statutory organisations, in particular.

The three most important issues for service users identified by the respondents from organisations were • Social isolation • Mobility • Transport This correlates closely to the issues identified by individual respondents. The organisations did not identify information, homecare and reliable tradespeople as significant issues and here they diverge from individual respondents.

Lack of finance and other resources was identified as a key issue by several organisations. Only three currently have any funding from the City Council.

The respondent from one voluntary and community organisation said, “All of our activities address social well being and loneliness.” Another wrote, “We can provide very minimal one-to-one support; it is best for us to act as a referral point to other services.” But another organisation was more ambitious and the respondent, a Methodist minister responsible for a lunch club and other activities, wrote: “We need to recognise that voluntary and statutory organisations have equal roles and to harness the energy of the VCF sector at the local level so as to maximise the effective use of resources. For this reason strategic engagement is essential with representatives of the VCF sector and I fear that the withdrawal of Council funding from OFFER will have a knock-on detrimental impact on service users, especially those who fall through the gaps in statutory provision and are known only to VCF groups.”

For consideration Following the demise of OFFER, which was the citywide community empowerment network, local voluntary, community and faith organisations are concerned that their voices will not be heard. They provide, or help to sustain and encourage, a considerable amount of the informal and formal care and support which older people receive and a great many of the social opportunities for older people to meet their peers.

4) A summary of what the focus groups said 1. Footpaths should be gritted in icy weather 2. The Safer Neighbourhood team should pay more attention to the inconsiderate parking of cars 3. Pot-holes cause more safety concerns than crime and anti-social behaviour 4. Anti-social students cause more concerns about safety for most older Asian residents than other issues, although isolated Asian families face much greater problems and concerns 5. Decisions which affect older people need to be made, and the outcomes need to be delivered, more quickly 6. Very basic and affordable telephone support for people living alone, or isolated during the day, would give great reassurance (e.g. an automatic call which has to be answered by the subscriber to confirm that they are all right) 21 7. Community newsletters should be subsidised so that they can be delivered door-to-door with blanket coverage across the Area as they contain very useful information and can be used to promote services to older people 8. Interpretation services for older Asian people need to be more widely available in health care settings 9. There should be more support for lunch clubs and other social activities, and attention should be paid to providing a lunch club for older Asian people

5) Putting the research in context

There are almost 74,000 people living in the South Community Assembly area. Just over 24,000 residents are aged 50 plus. This is almost 33% of the population. In comparison, 195 responses from residents aged 65 plus and their carers may not seem a significant number, however it indicates that responses were received on behalf of more than 1% of the over 65 age group. Nevertheless, this is an example of ‘non-probability surveying’. We relied upon the willingness and availability of local residents to respond to the questionnaire to select our sample for us. This places severe limits on the robustness of any conclusions which might be drawn from our findings.

By comparison, Ipsos MORI North conducted a programme of householder surveys based on rigorous sampling methods which was called ‘The Sheffield Place Survey 2009’. The advantage of this method is that it provided very reliable data for the South Community Assembly Area. The disadvantage is that it used a set of nationally approved questions which local politicians and community leaders were not able to influence and asked only one specific question about the needs of older people: “Are older people in your local area able to get the services and support they need to continue living at home for as long as they want to?” 26% of South Community Assembly area residents answered ‘Yes’, 63% Didn’t Know and 9% said ‘No’.

Our survey asked a similar question: ‘In your opinion, how easy is it for older people to get the support they need?’ 21% of our respondents said ‘Yes’ but 36% said ‘No’. However, our survey was confined to respondents who were either 65 plus or were caring for someone over 65.

The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) also conducts statistically robust surveys. For example, in 2008 an organisation called ‘cnresearch’ wrote on behalf of SYPTE to 668 service users across South Yorkshire to conduct a “Community Transport Survey” which was published in February 2009. They received 347 replies, a response rate of 52%, and, because of their chosen sampling method, they were able to produce very reliable statistics about customer satisfaction. However, only 14 of their respondents were living in the South Community Assembly area and, by a statistical fluke, ten of these were residents in the S8 postcode.

The cnresearch showed that 75% of passengers were satisfied with the community transport service and 90% rarely or only occasionally experienced any difficulties with it. The helpfulness of the driver (96%) and safety on the 22 journey (95%) were the two most frequently cited reasons for using the service. 26% of respondents were unable to use other means of public transport or could only use it if they had someone to escort them. These findings are strongly supported by the more anecdotal results of our own survey.

SYPTE’s “Corporate Performance” report for 2008/9 shows that bus punctuality was slightly below target, at 90% instead of 91%, and satisfaction with local bus services was at ‘amber’, meaning not on target but improving. 49 of our respondents (25%) were dissatisfied with local bus services.

Unfortunately, there is not a great deal of detailed research already available for the 65 plus age group. This is because, although the “Sheffield City Strategy” identifies responding positively to the growing number of older people as one of its priorities, very few surveys actually ask people about their age and there are very few survey questions about ageing and the needs of older people.

For example, although it asks for a great deal of personal information about respondents, Sheffield City Council’s “Development Services Transport Planning Customer Satisfaction Survey 2008/9” does not ask for the person’s age. We note, however, that the on-going “South Community Assembly Survey” contains a ’60 Plus’ identifier which should allow for further comparison with our findings.

We also note that some information which might have been relevant to our research is not in the public domain. An example is Sheffield City Council’s “Strategic Direction and Commissioning Priorities for Older People 2009—14”.

Finally, respondents and older people in general maybe heartened to know that the 2007 Update to the “Sheffield City Strategy” says: ‘We have developed and are now delivering our Strategy for an Ageing Population to ensure our growing older population is fully included in the life of our city. This includes the ability of older people to influence decisions that affect them. We are also fundamentally changing the way we deliver health and care services for older people to ensure those who need care and support receive integrated community based services aimed at promoting independence, health and well-being. This includes helping people to live independently in their own homes wherever possible.’ (Page 20)

6) Lessons learned 1. The individual questionnaire was specifically designed to be short and concise, so as not to intimidate potential respondents and to encourage them to join in the survey. The same policy should have been used when designing the questionnaire for organisations, which appeared to be much longer, although respondents were in fact asked to skip various questions depending on the earlier answers they had given. Where the organisational questionnaires were completed, and in many statutory settings they were not, the questions were often answered in a very sketchy way, as if the respondents were undertaking a quick dash through what they perceived to be a marathon document. 2. The use of relatively expensive advertising to encourage take-up of the survey did not repay the investment. 23 7) Acknowledgements This research has been undertaken by Nazia Fazil, Rahat Esmail, Neil Bishop and Robert Russell from Darnall Forum (trading as D F Enterprise) and by Steve Rundell, Hafren Williams, Lisa Cox and Jayne Hancock from Gleadless Valley Community Forum.