Agenda item

The Cabinet Member’s Social Inclusion Board was established in February 2015.  During its first year, the Board identified social isolation and loneliness as a priority for action, agreeing to develop a strategy for how best it might be prevented and addressed in Hammersmith and Fulham.  The Committee considered a report on this issue at its meeting on18^th April 2016.

Councillor Vaughan welcomed Anna Waterman, Strategic Public Health Advisor, together with Helen Leech, Open Age, Anne McApline-Leny, Soup4Lunch and Chris Mikata-Pralat, Fulham Good Neighbours.   Ms Waterman presented the report which set out the draft strategy on Tackling Social isolation and Loneliness.  The Committee’s scrutiny of the draft strategy would form part of the pre-consultation and engagement process.  Ms Waterman outlined how work on the strategy had been initiated by the Social Inclusion Cabinet Member Board (CMB) in February 2016, which had established social isolation and loneliness as a priority for action.  A workshop, led by The Campaign to End Loneliness (The Campaign), was held in April 2016, which explored contributory factors for social isolation and loneliness and how this would shape the size and scope of a work program.  It also explored how loneliness specifically manifested itself in Hammersmith and Fulham, with the aim of identifying which groups were at particular risk and what else could be done to improve health and well-being. 

The Campaign worked closely with Age UK to develop a framework for identifying social isolation and loneliness, which was adopted for the draft strategy. Four pillars were formulated within the draft strategy which were viewed as necessary to ensure a robust approach (listed at section 1.2 of the report).  The first was ‘foundation services' such as Community Champions, which were aimed at identifying and supporting those at risk. These were people who were not usually visible, contacting the Council through services such as refuse collection, bill paying or libraries.  The second pillar was ‘direct interventions’, addressing directly the needs of socially isolated residents, and the third ‘gateway services’, without which residents could not access direct interventions, such as public transport and on-line information and advice.  The fourth pillar was ‘structural enablers’; meaning the local environment shaping the right conditions for local residents to engage other residents, groups and service providers. This might include neighbourliness, dementia/age friendly neighbourhoods, places designed to engender social contact.

Two major conclusions that resulted from the April 2016 workshop were firstly that tackling social isolation and loneliness required a whole systems approach with collaborative intervention from health and social care practitioners and others. Secondly, a Task and Finish group was set up to develop the draft strategy, evaluating the evidence base and looking at current best practice.  Initially, the intention was to focus exclusively on older people, however, while it was accepted that there was a recognised set of structural triggers, for example, economic deprivation, divorce and bereavement, as well as personal characteristics such as disability and ethnicity, which either singly or collectively had a cumulative impact over time and evidence suggested that the prevalence of older people experiencing isolation or chronic loneliness was higher. 

The CMB took the view that they would adopt a strategic perspective using the set of triggers to inform the framework of the draft strategy.  There were a number of policy levers in Hammersmith and Fulham as set out in section 3, such as a commitment to increase capital through securing value for money contracts.  Section 5 of the draft strategy set out a number of strong, local assets which would place the Council in a strong position to effectively deliver what was currently a draft work programme.

There were three strategic objectives driving the work programme.  The first, was to raise local awareness and skills among residents and staff to enable them to ‘Make Every Contact Count’; to feel confident in offering support if someone appear to be isolated and/or lonely.  The second was to address specific issues relating to the four pillars of The Campaign’s framework, for example developing community resilience and social capital and digital inclusion.  Finally, the third objective was to ensure that the right services and facilities were available locally to address the needs of at risk populations.  There was a need to ensure that staff were supported and empowered to notice social isolation and can be equipped to address issues guiding residents on to the next set of services that they might need, following the policy of ‘Making every Contact Count’.

Ms Waterman explained that the Social Inclusion Board, which included providers such as Shepherds Bush Housing Association and Job Centres Plus, had been involved in the development of the strategy pre-consultation and that services, facilities and local businesses that came into direct frequent contact with residents would also be engaged to ensure that they inform and were part of implementing the work programme.  A second workshop was planned, involving the same representatives who attended the April workshop; the CMB will consider widening the representation to get into the granularity around what the work programme might look like.

In concluding, Ms Waterman sought the Members views on whether the draft strategy sufficiently made the case for a strategic response and whether it adequately reflected current provision and whether there were other issues it should be exploring

Co-optee Bryan Naylor thanked Ms Waterman for her presentation and observed that there were many individuals who were difficult to reach out of choice and who should be able to exercise their right or preference to be alone.  Mr Naylor expressed the view that one of the key themes was about local issues such as being neighbourly and, about reaching out and engaging with people locally.  He observed that there was no homogenous answer that could apply across the borough.  There were approximately 70 charities based in the borough and although there were many projects aimed at alleviating isolation, some of the work was unconnected.  Ms Waterman responded that addressing social isolation was highly challenging, and that projects such as the Community Champions were in part so successful as they did not operate as institutions and were very much part of the local fabric.  She acknowledged that there were many who did not want to be involved or part of organised activities.  Acknowledging also a point made by a member of the public, the impact of closing activities on social isolation was not always perceived.

Ms Leech explained that Open Age worked with elderly people and that the primary purpose was to reduce loneliness.  While there were a number of activities, it was important to ensure that people were engaged.  Open Age was not a befriending service but linked with projects like Community Champions, health professionals and local residents, talking to people in the area in order to understand what the barriers were to getting people to participate.  If an individual wants to go out and about, Ms Leech explained that they could be referred to local groups and organisations. 

Councillor Hannah Barlow commented that the strategy was a comprehensive starting point and asked if there was a mechanism for identifying or preventing any duplication in provision.  Mr Mikata-Pralat responded that he concurred with the point made by Mr Naylor about individual choice, however, it was important to ensure that there was sufficient access to resources and support.  He suggested that a more co-ordinated response might be the answer and could make significant difference, acknowledging that most people did not realise that they need help until a crises event occurred. 

Ms McAlpine-Leny observed that older people were an untapped resource, referencing John L. Mcknight (Chicago, USA, Asset-Based Community Development Institute), who had in the 1960’s, employed a young Barack Obama.  The key was to identify what resources were already in place, for example, a soup kitchen for the homeless in a local church.  In this particular example, the skills of the people using the soup kitchen were deployed to develop the kitchen into a café with other support available to users.  Soup4Lunch advocated developing similar initiatives in places such as sheltered housing, supported by older volunteers.  There was a need to develop programmes around older people as a resource. 

Councillor Joe Carlebach welcomed the report, commenting that isolation could mean many things to different individuals.  He asked what advice and guidance could be offered to Council departments who did not always co-ordinate, citing an example of one of his constituents, a 90-year-old man, in sheltered housing and with a hearing deficiency, and where the lack of co-ordination between Housing and Adult Social Care had been unhelpful.  He also asked what could be done strategically to remove these barriers.  Ms Waterman responded that a recent report she had produced, the ‘Housing support and care Joint strategic needs assessment, highlighted a need to ensure better collaborative working between Council departments, service providers and external colleagues such as registered housing providers. She highlighted the work of “People First”, which aimed to provide digital access to services.  This was an example of a ‘Gateway service’, helping people find and engage with the service they needed. 

Mr Naylor commented that Age UK offered advice and guidance support, but there was high demand and a waiting time of up to six weeks to speak to an advisor.  A triage arrangement was in place to ensure that the most urgent cases could be identified but a lack of funding was a concern. 

Councillor Natalia Perez thanked Ms Waterman for her presentation and noted the holistic nature of the report, with a whole person approach, which she endorsed.  Councillor Perez took the view that the role of the advice sector was essential, as a first port of call for many seeking support.  She asked what help could be offered to ensure that the triage model outlined by Mr Naylor could be further supported.  She also observed that it was important for provider organisations to maintain lines of communication and asked how good communication was sustainable by the key players involved.  Ms Waterman responded that draft work programme outlined within the report (page 81, Appendix 2, Draft Work Programme) sought to address this.  The difficulty lay in ensuring the activities in the programme gained the trust of the people it sought to support, referring to point 6.2, V, in Appendix 2, and the establishment of a main portal to information and advice, ensuring better links between organisations.  Ms Leech added that improved funding provision and sustained publicity for activities would also be helpful, citing the examples of the Freedom Pass and the Silver Sunday (WCC).  This was a way of contacting large numbers of people and providing information about events and services. 

Councillor Barlow noted that the Digital Inclusion work was included in the Committees forward work programme, listed for March 2017.  It was confirmed that this centred on the barriers to accessing WiFi services in the Borough.  It was noted that there was a pilot project planned around using social housing as a hub. 

Councillor Vaughan summarised that the data within report made a strong case for the way in which social isolation and loneliness impacted on residents in the Borough.  However, he observed that there was a need to simplify the language used and remove professional jargon and to make the report reader friendly.  Highlighting the strategic objectives in Appendix 2, and the digital information portal, he reiterated the earlier point made by Mr Naylor and asked what will work and who were the target group that the initiative would aim to support.  Acknowledging that there would be some who did not want support, Councillor Vaughan asked how such people could be identified.

RESOLVED

1.       That the draft document made the case for a strategic response to isolation and loneliness;

2.       That the comments and actions arising from the Members discussion, be noted;

3.       That the Committee endorses the strategic commitment set out in the draft document; and

4.       That the report be noted.