Name of Review:

(Adult and Older People Services) – A review of loneliness and how to reduce it

What are the objectives and desired outcomes of the review

To make recommendations to relevant agencies to proactively reduce loneliness in the Maidstone Borough by establishing:

What:

• Is currently being done locally (in urban areas and rural areas) to reduce loneliness;
• Is currently being done nationally to reduce loneliness;
• Is working;
• Are the barriers to success;

How:

• Big is the issue for Maidstone Borough – by equality group trends;
• Do we find the people we don’t know about;
• Do we let people know of the choices they have to reduce their loneliness;

What:

• Choices could be offered to ensure everyone has a choice that suits them
• Can we do to promote and support older people’s independence by reducing loneliness.

The findings and recommendations from this review will support the Maidstone Health Inequalities Action Plan point:

·         2.3 - support older people to live safe, independent and fulfilled lives - develop and commission work on loneliness and social isolation

What equality issues will need to be considered as part of the review – giving consideration to the 9 protected characteristics:

·         The review seeks to:

o    Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not;

o    Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not;

o    Have a positive impact upon the lives of people, including particular communities and groups who have protected characteristics

·         We will be:

o    If necessary, using data broken down by equality groups where relevant (such as by gender, age, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, religion and belief)

o    Interviewing partners, stakeholders, and councillors to get information and feedback

o    Focussing on lonely adults and older people as this is an area of the community statistics show is an area of particular concern.

Which witnesses are required?

Suggestions so far:

• Joseph Rowntree Foundation
• Age UK
• Post masters
• Local businesses and other community hubs
• MBC Community Development officers
• KCC officers
• Voluntary Action Maidstone

Other ways to seek evidence? E.g. site visits, involving members of the public, consultation.

For further discussion with Committee, Sarah Shearsmith and Tessa Mallett

What information/training is needed?

No training identified

Other areas to consider during this review could include:

• Digital Inclusion
• Age appropriate housing
• Self-care
• Fuel poverty
• Hoarding
• Dementure

Suggested time for review and report completion date

10 February 2015

How does the review link to council priorities?

For Maidstone to be a decent place to live

• Residents are not disadvantaged because of where they live or who they are, vulnerable people are assisted and the level of deprivation is reduced

Corporate and Customer Excellence

• Services are customer focused and residents are satisfied with them
• Effective, cost efficient services are delivered across the Borough

How does this item deliver CfPS effective scrutiny principles?

·         Provides ‘critical friend’ challenge to executive policy-makers and decision-makers

·         Enables the voice and concerns of the public

·         Is carried out by ‘independent minded governors’ who lead and own the scrutiny role

·         Drives improvement in public services

Any co-optees or expert witnesses?

To be discussed by Committee