Common use of Our Priorities: Vulnerable People Clause in Contracts

Our Priorities: Vulnerable People. The Issues Vulnerability is a significant issue for Glasgow, with many individuals and families facing situations where they are subject to increased levels of risk. People can be exposed to greater levels of vulnerability based on the situations they face themselves in such as sickness, low income, or bereavement. Additionally, there are those at risk through the behaviours of others such as prejudice and discrimination. All of these issues place great stress and pressure on individuals and communities. Evidence suggests that a disproportionate number of Glaswegians lives are impacted by a range of issues surrounding vulnerability. For example, SIMD 2012 demonstrates that over one-in-five (22%) Glaswegians are income deprived, compared to 13% nationally. One third (33%) of Glasgow children are defined as living in xxxxxxx00, compared to 19% across Scotland. Almost one-in-ten children in Glasgow (9%, or 10,415) are known to Social Work Services. The number of children looked after in the city was 3,761 in July 201114, over 23% of the Scottish total, despite Glasgow accounting for less than 11% of children in Scotland. The number of people prevented from working as a result of disability or sickness (and potentially limiting income) is 43,000 in Glasgow, or 36% of the inactive population, compared to just 31% of the equivalent Scotland population and 24% across the UK. Over one-in-four adults in Glasgow (115,000) have a mental health issue15. This can lead to greater levels of vulnerability for some in this group – e.g. people with mental health issues are three times more likely to be in debt. A sizeable number of new migrants have arrived in the city in the past 5-10 years from different routes – for example, as refugees or economic migrants. For some parts of the city such as Pollokshields East, up to half of residents are from Black or Minority Ethnic (BME) communities. This provides some unique challenges in relation to the provision of key services to support such diversity of residents – e.g. how public bodies can support individuals and families who are experiencing discrimination, potential exploitation or targeted hostility. The costs to the individual and their families can be massive, both in economic and human terms. As a city and society in general, there is a great financial cost to dealing with the consequences of increased vulnerability amongst residents. A significant proportion of public sector budgets focus on supporting individuals and families at times of vulnerability and risk. We want to shift our emphasis on the resources we apply to supporting vulnerable persons in the city – only by doing so will we free up more of our budgets to enable us to provide the type of support for people, families and communities that will help them to be more resilient, confident and able to cope. At present, we spend £290m16 (2012/13) on care for older people in Glasgow, of which just 5% focuses on trying to prevent or anticipate risk factors and 95% is spent on providing the health and care services required. A further compelling imperative for focusing on this priority relates to the human costs. Too many individuals, communities and neighbourhoods are not able to fulfil their potential, and for many residents, those factors that increase vulnerability such as low income, poor health, or unemployment are deep routed and intergenerational. 13 xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx/Resource/0040/00403453.xls 14 xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx/Resource/0038/00388980.xls 15 Glasgow City Community Health Partnership Development Plan 2012/13 16 Reshaping Care for older people, Joint Strategic Commissioning Plan, Glasgow City partnership 2013 If Glasgow is to become a truly thriving, inclusive and resilient city, it must use the collective influence, talents and resources of Community Planning Partners to break the cycle of those very factors that create or sustain vulnerability for many residents. CPP partners must have the ambition to work together more collaboratively and imaginatively, and also alongside residents themselves to build and deliver better outcomes for vulnerable groups in the city. The Costs The cost implications of providing protective services for vulnerable people in the city are significant. For example, the overall Council Social Work budget in the city alone was £597m in 2012/13. Some of the known direct costs* of providing services to potentially vulnerable groups are as follows (2012/13 unless otherwise stated):  Care for older people (Social Work Services) - £181 million  Mental Health (Community Health Partnership) - £135 million  Looked after children (Social Work Services) - £121 million  Homeless (Social Work Services) - £75 million  Geriatric Assessment and rehabilitation (NHS budget) - £46 million  Addictions Services (NHS and Social Work Services) - £41 million (2011/12) *it should be noted that several of these costs are components of larger budgets – we have selected these as they relate to potentially vulnerable groups Some illustrations of the complex costs of supporting vulnerable people are as follows:  the average cost of placing a child in secure accommodation is £271,000 per annum  the cost of placing a youth offender in a young offender’s institution is £59,000 per annum  supporting a person with dementia in local authority accommodation is £42,000 per annum In 2009, the Community Health and Care Partnership set out a strategy to improve services for vulnerable young persons in the city. As part of the context for that strategy, it set out to quantify the costs to the city of dealing with this particularly vulnerable group. It cited research17 that the costs to the public purse of providing a range of services to persons demonstrating persistent anti-social behaviour (aged between 10-28) was ten times the cost of services to a child with no behavioural problems (£70,000 per child instead of £7,000 per child). It further cited evidence18 that the returns on investment to the public purse are greatest at earlier intervention stages. In October 2008 the Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Foundation concluded19 that child poverty costs the UK at least £25 billion a year, including £17 billion that could accrue to the Exchequer if child poverty were eradicated. The cost of protecting vulnerable people in the city is likely to be exacerbated by the estimated impact of welfare reform. Recent work by the Xxxxxx of Allander Institute20 estimated that in total, benefit payments to the most vulnerable in Glasgow will fall by almost £115m and that there will be a loss of almost 1,300 jobs and £34m worth of wage income in the city. While much of the human cost of vulnerability cannot be fully quantified, the more tangible costs incurred by public organisations in dealing with issue of poverty and deprivation must be better understood and monitored to ensure that we are directing our resources as much as possible toward prevention and early intervention.

Our Priorities: Vulnerable People. The Issues Vulnerability is a significant issue for Glasgow, with many individuals and families facing situations where they are subject to increased levels of risk. People can be exposed to greater levels of vulnerability based on the situations they face themselves in such as sickness, low income, or bereavement. Additionally, there are those at risk through the behaviours of others such as prejudice and discrimination. All of these issues place great stress and pressure on individuals and communities. Evidence suggests that a disproportionate number of Glaswegians lives are impacted by a range of issues surrounding vulnerability. For example, SIMD 2012 demonstrates that over one-in-five (22%) Glaswegians are income deprived, compared to 13% nationally. One third (33%) of Glasgow children are defined as living in xxxxxxx00, compared to 19% across Scotland. Almost one-in-ten children in Glasgow (9%, or 10,415) are known to Social Work Services. The number of children looked after in the city was 3,761 in July 201114, over 23% of the Scottish total, despite Glasgow accounting for less than 11% of children in Scotland. The number of people prevented from working as a result of disability or sickness (and potentially limiting income) is 43,000 in Glasgow, or 36% of the inactive population, compared to just 31% of the equivalent Scotland population and 24% across the UK. Over one-in-four adults in Glasgow (115,000) have a mental health issue15. This can lead to greater levels of vulnerability for some in this group – e.g. people with mental health issues are three times more likely to be in debt. A sizeable number of new migrants have arrived in the city in the past 5-10 years from different routes – for example, as refugees or economic migrants. For some parts of the city such as Pollokshields East, up to half of residents are from Black or Minority Ethnic (BME) communities. This provides some unique challenges in relation to the provision of key services to support such diversity of residents – e.g. how public bodies can support individuals and families who are experiencing discrimination, potential exploitation or targeted hostility. The costs to the individual and their families can be massive, both in economic and human terms. As a city and society in general, there is a great financial cost to dealing with the consequences of increased vulnerability amongst residents. A significant proportion of public sector budgets focus on supporting individuals and families at times of vulnerability and risk. We want to shift our emphasis on the resources we apply to supporting vulnerable persons in the city – only by doing so will we free up more of our budgets to enable us to provide the type of support for people, families and communities that will help them to be more resilient, confident and able to cope. At present, we spend £290m16 (2012/13) on care for older people in Glasgow, of which just 5% focuses on trying to prevent or anticipate risk factors and 95% is spent on providing the health and care services required. A further compelling imperative for focusing on this priority relates to the human costs. Too many individuals, communities and neighbourhoods are not able to fulfil their potential, and for many residents, those factors that increase vulnerability such as low income, poor health, or unemployment are deep routed and intergenerational. 13 xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx/Resource/0040/00403453.xls 14 xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx/Resource/0038/00388980.xls 15 Glasgow City Community Health Partnership Development Plan 2012/13 16 Reshaping Care for older people, Joint Strategic Commissioning Plan, Glasgow City partnership 2013 If Glasgow is to become a truly thriving, inclusive and resilient city, it must use the collective influence, talents and resources of Community Planning Partners to break the cycle of those very factors that create or sustain vulnerability for many residents. CPP partners must have the ambition to work together more collaboratively and imaginatively, and also alongside residents themselves to build and deliver better outcomes for vulnerable groups in the city. The Costs The cost implications of providing protective services for vulnerable people in the city are significant. For example, the overall Council Social Work budget in the city alone was £597m in 2012/13. Some of the known direct costs* of providing services to potentially vulnerable groups are as follows (2012/13 unless otherwise stated):  • Care for older people (Social Work Services) - £181 million  • Mental Health (Community Health Partnership) - £135 million  • Looked after children (Social Work Services) - £121 million  • Homeless (Social Work Services) - £75 million  • Geriatric Assessment and rehabilitation (NHS budget) - £46 million  • Addictions Services (NHS and Social Work Services) - £41 million (2011/12) *it should be noted that several of these costs are components of larger budgets – we have selected these as they relate to potentially vulnerable groups Some illustrations of the complex costs of supporting vulnerable people are as follows:  • the average cost of placing a child in secure accommodation is £271,000 per annum  • the cost of placing a youth offender in a young offender’s institution is £59,000 per annum  • supporting a person with dementia in local authority accommodation is £42,000 per annum In 2009, the Community Health and Care Partnership set out a strategy to improve services for vulnerable young persons in the city. As part of the context for that strategy, it set out to quantify the costs to the city of dealing with this particularly vulnerable group. It cited research17 that the costs to the public purse of providing a range of services to persons demonstrating persistent anti-social behaviour (aged between 10-28) was ten times the cost of services to a child with no behavioural problems (£70,000 per child instead of £7,000 per child). It further cited evidence18 that the returns on investment to the public purse are greatest at earlier intervention stages. In October 2008 the Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Foundation concluded19 that child poverty costs the UK at least £25 billion a year, including £17 billion that could accrue to the Exchequer if child poverty were eradicated. The cost of protecting vulnerable people in the city is likely to be exacerbated by the estimated impact of welfare reform. Recent work by the Xxxxxx of Allander Institute20 estimated that in total, benefit payments to the most vulnerable in Glasgow will fall by almost £115m and that there will be a loss of almost 1,300 jobs and £34m worth of wage income in the city. While much of the human cost of vulnerability cannot be fully quantified, the more tangible costs incurred by public organisations in dealing with issue of poverty and deprivation must be better understood and monitored to ensure that we are directing our resources as much as possible toward prevention and early intervention.