Planning and commissioning – extensive engagement with people impacted and found that demand was high for services that are more flexible, evening and weekend options, and support to access community activities as well as more traditional support

A review of day support can mean a reduction or increase – increasing the offer could be a benefit for all requiring support

Disadvantage for older people – are they getting the same access to life skills and support needs if any reductions made

ILF fund, transition fund – need to make sure we maximise what we ask for to get the most out of it for people

Social enterprise – LD least likely to be represented in working market, good model to support people to take more control. Help those with additional support need to come off a benefit situation where they can, requires significant engagement and support to get someone there – can offer more opportunity to have support to do this

Some people do like Mon-Fri structure and want weekends for family time or friends – in some cases people want a more flexible model but for others they won’t – change in our relationship as a commissioning org with our providers, our role is to ask providers to have those mixed offers that meet all diversity of interest and need – flexible and dynamic types of support

Criminal justice system – don’t have robust offers for people who have been on the forensic pathway – opportunity to try and improve the service offer for that group

Low literacy/numeracy – having day services that actively support people to nurture talents and knowledge base could be beneficial.  No age limit on these opportunities, seeing an intake of older people who want to come back to educational type day service (Mon-Fri) – positive impact of looking at opportunities that could provide this

transportation to day services is often a challenge, would like to improve offer and proximity of the services we have. So people can access those services within a reasonable distance from their home – an aspiration

Transport – significant factor in people’s ability, things being more neighbourhood based is what we should be aspiring to be

Staff working weekends and evenings, might have positive impact on wages

Could positively impact staff skills, working in different ways and less dependence focused

Support being more flexible and in local communities, people might experience harassment or discrimination in those settings, or it could over time decrease those risks

if we only have a single way of supporting people currently, we are discriminating against those who don’t want to be supported in that way, could create greater equity of opportunity

Improve offer to those who want that flexibility

Enabling people to have more control over their social and work environment

Where we don’t have standardised approaches to how we procure support, it creates inequity in the support accessed – frameworks could reduce that differential status for people using services

How does it work for those who are happy with the way their services operate – they would still have the options to do that within their eligible budgets

If we get to greater number of smaller services in neighbourhoods could increase community capacity, rather than large scale traditional institution models

If exposed to more community resources, there might be increased fear but by being more present in their communities might be less likely to experience hate crime

All

All

Older people

All

All

Those involved in criminal justice system

People with low literacy / numeracy

Rural areas

All

Staff

Those experiencing harassment or discrimination

All

All

All

Community capacity

Reducing crime and fear of crime

For people who have had support in a predicted and settled way, change might be more difficult when re-assessing the offer

Transitional services – when people are leaving school, people not ready to finish education, need to ensure not all day services are the same and can look at what it offers/delivers, as long as assessment is clear on what that young person can undertake and what they need

Adverse consequences of generalised approaches to commissioning – groups that don’t have a large representation often don’t get their needs met as uniquely on a case-by-case basis and spot purchasing – to do things more generally could negatively impact on those who require a more bespoke service

If support changes, or how they access support, consequence on unpaid carer and their relief or ability to work in paid employment – require day support that meet the needs of the wider family

Lone parents – where there is no one to share opportunities for work and care

Some people struggle with certain times of year e.g. Christmas, higher domestic abuse or family goes into crisis, during those times they need access to support outside of usual hours. Impact on unpaid carers during seasonable holidays – option 3 arrangement should consider that not all services are available at those times, and we should try to place people in services where we know they can be accessed continuously

If we put out a framework and providers don’t want to work in that operating model, there will be an adjustment period whilst people are reviewed, could disturb market stability if people do choose to leave. Some services might see growth if they can change in that way, whilst others might not

Staff working in these services – if we are looking at more flexible services there might be demands for weekend and evening opportunities that staff working in day support don’t currently offer

Could lose staff and impact market stability, day services often attract staffing due to their standard hours, altered hours might cause retention and recruitment issues

More choice, flexibility, more person centred, cater for wider groups of people, all sounds positive – but easier to highlight those who are adv or not further along the process once we know what this approach will look like

Children and young people

Anyone requiring a more bespoke service

Working carers (predominantly female)

Lone parents

Families experiencing crisis / vulnerable families

Provider stability

Staff

Transport impact – promoting 20-minute inclusive neighbourhoods with trying to reshape the day support offer, if people have less travel there is less carbon impacts

Potential impact from building based services – if they choose to operate differently, utilise community resources differently etc.

Providers

Providers might choose to increase premises and that could double carbon footprint

By trying to standardise how we contract and work with this type of provision we are trying to fundamentally improve the baseline quality of all offers

Those working at different times might attract different pay – wider shift options

Income maximisation – build those into services seeking to support micro-businesses and income aside from benefits

All

Staff

Improve working conditions – some will welcome opportunity to work at different times and others will not

Staff