Research and analysis

Breaking the link between poverty and safeguarding concerns – Newcastle Upon Tyne

Published 10 April 2024

Applies to England

Partnership for People and Place

The PfPP programme has piloted a new approach to cross-government working to improve local outcomes and efficiency of policy and programmes designed and delivered in place. PfPP funded 13 local government partners to deliver pilot projects focusing on hyper-local issues that could be tackled through better central or local government coordination. The overall objective of the PfPP programme was to test whether closer working between different central government departments and local places can bring measurable benefits to people who live there.

Local background – Newcastle

In 2020-2021 Newcastle saw a 42% increase in the number of safeguarding adult concerns across the city. The Newcastle Safeguarding Adults Board completed a discovery project in collaboration with the city’s Active Inclusion Partnership. This found the city ward areas where there were the most highly reported cases of abuse or neglect, were also the same wards which experienced the highest levels of poverty according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

The aim of the pilot was to improve the accessibility of financial and safeguarding support services for visitors of the West End Foodbank and for volunteers and professionals working in and around the area. Increased access to support services was intended to help foodbank visitors receive the right support at the right time to build the ‘foundations of a stable life, free from abuse and neglect.’^{[footnote 1]} The pilot aimed to achieve this by:

• Funding a Senior Active Inclusion Officer and Safeguarding Adults Officer in the West End Foodbank one day per week to work within the foodbank to build relationships and spot opportunities for earlier intervention or support from other services (such as housing or safeguarding services).
• Providing bespoke training to workers and volunteers in the foodbank on financial inclusion and safeguarding adults. Training aimed to improve how workers and volunteers recognise signs and indicators of abuse and understand the processes for raising a safeguarding concern.
• Refining ‘escalation processes’ to streamline referral pathways for users accessing support through the foodbank.

Central government involvement

The Newcastle team intended to work with central government departments engaged in tackling the issue of poverty and safeguarding. The project sought to establish a clear communication pathway to agree priorities, share an understanding of barriers, and test new ways of working. More specifically, the pilot teams hoped to share learning from the pilot to widen understanding of the relationships between poverty and safeguarding adults’ concerns. It was hoped that by establishing connections between the foodbank, local authority and central government, they would be able to drive tangible improvements for people who were most at risk within the community.

The project found it difficult to engage central government partners during the life of the programme. Pilot leads identified several barriers to engagement including:

• Hyper-local focus of the programme which was considered to have affected the interest and willingness of central government stakeholders to engage closely with the intervention. The pilot team found that most central government stakeholders connected to the pilot had little existing awareness of the value of foodbanks as local settings which could be leveraged to successfully connect individuals with early intervention support.

• No single departmental lead or established measures to showcase the value of the project. As the project cuts across many policy areas with no single lead department, pilot leads found it difficult to make a compelling argument for the intervention from a central policy or funding perspective. This was because outcomes achieved via changes in one department, accrued benefits within another departmental area. The project sought to develop new data sets and to bring together established data from different departments which are not routinely collated to look at whole system effects. However, the team faced difficulties generating ongoing buy-in and follow up from central government.

Delivery plans	Meetings	Visits	Involvement in delivery
DLUHC, DWP, HO, DHSC, NHSE (OHID), Cabinet Office, HMT were highlighted in the initial delivery plan as departments with a potential interest the pilot.	DLUHC, HMT, DWP, NHSE (OHID), BEIS, DHSC, MoJ, Cabinet Office were involved in ad hoc meetings with the project team.	DLUHC attended a visit to Newcastle.	NHS through local GP services rather than central NHSE policy teams.

What was delivered?

Prior to the project, no safeguarding concerns had been raised by the Foodbank despite the project working with communities where there were high rates of reported abuse and neglect. During the project delivery period, over 47 safeguarding queries were raised by the Foodbank with 27 resulting in a section 42 enquiry, where the Local Authority has a duty to establish whether an adult may be at risk of abuse or neglect.^{[footnote 2]} There have also been 5 referrals made to children’s social care and 4 homelessness cases escalated to the Council. These referrals have been attributed to training undertaken with foodbank volunteers and employees, as well as Newcastle Council’s placement of staff working within the West End Foodbank, supporting volunteers to spot the early signs of abuse and neglect and to raise concerns at the earliest possible stage.

The pilot team collaborated with local GP practices to establish a one day a week presence within the foodbank to assist users to register with their GP and receive on-site medical advice via an Advanced Nurse Practitioner (ANP). In a 4-week period, the ANP supported 23 people who had medical concerns and provided advice and interventions to 18 of these people without the need for a follow up GP appointment. The Newcastle team believes this support can enable better access to healthcare services as limited digital literacy levels among foodbank users has been found to exacerbate health inequalities in the West End area of the city.

Working with the foodbank, the team has developed a community pantry offer which is taking the approach to new areas of the city. The pantry provides a low-cost subscription model for food and essentials, alongside on-site wraparound support from financial inclusion support workers, safeguarding support and advice, and clinical support. To date, 4 pantry sites have been opened across the city.

Local communities

Prior to the pilot, no safeguarding queries were made from the foodbank, indicating improved access to safeguarding as a result of the project. The data collection on referral numbers was undertaken by West End foodbank employees alongside the embedded Council Officer.

Northumbria University measured outcomes for 192 pilot participants as part of the local evaluation.^{[footnote 3]} The results showed improvements in health and wellbeing, financial security, money management, and knowledge on where to seek help and advice. Data for each individual who received advice or support in the PfPP project was collected at two time points: 1) when individuals first participated in the PfPP project and 2) when an individual’s case was closed.

• On average, participants felt their general wellbeing was ‘poor’ (score = 2.07) at the start of the programme, before participating in the pilot. At the end of the pilot, on average, participants felt their general wellbeing was ‘good’ (score = 3.71).^{[footnote 4]}

• On average, participants ‘agreed’ that they ‘feel stressed because of money worries’ prior to participating in the PfPP pilot (score = 3.86) at the start of the programme. At the end of the pilot, on average, participants ‘disagreed’ that they ‘feel stressed because of money worries’ (score = 2.38).^{[footnote 5]}

• On average, participants ‘disagreed’ that they ‘know how to get help and advice on money worries’ prior to participating in the PfPP pilot (score = 1.84) at the start of the programme. At the end of the pilot, on average, participants ‘strongly agreed’ that they ‘‘know how to get help and advice on money worries’ (score = 4.72).^{[footnote 6]}

• On average, participants ‘disagreed’ that they ‘could afford to pay for food bills and housing’ prior to participating in the PfPP pilot (score = 2.21). At the end of the pilot, on average, participants were ‘neutral’ in their ability to afford to pay for food and housing (score = 3.47).^{[footnote 7]}

---

Delivery partners & local government

The project team reported improved relationships between the local authority and local organisations including the local GP service and charities due to the success of the project. As the project gained traction, local stakeholders (including GPs and local food providers) were more willing to be involved. The Council intends to continue to fund the initiative, with the support of local partners.

Snapshot: Breakeven analysis

Breakeven analysis provides an estimate of the level of change in outcomes within each of the pilot areas that would be necessary for the pilot’s benefits to meet costs. Where there is an absence of medium- or long-term person-level outcomes data, a breakeven analysis can provide an indication of how many beneficiaries would need to achieve specific outcomes for the programme to achieve net positive economic value. Breakeven analysis was conducted on outcomes identified in each pilot’s Theory of Change, for which monetisable benefits could be estimated through the Understanding Society Survey.^{[footnote 8]}

Based survey data presented to the evaluation team, it is feasible that the Newcastle pilot has achieved breakeven. Access to person-level individual response data which was not accessible within the timeframes of the evaluation would help to further increase confidence in this finding. The breakeven does not account for intended outcomes which could not be monetised. This includes system level outcomes such as improved understanding of the interactions between safeguarding and policy, improved understanding of the barriers to local services engagement with people, enhanced local policy development capacity.

The Newcastle pilot delivery plan discusses how the pilot aimed to help individuals flagged as financially vulnerable as well as those who are at risk of abuse, estimated to be 3,391 households in the Benwell, Scotswood and Elswick areas. As set out in the Theory of Change, the pilot aimed to increase visitor access to local services as well as improve financial wellbeing by overcoming ‘poverty traps’. The extent to which these outcomes are associated with marginal changes in life satisfaction was explored through statistical analysis of the Understanding Society survey.

In consultation with the Newcastle pilot team, the following outcomes from Understanding Society were utilised within the breakeven analysis. These align with specific person-level outcomes specified in the Newcastle pilot Theory of Change, as highlighted in the table below.

Outcomes specified in the Newcastle Theory of Change	Outcomes used in breakeven analysis
Increase individuals’ confidence and competencies to promote and engage with services	Able to obtain advice locally
Increase the number of individuals accessing services to overcome barriers	Able to obtain advice locally
Disruption of ‘loan sharks’ or exploitation of potential poverty traps	Not in financially difficult situation

The outcomes targeted by the pilot were used in a breakeven calculator to estimate the number of beneficiaries that would need to be affected by the pilot to breakeven (with a range presented between the highest and lowest number of people that would need to benefit from the pilot outcomes to breakeven). The analysis accounts only for outcomes to beneficiaries/participants. The analysis does not account for wider impacts. The breakeven analysis provides an upper and lower bound range which accounts for some of the uncertainties inherent in predicting social value improvements for these outcomes, which can be calculated without direct primary data collection (out of scope of the evaluation). The table below displays the results of this breakeven analysis for the Newcastle programme.

Outcome	Not in a financially difficult situation	Able to obtain advice locally	Range
Value Per Beneficiary	£6,117	£888	£888-6,117
Number of Beneficiaries to Breakeven	28	198	28-198

The breakeven analysis highlights that for the social welfare benefits of the pilot to offset its cost, between 28 and 198 residents need to realise at least one outcome in scope. The estimated range accounts for the difference between the highest and lowest values assigned to each outcome. For example, not being in a ‘financially difficult situation’ has an associated value of £6,117. Should this outcome be realised for 28 residents, the total benefits would equal the cost of the programme. This presents the lowest number of beneficiaries required to achieve breakeven and the outcome with the highest assigned value. Likewise, to be ‘able to obtain advice locally’ has an associated value of £888. If 198 residents report an improvement in being ‘able to obtain advice locally’ after benefiting from the pilot, the total benefits would equal the cost of the programme. This presents the highest number of beneficiaries required to achieve breakeven and the outcome with the lowest assigned value.^{[footnote 9]}

Following a review of available pilot activity data and reporting, it is feasible that the pilot has achieved breakeven, however access to person level data is required to further validate this result. Evaluation research by Northumbria University of 192 foodbank users shows significant reductions in levels of stress related to money, improved knowledge of where to seek help for money worries, as well general improvements in financial security (see above). While the total number of foodbank users accessing the pilot has not been captured in internal evaluation reporting, it is plausible that the pilot has resulted in a reduction of financial difficulty for more than 28 participants.^{[footnote 10]}

Note that the application of the breakeven calculator to a full business case would require data to be collected that evidences the number of beneficiaries who experienced these outcomes, either through primary surveys (e.g. by replicating the Understanding Society or Community Life survey question on which this analysis was based in a survey on the target population) or administrative data (e.g. administrative records of the number of residents who take part in interventions designed to safeguard and/or improve financial wellbeing of foodbank users).^{[footnote 11]}

1. Newcastle PfPP Pilot Delivery Plan submitted February 2022. ↩

2. Section 42 enquiries relate to the duty of a Local Authority to establish whether an adult may be at risk of abuse or neglect and decide whether any action should be taken. This duty is set out in the Care Act 2014. ↩

3. Defeyter, G., Shinwell, J. (2023), Evaluation of the ‘Partnerships for People and Place’ Project (May 2023), commissioned by Newcastle City Council. ↩

4. Outcomes were presented via Likert scale of 1 = extremely poor/ completely disagree; 3 = neutral; 5 = excellent / completely agree. Scores are a total average of each individual response to the question; To what extent do you agree/disagree - How is your general wellbeing at the moment? ↩

5. Outcomes were presented via Likert scale of 1 = extremely poor/ completely disagree; 3 = neutral; 5 = excellent / completely agree. Scores are a total average of each individual response to the question; To what extent do you agree/disagree - I feel stressed because of my money worries. ↩

6. Outcomes were presented via Likert scale of 1 = extremely poor/ completely disagree; 3 = neutral; 5 = excellent / completely agree. Scores are a total average of each individual response to the question; To what extent do you agree/disagree - I know how to get help and advice on money worries. ↩

7. Outcomes were presented via Likert scale of 1 = extremely poor/ completely disagree; 3 = neutral; 5 = excellent / completely agree. Scores are a total average of each individual response to the question; To what extent do you agree/disagree - I can afford to pay for food bills and housing. ↩

8. Following the methodology set out in HMTs supplementary Green Book guidance for wellbeing appraisal, changes in reported life satisfaction can be used to monetise the social welfare implications of a policy. ↩

9. The total cost of the PfPP programme in Newcastle was £175,729 which was covered by £100,000 in direct funding and saw admin costs of £75,729. ↩

10. The evaluation team has only received ‘average change’ survey data and is unable to calculate the exact number of individuals that report changing financial security and stress related to money. However, it is plausible that of the 192 participants surveyed by the Foodbank, 28 individuals experience significant improvements in both financial security and financial stress. As highlighted above, on average, participants ‘agreed’ that they ‘feel stressed because of money worries’ prior to participating in the PfPP pilot (score = 3.86) at the start of the programme. At the end of the pilot, on average, participants ‘disagreed’ that they ‘feel stressed because of money worries’ (score = 2.38). Likewise, on average, participants ‘disagreed’ that they ‘could afford to pay for food bills and housing’ prior to participating in the PfPP pilot (score = 2.21) at the start of the programme. At the end of the pilot, on average, participants were ‘neutral’ in their ability to afford to pay for food and housing (score = 3.47) ↩

11. It may also be possible to assess the wellbeing impacts of the programme through primary survey collection of life satisfaction questions. However, because this requires direct evidence through primary data collection before and after (outside of the scope of this evaluation), we do not provide breakeven analysis in the main body of this report. If it were possible to evidence how an intervention led to an improvement in life satisfaction (through direct primary survey questions compared to baseline levels of life satisfaction, recall 8.00 when converted to the 11-point scale) then a 1-point improvement in life satisfaction among 45 beneficiaries would lead to a breakeven in costs. Note the analyst should take care to ensure that the measure of life satisfaction refers to an 11-point scale, following the guidance set out in the Green Book Supplementary Guidance (2021). ↩