Loneliness and social isolation in the London Borough of ...... · Loneliness and social isolation in the London Borough of Hounslow Addressing gaps in provision: Gateway services

Loneliness and social isolation in the London Borough of Hounslow

Loneliness and social isolation

in the London Borough of

Hounslow

Kate Jopling

Hardeep Aiden


About this review

Commissioned by the London Borough of Hounslow

– to feed into work around the Joint Strategic Needs

Assessment

Focussed on both social isolation and loneliness

Focussed on people aged 65+ – though loneliness

and isolation is of broader interest

2


Overview

Risk factors for loneliness and the profile of

LB Hounslow

Provision for people at risk of, or experiencing

loneliness and social isolation

Assessing provision against the Promising

Approaches framework

Evidence for impact of current provision

Gaps and recommendations for action

3


Methods

Rapid review of the evidence

Assessment of data from local and national sources

Interviews with 9 key local stakeholders – bolstered

by review of written information / informal

discussions

NB – the picture cannot be comprehensive – there

may be gaps

4


About loneliness

Loneliness and isolation are related but distinct

concepts

Isolation is objective (though definitions vary),

loneliness is subjective

Around 10% of older people are often or always

lonely

Around 3000 older people in LB Hounslow would be

expected to be experiencing chronic loneliness

5


About loneliness

Loneliness and social isolation have clear impacts

on health

Weak social connection is a similar risk factor for

early mortality as smoking 15 cigarettes a day

Loneliness directly impacts health – links to

depression, stroke, dementia etc.

Loneliness makes people less likely to pursue healthy

behaviours – e.g. Physical activity

6


About loneliness

Evidence around the cost implications of loneliness

is weaker – but impact is thought to be significant

Reconnections programme in Hereford and

Worcestershire is testing assumption that being

lonely costs around £12,000 per person across their

older lifetime

7

Loneliness and social isolation in the London Borough of Hounslow 8


Other factors of interest to LB Hounslow

Belonging to a faith community / having a faith

Transience of the community

Geographical challenges

9



Age UK heat map

11





Evidence for loneliness interventions:

Direct Interventions

These approaches are most often studied

There is strong evidence of the impact of psychological approaches

The evidence around one-to-one interventions – i.e. Befriending – is mixed, but services are highly valued

Emerging evidence from Reconnections suggests befriending is crucial for the most lonely individuals

We know the criteria for an effective group-based intervention:

– Targeted towards a specific group

– Focussed on a shared interest / enabling learning

– Involve older people in running the group

15









Conclusions and

recommendations


Key findings

Older people in LB Hounslow may be at higher risk

of loneliness and social isolation than UK average

Likely to be more than 3000 chronically lonely older

adults in LB Hounslow

Good reason to believe current approaches are

not effectively reaching and meeting the needs of

lonely people (see ASCOF / PHOF data)

24


Key findings

The Borough has a range of provision – but there is a high degree of flux in the system

LB Hounslow has many of the features of an effective response to loneliness as per Promising Approaches

The lack of an overarching strategy for tackling loneliness means there is no sense of how components fit together and there are gaps

There is no clear pathway through which a lonely individual should be guided to support

There are gaps through which lonely individuals can fall

25


Addressing gaps in provision:

Foundation services

The development of LIFE is significant – it could be

a core Foundation Service

To be most effective, services need to build in

insight around loneliness

Identifying lonely people and targeting support on

the most lonely remains a gap

The best way to fill this gap will depend on the wider

structural approach adopted

Need clarity around who will support lonely

individuals to access community provision –

signposting is not enough

26



Direct interventions

The risk to Age UK Hounslow’s befriending service is

significant

There is some risk that current users will lose support

and significant risk that the 300+ people on the

waiting list, and further potential beneficiaries will go

unsupported

There is likely to be unmet need among adult social

care users

There is emerging evidence that the most

chronically lonely need befriending support

27



Direct interventions

Difficult to gain and overview of provision and assess underserved groups

Many of the Foundation Services aspire to refer people to appropriate provision – but are they making use of the full range?

We don’t know:

– Who is using services

– What impact services are having

– Whether current provision meets people’s needs

Carers and adult social care users clearly need more support

Other groups which may need attention: LGBT older people, older people from smaller minority ethnic communities

28


Improving targeting of support

Restricting access to social activities using eligibility

criteria would not be appropriate in most cases

Legitimate to consider how groups receiving public

funds can meet the needs of most lonely – e.g. By

locating based on loneliness risk / drawing on

information around risk factors

Outreach and referral mechanisms should be a

consideration in providing funding to social groups

29


Assessing impact of provision

The approach to monitoring who is using services

and their impact is patchy

This is, in part, a result of disparate funding streams

and programmes under which provision is funded

LB Hounslow should consider how to encourage

more consistent impact measurement around

loneliness

LB Hounslow could contribute to the emerging

evidence-base on loneliness by using recognised

tools to assess impact

30



Gateway services

Transport is a cause of concern and a driver of costs

Taking a different structural approach to loneliness could

help reduce this challenge – e.g. Taking a

neighbourhood approach / introducing a volunteer

driving scheme

The potential of technology to support connection and

reduce costs of provision seems under-explored

Older people are likely to need tailored support to use

technology to its full potential

The potential of non-user-friendly technology to exclude

and isolate older people should be a core consideration

in service development

31


Addressing gaps in provision: Towards a more

strategic approach

Widespread recognition of the need for a more strategic approach

Potential to reduce costs of provision – b reducing duplication, and supporting communities to draw on existing assets

Early priority to determine LB Hounslow’s strategic approach – which structural enablers can support the work here?

There are green shoots around several structural enablers – but the core approach needs to be articulated

Is the focus on neighbourhoods / non-geographical communities / community development / targeted provision etc?

32


Thank you for listening

Contact us

Kate Jopling

[email protected]

Hardeep Aiden

[email protected]

Documents

Loneliness and social isolation in the London Borough of ...... · Loneliness and social isolation in the London Borough of Hounslow Addressing gaps in provision: Gateway services