Older Adults’ Day Services Proposal Insight Summary

Background

From 12 March to 7 May 2025, Hampshire County Council invited residents, partners, and stakeholders to provide their views on options to change and reduce some local services to help the Authority address a £97.6 million budget shortfall for 2025-26.

This included proposals for the County Council’s HCC Care and Support Service to cease running the older adult day care services at Chesil Lodge (Winchester), and at Newman Court (Basingstoke). Should these proposed changes go ahead, people currently attending day care services and their carers would continue to have their eligible needs met either through these services transferring to an independent provider, or through alternative care provision.

Who responded to the proposal?

In total, 963 responses were received to this proposal via the consultation response form, of which 23 were from organisations (8 being providers of Older Adults’ Day Services, and 2 being organisations who use Older Adults’ Day Services) and 9 were from democratically Elected Representatives.

Responses were received from across the County, but with the highest level coming from the two areas where the day services are situated: Winchester (136 responses) and Basingstoke and Deane (120). The district with the fewest responses was Rushmoor (16).

Of the individuals responding to the online consultation, 106 were either currently attending the Older Adults’ Day Services (or had done in the past), or were their carers or family members (with roughly three times as many carers / family members as people attending the Day Services responding).

To maximise the opportunity for people accessing the Older Adults’ day Services to share their views, 23 separate engagement events were held at Chesil Lodge and Newman Court. These enabled people attending the Day Services and their carers / families to speak to senior HCC Care and Support managers in person about the proposals. The feedback from these events is summarised separately, although the key themes are very similar to those reported here from the online consultation.

Of the people responding via the online consultation:

• most (644) had no limiting health conditions, while a further 205 had conditions that impacted their day-to-day activities ‘a little’ or ‘a lot (meaning they are classified as disabled under the Equality Act 2010)
• nearly half who stated their age were aged 45-64 (415), with roughly a further third (265) aged over 65, and just under a quarter (176) being under 45
• more were female (519) than male (330), with a further 4 respondents preferring to describe themselves in a different way
• some were based in more urban areas (412) while others were in more rural ones (513)

Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on this proposal via an open-ended question. This allowed people to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action. About a third (345) of those responding to this proposal in total left an open text comment in this way - all of which have been shared with the service for consideration. Key take outs from the themed analysis of these open-ended responses is also included in this document.

A further eight responses were received through direct correspondence via letter or email (unstructured responses) which included comments relating to the proposed changes to the Older Adults’ Day Services. Of these, three were from individuals and five were from organisations, groups or businesses. These responses have also been shared with the service for consideration and are briefly summarised later in this document.

Levels of agreement with this proposal

There was no overall majority view on the two proposals, although significantly more respondents (who expressed a view) disagreed overall with each proposal than agreed with it. A minority in each case neither agreed nor disagreed.

While there was no clear overall majority view on the two proposals, strength of feeling was greater from those disagreeing with them than from those agreeing.

Sentiment analysis of the feedback from the open-ended question further echoes this: those who disagreed were more likely to add weight to their views by adding comments (of the 345 respondents who left a comment, 71% were not in support of the proposed changes).

What was driving disagreement with this proposal?

The data clearly indicates that there are two main drivers of disagreement with the proposed changes:

• a very firmly held positive regard for the current services and widely held strong views that they are needed – for both the older adults attending them and their carers / families alike
• potential negative impacts on people attending the services, and their carers, if the services were to be withdrawn

Groups who disagreed with the proposals

Disagreement with the proposed changes was higher amongst some groups of people than others, the key being people who attend the Older Adults’ Day Services and their carers, where both overall disagreement, and strength of that disagreement (‘disagree strongly’), were especially high:

Percentage of respondents disagreeing strongly (and disagreeing at all)

Further groups who also disagreed with the proposals were:

• those living nearer the Day Services - people in Winchester and Basingstoke and Deane Districts (regardless of whether they attended, or cared for someone who attended the Day Services, or were wider members of the public), who were more likely to disagree with the proposal relating to the Day Service in their own area (63% disagreement for Chesil Lodge from those in Winchester District, 72% disagreement for Newman Court from those in Basingstoke and Deane). Conversely, residents of areas further away from Winchester and Basingstoke (such as Havant and Gosport) were more likely to support the proposals
• those with children or young people in the house who have SEND (63% disagreement for Chesil Lodge, 64% for Newman Court) - while this was a small group, they were more likely than many other respondents to identify potential impacts related to disability, poverty and vulnerability, and they also had a higher concern over the suitability of alternative services (quality and / or cost, and challenges to get to them)
• certain age groups - while both being smaller groups in terms of absolute numbers, those aged over 85 were more likely than average to disagree with the proposed closure of Chesil Lodge (79% disagreement). Those aged under 24 also showed a tendency to disagree with a high proportion of the all the Future Services Consultation proposals, including those on Older Adults’ Day Services (71% disagreement for Chesil Lodge, 80% for Newman Court)
• groups and organisations: while not being more likely to disagree with the proposals, the 23 people responding as official representatives of organisations, groups and businesses were much less likely to agree with them, with a higher proportion than average undecided in their views. Notably no-one (0%) from charity, voluntary or local community groups, or from local authorities, agreed with either proposal

Percentage of respondents agreeing at all

Two further groups were more likely to disagree with the proposals affecting Chesil Court only:

• those impacted ‘a lot’ by a health condition or disability (61%)
• those with household income between £10,000 and £20,000 (61%)

What was driving agreement with this proposal?

About two fifths of the respondents (39% for Chesil Lodge, 38% for Newman Court) were in favour of the proposed changes (although more likely to be ‘agreeing’ with them rather than ‘agreeing strongly’).

It should be noted that this support largely came from people who were NOT accessing, or caring for someone who accessed, the Day Services: there was much lower agreement with the proposed closures from those attending the Day Services and their carers / families (11% for Chesil Lodge and 14% for Newman Court).

Very few people (26) offered further comments that indicated positive sentiment towards the proposal. From these few comments, it mainly appears that support is driven by the need to make savings, but caveated by acknowledgement of the impact that the changes would have, or by the need for good alternatives. There were however also a few mentions that services were not currently serving the whole of Hampshire due to their location, and that impact would only be on a few people.

Particular groups who were more likely to agree with the proposed changes included groups likely to be less affected:

• those living in Districts other than Winchester and Basingstoke and Deane (46% agreement for each proposal)
• those with household income over £60,000 (46% agreement for each proposal)

Other aspects of the proposed changes

Four options were given as alternatives to the current Day Services run at Chesil Lodge and Newman Court, and respondents were asked which their preferred one would be, should the changes go ahead.

Of the choices given, there was clear overall preference: almost half the respondents (49%) said they would prefer another provider to start running the services at the current locations (or nearby). This was the case for all key subgroups and this option was especially favoured by those attending the Day Services and their carers (the percentage preferring this option rising to 70%), and by democratically elected representatives (78%). The suggestions made in the open-ended section of the consultation responses were consistent with this – most commonly made suggestions being around finding an alternative provider to take on the existing services

Other options offered were less popular, but selected by some individuals:

• using existing day services run by other providers where available (21%)
• using other council run services in other parts of Hampshire (12%)
• using other services run by other providers (9%)

A further 9% of respondents were unsure of their preferred option

Main impacts of the proposed changes

Feedback on the proposals from the open-ended comments was analysed to understand more about any potential impacts, should the proposed changes go ahead. Of the 345 respondents who chose to provide comments, 219 (63%) mentioned potential impacts, the broad themes being:

• detrimental impact on people currently attending Chesil Lodge or Newman Court: this was the most frequently mentioned area of impact with feedback made by 59% of those suggesting an impact
  • some feedback was simply that the proposed closures would be devastating to the people who use the Day Services, but other respondents gave detailed feedback on multiple aspects of the impact - from negative effect on an individual’s health or mental wellbeing, through to increased loneliness, inability to leave the house, and greater requirements for care
  • there were also specific mentions of impacts on people attending the Day Services based on their characteristics as identified under the Equality Act 2010: health or disability, including dementia (24%), age (22%), and other protected characteristics - in which rurality was also included for the purposes of analysis (7%), impact on vulnerable adults (14%), and impact on those living in poverty (15%)
• the potential impact on carers or families was mentioned by 26% of people identifying impacts. This included concern about loss of respite, the impact on their physical and mental wellbeing, and practicalities they might find harder
  • amongst people attending the Day Services and carers themselves, this level of concern rose to 46%, indicating that it may be an impact that is more hidden to those in a situation where they access the Day Services
• concern over the alternatives: 33% of people identifying impacts feared that the alternative services offered would not be as good as the current ones (or would cost more) with some people (14% of those stating impacts) also expressing concern about accessing alternative locations
• negative system impact: a quarter of respondents identifying impacts (25%) felt that the proposed changes would merely shift costs, or the burden of care, elsewhere in the health system, so did not represent long term savings
• other impacts: among other, less frequently mentioned, potential impacts were the impact on staff at Chesil Lodge or Newman Court (5%), and environmental impact of increased travel for services if they were to relocate (3%)

Impacts on protected characteristics

Respondents were also asked which, if any, characteristics or issues they felt would be a basis on which the proposed changes might cause impact. They were able to select any of the protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010, as well as poverty, rurality, and environmental impacts.

Two key characteristics were identified by a large proportion of respondents: age and disability - 75% and 65% of respondents (respectively) considering them a basis for potential impact. People attending the Day Services and their carers were particularly likely to identify both age (87%) and disability (87%) as relevant; people living in areas near the Older Adults’ Day Services were highly likely to identify age as a basis for impact (Winchester 82%, Basingstoke and Deane 83%).

These were followed by poverty (41%) and rurality (28%).

Environmental impact was identified as relevant by a small proportion of respondents (8%), more so by people who accessed the Day Services and their carers (14%), those aged under 45 (13%), or those in households with income under £20,000 (13%).

Remaining characteristics (marital status, race, religion or belief, pregnancy / maternity, gender reassignment and sexual orientation) were each identified as relevant by very low proportions of respondents (between 1% and 4%).

Suggested alternatives to the proposals

Of the 345 respondents offering open-ended comments on this proposal, 109 (32%) suggested alternative courses of action, or made suggestions for how the Older Adults’ Day Services could be carried out differently.

Echoing the preference voiced earlier by 49% of respondents when asked what alternative options would be preferred, the most frequently made open-ended suggestions involved finding an alternative provider to take the existing service on. 28% of those making suggestions raised this idea, often mentioning charities or private companies.

Other service-focused suggestions included looking at how to increase demand for the service and/or reduce length of time involved in referrals (18%), charge more for the existing services to cover costs (15%), or use other premises or link with other existing activities (15%).

People attending the Day Services and their carers were particularly likely to suggest looking at ways to increase demand for the current services to keep them viable (46%), or to charge more for their use (23%).

There were also suggestions about how to save costs elsewhere in terms of County Council operation savings or savings from other services (22%). Most mentions here concerned headcount, salaries or other aspects of remuneration for council officers.

In a separate question, respondents were also asked if they knew of any organisations or businesses who might consider running the services in Basingstoke and Winchester: 32 suggestions were made. Some of these were generic (e.g. faith based organisations, private sector, charity sector), while others suggested specific organisations (16 named in total). Details of these, and the open-ended suggested alternatives summarised above have been passed to the service team for consideration to assist them in preparing recommendations on this proposal, and in managing the service generally.

Additional, more general, comments

Of the 345 people making open-ended comments, 244 of them (71%) included more general comments that were not directly stated as impacts or suggestions.

The most substantial theme emerging from these general comments was around the need for, and benefits of, the services to those who attend them (raised by 55% of people giving general comments). This was followed by expressions of the corresponding benefit to carers and families, and their need for the services to exist (made by 25% of those making general comments).

NB: These comments did not directly state impacts of the proposals, but the reflections on the positive experiences and need for the services implied high levels of concern about the proposed changes.

A number of comments (made by 21% of respondents making general comments) were less specific about the service or the benefits, but voiced opposition to the proposed changes in more general terms:

Other, less frequently mentioned, themes emerging from these general comments included:

• an obligation for government and/or society to look after elderly adults, who are seen as deserving of care (13%)
• the savings of £250,000 being insignificant in the context of either the benefits of the service, or against the total financial shortfall faced by Hampshire County Council (12%)
• the likely need for care increasing rather than decreasing (an ageing population, increasing cases of dementia) (4%), and a context of insufficient health care currently in place (8%)
• a lack of detail around alternative service provision (7%), or a lack of information within the consultation information pack (10%)

Unstructured responses

The eight unstructured comments received by email or letter during the consultation process echoed the findings of the online consultation responses.

• four comments involved one or more potential impacts – typically on the people currently attending the Day Services and their families
• five made one or more suggestions
• six included general comments, most typically stating opposition to the proposal, although one response was in favour

All comments have been shared with the relevant service team for consideration.