Briefly cover some of the savings detailed by the council in the budget papers which were discussed in December. Have to point out that this is not the full picture to the extent of the savings/cuts which the council is having to make. There are more to follow, over twice as more, but the details of these will not be available until mid-February. (This is due to the delay in central government deciding on what grants and how much, the council will be entitled to for next year.)
The council has already identified in its budget proposals published in December the need to save £12.3million for 2011/12. Since the Local Government Financial Settlement was announced (this settlement is the details of the grants given by central government to local authorities) it is estimated that the council will need to save in 2011/12 an additional £17.3million. The detail of these savings is currently being worked on and will be available in mid-February 2011. It means in total, the council is planning on making savings of £30million in 2011/12
The council have identified a number of key principles which they have been using to make savings, and which will be used to make the further £17.3million of savings requires. The key principles used by the council to guide the decisions made around setting and cutting budgets/making savings include: 1. To deliver efficiency savings to help protect front line services by: Delivering the planned VFM programme and identifying where future year’s VFM savings can be “fast tracked”, for example, vacating office accommodation earlier than originally planned Identifying other efficiency savings including those arising from the new groupings of services in delivery units Looking to generate savings on staff related expenditure through natural turnover, not filling existing vacancies, reducing management costs, minimising the use of consultants and making sure the council only uses agency staff and overtime where there is a sound business case to do so Identifying where closer working with other public agencies means the council can share costs Reviewing contracts with service providers identifying scope for renegotiation and controlling costs Removing any local contingencies or risk provisions (these will all be covered corporately) These efficiency savings will be tracked to ensure that they are rigorously and consistently implemented by rolling them into the VFM programme 2. Where changes need to be made to front line services proposals will take into account How the council can innovate on service design and delivery mechanisms to ensure the outcomes delivered are maintained How those changes might impact on costs and services provided by other public agencies in the city (Total Place) How the council can protect as far as possible the contribution made by the community and voluntary sector
I shall now briefly outline some of the ‘headline’ cuts/savings detailed in the council’s budget papers which were published in December 2010. I should emphasise again that these savings/cuts only amount to £12.3million (which as we have heard is just under half of expected savings for 2011/12). There will therefore be more to follow and we are hoping that this detail will be available soon. The broad budget themes which I will outline are: housing, adult social care, children and young people. Environment and community safety. Central services (which includes finance, human resources, legal support, communications, policy and research etc). The detail under some of the themes is at the moment quite sparse due to the fact that more savings are to be made.
Housing (including Supporting People Programme) The Council has assumed that there will be a reduction in the Supporting People Welfare Grant coming from central government which will equate to a £337,000 reduction for Brighton and Hove. The budget papers indicate that it is likely that this will be found through recommissioning services by undertaking a competitive tendering exercise with the aim of reducing the current number of providers to reduce administration costs in reviewing and monitoring supporting people contracts. (Other means of making savings identified in the housing budget according to the budget papers include making savings through offering longer term contracts (5 years), joint commissioning, renegotiating unit costs and as already touched on recommisisoning services. Housing management will look to make a total of £913,000 savings in its budget by, implementing the customer service review reducing miscellaneous fees and stationary, reducing support for legal services and human resources by sharing one of their buildings with CYPT, and by making savings in the repairs and maintenance contact (with the mears group)
According to the budget papers there is a lot of pressure on the Adult social care budget (which includes the budget for learning disability services) It is believed that savings of £2,953,000 for 2011/12 need to be made (although again this is before the extra £17.3 million of savings was announced). The budget papers indicate that this saving will be met through the move over to personalisation, through better commissioning of services from independent sector providers (by cash limiting contract values with a below inflation increase and reviewing contract specifications and activity levels) Savings will also be made through section 75 arrangements (made jointly with health) and in learning disability services (although there is no detail of how) and by using better technologies.
From a total gross budget of £242.2m the CYPT relies on grants from central government of around £46.22m (excluding DSG). Service pressures identified: £3,466,000 which excluded grant reductions. Savings of £4,136,000 have been identified. The CYPT has over identified the amount of savings it needed to make for the budget papers for December, however, seeing as more savings need to be made, it means we have some details of these already!
And the reductions/savings going on,. It is concerning that there are such large reductions in the budget for children and young people services. Whilst clearly some can be drawn from efficiencies, there are a number of frontline services being hit here. The budget papers do note a number of key risks including: The impact of the ceasing of grant, re-commissioning and VFM on the community and voluntary sector will need to be closely monitored Making significant savings across a number of areas of children, schools and family services will lead to some children and families receiving reduced support in more than one area. There is no information in the papers however as to how these risks will be mitigated.
£800,000 worth of grants from central government is due to end in March 2010. This means that this area will have a massive shortfall in funding. Currently £347,000 worth of savings (through efficiencies and staffing) have been identified, but this still a shortfall. Savings in refuse and recycling is £128,000 City parks £25,000 Parking services, by reducing staffing levels, improved enforcement and contract efficiencies, and making savings in car parks will save a total of £195,000 £64,000 saved by reviewing permits for charging car club bays. It is not proposed to increase street parking tariffs over than by the normal inflationary increase £115,000 by reducing staffing costs Varying bus routes, Highways engineering and projects, road safety and parking strategy savings of £173,000 mostly though reducing staffing costs due to reduced capital funding for projects City planning – save £303,000, employee related expenditure and other Review of public protection will save £110,00 Sport & Leisure £150,000 One very key concern is the reduction in community safety grants.
The council are assuming that there will be a 10% reduction in renaissance grant of £111,111 The council will also lose the DWP grant for Castleham Supported Employment £265,000 This budget area will look to absorb some of the reductions to its various other funding streams by increasing fees eg in libraries to help balance the books
Central services budget – ‘this themes’ area include things like (human resources, legal, policy and research, finance, accountancy etc) The value for money programme is … VFM savings - £1,107 Say a bit more about the impact that the reduction in Equality and Communities team budget will mean? Grant Programme is secure, which is good news; but …
Ok so those are the main bits of information about the savings/reductions already identified as part of the councils budget proposals for 2011/12. Altogether they equate to £12.3 million. It is important to bear in mind that more reductions will be coming on top of those identified which I have just talked about. Reductions in key areas that are a concern include: Supporting people – it has recently had a cost benefit analysis undertaken which has demonstrated true value for money, it is hoped that any reductions are reductions of true efficiency made by better streamlining processes, rather than by reducing frontline services. The savings in adult social care are massive, and the reliance on personalisation to generate savings may not be realistic. There is also concern about the level of savings with the recommisisoning of independent providers, again if these are true savings and efficiencies ok, but council departments need to be realistic as to what independent providers can provide for how much. The massive cuts, once again to children and young peoples services which was heavily hit by the in-year cuts is an additional concern. As is the ending of the community safety grants which have to date funded a number of key projects in the city, particularly around domestic violence. These reductions are of particular concern as reductions in these services are likely to effect the most vulnerable residents in the city, and to doubly impact on children and their families who may bear the brunt of multiple service reduction. So leading, in the long run to residents accessing more high end expensive crisis services which will only result into eating into budgets further.
Before we take a quick break and then split into themed discussion groups to consider these budget themes and talk about what it means some more. I would just like to explain a bit about CVSF representation on the Overview and Scrutiny commission and close with a couple of specific comments in relation to sector funding. CVSF was pleased to be invited to temporarily put forward a CVSF representative from the Brighton and Hove Strategic Partnership (formely known as the local strategic partnership) to temporarily sit on the commission for the scrutiny of the budget. For those who don’t know Chris Todd is being supported by a small group of CVSF reps (drawn from the Brighton & Hove Strategic Partnership, and reps already involved in some of the scrutiny committees) to undertake the work. Chris – would you like to wave your hand in the air, so that those who don’t know who you are … We are extremely grateful to the difficult task which Chris has undertaken, and to the group that is supporting Chris. We also have rep on the CYPOSC – Jo M. While CVSF doesn’t have reps on the other committees, we are submitting written questions and / or relaying messages through LINk reps (thanks to LINk). This is a great opportunity for CVSF members to get their voices heard through our representative. Chris and the information gathered in the discussions today will be brought together and used by the CVSF reps on the various scrutiny committees. Please note through there is only so much influence the reps can have through the scrutiny process, (There is only so much Chris can say!) and therefore CVSF will try to challenge and influence through other mechanisms as well. I must emphasise that this is a discussion on peoples’ thoughts and reflections on the budget information, on the impact of the cuts on the cities communities and the sector, and on what the shared experience of those in the group tells us. As far as possible this needs to be a discussion focused not on arguing the case for funding for a single organisation, but be a discussion focusing on the impact of the cuts to services and what this means for communities. Funding challenges facing the sector and organisations are immense and the reality most of us are dealing with. A query and a piece of information: Transition funding: how is fund working in practice. Anyone applying / applied, given criteria a bit exclusive (30% cut to statutory funding which is 60% of your org’s resources) and many don’t have the certainty of cut yet to achieve this, plus commitment to protecting the sector in budget principle might not help? BHCC letter to update sector from John B BHCC to write to all orgs with which it had a funding relationship in Feb – three categories as far as I can determine: Inform of formal ending of funding where known Inform of interim uncertainty, eg CYPT still working through budget changes, possibility of short-term rollover Inform of ongoing uncertainty, eg Home Office funding, where 3 month rollover possible Letters will also include info on Commissioner contacts to discuss matters with BHCC also wants to hear about practical things it can do to support sector in change (?!) Hand you over to Libby who will describe the group discussions.
Sally's presentation on budget detail
The Council’s budget proposals for 2011/12 What does it all mean? Sally Polanski, Chief Executive, CVSF
<ul><li>In its budget proposals the Council has identified £12.3million savings so far </li></ul><ul><li>The reduction in grants from central government means that the council needs to make an additional £17.3million of savings </li></ul><ul><li>A total of £30million savings for 2011/12 </li></ul>What do we know?
<ul><li>To deliver efficiency savings to help protect front line services </li></ul><ul><li>Through reviewing the council’s own ways of working, working more closely with other public agencies, and by reviewing contracts with providers </li></ul><ul><li>2. Where changes need to be made to front line services proposals will take into account: </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation to service design and delivery, the impact on costs and services provided by other public agencies, protecting, as far as possible, the contribution made by the CVS </li></ul>Key budget principles
<ul><li>Housing (incl. Supporting People) </li></ul><ul><li>Adult Social Care (incl. learning disability) </li></ul><ul><li>Children & Young People </li></ul><ul><li>Environment & Community Safety </li></ul><ul><li>Central Services, Culture & Enterprise </li></ul>Budget themes
<ul><li>Supporting People Welfare Grant – expected reduction £337,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Housing management - £913,000 savings </li></ul>Housing budget
<ul><li>Needs to make savings of £2,953,000 in 2011/12 </li></ul><ul><li>Personalisation will generate £1,551,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Better commissioning of independent sector providers will generate £1,016,000 </li></ul>Adult social care budget
<ul><li>Total budget is £242.2 million </li></ul><ul><li>Education welfare service - £170,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Educational psychology service - £200,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Fostering and adoption - £362,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Youth offending service - £91,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Youth services - £130,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Nursery provision £87,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Home to school transport £200,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Development Centre - £64,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Music services subsidies - £271,000 </li></ul>Children and Young People
<ul><li>Disability service - £126,000 </li></ul><ul><li>School improvement services - £70,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Ethnic minority achievement services - £165,000 </li></ul><ul><li>School attendance services - £25,000 </li></ul><ul><li>School workforce development and governor support - £44,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Special education needs - £46,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Other savings eg Staffing, legal and consultancy - £105,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Value for Money programme has identified £2,010,000 savings for 2011/12 </li></ul>Children and Young People
<ul><li>£800,000 grants for community safety projects ended </li></ul><ul><li>Refuse and recycling - £128,000 </li></ul><ul><li>City parks - £25,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Parking services - £195,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Car club permits - £64,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Staff costs - £115,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Transport/roads - £173,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Planning - £303,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Public Protection - £110,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Sports & Leisure - £150,000 </li></ul>Environment and Community safety budget
<ul><li>Assumed reduction in renaissance grant - £111,111 </li></ul><ul><li>Loss of DWP grant for Castleham supported employment - £265,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Will increase fees to increase income </li></ul>Culture & Enterprise budget
<ul><li>Value for Money Programme will generate £1,107,000 savings </li></ul><ul><li>End 11x staff bus – save £96,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Loss of £450,000 LPSA funding for a number of bits of work commissioned and undertaken by Equality and Communities team </li></ul><ul><li>Communications dept. identified £163,000 savings </li></ul>Central services budget
<ul><li>Supporting People Programme </li></ul><ul><li>Savings in the Adult social care budget </li></ul><ul><li>Children and Young people budget </li></ul><ul><li>Community Safety </li></ul>Key areas of concern
<ul><li>CVSF representation on the Overview and Scrutiny Commission </li></ul><ul><li>Not the only channel of influence </li></ul><ul><li>The purpose of today is to discuss the impact of the reductions on the sector and the city’s communities </li></ul>Your discussions…