Page 1

AGENDA ITEM 5

BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL CABINET 27 JANUARY 2011 Report of:

Service Director, Finance

Title:

Revenue Budget 2011/12 Ward: Citywide

Officer presenting report:

Peter Robinson

Contact telephone number: 0117 922 2419 RECOMMENDATION That the Cabinet determine its recommendations to Council in respect of the level of council tax and the revenue budget for 2011/12. Report Summary The report summarises the budget process and provides information in relation to the final draft budget proposals. Original proposals for budget reductions were published on 7 October 2010. The significant issues in the report are: •

the draft budget proposals - substantial council-wide reductions totalling £28m have been identified within the draft budget proposals. This is an unprecedented level of reductions - equivalent to 7% of the council's total net spending and thus carries a high degree of risk. Change programmes, delivery plans and, crucially, budgets will need to be closely monitored during the year to ensure that reductions are being delivered;

freeze in the level of council tax for 2011/12 for council services;

other areas of risk;

the equalities impact assessment.

Policy 1. The Council's constitution requires that the Cabinet publishes its O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Revenue budget 2011~12.odt

1


budget recommendations to Council at least 15 working days before the Council budget meeting on 22 February 2011. Consultation 2. The budget proposals are considered deliverable by the Strategic Leadership Team. The original proposals were also been submitted to the Trade Union Executive Forum and directorate JCCs. The Resources Scrutiny Commission has examined the budget indepth over a series of public meetings. At the time of publication the results are not available. The Commission is due to meet on 25 January to finalise its submission to the Cabinet. External 3. Proposals to save £22m from the revenue budget were published in early October, following the consultation carried out via the 'Budget Conversation' initiative during the Summer. Due to the late announcement of the grant settlement details, it has not been possible to finalise the budget proposals in line with the normal timescales. Comments on the final proposals received after this Cabinet meeting will be available to members at the budget fixing meeting on 22 February. These have been invited via a special edition of Our City and the council's website, with a closing date of 9 February. 4. From the initial consultation, ideas were invited about how the council should best set its spending priorities for the coming year, and beyond. The comments returned largely fell into around 70 different themes. These are summarised, together with the Council's outline responses in Appendix 4. More details of comments received are available from Corporate Consultation. 5. The draft budget proposals have also been sent to GWE Business West, as coordinators of non-domestic ratepayers in the city. Background 6. The Council's net spend in 2010/11 is £393m. Taking into account spend from specific government grants, total spend amounts to £690m. 7. Options to reduce spending by £22m were identified earlier in the year in response to the Medium Term Financial Plan projections O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Revenue budget 2011~12.odt

2


which assumed 5% per annum reductions in government grant. Further announcements by the new government indicated that the reduction was likely to be 25% over the four years, 2011/12 to 2014/15. Following publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in October, the reductions in grant were assessed as 27% in real terms (23% in cash terms), with front-loading in 2011/12. As a result, a requirement to save a further £6m in 2011/12 was identified. 8. A summary of the draft budget proposals is attached at Appendix 1, together with details for each directorate. These do not reflect the latest changes in organisational structure, but a revised format will be available for the report to the Council budget meeting. Further details of the proposals for growth and reductions, by directorate, are included at Appendix 2). 9. The changes identified from the original budget proposals are set out in Appendix 3, together with the relevant service delivery implications, where appropriate. 10.The draft budget proposals would mean a freeze in the council tax for 2011/12 (ie the band D tax would remain at £1,338.95 for the city council's own services). The freeze is possible because of additional funding provided by the government for those authorities which would otherwise be increasing council tax by 2.5%. The grant that would be received on this basis would be £4.524m. 11.Spending in 2010/11 has been reviewed. Based on expenditure to the end of November, total spending for the year is projected to be within budget by the year end. Strong service and financial management arrangements will be continue to be applied through the remainder of the year to ensure this position is maintained. A summary of the overall position is set out in Appendix 5. More details for each directorate, showing the projected outturn against budget for the main service activities, is available from the Corporate Finance Team. 12.Bristol's share of the estimated deficit on the council tax collection fund at 31 March 2011 has been determined at £1.45m. This is in line with the position forecast earlier in the year and reflects a significant reduction in the number of single adult discount claims and an increase in the number of exemptions due to student occupied property and empty property. In terms of collection performance, the actual collection rate is on target for the year at 95.1%. To the end of December, collection was 83.8%% against a target of 83.9%. In addition, a further sum of £0.76m also needs to be taken into O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Revenue budget 2011~12.odt

3


account in 2011/12, being the council's share of the difference between the actual deficit on the fund at 31 March 2010 and the amount estimated when the 2010/11 budget was approved. The total deficit is offset in the proposed budget by the use of reserves carried forward at 31 March 2011. 13.The tax base for 2011/12 has been set at 134,386, an increase of 0.3% over the figure for 2010/11 and 1.1% above the revised projection for 2010/11,as at September 2010. This increase is primarily the result of the construction of new property. The percentage increase is, however, lower than in previous years due to a combination of factors which include a slowdown in new construction and an overall increase in expected exempt properties. 14. The details of the Government's provisional funding support to local authorities for 2011/12 and 2012/13 were published on 13 December 2011. These confirmed a reduction in general grant for Bristol in 2011/12 of 10.8%, on a like-for-like basis, over 2010/11. This compares with a national reduction of 9.9%. 15. The damping mechanism within the grant system has resulted in a grant loss for Bristol of ÂŁ12.9m - the overall reduction in grant before the damping adjustment would have been limited to 4.6%. The loss through damping has eliminated any gain that would have come through in the formula from increased population. Representations have been made to the government, both directly to ministers and through Core Cities for an improved settlement, centred particularly on the way the damping mechanism works and its impact on Bristol and the case for increasing the amount of business rates that is distributed nationally - given Bristol's position as a net contributor to the national pool. 16. The settlement also confirmed a number of changes in respect of specific grants. The overall number of individual grants (including the Area Based Grant) has been reduced. The published allocations for each of the remaining 'core' revenue grants are set out in Appendix 6, together with the equivalent amounts for 2010/11. Spending from these grants totals ÂŁ299m in 2011/12, and is additional to the proposed budget, net of the use of reserves, of ÂŁ367m. The reduction in the overall number of grants has largely been achieved by the movement of grants into the Formula Grant and the new Early Intervention Grant. 17. The introduction of the Early Intervention Grant is intended to enable local authorities to act more strategically and target investment early to produce long-term savings and better results for children, young O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Revenue budget 2011~12.odt

4


people and families. Although the new grant replaces a number of former funding streams, including Area Based Grant funding, the change has resulted in a reduction in resources for children and young peoples services. Adjustments made to the draft budget to cover this have been identified and it is anticipated that these will minimise the impact on children and young people in the city. 18. To meet the overall budget shortfall, reductions are proposed as follows: £m Directorate savings, net of growth

24.6

Reduced repairs and maintenance

1.0

Reduction in specific grants, eg Early Intervention Grant

2.8

Total

28.4

19. New Homes Bonus - it is assumed that this new grant will cover the loss of the Housing Planning Delivery Grant, and will therefore enable the Development Management Service to continue to provide the service expected by the development industry and communities. 20.Proposals for the use of the Dedicated Schools Grant are being discussed with the Schools Forum. Reserves and balances 21. The draft budget includes a working balance of £6m, to cover the eventuality that overall spending exceeds the budget. As well as this balance, the Council's balance sheet carries numerous specific reserves. These have been earmarked for specific purposes, eg the capital programme, schools PFI and Standards Fund. A review of all reserves has been undertaken during the current year which has resulted in some resources being re-badged towards meeting future restructuring costs. Medium Term Financial Plan 22. The provisional grant settlement only covers the financial years 2011/12 and 2012/13. The published grant figure for Bristol shows a further reduction of 7.1% in 2012/13, which has the effect of increasing the savings required to £49m. Based on the CSR, the total savings required by 2014/15 would be of the order of £70m. Delivering reductions on this scale will require a fundamental rethink of the way the council carries out its business.

O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Revenue budget 2011~12.odt

5


Risk assessment 23. The most substantial risks have been assessed in the budget process and reasonable provision/mitigation has been made. Substantial council-wide budget reductions totalling in excess of ÂŁ28m have been identified within the draft budget proposals. This is an unprecedented level of reductions - equivalent to 7% of the council's total net spending. Change programmes, delivery plans and, crucially, budgets will need to be closely monitored during the year to ensure that reductions are being delivered Economic conditions continue to have a direct impact on a number of income (local land charges and the commercial property estate) and expenditure (benefits, homelessness) budgets. The budget reflects prudent assumptions around the continuing impact of the economic situation. Housing benefits - the draft budget proposals include funding to meet the current level of de-regulated tenancies, but not further increases in the level of these claims. Health and Social Care - the plans for the HSC budget will require particularly careful management, especially in terms of the deliverability of the proposed efficiency savings amounting to ÂŁ10m, and also the issues around the demand for placements (see below). Social care placements (numbers and unit costs) for both adult and childrens services. The current trend in childrens care placements has resulted in a major budget pressure in 2010/11 and provision has been made in the draft budget proposals for 2011/12 to meet this. Plans to reduce the number of external placements by increasing inhouse fostering will be closely monitored during the year as well as numbers in children's placements. Inflationary pressures on contract and energy costs - the draft budget includes provision for inflation on the more significant contracts, eg the waste and public transport contracts. Additional provision has also been made against increases in energy contracts due for renewal during the year. Corporate budgets - prudent assumptions have been made about interest rates, cash flow, price increases on major contracts, council tax (and other income) collection rates and the council tax base.

O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Revenue budget 2011~12.odt

6


Financial and performance monitoring will prioritise the identified risk areas. Equalities Impact Assessment 24. The impact of the main budget proposals in terms of equalities issues has been assessed by each Strategic Director. An external equality stakeholders event was held on 6 December and responses to this are summarised in Appendix 7. The impact assessment will be available at the Cabinet meeting. Legal and Resource implications Legal : none sought Financial : as set out in the report Appendices : 1. Draft revenue budget 2. Detailed directorate budget proposals 3. Changes to the original budget proposals 4. Consultation responses 5. Budget monitor 2010/11 6. Details of Core Revenue Grants 7. Responses to stakeholder consultation on equality impact of budget proposals

Background papers : Relevant working papers in the Finance Division DCLG grant settlement

O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Revenue budget 2011~12.odt

7


Draft Revenue Budget 2011/12

Directorate

APPENDIX 1

Page Base Nos Budget Growth Reductions 2011/12

Draft Budget 2011/12

£'000

£'000

£'000

£'000

1-4

75,708

1,700

(5,389)

72,019

City Development

5

51,181

-

(3,805)

47,376

Deputy Chief Executive

6

5,934

(1,160)

4,774

2,600

(9,960)

144,311

Children, Young People and Skills

Health and Adult Social Care

7-8 151,671

Neighbourhoods

9-10

76,673

-

(4,877)

71,796

Resources

11-12

2,214

175

(1,596)

793

Transformation

13-14

7,513

-

(2,294)

5,219

370,894

4,475

(29,081)

346,288

Other budgets: Unallocated pensions Net capital financing costs Levies Contingency and provisions Sub-total Less use of one-off resources: Supporting People reserve New Ways of Working reserve Collection fund deficit reserve Total net spend

2,710 18,079 1,098 2,850 371,025 (1,000) (315) (2,210) 367,500

Financed from: Formula grant Council tax freeze grant Less share of collection fund deficit Council tax

(185,250) (4,524) 2,210 (179,936) 0


REVENUE BUDGET 2011/12 (Control H to hide sub detail)

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S SERVICES Base

Inflation

Virement

Budget

Other Variations

Budget

2010/11 £000

Individual Schools Budget

2011/12 £000

£000

£000

£000

180,560

0

0

0

180,560

346

1

0

0

347

346

1

0

0

347

Children in Care

2,113

10

0

(1)

Corporate Parenting

7,916

51

0

(4)

7,963

Locality Teams

8,554

64

0

(12)

8,606

711

6

0

0

Director's Office Total - Director's Office Safeguarding & Specialist Support

Welfare Peripatetic / Child & Family Support

2,122

717

1,210

13

0

0

1,223

16,209

186

0

0

16,395

Secure

240

0

0

0

240

Parent and Baby

185

0

0

0

185

Safeguarding Commissioning

Management & Support Complex Needs, SEN & Satements Training

Total - Safeguarding & Specialist Support

4,114

14

0

(3)

4,125

10,676 292

28 2

0 0

(7) (155)

10,697 139

52,220

374

0

(182)

52,412

329 6,028 8,131 302 2,791 1,647

1 9 1 3 10 8

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 (241) 0 (2) 1 (857)

330 5,796 8,132 303 2,802 798

19,228

32

0

(1,099)

18,161

660 467 137 9,109 5,642 2,765

2 2 6 99 21 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

(51) (135) 0 (5) (1,108) (2,744)

611 334 143 9,203 4,555 21

18,780

130

0

(4,043)

14,867

0 7,651 6,361

0 33 5

0 0 0

1,000 (348) 199

1,000 7,336 6,565

14,012

38

0

851

14,901

4,098 31 659

16 0 4

0 0 0

(1,387) 0 0

2,727 31 663

4,788

20

0

(1,387)

3,421

0

0

595

0

Learning, Achievement & Schools Programme Director Inclusion in Learning Early Years School Leadership & Governance Primary Secondary

Total - Learning, Achievement & Schools Education Strategy & Targeted Support Programme Director Learning Partnerships Communities & Adult Skills Capital Assets & Access Youth, Play & Outdoor Education Connexions

Total - Education Strategy & Targeted Support Finance & Central Budgets Early Intervention Grant Pensions, Severance and other central budgets Central Support Service Charges

Total - Finance and Central Budgets Performance, Policy & Partnerships Children's Trust & Commissioning/ Health Partnership Integrated Workforce Performance

Total - Performance, Policy & Partnerships Funding Dedicated Schools Grant/ LSC

(208,961)

Sub-total

80,973

Proposed net reductions, subject to approval by the City Council

Directorate total

80,973

1

595

0

0

(208,961)

(5,860)

75,708

(3,689)

(3,689)

(9,549)

72,019


REVENUE BUDGET 2011/12 Activity

CITY DEVELOPMENT Base Budget 2010/11 £000

Inflation

£000

Virement

£000

Other Variations

£000

Budget 2011/12

£000

Major Projects Sustainable Projects Docks Major Projects Team - Transport

93 1,166 (97)

1 8 2

0 (6) 0

0 0 0

94 1,168 (95)

Total Major Projects

1,162

11

(6)

0

1,167

747 179 655 858

5 30 5 8

(2) (9) (3) (2)

0 0 0 0

750 200 657 864

2,439

48

(16)

0

2,471

Transport Engineering Traffic City Transport Passenger Services Parking Passenger Transport

8,633 2,808 1,204 (205) (3,951) 11,411

569 22 9 162 79 16

(204) (4) (3) (5) (15) (5)

0 0 0 0 0 1,915

8,998 2,826 1,210 (48) (3,887) 13,337

Total Transport

19,900

857

(236)

1,915

22,436

6,525 2,894 2,282 1,924 259 878

51 22 9 8 0 4

(34) (17) (79) (3) 0 (7)

0 0 0 0 0 0

6,542 2,899 2,212 1,929 259 875

Total Economic & Cultural Development

14,762

94

(140)

0

14,716

Support Services Directors Account / Support Services

10,272

30

89

0

10,391

Total Support Services

10,272

30

89

0

10,391

Sub-total

48,535

1,040

1,915

51,181

(3,805)

(3,805)

(1,890)

47,376

Planning & Sustainable Development Sustainable City Group Development Management Strategic Planning City Design Group Total Planning & Sustainable Development

Economic & Cultural Development Libraries Museums, Galleries & Archives Regeneration Arts, Festivals & Events / Colston Hall Legacy Commission Colston Hall

(309)

Proposed net reductions, subject to approval by the City Council

Directorate Total

48,535

2

1,040

(309)


DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

REVENUE BUDGET 2011/12 Activity

Strategic Directors Chief Executive's Office Deputy Chief Executive Graduate Trainee Place Making Director Public Health

Base Budget 2010/11

Inflation

Virement

Other Variations

Budget 2011/12

£000

£000

£000

£000

£000

478 332 174 225 289 1,498 (894) (39) (248) 317

2 2 1 1 1 7 (6) 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 12 0 0 0 12 (12) 0 0 0

480 346 175 226 290 1,517 (912) (39) (248) 318

1,632 792 549 163 3,136 (787) (2,339) 10

5 8 3 0 16 (16) 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 46 (8) 0 69 (38) 0 31

1,668 846 544 163 3,221 (841) (2,339) 41

Less recharge to Corporate Management Less recharge to other departments Other Income Budget net of recharges

211 900 479 382 98 478 548 417 65 135 3,713 (3,049) (33) (631) 0

1 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 11 (11) 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(2) 0 28 (3) 0 (6) 0 7 0 6 30 (30)

210 901 509 381 98 474 548 426 65 142 3,754 (3,090) (33) (631) 0

Bristol Partnership Less recharge to Corporate Management Other Income Budget net of recharges

350 (150) (200) 0

1 (1) 0 0

0 0 0 0

(4) 0 0 (4)

347 (151) (200) (4)

373 (15) 358

2 0 2

0 0 0

25 0 25

400 (15) 385

128 (128) 0

1 (1) 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

129 (129) 0

131 100 0 231 (100) 131

1 0 0 1 (1) 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

132 100 0 232 (101) 131

Less recharge to Corporate Management Less recharge to other departments Other Income Budget net of recharges One Council Communications Bristol Design Marketing Media Corporate Publications Less recharge to Corporate Management Less recharge to other departments Budget net of recharges Strategy & Performance Service Director Digital 20:20 Policy Scrutiny Members Development Consultation and Research Projects Performance and Improvement Team Make Your Mark Corporate Complaints

Civil Protection Other Income Budget net of income West of England Partnership West of England Partnership Other Income Budget net of income Projects Overheads BBC Anchor BBCi Features Less recharge to Corporate Management Budget net of recharges

0 0

Corporate Management

5,020

37

0

82

5,139

Sub total before transfer from reserves

5,836

40

0

134

6,010

Transfer from reserves Sub-total

5,760

(76)

0

0

0

40

0

134

Proposed net reductions, subject to approval by the City Council Directorate total

5,760

3

40

0

(76)

5,934

(1,160)

(1,160)

(1,026)

4,774


REVENUE BUDGET 2011/12 Activity

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE Base Budget 2010/11

Inflation

£000

Virement

Other Variations

Budget 2011/12

£000

£000

£000

£000

Older People Locality Assessment Teams OP Care Direct Locality Other Costs Hospitals Hospitals Other Costs Commissioning Manager Care Brokerage OP Commissioning Other PSI Transitions Asylum Seekers Carers PSI, Asylum, Transitions Other Supporting People VSH Supporting People/VSH Other Property Income

21,533 537 495 9,158 429 446 368 248 8,160 2,344 770 1,052 221 27,337 2,797 58 (1,499)

209 3 0 155 1 3 3 0 75 23 1 0 0 1 51 0 0

(128) (10) 0 (140) 11 (3) 0 0 (11) (7) (3) 0 (6) (121) 0 0 166

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 (700) 0 0 0

21,614 530 495 9,173 441 446 371 248 8,424 2,360 768 1,052 215 26,517 2,848 58 (1,333)

Divisional Total OP

74,454

525

(252)

(500)

74,227

Locality Teams LD LD Transferred services net of PCT funding LD Other LD Commissioning MH Commissioning

20,942 (556) 260 979 1,488

298 280 0 3 3

(124) (12) (16) (1) (1)

0 0 0 0 0

21,116 (288) 244 981 1,490

Sub-Total LD, MH, Disabled

23,113

584

(154)

0

23,543

7,858 5,768

82 79

(76) 7

0 0

7,864 5,854

Sub-Total Mental Health AWP

13,626

161

(69)

0

13,718

Divisional Total LD, MH, Disabled

36,739

745

(223)

0

37,261

Operations Service Manager Residential Unit School Road Continuing to Care Community Meals Service LD Day Centres Supporting People Longer Term Other In-House EPH/PWD Homes OP Day Centres Residential and OP Day Services Other Residential Unit Concord STAR Intermediate Care Independent Living Service Reablement Other

89 465 3,441 857 3,199 123 129 10,971 1,621 249 923 2,624 3,312 2,756 80

0 6 133 17 38 31 4 202 15 2 17 50 35 11 0

3 (3) (45) (1) (43) 20 (50) (93) (11) (8) (4) 4 (36) (9) 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

92 468 3,529 873 3,194 174 83 11,080 1,625 243 936 2,678 3,311 2,758 83

Total - Care Services

30,839

561

(273)

0

31,127

Learning Difficulties, Mental Health, Disabled People

Mental Health Adults of working age Mental Health People with Dementia

Care Services

4


REVENUE BUDGET 2011/12 Activity

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE Base Budget 2010/11

Inflation

£000

Virement

£000

Other Variations

£000

£000

Budget 2011/12

£000

Putting People First/ Standards Transformation Professional Development Performance and Standards ICT Legal Services

353 5,199 633 1,581 787

2 9 4 1 0

(6) (13) 0 446 0

0 (129) 0 0 0

349 5,066 637 2,028 787

Divisional Total PPF

8,553

16

427

(129)

8,867

2,634

16

321

(2,782)

189

153,219

1,863

0

(3,411)

151,671

Other Services Finance /The Director Sub-total Proposed net reductions, subject to approval by the City Council

Directorate total

(7,360)

153,219

1,863

5

0

(10,771)

(7,360)

144,311


REVENUE BUDGET 2011/12 Activity

Strategic Housing Housing Solutions Private Housing & Adaptations Rehousing Strategy and Commissioning Tenants Support Services Travellers Welfare Benefits - Payments Welfare Benefits - Administration

NEIGHBOURHOODS (GENERAL FUND) Base Budget 2010/11

Inflation

Virement

Other Variations

Budget 2011/12

£000

£000

£000

£000

£000

3,193 2,566 565 692 0 202 1,125 2,414

10 10 8 3 (2) 1

Total Strategic Housing

(180)

(1)

60 52 22

39

(1)

400 1,148

3,023 2,575 632 747 19 203 1,525 3,600

10,757

69

(4)

1,502

12,324

Customer Support Central Section Expenses

5,217

25

4

371

5,617

Total Customer Support

5,217

25

4

371

5,617

Safer Bristol Anti-Social Behaviour Community Safety Drug Strategy Emergency Control Centre Enforcement Licensing Safer Bristol Delivery Youth Offending Team

408 2,869 963 484 2,511 300 813 1,306

4 2 1 5 16 (3) 5 22

(69) (557) (190) 9 39 15 (35) 6

343 2,314 774 498 2,567 312 783 1,334

Total Safer Bristol

9,654

52

1

(782)

8,925

Cemeteries and Crematoria HWRCs Parks Pest Control Public Health Services Re-cycling contracts Scientific Services Sports Street Cleaning Toilets Transfer Stations Waste Collection Waste Disposal/Landfill tax Waste General and Waste DBU Other Environmental Services

(657) 1,064 7,915 609 1,334 264 187 3,522 5,445 716 1,358 10,255 8,454 1,863 1,033

(15) 5 130 2 7 13 2 37 142 14 5 271 211 8 9

25 (3) (30)

(77)

1

(1)

8

49

Total Environment and Leisure

43,362

841

(2)

161

44,362

Neighbourhoods and Communities Community Development Equalities and Social Inclusion Neighbourhood Partnerships

4,871 234 496

7

1

(192) 7 18

4,687 241 517

Total Neighbourhoods and Communities

5,601

10

1

(167)

5,445

74,591

997

0

(1) (1)

1

Environment and Leisure

Sub-total

(1) 20

(22)

3

Proposed net reductions, subject to approval by the City Council Directorate Total

74,591

997

6

190

0

(647) 1,066 7,938 611 1,341 277 188 3,769 5,587 730 1,341 10,526 8,665 1,928 1,042

1,085

76,673

(4,877)

(4,877)

(3,792)

71,796


REVENUE BUDGET 2011/12

RESOURCES

Activity

Virement

Inflation

Other

Outturn Budget 2010/11 £000 Strategic Director Resources Strategic Director Resources Procurement Less recharged to other Services and Departments Other Income Budget net of recharges Human Resources Strategic HR Less recharged to other Services and Departments Other Income Budget net of recharges Legal Services Service Director - Legal Lord Mayors Office / Chapel Democratic Services Members Support Legal Teams Less recharged to other Services and Departments Other Income Budget net of recharges Finance Service Director - Finance Directorate Finance Teams Corporate Property Internal Audit

Less recharged to other Services and Departments Other Income Budget net of recharges Property Commercial Property Services Retail Industrial Office Other Non- operational Property Total Property Statutory Services Local Land Charges Electoral Services Registrar - Births, Deaths & Marriages Income Total Statutory Services

£000

£000

224 1,842 2,066 (1,226) (617) 223

1 11 12 (1) 0 11

3,460 3,460 (3,421) (39) 0

17 17 (17) 0 0

133 519 1,045 561 4,429 6,687 (2,050) (4,922) (285)

1 3 5 2 29 40 (11) 0 29

148 7,142 2,799 1,811

1 36 15 10

11,900 (11,676) (224) 0

62 (62) 0 0

(2,617) (3,414) (817) (1,992) 1,254 (7,586)

0 0 0 0 0 0

458 930 1,320 2,708 (1,284) 1,424

2 7 7 16 0 16

7

Variations

Budget 2011/12

£000

£000

2 5 7 (2) 0 5

227 1,858 2,085 (1,544) (302) 239

36 36 (36) 0 0

3,513 3,513 (3,474) (39) 0

0 0 (3) 1 (9) (11) 2 0 (9)

134 522 1,047 564 4,449 6,716 (2,059) (4,922) (265)

(4) (3) (46) (4)

145 6,978 2,768 1,817

0

(57) 57 0 0

11,708 (11,484) (224) 0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0

(2,617) (3,414) (817) (1,992) 1,254 (7,586)

(1) (31) (1) (33) 0 (33)

459 906 1,326 2,691 (1,284) 1,407

0 (315) 315 0

0 0 0

0

0

(197)

(197) 197

0 0


REVENUE BUDGET 2011/12

RESOURCES

Activity

Virement

Inflation

Other

Outturn Budget 2010/11

Corporate Management and Strategy Members Allowances

Variations

£000 5,263

£000

£000 67

1

Budget 2011/12

£000 (608)

£000 4,723

0

1,442

0

428

1,414

28

Financing Transactions and General Expenses

429

0

Discretionary Rate Relief

216

0

0

216

Empty / Miscellaneous Properties

128

0

193

321

Asbestos removal

505

0

0

505

22

0

0

22

760

2

0

762

2,513

153

(452)

2,214

(1,421)

(1,421)

(1,873)

793

GIS Infrastructure Costs Coroner Sub-total

(1)

0

Proposed net reductions, subject to approval by the City Council Directorate Total

2,513

8

153

0


REVENUE BUDGET 2011/12 Activity

TRANSFORMATION Base Budget 2010/11

Inflation

Virement

Other

Variations

£000

£000

£000

0

0 19 0 19 (19) 0 0

66 495 0 561 (495) (47) 19

4 187 6 (156) 41 (197) 0 (156)

179 7,601 201 5,857 13,838 (7,906) (2,293) 3,639

1 24 0

0 (108) 0

122 4,881 542

2,404 7,599 6,519 3,190 9,554 34,894 (32,223) (2,721) (50)

21 50 15 49 0 160 (63) 0 97

(43) 44 0 8 399 300 (43) 0 257

2,382 7,763 6,534 3,247 10,028 35,499 (32,329) (2,721) 449

87 94 502 630 1,327 151 15,329 18,120 (18,408) (288)

1 0 3 3 7 1 146 161 (161) 0

0

102 (1) 17 (2) (3) (1) (26) 86 (86) 0

190 93 522 631 1,331 151 15,449 18,367 (18,655) (288)

118 745 325 (40) 1,148

1 4 2 0 7

0

0 2 (17) 0 (15)

119 751 310 (40) 1,140

208 690 898

0 5 5

(145) (145)

0 5 5

208 555 763

Corporate Management and Strategy

1,555

273

552

2,380

Sub-total before transfer from reserves

7,055

404

0

643

8,102

Transferred from reserves to fund Transforming Bristol Portfolio to fund Director of Transformation to fund ERP Procurement Programme Sub-total

(362) (19) (208) 6,466

0

0 0 0 643

(362) (19) (208) 7,513

(2,294)

(2,294)

(1,651)

5,219

Director of Transformation Director of Transformation Organisational Development Hr & Tu Support Less recharged to other Services and Departments Other income Integrated Customer Services ICS Service Directors Office ICS Customer Service Insight & Design Local Tax Less recharged to other Services and Departments Other Income Shared Transactional Services STS Director Shared Transactional Service Centre (HR) Shared Transactional Service Centre (Agency) Shared Transactional Service Centre (Finance) Facilities Management Fleet Cleaning Admin Buildings Less recharged to other Services and Departments Other Income

Information & Communication Technology I&CT Management Supplier Management Major Projects team Enterprise Architecture Information Management Business Partnership I&CT Service Delivery Less recharged to other Services and Departments Transforming Bristol Portfolio TBP Service Director Centre of Excellence Business Process reengineering Less recharged to other Services and Departments

Programmes ERP Procurement Programme New Ways of Working

£000

£000

66 474 0 540 (474) (47) 19

0 2 0 2 (2) 0 0

174 7,373 194 5,990 13,731 (7,665) (2,293) 3,773

1 41 1 23 66 (44) 0 22

121 4,965 542

Budget 2011/12

404

0

0

0

70

75 145 0 145

0

Proposed net reductions, subject to approval by the City Council Directorate total

6,466

9

404

0


APPENDIX 2 Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: Children, Young People and Skills Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Education Strategy & Targeted Support Savings Remove Subsidy to services trading with schools. Increase income Tighter business approach to services with from schools through charging for non-statutory services no impact on quality

Net Budget 2010/11 ÂŁ000

Budget Proposals 2011/12 ÂŁ000

89

(139)

315

(70)

63

(63)

Reduce capital and facilities team to reflect completion of BSF None programme and reduction in capital programme. These are the two posts for which additional funding was provided in 2009/10 to support the primary review

548

(100)

Closure of the Student Finance Team following completion of the None transfer of responsibility for assessing eligibility for student loans to the Student Loan Company

248

(248)

Secure savings in 14-19 delivery, subject to review and consolidation of functions transferring from the LSC

None

Delete Business Partnership post

None- work to be undertaken by ABLAZE and others.

More efficient transport procurement and fewer pupils travelling. This is aligned to the changed methodology of funding schools for high incidence, low cost pupils with special educational needs without the requirement of a formal Statement

None

6,283

(260)

Bristol Youth Links review of in-house and commissioned services for young people

Funding for Connexions has already been reduced because of the DfE decision to cut the Area Based Grant. We will minimise the impact on vulnerable children.

4,557

(234)

Total Savings Performance, Policy & Partnerships Savings Cease further elements of early intervention work

(1,114)

It is expected that savings will be delivered through more effectiveness following completion of the review and with the potential removal of ring- fencing on some grants

2,389

Total Savings

(275)

(275)

Safeguarding & Specialist Services Growth Increase in placements budget for children in care placed with independent fostering agencies to reflect existing cost pressures

1,700

Total Growth

1,700

Savings Realign Welfare Service to focus on core statutory functions. Offer other activities as a traded service to schools

Schools will have more responsibility for managing attendance

722

(100)

Reduction in management posts

No impact on front-line services

600

(130)

Further reduce unit costs of children in care and SEN Placements through strengthened commissioning arrangements

Improved value for money

8,554

(500)

1


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: Children, Young People and Skills Proposed Change

Invest to save - Growth of in-house fostering services to reduce use of external placements. For 2011/12 this is net of savings from increased use of in-housed foster carers - Reduce numbers of children in care by sustaining current investment in children on the edge of care

Service Delivery Implications

The average annual saving by using inhouse rather than independent fostering is £25k per place

Net Budget 2010/11 £000

Budget Proposals 2011/12 £000

7,100

(500)

(500)

Community Care Team Disabled Children - funding being provided Personal choice giving rise to increased through Early Intervention Grant for realigned service number of direct payments

(100)

Carers Grant - reduction of funding due to mainstreaming of activity

(80)

Safeguarding in Schools - funding for post from general fund to be ended - to be included for consideration of funding from DSG

(30)

Reductions in payments to external projects

(110)

Total Savings Learning, Achievement & Schools Savings Use of the Dedicated Schools Grant Transfer costs of 1 fte Improvement Officer to the 'School Improvement Fund'

(2,050)

No impact on service delivery but reduces funds available to allocate to schools

Transfer grants to BME Voluntary organisations to budget to raise BME attainment. The Schools Forum agreed to contribute £450k from the DSG for 'Supplementary Schools' in order to raise BME attainment

720

(65)

50

(50)

Secure efficiency savings in central DSG funded services in light of the revised role of the LA with schools outlined in the recent White Paper and the ensuing reduction in funding from central government. Switch essential posts to the DSG with Schools Forum approval.

From April 2011 the LA has a reduced role to support schools to raise attainment. On 8th February the Schools Forum will be consulted about funding posts deemed essential through the DSG.

Reduce the Educational Psychology Team to reflect the reduced workload arising from the revised methodology of delegating SEN funding to schools without the need for a statement

None

560

(60)

Delete Inclusion Officer post

None

90

(45)

33

(33)

Complete cessation of Primary and Secondary National Strategies DfE policy decision support team

(200)

Total Savings

(453)

General Savings Review of CYPS-wide policy / performance / project / development Service efficiencies in light of government and commissioning posts policy decisions. Service alignment of Behaviour Services to eliminate duplication

Additional Savings through the admin review

(100)

1,190

None

(60)

(125)

2


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: Children, Young People and Skills Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Strategic reassessment of requirements of CYPS ('Making the Changes' programme) in light of legislative and national policy changes to role of LA. This includes the expectation that schools take greater responsibility for school improvement. Savings predominantly achieved through reductions and efficiencies in strategic, commissioning and back-office functions.

Improved efficiency of customer contact; may be some impact on discretionary service delivery.

Net Budget 2010/11 ÂŁ000

(602)

Reduction in management costs through 'Making the Changes' programme. Part-year effect from 2011 Severance Budget for School Staff. Reduced cost due to a policy change some years ago.

Budget Proposals 2011/12 ÂŁ000

(150)

None

4,964

Commissioning and procurement savings

(250)

(210)

Total Savings

(1,497)

Remaining budget for services not identified above

42,118

DIRECTORATE TOTAL

81,193

3

(3,689)


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: City Development Proposed Change

Planning & Sustainable Development Rationalise non statutory functions

Savings on consumable expenditure Sub-Total

Service Delivery Implications

None

Rationalise non-statutory Traffic and Highways

Re-organised Traffic and Highway services to better focus on the Neighbourhoods agenda. Procure new integrated Passenger Transport contracts from September 2011

Highways maintenance service Savings on supplies expenditure Sub-Total

Economic & Cultural Development Reduction in arts provider project support grant Rationalise in-house Arts, Festivals and Events team Library Service Review

Library Book Fund Rationalise Economic Development and Regeneration Team

Trusts and commercialising Culture (non-staff saving)

Savings on procurement Sub-Total

Major Projects Market Testing Building Practice and part of Docks

Savings on consumable expenditure West of England links (cross - directorate) Sub-Total Business Support Merger of business support function

(230)

None

Transfer of Parking Services / Concessionary Fares transactional activities to Call Centre

Street lighting energy

Budget Proposals 2011/12 ÂŁ000

2,574 Refocused activity in city design, sustainable city and strategic planning, taking full advantage of neighbourhood planning and local conservation activity and undertaking work through partnerships.

Transport Review of Parking Strategy, charges and exploitation of new None - Improved enforcement e.g. bus technology lanes Market Testing Parking Enforcement and Engineering Consultancy None - Reduced costs in line with benchmark providers, quality maintained.

Rationalise non-statutory passenger transport contracts and negotiate improved deals for users

Net Budget 2010/11 ÂŁ000

2,574

(20) (250)

8,856 (3,707)

(400) (150)

(75)

Taking advantage of street lighting dimming and other lighting efficiencies where appropriate Re-prioritisation of medium term repairs.

(100)

11,491

(600)

1,570

(60)

2,473

(200)

20,683

(140) (1,725)

None

5,525 Concentration on Arts support through Key Arts Providers Move to fully commissioned approach to Arts, Festivals and Events Alternative provision including the introduction of self service and shared utilisation of premises together with more flexible working. Review replacement strategy. Re-prioritisation and focussing of Economic Development and Regeneration Services in the context of the new Futures group and Local Enterprise Partnership

(80) 622

(235)

6,196

(200)

700 2,335

(90) (300)

Take advantage of Trust opportunities at Colston Hall and a more commercial approach to asset leasing and on-site opportunities (eg catering) None

None - reduced costs in line with benchmark providers, quality maintained.

(200)

15,378

(150) (1,255)

213 1,142

(150)

1,355

(40) (100) (290)

475

(55)

None None

None 4


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: City Development Proposed Change

Other Legacy Partnerships, procurement and commissioning savings

Service Delivery Implications

New activity building on strengths of initial 3 year project. Review of commissioned activity leading to focus on key outcomes.

Sub-Total Remaining budget for services not identified above

Net Budget 2010/11 ÂŁ000

Budget Proposals 2011/12 ÂŁ000

259

(120)

381

(110)

640

(230)

7,784

DIRECTORATE TOTAL

48,889

5

(3,805)


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: Corporate Services Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Transformation Savings Shared Transactional Services - Facilities Management (Internal Service). Reductions in Cleaning, Security (primarily non public access buildings), Print and Mail Services service levels.

Council services will have to adapt to a consistent standard of support services. E.g. clean offices to a basic standard

Shared Transactional Services Programme - Phase 1: Facilities Management Efficiencies. Implementation of previously agreed actions Shared Transactional Services Programme - Phase 1: HR efficiencies. Implementation of previously agreed actions STS Finance - Savings arising from a review of payments processing team following transfer from H&SC Shared Transactional Services Programme - Phase 1: Finance and Procurement Efficiencies. Full year effect of efficiency savings made in 2010/11 Full year impact of STS savings ICT savings as a result of planned investment and efficiency savings.

New ways of internal working. No implication for services to the public New ways of internal working. No implication for services to the public New ways of internal working. No implication for services to the public

Reduction in Commissioning and Procurement costs

No impact, efficiency savings

Recharges to other directorates/budgets for which no proposals identified

(800)

4,939

(60) (50)

2,426

(85)

(90) (1,000)

(110)

(69) (16,008)

DIRECTORATE TOTAL

Legal, Democratic and Statutory Services - Admin Review and improved case management Reduce cost of supporting democracy - staffing reduction

Budget Proposals 2011/12 ÂŁ000

(30)

None None

More efficient method of processing payments.

Property - Reduction in staffing

17,067

New ways of internal working. No implication for services to the public

New Procurement system savings

Resources Savings Finance and Performance - reduction in staffing Internal Audit - reduction in staffing

Net Budget 2010/11 ÂŁ000

8,424

(2,294)

No impact, efficiency savings Reassessment of audit plan to increase focus of work on priority areas Team reorganisation, efficiency savings

6,469 1,772

(380) (145)

2,802

(295)

Less use made of legal services in future

6,133

(220)

572

(50)

May need to be a decrease in support provided to some informal internal meetings

Procurement - reduction in staffing Strategic HR - reduction in staffing

No impact, efficiency savings No impact, efficiency savings

(70) (80)

Reduced external audit fee

No impact

(100)

Corporate commissioning and procurement

No impact, efficiency savings

(140)

Senior Management Restructuring - Workforce Strategy

No impact, efficiency savings

(116)

Recharges to other directorates/budgets for which no proposals identified

Will improve elections pr

(14,649)

Total savings Growth Legal growth to improve quality of elections following elections improvements project

(1,596)

Will improve elections process

175

Total Growth

175

DIRECTORATE TOTAL

3,099

6

(1,421)


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: Corporate Services Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Net Budget 2010/11 £000

Budget Proposals 2011/12 £000

Deputy Chief Executive Communications Efficiencies in production of Our City (Budget £140k for 4 issues)

Increased income from design Reduction in marketing materials spend Reduction in Staffing and operational efficiencies in Communications and Marketing. Strategy and Performance Reduce Staffing Make your Mark Reduced staffing in consultation Service restructure Scrutiny / Policy / Performance Reduced contribution to Bristol Partnership Review of Civil Protection

2,942 Will publish 4 editions a year. Savings will be found through efficiencies in print and distribution contracts Income generated from selling internal expertise to external bodies Cutting use of 'glossy' publications No impact, efficiency savings

(20)

(20) (20) (175)

3,219 None None None None, agreed with partners None

(65) (25) (145) (75) (40)

Council-wide Learning and Development

Standardisation and removal of duplication, together with new training options. This will involve bringing together the Organisational Development and Learning & Development teams, centralising directorate budgets to deliver savings.

(245)

Review structure of Centre of Excellence and NWOW teams Senior Management Restructuring and reduced DCX salary Corporate commissioning and procurement

None

(115) (124) (91)

No impact, efficiency savings

Recharges to other directorates/budgets for which no proposals identified

(372)

DIRECTORATE TOTAL

5,789

(1,160)

17,312

(4,875)

TOTAL CORPORATE SERVICES

7


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: Health and Social Care Proposed Change

Savings Review of high cost personal care packages

Reduction in number of care home admissions Improved strategic commissioning of block contracts and supporting people

Service Delivery Implications

Services may be reprovided in alternative / more personalised ways or in the same way at less cost More people helped to live in the community Strengthening of commissioning competencies in directorate and establishing a joint procurement unit with the Resources Directorate

Contractual efficiency More effective contract management. Use of telecare / assistive technology / prevention early intervention More people helped to live at home, using assistive technology, to deliver more cost effective packages of care Resource Allocation System Increased number of self directed support packages, replacing traditional service delivery at reduced cost Voluntary sector In partnership with the voluntary sector identify efficiency savings

Net Budget 2010/11 ÂŁ000

Budget Proposals 2011/12 ÂŁ000

27,263

(1,500)

38,232

(1,000)

27,344

(1,500)

(500) (400)

(800)

4,798

(240)

Through in year efficiency: reducing use of agency staff, reduce rates of sickness absence, review and reduce management overheads. In year efficiencies as for residential care, above.

12,486

(350)

5,447

(520)

- day care

Improved efficiency in day care (Learning Difficulties) and promote person centred care arrangements

3,984

(350)

-staffing review

Reduction in agency, review staff numbers, skills mix, back office.

28,986

(390)

Reduction in management and supervisory posts across the directorate

Leaner business processes and merging of lines of accountability

3,672

(360)

Charging

Charging policy currently subject to consultation, decision to be taken by Cabinet Nov 2010.

(18,579)

(450)

In house efficiency savings - residential care

- domiciliary care

Realignment of HSC budgets (to fund direct payments, accommodation based support and day care, see below)

(1,600)

Other budgets for which no proposals identified

19,544

Total Savings

(9,960)

Growth Supporting People - continuation of contractual commitments, funded by transfer from reserves Direct payments, accommodation based support and day care

1,000

1,600

To fund existing packages of care

Total Growth

2,600

DIRECTORATE TOTAL

153,177

8

(7,360)


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: Neighbourhoods Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Net Budget 2010/11 ÂŁ000

Budget Proposals 2011/12 ÂŁ000

Environment and Leisure Waste collection and street cleansing from new contract - first savings Waste Disposal savings from closure of transfer station at St Phillips Sports contract extension plus increasing income and re-organising sports. Review staffing and Improve facilities at crematorium and cemeteries. Review and redesign scientific services, including opportunities to increase income Reduce management costs across services

Reduce client contract monitoring team

Pest Control: charge all private landlords

Pest Control increase charges across the board Reduce non-essential pest control work whilst maintaining our public health focus e.g. Rats

Review and restructure the Food Safety Service

Procurement contract for new waste collection and street cleansing services starting November 2011 Waste will be taken directly to Avonmouth so use of Transfer Station not required.

17,424

(400)

1,365

(100)

Renegotiate the contract to deliver greater efficiency and economy. Enhanced services could generate additional income e.g. flowers. Our intention is to ensure the service becomes cost neutral whilst maintaining service quality. Management restructure. Minimal service delivery implications as most of the savings will come from vacant posts not being filled.

3,531

(75)

(645)

(150)

199

(200)

1,100

(250)

Service to be reviewed to look at most cost effective method of delivering, utilising our developing neighbourhood working approach. Charge landlords for Public Health work. Charging to be trialled before introduction

610

(100)

650

(30)

Will be managed through the review of Fees and Charges for 2011/12. Work for Public Health (including rat treatment, rivers etc.) to be protected but reduce the low level of pest work e.g.ants which can be provided by private sector.

(18) (66)

Reduction in out of hours rota and overtime budget alongside reduction in 2.4 staff. Service will continue to focus on areas of greatest risk with a lesser focus on low risk category inspections.

662

(130)

Reduce Council's contribution to partnership funding of PCSOs

Original establishment was 132 across Bristol - funded by police and city council. Over last 12 months 7 of these posts have remained unfilled. We anticipate 2 additional vacancies by March 2011, which would also not be filled. 123 PCSOs would remain in post across the city, deployed in high crime areas.

1,082

(139)

Reduction in Safer Homes Service

Moving from a universal to a targeted service for the Safer Homes Service, based on need and vulnerability. We currently operate 8 "Safer Homes" vehicles. This will reduce to 4 during 2011/12. This will not impact on domestic violence or hate crime clients who remain a priority.

250

(150)

Reduce management costs by 20% across Safer Bristol service

By strengthening the dispersed model of management and support to neighbourhood areas the impact should be minimised to front line service delivery.

2,838

(422)

Reduce staffing costs in Community Safety

As one post is currently vacant the impact will be minimal. None. This is a vacant post and therefore will not add to the service implications. No impact on existing service No impact on existing service

290

(72)

102 570

(22) (32)

711

(20) (30)

Safer Bristol

0.6 fte reduction in admin posts 10% reduction in budget for Street Scene Reduce dog wardens by 0.5fte Reduce Trading Standards posts by 0.6 fte

9


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: Neighbourhoods Proposed Change

Recommissioning Hate Crime and Youth Inclusion Projects

Licensing team to be cost neutral through cost efficiencies Reduce repairs and maintenance budget for CCTV

Delete business continuity budget in Emergency control centre

Increase income from CCTV services Delete budget for CCTV consultants

Service Delivery Implications

The recommissioning process will ensure a clearer remit for service delivery against these strategies. None. No significant implications on service delivery. The 20k is less than 10% of the overall budget. We are now working with neighbouring authorities to achieve savings without loss of service None. None.

Net Budget 2010/11 ÂŁ000

Budget Proposals 2011/12 ÂŁ000

473

(49)

300 209

(100) (20)

10

(10)

5

(44) (5)

993

(100)

402

(18)

Neighbourhoods and Communities Delete 3 Community Development worker posts

Deaf Equality post moves to part time Delete Equality Officer posts

Delete outstanding DDA budget as specific project completed. Reduce grant funding to voluntary and community sector

Reduce small grant funding and administration overheads Reduce costs of translating and interpreting service Delete Positive action budget Reduce Equalities Initiatives budget York Court Responsive Repairs (moving out in 11/12)

This reduces the size of the team which has been refocused to deliver at a neighbourhood level. This will reduce capacity to work with this community Reduction in staffing will necessitate a reprioritisation of work to ensure that the Council meets its statutory Corporate Equalities duty Capital project completed so staffing to support no longer required Funding to VCS remains a priority. Reductions in 11/12 are limited to 1-year funded groups that end in 10/11 and a 7% reduction (78K) to groups on 3-year funding that ends in 11/12. Cessation of small grants and the cost of third party administration Removal of existing budget subsidy. The service is aiming to be self-funded. None - this work is now covered through other budgets. None - this work is now covered through other budgets. None. This is a repairs budget no longer required as we are vacating the building.

(70)

81

(18)

2,474

(263)

100

(100)

50

(50)

100

(45)

20

(20)

13

(13)

Strategic Housing Reduce Tenant Support Service budget by 20% Reduce size of private sector team by ending fixed term contracts

Fewer tenants would be supported, or support periods reduced. Would reduce team by 9 staff. Reduced level of service (ie. we will not respond unless there is a serious housing or public health issue). An example will be that we will not deal with overgrown gardens. In addition, all drainage action will cease to be BCC responsibility (transferring to Wessex Water during 2011/12)

Initial reduction to size of Enabling team

Reduced capacity to deliver affordable housing schemes if there is market upturn.

Cut number of homelessness officers - increase focus on advice and prevention

Emphasis has already shifted towards housing advice and homelessness prevention. Linked to cessation of B&B use in Homelessness. No significant service implications likely.

Cut 2 FTE from single point of access team

10

(75) 2,571

(261)

702

(42)

1,007

(90)

357

(50)


Budget Proposals 2011/12 Name of directorate: Neighbourhoods Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Delete 0.5 post vacancy in private renting team Reduce 2.5 posts in Rehousing team

None. Little impact on processing times for applications to the Register as on-line forms and reduced evidence requirements mean the process is more efficient.

Reduction in staff training costs in private housing

Potential risks of professional Environmental Health staff not retaining accreditation. No impact to service users.

Remove budget for restructure costs in Home Choice Bristol

No Service Delivery Implications.

Centralise and reduce policy functions (1 post)

Delete 1 FTE vacancy in Housing Commissioning/

Performance

On Going Reductions - Non-staff Related Gypsy and Travellers site self funding - increase in rent levels

Local scanning for Rehousing team Stop using Bed and Breakfast for homeless cases Reduce legal costs in gypsy and travellers budget Reduction in repair provision - Lipscombe House

Reduce removal and storage budget in homelessness

Net Budget 2010/11 ÂŁ000

Budget Proposals 2011/12 ÂŁ000

751 258

(18) (60)

3

(3)

56

(56)

Reduces capacity to deliver affordable housing

212

(50)

Reduces capacity to undertake commissioning/performance monitoring of Housing Strategy

258

(32)

There are twelve pitches (households) that would be affected and the rent will be revised as part of the Fees and Charges exercise for 2011/12. Service will improve for clients as scanning is done more quickly. Planned to be achieved by end of 10/11. Slight risk if legal action should arise. Lipscombe House will be vacated in 2011. No duplication of savings with Corporate accommodation proposals. No Service Delivery Implications. This can be achieved due to the planned cessation of B&B use.

204

(7)

38

(38)

100 20 18

(100) (16) (18)

20

(20)

Other Commissioning and procurement

(610)

Other budgets for which no savings identified

24,205

Customer Support

4,801

DIRECTORATE TOTAL

71,550

11

(4,877)


APPENDIX 3

Savings Proposals 2011/12 - compared to original proposals Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Previous £000

Revised £000

Change £000

(89)

(139)

(50)

(50)

(100)

(50)

(33) (975)

(234)

33 741

1,700

1,700

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(500)

(250)

(100)

(100)

Children, Young People and Skills Education Strategy & Targeted Support Savings Remove Subsidy to services trading with schools. Increase income from schools through charging for non-statutory services Reduce capital and facilities team to reflect completion of BSF programme and reduction in capital programme. These are the two posts for which additional funding was provided in 2009/10 to support the primary review Complete cessation of Extended Schools Start up Team Bristol Youth Links review of in-house and commissioned services for young people

Safeguarding & Specialist Services Growth Increase in placements budget for children in care placed with independent fostering agencies to reflect existing cost pressures Savings Further reduce unit costs of children in care and SEN Placements through strengthened commissioning arrangements

Tighter business approach to services with no impact on quality None

Extended services now established in schools Funding for Connexions has already been reduced because of the DfE decision to cut the Area Based Grant. We will minimise the impact on vulnerable children.

Improved value for money

Invest to save - Growth of in-house fostering services to reduce use of external The average annual saving by using in-house placements. For 2011/12 this is net of savings from increased use of rather than independent fostering is £25k per in-housed foster carers place - Reduce numbers of children in care by sustaining current investment in children on the edge of care Community Care Team Disabled Children - funding being provided through Early Intervention Grant for realigned service

Personal choice giving rise to increased number of direct payments

1

(250)


Savings Proposals 2011/12 - compared to original proposals Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Previous £000

Carers Grant - reduction of funding due to mainstreaming of activity

Safeguarding in schools - funding for post from general fund to be ended - to be included for consideration of funding from DSG

Reductions in payments to external projects Learning, Achievement & Schools Savings Reduce central support for school improvement in the light of the expected revised role of local authorities. The Government will be publishing a White Paper later in the year Use of the Dedicated Schools Grant Transfer costs of 1 fte Improvement Officer to the 'School Improvement Fund'

This is linked to the possible change in number, and the methodology of funding academies

(150)

No impact on service delivery but reduces funds available to allocate to schools

(115)

Strategic reassessment of requirements of CYPS ('Making the Changes' programme) in light of legislative and national policy changes to role of LA. This includes the expectation that schools take greater responsibility for school improvement. Savings predominantly achieved through reductions and efficiencies in strategic, commissioning and back-office functions.

Improved efficiency of customer contact; may be some impact on discretionary service delivery.

2

Change £000 (80)

(30)

(30)

(110)

(110)

150

(65)

50

(50)

(50)

(70)

(100)

(30)

(52)

(602)

(550)

Transfer grants to BME Voluntary organisations to budget to raise BME attainment. The Schools Forum agreed to contribute £450k from the DSG for 'Supplementary Schools' in order to raise BME attainment General Savings Review of CYPS-wide policy / performance / project / development Service efficiencies in light of government policy decisions. and commissioning posts

Revised £000 (80)


Savings Proposals 2011/12 - compared to original proposals Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Reduction in management costs through 'Making the Changes' programme. Part-year effect from 2011. Commissioning and procurement savings DIRECTORATE TOTAL

3

Previous £000

Revised £000 (150)

Change £000 (150)

-210

(210)

(1,560)

14


Savings Proposals 2011/12 - compared to original proposals Proposed Change

Previous £000

Revised £000

Change £000

None - Reduced costs in line with benchmark providers, quality maintained. Re-prioritisation of medium term repairs

(100)

(150)

(50)

(200)

(200)

Move to fully commissioned approach to Arts, Festivals and Events Review replacement strategy Re-prioritisation and focussing of Economic Development and Regeneration Services in the context of the new Futures group and Local Enterprise Partnership

(150)

(235)

(85)

(150)

(90) (300)

(90) (150)

(100)

(150)

(50)

(55)

(55)

(120)

(120)

(110)

(110)

(1,410)

(910)

Service Delivery Implications

City Development Planning & Sustainable Development Transport Market Testing Parking Enforcement and Engineering Consultancy Highways maintenance service Economic & Cultural Development Rationalise in-house Arts, Festivals and Events team Library Book Fund Rationalise Economic Development and Regeneration Team

Major Projects Market Testing Building Practice and part of Docks Business Support Merger of business support function Other Legacy Partnerships, procurement and commissioning savings

None - reduced costs in line with benchmark providers, quality maintained. None New activity building on strengths of intial 3 year project Review of commissioned activity leading to focus on key outcomes

DIRECTORATE TOTAL

4


Savings Proposals 2011/12 - compared to original proposals Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Previous £000

Revised £000

Change £000

(50)

(50)

(1,000)

(1,000)

(69)

(69)

(380) (295)

(80) (95)

(70) (80) (100) (140)

(70) (80) (100) (140)

175

175

Corporate Services Savings STS Finance - Savings arising from a review of payments processing team following transfer from H&SC ICT savings as a result of planned investment and efficency savings. Reduction in Commissioning and Procurement costs Resources Savings Finance and Performance - reduction in staffing Property - Reduction in staffing Procurement - reduction in staffing Strategic HR - reduction in staffing Reduced external audit fee Corporate commissioning and procurement Growth Legal growth to improve quality of elections following elections improvements project Savings Reduction in staffing and operational efficiencies in Commuinications and Marketing Reduce Staffing Make your Mark Service restructure Scrutiny / Policy / Performance Reduced contribution to Bristol Partnership Review of Civil Protection Review structure of Centre of Excellence and NWOW teams Corporate commissioning and procurement DIRECTORATE TOTAL

New ways of internal working. No implication for services to the public None No impact, efficiency savings

No impact, efficiency savings Team reorganisation, efficiency savings

(300) (200)

No impact, efficiency savings No impact, efficiency savings No impact No impact, efficiency savings Will improve elections process

No impact, efficiency savings

(90)

(175)

(85)

None None None, agreed with partners None None No impact, efficiency savings

(35) (90)

(65) (145) (75) (40) (115) (91) (2,715)

(30) (55) (75) (40) (115) (91) (2,000)

5


Savings Proposals 2011/12 - compared to original proposals Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Previous ÂŁ000

Revised ÂŁ000

Change ÂŁ000

(1,000)

(1,500)

(500)

(400) (1,000)

(1,000) (1,500)

(600) (500)

(200)

(400)

(200)

(300)

(800)

(500)

(200)

(240)

(40)

(250)

(350)

(100)

(350)

(350)

(200)

(360)

(160)

(200)

(450)

(250)

(1,600)

(1,600)

Health and Social Care Review of high cost personal care packages

Services may be reprovided in alternative / more personalised ways or in the same way at less cost

Reduction in number of care home admissions More people helped to live in the community Improved strategic commissioning of block contracts and supporting Strengthening of commissioning competencies in people directorate and establishing a joint procurement unit with the Resources Directorate Use of telecare / assistive technology / prevention early intervention More people helped to live at home, using assistive technology, to deliver more cost effective packages of care Resource Allocation System Increased number of self directed support packages, replacing traditional service delivery at reduced cost Voluntary sector In partnership with the voluntary sector identify efficiency savings - residential care Through in year efficiency: reducing use of agency staff, reduce rates of sickness absence, review and reduce management overheads. - day care Improved efficiency in day care (Learning Difficulties) and promote person centred care arrangements Reduction in management and supervisory posts across the Leaner business processes and merging of lines directorate of accountability Charging Charging policy currently subject to consultation, decision to be taken by Cabinet Nov 2010. Realignment of HSC budgets (to fund direct payments, accommodation based support and day care, see below)

6


Savings Proposals 2011/12 - compared to original proposals Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Growth Supporting People - continuation of contractual commitments, funded by transfer from reserves Direct payments, accommodation based support and day care DIRECTORATE TOTAL

To fund existing packages of care

7

Previous £000

Revised £000

Change £000

1,000

1,000

1,600 (5,950)

1,600 (2,200)


Savings Proposals 2011/12 - compared to original proposals Proposed Change

Service Delivery Implications

Previous £000

Revised £000

Change £000

(400)

(400)

Neighbourhoods Environment and Leisure Waste collection and street cleansing from new contract - first savings

Procurement contract for new waste collection and street cleansing services starting November 2011.

Strategic Housing Reduce Welfare Rights and Money Advice Service budget by 20% Expert training service to support agencies would be reduced.

(84)

Cut 2 FTE from single point of access team

Linked to cessation of B&B use in Homelessness. No significant service implications likely.

(25)

(50)

(25)

Reduce 2.5 posts in Rehousing team

Little impact on processing times for applications to the Register as on-line forms and reduced evidence requirements mean the process is more efficient.

(33)

(60)

(27)

(50) (32)

(50) (32)

(610)

(610)

(1,202)

(1,060)

Total

(6,156)

Centralise and reduce policy functions (1 post) Delete 1 FTE vacancy in Housing Commissioning/

Performance

Reduces capacity to deliver affordable housing Reduces capacity to undertake commissioning/performance monitoring of Housing Strategy

Other Commissioning and procurement DIRECTORATE TOTAL

8

84


APPENDIX 4

We asked four questions: • • • •

Which services, if any, should we consider delivering at a reduced level or even ceasing altogether? Which services might be better provided by other bodies, such as the voluntary sector, or with others, such as the NHS or neighbouring councils? Do you have any other ideas based on your experience for service areas where we could further explore saving money? Are there any service areas from which we should aim to raise more income?

We also provided a huge amount of background information on our current spending, comparing the costs of key council services in Bristol to how much they cost in other similar council areas. Thousands of people have visited our website, and nearly 600 have responded with their own contributions, suggestions, and answers to these questions. Every comment was read and shown to the relevant Service Director. Many of the comments from the public were around similar themes – and the conversation really took off where people added their own thoughts to a suggestion or question that came from another resident. The comments largely fell into around 70 different themes which can be seen in the feedback reports. A selection of suggestions reflecting each of these themes were picked out and discussed at length by the City Council’s Cabinet and senior staff. These suggestions met with one or more criteria: • • • • • •

potentially creating savings with long term benefits not have an adverse impact on the most vulnerable members of society within the remit of Bristol City Council to change popular among other readers of the online discussion could improve health and well-being now and in the future were beneficial to the city’s sustainable and green agenda

A report for each service area shows these suggestions and the Council’s initial outline response which will be followed up by each service area. In most cases, we’ve identified at least some element of the original suggestion that we can usefully take forward.


Central Support Services - Feedback Themes Media, communications and design Strategy and Performance Finance, Internal Audit and Corporate Property Strategic Human Resources Corporate Procurement Elections, Democratic Costs and Scrutiny Local taxation Information and Communication Technology Transformation

Media, communications and design Idea: The city Council produces a great deal of high quality information for the public, other organisations and internal use. This should be reviewed for duplication and usefulness and make reductions. Production and printing of information could be shared with other organisations. Response: We do some of this already, and agree that we need to do even more of it. Idea: Communication needs to be maintained but suggest alternative route. Replace by 1 hour per month programme on local BBC - part magazine programme, part question and answer. BBC effectively forced into absorbing cost of production. Acts as useful democratic function like election/party political broadcasts. Better communication for most residents. Could be two way with residents asking councillors question. Could be particularly helpful as we go through big budget cuts and save existing costs and paper. Response: Really interesting idea – although we already work closely with the BBC over news and features, we think it unlikely that they would be prepared to offer us such a programme (at least, not at a rate that we could afford). Idea: Expand the use of pay slip to advertise or include the flyers. Increase these and charge more. Reaching 17,000 people direct has to be worth expanding exploring. Could save money by emailing all staff a PDF version of their payslips rather than printing and posting. Response: We do this already, but can always try harder to raise more money in this way. We are though keen to think about saving money by cutting out paper pay slips altogether for those staff to whom we can just email an electronic version instead.

Strategy and Performance Idea: Scrutinse exchange visits and ‘twinning’, and ensure these are privately funded. I would like to recommend cutting funding for all twinning associations. Response: We are indeed focusing our energy on twinning work that has a direct economic benefit for the city – such as bringing in extra money to Bristol from European Union grants.

1


Finance, Internal Audit and Corporate Property Idea: Stop giving public land away for free or next to nothing to developers who are already very wealthy so they can make more cash. Charge the full market value for land given to Bristol City Football Club in Ashton Vale and make sure the Council gets full market value for its 25% of Ashton Gate Stadium when and if it is sold on for development. The council (and so we the public) owns all the best access to the site, so do what anyone else would do and use this ransom strip to exact a significant % of the full development value. When the South West Regional Development Agency is abolished and the council gets its land assets, do not swap the virtually worthless green belt land in Ashton Vale for prime brown field development land at Temple Meads so you can build an Arena on the edge of town. Response: The proposed stadium development at Ashton Vale is a genuinely emotive topic. Our land swap deal, and our ‘planning gain’ arrangements with the developer give the city and the community a really good deal – both in community benefits for local people, and in contributing to a development that would bring with it important jobs and investment. Idea: Find ways to create additional income from publicly owned assets such as parks whilst maintaining them as free and high quality community facilities, for example getting rent from ice cream vans or mobile cafe’ units, getting rent for outdoor performances and plays, markets, pony rides. Why not have car boot sales on a large school fields or in part of a large parks during a weekend? Under the motorway bridge in Easton there is a weekly informal market, why not have more licenced fee earning markets on council land in all neighbourhoods across Bristol? Response: The Council is always looking at ways we can create additional income – we already do so for licensing a range of activities – but we can certainly look to see if we can do more. Idea: Enable successful parts of the council to set up as small businesses or community interest companies, so that they can generate income and cover their own costs. Response: This is an interesting idea – do you have any particular services in mind? Idea: No one puts thought into multi-use sites, why shouldn't the local police station also be the area housing office, the library, the pharmacist, a satellite office for mobile workers like Homecare, a hot desk, a meeting room, a paramedic stop. Think of the space Knowle West Health Park has and think what could be put in there. Response: We do already share some buildings – for example with NHS colleagues. We’re always keen to explore more such ideas – do you have any particular buildings or particular partners in common we could share them with? Idea: Close all area offices apart from Pheonix Court. BCC could provide at a much cheaper cost, a mobile area office, like the Banks do in rural area's, going to a different area on set days. Maybe this could be linked up or shared with another organisation like a bank or post office or BCC's own mobile libraries. Response: Interesting idea. We’ll continue to look at the best mix of buildings from which to provide services – though all the time encouraging everyone who is able to use ‘self service’ processes (like the internet), as this saves the tax payer lots of money, whilst allowing us to focus on providing face to face services to those who most need it. Idea: Selling some of the empty buildings either for office space or for redevelopment would also be beneficial to bringing in further revenue whist also reducing on-going costs.

2


Response: We agree. We’re already well on the way to reducing the amount of office space that we use, which is set to save us a very large sum of money.

Strategic Human Resources Idea: An efficient job shop run by the council would save the council a large sum of money, as well as being able to decide which temporary workers were worth keeping hold of and possibly employing on a permanent basis, instead of an outside agency making all the decisions, and earning all the money. Response: The reality is that the number of people the Council employs is set to shrink, so we are much doing less recruitment of new staff than we used to. As such, we don’t think that running a job shop would make economic sense. Idea: …wind-up the final salary pension scheme which I’m sure still exists & replace it

with a fully contributory stakeholder pension scheme. FS schemes haven’t existed in the private sector for ages now. Response: This is something that the Government is currently looking into in a review led by former cabinet minister John Hutton. We’re locked into a national scheme in this respect, but will wait anxiously to see the outcome of the Hutton review.

Corporate Procurement Idea: Conduct a thorough review of contractors used by BCC and monitor more closely the quality and value of their work. Response: We are indeed reviewing a range of existing contracts to squeeze better value for money from them. Idea: Practical step – look for best (and I mean best prices) in procurement e.g. laptops should not be costing more through IT procurement than popping down to the nearest high street supplier. I suggest a new policy that all council procurement arrangements include a “price match” clause, which states that if the same model or item can be found cheaper, then the council’s supplier should match it. Response: Although not necessarily that easy, this is an interesting idea that we will look into further.

Elections, Democratic Costs and Scrutiny Idea: Halve the number of councillors. Response: Actually, Bristol already has fewer councillors per hundred thousand residents than several other regional capital cities, including London. We think that the job done by Councillors is

3


too important to make harder for them by doubling their workload – especially when the cost of their allowances is already much lower than most permanent employees. Idea: Have elections for whole council every four years, thus reducing costs. Response: This is something that Councillors have debated within the last year, deciding in the end not to move to four-yearly elections. It would though save some money, so is something that the Council could look at again if there were widespread support for the idea.

Local taxation Idea: Small reduction in Council Tax for anyone with a deciduous tree above a certain age or height in their garden, or to restore unused hard-standing to grass/garden (This to encourage people to see themselves as custodians of the environment, in view of their public contribution: visual amenity with proven benefits to physical and mental health, wildlife, absorption of pollution and greenhouse gases. Response: Although we support the green intentions behind this suggestion – this would actually reduce our income, rather than save us money. (It is also not possible to do in the way that is suggested due to the way the law works around the Council Tax.) Sorry!

Information and Communication Technology Idea: Introduce new website ASAP with better self service options for all service areas to allow people to self serve rather than have to phone/visit. Response: We agree, and are already at an advanced stage of developing a new website. Idea: The Council needs to come to definitive decision regarding its ICT office suite software should it be Microsoft or Star? Only one other local authority in the south west uses star. Response: We’ve just decided the way forward on this very topic – saving money by buying a general license for Microsoft Office, but also showing our ongoing commitment to open source software by keeping a range of such systems too. Idea: The general use of Blackberries throughout the Council is not being fully utilised, for collaborative working, conference phone calls and calendar facility. Why are we not using the true capabilities of blackberry messenger, when the messenger was a corporate selling point is baffling? Response: Fair point – we’ll see if we can make more of the hardware we’ve purchased.

4


Transformation Idea: Speed-up the reduction in the number of properties the Council uses. Increase use of homeworking / hotdesking. All desks in the offices should be on a hot desk system and personal junk cleared off and only available on a desk booking system. Ensure everying is scanned or on computers one way or other so info can be accessed from any site you work from and increase home working or hot desking from site/location that is conveinient. Response: We’re well on the way to moving from 17 main office buildings to just 6 (including ‘hot desking’, home working, and greater use of new technology) – saving a huge amount of money on office costs. Idea: Create joint back-office functions (eg. call centres, council tax collecting, etc) with neighbouring authorities. Back office support such as HR and Payroll could be a joint function for all local services, inc Police, Fire and Rescue, BCCand NHS Bristol. Response: Good idea – certainly something we’ll continue to see if we can get others to join us in taking forward.

5


Children, Young People and Skills - Feedback Themes Safeguarding and looked after children Educational achievement and school improvement Post 16 education and training Safeguarding and looked after children Idea: I think the best way to improve children’s wellbeing is to proactively encourage parents to be directly and financially responsible for their childrens behaviour. Too much good work done in schools can be undone by an unsupportive home. Using this as a driver for change would, in my opinion, cause a systemeatic overhaul of CYPS’s. This will not offer savings in the short term, but it will increase the well being of future generations. Response: We strongly agree about the importance of a supportive home environment. The Council’s cabinet has requested a report on existing work and potential opportunities to take forward this agenda, building on a range of initiatives already in place – including an update on the existing ‘Think Family’ project.

Educational achievement and school improvement Idea: In primary schools, there are frequently qualified, experienced teaching support staff who know the children and the curriculum. Money (and disruption) would be saved by allowing these staff to take charge of the class, for a short time (no more than a few days), rather than bring in a supply teacher who does not know the children or where they are in their learning. Response: This suggestion is one which individual schools can consider, rather than being something for the Council to decide. You’re right to point out that teaching support staff already make a huge contribution in the classroom – though of course we still rightly rely heavily on good teachers, whose skill and knowledge of the curriculum is crucial.

Idea: I feel further fencing off of school playing fields as a waste of money. The £1,000,000 of BCC education money earmarked for fencing & other ‘improvements’ to Stoke Lodge parkland could be better spent on other capital projects in the education dept.(CYPS ). Schools such as Cotham and Brightstowe could share much underused facilities such as playing fields. Response: We are happy to reassure people, once again, that we will not be fencing off the Stoke Lodge playing fields and quash this rumour once and for all.

Idea: Our school buildings are severely under utilised. Our school has 3 substantial halls which are used occasionally for external clubs etc. These spaces should be used more extensively, raising funds for upkeep and maintenance. Breakfast & after school clubs could be more widely available at all state schools. Safe, affordable, reliable childcare and knowledge that your offspring still get a good breakfast to start the day of learning would send many parents to work feeling happier.

Response: There are already great examples where school buildings are made available for wider community use outside normal school hours, during holidays etc., and we will continue to encourage more such usage. The Council’s ability to influence Academy schools in this respect is however quite limited. 1


Post 16 education and training Idea: Concentrate available resources on the young and maximising apprenticeships and following the Evening Post initiative. We need a 1980s style Manpower Services Commission schemes for school and college leavers who can’t find jobs. Extend City’s excellent scheme for volunteers to help non-starters to read and write and learn their tables and and encourage other volunteering opportunities. Response: The Council has taken on apprentices for some time, and we will continue to strongly support this scheme. We also work with a range of other employers to support and encourage them to continue enhancing the apprentice opportunities across the city.

Idea: A scheme whereby Young people in Bristol can volunteer for jobs such as environmental clear ups in exchange for a weeks adventure holiday or similar. Not only does this provide a lesson in working for rewards, care and pride in our local environment and an opening for social cohesion but could provide that empowering landmark right of passage young people today are in need of. Response: People who take part in existing volunteering opportunities do a huge amount of good (either through their schools, or directly with groups like St John’s Ambulance, the Scouts and Guides etc.), and we strongly support more people taking part in such activities. We are currently developing a ‘green volunteers’ scheme – so keep an eye out for an announcement soon.

2


City Development - Feedback Themes:

Public transport and Park and Ride Parking Services Planning, sustainable development and major projects Highways, traffic and transport planning Cycling City Libraries, museums, galleries and archives Arts, festivals, events and Colston Hall Public transport and Park and Ride Idea: Reverse the decision to spend £170,000 on bendy bus planning – this cannot be justified when there is every indication that Government funding will not be forthcoming and that any expenditure such as this is at the Council’s (meaning Council Tax Payers) risk. Response: At this stage we still feel it is very important to keep pushing forward with our programme of crucial strategic transport schemes. There has been no indication from Government that they will not support the Rapid Transit proposals so far. Whilst there is a risk about funding, to abandon the scheme now would lose us £43m. By spending this money, the Council will be in the best possible position to proceed with any scheme if it passes the Government’s Spending Review. Idea: Re-negotiate the contract with First Bus. We need more buses and better fares. First and other public transport providers may be receiving far too much financial support from the council. With one hand they play you for more money by axing services and routes that they know you’ll support and keep open and on the other hand they submit annual records in profit as a group. First do nothing for Bristol but take away huge profits. Response: We are indeed renegotiating our various transport contracts, and are keen to push up the quality and reliability of services. Idea: Whilst generally not in favour of reversing privitisation, why doesn’t Bristol join together with neighbouring local authorities to create a transport operating company, run to cover costs only? BCC already subsidises some First services, and this would remove the ‘profit’ overhead that leaves our current fares so high and unattractive. Response: Nice idea but the capital investment needed makes this not viable. Idea: Introduce Oyster-like facilities for Public Transport in Bristol to ensure flexibility, fair pricing, efficient charging and to greatly reduce boarding times. Response: This is exactly our plan – thanks for your support and endorsement.

Parking Services Idea: I think there should be metered parking throughout the central area and stop free parking for commuters.

1


Response: We agree completely and have plans to fill in the gaps over the next few years in the centre, subject to local consultation of course. Idea: Resident parking with modest charges can provide a revenue directly and increase revenue from off street and on street parking. Response: We are just now introducing our very first Resident Parking Zone. Idea: As almost all shops are now open on Sundays & Bank Holidays why do you not charge for parking ? This seems like a relatively easy way to increase income. Response: The Cabinet have just endorsed such an approach.

Planning, sustainable development and major projects Idea: Save £4.8 million at a stroke by abandoning the Long Ashton to Temple Meads and City Centre Rapid Transit route. The route duplicates the Long Ashton Park & Ride bus route, and visitors to the city are already able to catch the 500 Harbour Link bus at Temple Meads, or a ferry, which will take them to the M-Shed (old Industrial Museum) and the ss Great Britain. Why on earth do we need this £48 million scheme? Response: The scheme does much more that this – it will provide the step-change in public transport quality and reliability that the area needs and will be the first stage in Bristol of a network to serve the West of England sub-region. The business case has demonstrated significant benefits and very good value for money. The contribution by the City Council of less that £4m will enable us to implement this major scheme. The BRT scheme is part of a planned city wide network of rapid transit routes which could transform the transport system in Bristol for the better. It will complement the bus network not duplicate it.

Highways, traffic and transport planning Idea: No more traffic lights at roundabouts. Response: We are keen to cut down on the number of sets of traffic lights where this can be done safely – and have already carried out a pilot exercise. We’ll be bringing forward further changes in this area – so again, watch this space. Idea: I think that a congestion charge would bust congestion, bring in revenue and make our city cleaner and healthier. Response: We think that a workplace parking levy is a more effective approach – where businesses are charged a levy for each parking space they hold within a defined area of the city centre – with the money reinvested in transport improvements, such as a transport smart-card. Idea: Dim street lighting at night, or switch every other one off. Response: We agree – and our budget includes modest such proposals, which we think we can make without sacrificing important safety considerations.

2


Idea: We make very little use of our docks and waterways for activities, public transport, permits, fees etc around dock activity and how we encourage business to join with us on that so we all benefit, clean up the waterways/ space we have maximising income. Response: We agree. Watch out for a pilot programme where we’ll be introducing an eco-friendly hydrogen powered ferry. Idea: Dangerous driving needs to be a “one-stop shop” solution for reporting an incident, where they don't have to decide which agency to contact - the web site handles this for them. If many people were using such a system, and drivers knew that too, it would improve driver behaviour. Incidents reported on the site can be forwarded to the Police. Response: We’re always interested in using new technology to cut down on bureaucracy. Please get in touch and tell us a bit more about your idea.

Cycling City Idea: The police and the council can work together to recruit as many cyclists as possible to become volunteer wardens. With up to 1000 volunteers (hopefully) this will mean the paths will be safer night and day, wardens will cycle together, people will see a visual sense of community spirit and in the long run this could save the council and the police both time and expense. Response: We’re very keen on promoting volunteering opportunities. Do get in touch so we can discuss this idea further.

Libraries, museums, galleries and archives Idea: Libraries could be distributed into smaller outlets, could run some basic internet connectivity and some courses and be staffed by volunteers. They could run from the back of a bus or in an empty shop or local shared space of any kind really. Response: this is a really interesting idea – we have already introduced a shared usage scheme at Lawrence Weston Library. We do want to maintain quality learning environments in our library facilites locally however. Idea: Open up Redcliffe Caves and the underground part of the city to visitors for a price. Response: Great idea – we’ll certainly explore taking it forward, as we have such a great hidden heritage. Idea: Suggestion to realize some assets and generated some funds. Museums: The cost of storage for artifacts, etc. is, naturally, on-going. Most of these items are never, or hardly ever, displayed. Why can they not be sold (like privatization), but with a provision that

3


should they be required for an exhibition or such like, they would have to be loaned to the Museum? The benefits being that the items would be admired and appreciated by others; a reduction in storage costs; and generating funds for the council. Response: This is a really interesting idea – and mirrors some of our own thinking. We suspect that this might be quite controversial though – and would be keen to know what other people think. Idea: End free use of the internet in libraries after one hour use per day. This approach is

already in place in Somerset. A charge of 50p per half hour use after the first hour seems reasonable. Response: This sounds quite fair and reasonable – though we’d be keen to make sure that we didn’t disadvantage people (for example, young people without computers at home needing access to do their homework). We’ll explore the idea further. Idea: I do wonder if organisations such as the National trust or English heritage might not take better care of buildings such as the Red Lodge, Blaise castle and the Georgian house. Response: We’ve already explored this idea, and whilst it didn’t prove attractive to either organisation, we’re still open minded to considering something similar. What is most important to us is not who runs these buildings, but who gives the best deal for the most visitors, whilst preserving these important parts of our local heritage. Idea: Cut the number of days each local library is open (apart from the central one) and

rotate the library staff between local libraries. You would then not need so many staff. Response: Libraries are a great resource, and we’re not at all keen on heavily reducing their opening hours. Instead, we’ll be bringing forward proposals to explore how we can save money in running them by the use of self service for example, and more streamlined management.

Arts, festivals, events and Colston Hall Idea: Bristol has a lot of free festivals all of varying sizes, and although i am wholeheartedly against charging for these events (look what that did for Ashton Court…) i do think giving festivalgoers the opportunity to donate towards running costs may help lighten the financial burden. St Pauls Carnival had almost 70,000 atendees- if even a fraction of this number had donated a few pounds it would add up quite quickly. Generating more of these sorts of events and finding a way of charging for them and generating an income via advertising is not only be beneficial in bringing people into the city but is helping businesses. Response: We agree – and are exploring how to bring in more income from the wonderful range of free festivals and events in the city. It’s worth mentioning though that many events, including St Paul’s Carnival, the International Balloon Fiesta, the Kite Festival, BrisFest etc. are not run by the Council (though we do run the Harbour Festival, the Bristol Do, and many others). Idea: Given the present Government’s belief in the private sector, I think it’s time to pass fiscal responsibility for luxuries like the World Cup etc to private companies. Meanwhile, instead of

4


gawping at matches on TV, maybe we’d all be better off if we used our parks and sporting facilities to actually go out and play. Response: We are very keen to gain even more private sector involvement and support for such initiatives. It is though also still the Council’s job to support initiatives like this which potentially bring in millions of pounds to the local economy. Idea: Stop any more prestige projects like the Colston Hall gold plated ticket office, unless fully funded by private money. Response: We’re always as keen as possible to raise money for such excellent schemes from elsewhere. Idea: Encourage the use of pavement art and involve Young People to express and have exhibitions of work on any concrete space that people could offer contributions that would enable that money to go into Children's Services (Youth Service). Response: Good idea – we’ll explore this further. Would you like to get in touch and help us?

5


Health and Social Care - Feedback Themes: Residential and nursing care Home care and Day care Supporting people Care management Public health

Residential and nursing care Idea: I strongly believe we should be using a ‘value’ system of commissioning for care – that is to say if we use a systems approach that looks at care within the context of people’s live (rather than a service that can be recommissioned at lower cost) the prevention savings will far outweigh any savings made through old fashioned outsourcing. We have to start taking the wider view of budgets – looking at things from a silo perspective will only cost more in the long run. Response: We agree – our approach is increasingly about seeking evidence based outcomes for our service users. Idea: There needs to be more money put in to check and regulate services like ‘Supported Living’ , and less money needs to be paid out to private providers. Supported living (instead of residential care) is pushed because it saves money for social services budgets. .However, the overall cost is very often higher, but because its being paid for out of different budgets everyone’s happier. But its all ultimately paid for by the tax payers! We need to join up the budgets and look at the real costs. Response: Fair point. We’re now getting more robust in the way we manage such contracts.

Home care and Day care Idea: Review of care packages could be a two/three monthly basis as people's situations change and they may not need to have as many visits from agencies. I work for the council and I see so many people who have had packages of care set up where they may have three/four visits per day but may only need one. If the people's needs were assessed by actually seeing what they can do, for example their own personal care or their own lunch, this would save a lot of money and also introduce jobs for people to assess and review there needs rather than just trusting what the people say. Also, an alternative such as a simple piece of equipment could help them become independent. There are thousands of people out there which are probably reviewed every six months or sometimes even a year which just isn't cost effective. Response: Absolutely – we’re now carrying out such reviews more frequently. Idea: Most OP in Bristol are owner -occupiers with little cash but substantial assets in their home. We will have to consider developing well -supervised equity release shemes to enable them to fund at least in part some of their personal support costs in later life. This is already being done in parts of Yorks and Humberside and on the South Coast, as well as in a special pilot being run by J

1


Rowntree Foundation. These schemes can offer funds not repayable until after death/ disposal, through a payment of original equity share equivalent. Response: We’re already exploring this idea as part of our charging review.

Supporting people Idea: Someone needs to be looking at the financial benefits of Supporting people funding and not just commissioning which is expensive and won't necessarily bring improvements in services. If you are happy with your current providers then the council should be doing all it can to protect services. Response: We agree – this does need reviewing, and we have this in hand.

Care management Idea: Some H&SC functions could be shared with WoE partners and NHS. I wonderd if you have looked at amalgamating BCC adult care with the NHS community care in an integrated care organisation? The evidence base for this type of horizontal integrated care organisation is developing e.g. Torbay with a single point of access where clients can reach their NHS community services or their social workers, and each client is case managed by primary + community + adult social care in a seamless organisation. Response: This is an interesting idea, which if our partners are willing to explore, we’ll be happy to take forward.

Public health Idea: For once have a real proactive strategy for happy/healthy workers to positively and not punitively reduce sickness absence that has a very real cost to the Council and potential huge savings. Response: This is a really important idea. We’re now trying a range of such initiatives amongst our own workforce.

2


Neighbourhoods - Feedback Themes Parks and sports Safer Bristol (including drug strategy, licensing and youth offending team) Waste collection and disposal Parks and sports Idea: Stop this insane plan to sell off 62 parks and open spaces to developers. Land values are low now and the developers will get this land for cheap. This is the worst time to sell. It will lose the council millions. Response: There is a full consultation process currently underway on the Parks and Green Spaces plan as part of a separate process. Idea: School playing fields - could they not be used as ‘recreation grounds’ used by local people of all ages and facilitated by play rangers, specialist sports coaches, fitness coaches, Tai chi practitioners, etc? Might the costs be offset by reduction in youth offending, obesity, diabetes, mental ill health and the benefits include cross-generational interaction and support, happy healthy people, community cohesion, etc, etc? Could playing fields be transferred as a community asset to local community enterprises which would find innovative ways of raising the money for maintenance and service provision from fee-paying activities (such as allotments round the edge, birthday parties, music festies, craft fairs) while still providing free access for many other regular activities and their participants, and the schools could become beneficiaries/partners – or they could set up a social enterprise and do it themselves? Response: Yes – a really interesting idea we could look at in connection with the individual schools. Do you have any particular playing fields in mind and any particular uses we could explore? Idea: Let people walk longer distances by reopening all public conveniences that have been shut in last 40 years; make them all free and open 24 hours. Response: Although a really interesting idea, this would cost us more money rather than save any. To address the same point, we’re interested in a scheme which encourages more shops, cafes and pubs with toilets to make these more available to the public who get ‘caught short’.

Safer Bristol (including drug strategy, licensing and youth offending team) Idea: Millions of pounds are spent throughout the year on binge drinkers at the weekends. The emergency services/hospitals/police and other professionals can become involved through people not taking responsabilty for their own actions. There could be a contribution from those who have required such services through being drunk and needed some form of intervention. This could prevent binge drinking and save a great deal of money if people knew there would be a charge for such services and maybe people would take such services more seriously.

1


Response: A really important point, thanks. The Government is exploring the idea of an industry levy, where pubs that seem to generate alcohol related problems are charged more for the cost of their impact.

Waste collection and disposal Idea: Ceasing to give out Bags for Food Bins – newspaper suffices. Response: We agree – people should just use newspaper, and are already cutting back on the bags we give out for these bins. Idea: Reuse is simply a matter of infrastructure. I should like to see an extension and replication of two very successful Bristol schemes: Scrapstore and Sofa Project. These two projects could be invited to a Partnership with BCC to take over an accessible building with parking space, where Bristol residents can bring stuff that is still fit for reuse. The abandoned warehouse on Gas Ferry Road, behind the SS Great Britain and overlooking the car parks seems an ideal venue for such an initiative. This would give Bristol residents a site where they can bring unwanted but reusable items and drop them off, to be refurbished, repaired and sold at a tiny profit at specific sites or perhaps at the warehouse itself. People on JSA or employment schemes might be sort it during the day, giving Trainees the opportunity to refurbish those items that can be and cannibalise those that can’t, learning how to fix things that are broken (a vanishing set of skills, in a throwaway society). What cannot be reused could then be sent off to Day’s Road or any other Recycling Centre, or even sold for scrap to help fund the Centre. Idea: When tenants leave a BCC property and leave reasonably good items behind, like cookers furniture etc. Any electrical items can be pat tested via BCC to make sure that it is safe to use. Why not sell them to new tenants that are starting out and need help at low cost. This money can be put back into the budget, I know it will not save millions but we can try and give it a go. Response: These are two really imaginative, positive ideas – thanks. We’ll certainly take them forward to see how we can make them come alive.

2


General Bristol City Council ideas - Feedback Themes Management BCC housekeeping Management Idea: Reduce pay of all council executives earning more than £50,000 by 25%. Reduce councillors’ expenses (pay) by 25%. Response: We’re awaiting the Hutton review into public sector pay in this area. In the meantime, we are cutting the number of the highest paid officers instead. The amount our Councillors receive in expenses is set at levels proposed by an independent commission. Idea: No outside Consultants should be used if we have the several tiers of Mangement. Surely you do not need both. Most consultants brought in by BCC have proved to be of little use or value and most only tell us what we already know. Who’d trust anything written by management consultants, they only promote their own agenda? Response: We have cut down the number of outside consultants dramatically, and will continue with this. Occasionally though it makes sense – when we need a particular expert skill – to hire someone just for a few days or weeks to do that job and then leave us, instead of hiring someone onto our permanent payroll we didn’t need most of the time.

BCC housekeeping Idea: Reuse/recycle office supplies and equipment. Use 'The Source' to provide lists of all office funriture and equipment that is not being used. Therefore if an office needs a new desk, and existing one not being used could be obtained without the need to buy new. Response: Good idea! We’re already running a scheme to give away old Council computers to local families who can’t afford a computer at home. Idea: Tap water to be available for all staff. Bottled water is an expensive luxury which we cannot afford, as well as being harmful to the environment. Response: Absolutely – we will do this wherever possible (i.e. where the plumbing allows). Idea: Cutting out events such as “The celebration of success event” would provide a saving. I’m sure many man hours are spent arranging and orchestrating this day/ event and others like it. Response: We think it’s important to continue to recognise excellence, dedication and commitment of our staff. We are though slashing the cost of such events this year by well over 50%. Idea: Council meetings are for business (or should be) rather than the pretext for a free feed, so you should aim only to refresh and sustain and have short meetings. Response: We agree, and will only provide modest food for particularly long meetings that carry on right through mealtimes.

1


APPENDIX 5

Revenue Budget 2010/11 - monitoring report 1. The latest projection for 2010/11, based on expenditure to the end of November, indicates that, overall, expenditure is now expected to be contained within available resources by the year end. A net overspend of £0.2m is forecast compared to a projected overspend of £1.1m at the half year stage, as previously reported to Cabinet. This is due to the latest forecast for HSC that indicates a breakeven position. Net Projection Directorate

Spending pressures

Budget Previous £m

CYPS

No change from the half year position. The main spending pressure remains in Safeguarding where the cost of commissioning placements is £1.6m above budget.

£m

Latest £m

81.0

1.3

1.3

48.4

(0.5)

(0.5)

5.8

(0.1)

(0.1)

Various projects continue to be actively pursued by the directorate which should further reduce the projected overspend. City Develop- No change from the half year ment position. Risk areas critical to delivering the budget continue to be income levels (development management and parking); pressures arising from variable patronage in concessionary fares and the financial consequences arising out of appeals against substantial planning applications. (est. £0.5m). These issues are being monitored closely. Deputy CX

Forecast unchanged underspend due to salary savings in Strategy and Performance.

O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Appendix5 Latest Monitor.odt

1


HSC

The current forecast now indicates a breakeven position. This is a significant improvement compared to the half year projection (ÂŁ1m).

153.2

1.0

-

The improvement is largely due to the rigorous application of containment measures set out in the directorate's action plan to reduce expenditure, which was introduced earlier in the year: this plan is being continuously monitored by the directorate leadership team. Neighbourhoods

The net position is broadly in line with that reported at the half year stage. A budget adjustment has been made in respect of the estimated increased costs associated with de-regulated tenancies in Housing Benefits this will enable reserves to be available in 2011/12 against further risks in this area.

74.7

0.2

0.3

Resources

Forecast underspend as reported at the half year stage: due largely to savings from staff vacancies and reduced general expenses, net of loss of income from land charges and commercial property and reduced rebate to Procurement on external agency staff.

2.5

(0.4)

(0.4)

Transformation

Unchanged: forecast underspend as a result of savings from staff vacancies (mainly in STS HR).

6.5

(0.6)

(0.6)

Capital financing

No change - projected savings in treasury management costs.

17.6

(0.5)

(0.5)

Contingency & provisions

1.8

-

Unallocated pensions, water levies

3.7

-

O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Appendix5 Latest Monitor.odt

2

-


Other budget Collection fund shortfall pressures Performance Reward Grant identified reduction LABGI Grant reduction Total Offset by

-

1.4

1.4

-

0.7

0.7

-

0.4

0.4

395.2

2.9

2.0

(1.8)

(1.8)

1.1

0.2

Saving in provision for pay award

Total projected net over/(under)spend

2. Maintenance of strict financial control over vacancies and discretionary spending over the remainder of the financial year is essential to ensure that, overall, spending is contained within budget. This will also mean continued monitoring of action plans to deliver identified savings in order to avoid unnecessary use of reserves and/or balances.

Peter Robinson Service Director, Finance

O:\FM\Papers 2011\Cabinet\27 January\Revenue Budget\Appendix5 Latest Monitor.odt

3


APPENDIX 6 CORE REVENUE GRANTS 2011/12

2011/12 £000

2010/11 £000

18,859

21,652

-

-

17,100

16,756

Not known

1,123

Council Tax Freeze Grant

4,524

-

Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Admin. Grant

4,357

4,655

17,271

17,271

235,700

234,600

1,265

956

299,076

297,013

Early Intervention Grant Public Health Grant – from 2013/14 Learning Disability and Health Reform Grant New Homes Bonus/Housing, Planning Delivery Grant

PFI Grant Dedicated Schools Grant (including Standards Fund) Preventing Homelessness

TOTAL

Excludes specific grants now rolled into Formula Grant


APPENDIX 7 BUDGET PROPOSALS 2011/12 – COMMENTS/ISSUES FROM EXTERNAL EQUALITY SHAREHOLDERS EVENT Central Directorates Question/Statement

Panel response

Clarify why I get the job vacancies bulletin because most jobs are internal

We are restricting advertising at the moment as we are reducing the size of staff. But it is demoralising for people to receive job adverts and not be able to apply. I will follow up If there is a transfer of service, staff may TUPE across. The rule depends on the individual facts of each case 7%

When a VCS provider is decommissioned, within that process if a new service provider is given the commission, will the staff from existing service provider be able to TUPE across What is the current representation of disabled staff?

There will be many cuts to services but investment in some areas. In the Leaders presentation she said there would have to be increased budgets, e.g. IT. It would be interesting to know where that funding will come from.

While looking at IT, take note of particularly needs of disabled groups.

1

Managing the budget means looking at all the budget, need to understand what is best for the Council generally. BCC must make sure the IT services are fit for purpose. Funding for council IT comes from Spend to Save initiatives. A business case brought forward, which shows saving if a piece of equipment or software is brought in. We borrow the money and pay for the infrastructure and pay back with the savings made. We get good rates, because we are considered safe, long term rate is about 5%.

Need further action? HR (Mark Williams) consider advertising external jobs only

Correction – the latest workforce data show 4.49% of employees are disabled (as at September 2010)


Very good website but not very accessible as it is difficult to navigate. I am told to download documents but I can’t find them. It would save time to send me the documents rather than me keep phoning up. Assume if people made redundant that they will be properly compensated. Would redundancy pay be better used to keep people in post. How thoroughly will you interrogate Equality info, regarding redundancies to ensure redundancies are not happening to just one group of people. Bear in mind difficulties disabled people will have in gaining new employment.

Fundamental aim to avoid redundancy, would rather spend money on keeping people employed. We are keeping an eye on equality impact. Assessing and producing reports on quarterly basis, which will show how many people leave, including redundancies. Do not wish to have an adverse effect on one particular group. We aim to keep a proportional mix of staff. As the positive action budget in equalities We are continuing to recruit has been cut, how will you continue to apprentices and this has undertake positive action. What is your been good in recruiting strategy on redundancies and the young BME people who are employment of young BME people and over 20% of our people from new communities? apprentices. Our training budget is being cuts but there is a need to manage training and recruitment. We do seek to avoid redundancies and have introduced a new voluntary redundancy policy. Extensive round of admin reviews has There are different hugely cut the number of jobs available. perspectives on how we Most of officers now having to do own can be more efficient. admin, which means the officers are Current technology means having to cover that work, and cover we are more self-managing redundancies and therefore have les in terms of admin. time to deliver services. We wouldn’t cut admin support if it would be less effective over all. ‘Lean, mean machine’ theory suggesting Yes cuts may have positive impact on services bit I not sure if there is much flab to get rid of in BCC. Will there be monitoring following these changes? Will you publish and appraisal of the total We have restructured our number of jobs lost and whether these management positions and are management or lower paid jobs? will show reductions. In two Have you considered capping manager’s years time, only 3 director-

2

Include evaluation in report to Strategic Equalities Group January 2011


wages? Compared to the VCS, salaries are high.

ates. Still proposals to review senior managers posts. We want to maximise Access to Work and ensure a balanced workforce

Some Deaf employees have heard rumours about reductions for access to work funding. There are a lot of concerns about any reduction in that. Digital inclusion work can be positive for Deaf people. We are concerned savings will mean more services delivered by telephone, the council needs to look at other options too like texting. We are worried that you are cutting the training budget at a time when the Government is changing many systems and staff will need more training.

We are trying to improve access to the council through a new website

The training budget is always prioritised to ensure staff can do their jobs well and health and social care and Children and young people and skills staff always have high needs regarding training which will continue to be met. Excellent challenge

We are glad to see equalities training will be priority. Important that not preaching to converted. Our customers tell us where services are poor and then we deliver training to those service areas. Priority is front line training.

What % of attendance of managers attending Managing Diversity training?

It is mandatory. Some managers have had emergencies and have been unable to attend, maybe some didn’t prioritise but we will ensure managers do attend. Difficult to answer as our processes are different from other organisations. We commission statutory services differently from other services. Services to be reviewed on a needs basis, not a matter of making cuts everywhere.

I am concerned about the lack of parity between how the council develops a business case for any decommissioning of services and the same care isn’t taken for decommissioning external organisations

Consider anticipatory impact of Government changes on training needs

Consider usage of VCS re training needs. Mark Williams agreed to meet Refugee Action

Review decommission ing process for external organisations to ensure evidence base is used.

Written submissions Impact suggestion to look into: impact of larger contracts/tenders rather than local specialised tenders. Larger groups make it harder for smaller groups to tender which causes the loss of local home grown knowledge and diversity offered by providers – Matt Albern – Salvation Army.

3


New proposals to include an increase in assistive technology for older and disabled people. Please refer to extensive assistive technology research and implementation undertaken by Bristol Care and Repair. Contact Lindsay.hay@bristolcareandrepair.org.uk tel 954 2222 from Catrin Collins City Development

Question/Statement

Panel response

Talking about sustainable development there seems to be a bit missing about encouraging local food sources. Reducing transport costs isn’t it wise to develop locally produced food.

Need to find enough open space and land for homes, new jobs, debate how to get right balance. Key decisions on open space are being made by council this side of Christmas. We are looking to see how the docks can be provided in the future and are doing soft market testing to find out. For example if run externally could they be run more efficiently. Benchmarking against what others can provide.

What is the West Of England Link and what is being done at the Docks which are inaccessible.

West of England is Bristol, Bath, North Somerset and South Glos – are there efficiencies to working across the 4 authorities. The project is multi-faceted. It is about the bus service as well. Will be discussed further in future. Access to vehicles is a minimum standard, customer care is a priority issue to us, will take away and look at. Definite issue for us. In terms of routes, we are looking at demands of routes, only referring to city council supported services, not commercial. Looking at filling in where there is a need. Majority of contracts are stand alone. Hoping going to be real interest particularly in park and ride

Review of community transport, does the service meet with equalities organisations? We are an inclusive org. How accessible are the new transport measures going to be for disabled and are there going to be equalities training?

Commercial routes operated by First are now letting contracts to competitors but commercial routes are already in place. How can you make savings? Commercial operators are at an advantage as they are set up for it, how can small operators compete? How going to find savings? The knock-on impact is it is almost impossible to cross city.

4

Need further action? Noted – no action required

Noted – no action required

Review customer care requirements in proposed contracts


and hope to drive down costs. We will discuss with shop mobility very soon.

Are all organisations under community transport being involved in stake holder consultations.

We didn’t know there will be a stakeholder event, DEF not included in it, don’t know anything about it. 25 plus groups in DEF, should be included. The contract with First bus declined to make sure First buses fully accessible when given chance. £600,000 reduction is a concern, Dial a Ride are one organisation which is under threat. How much of cut is being taken from concessionary fares pot. Concern about bus passes, it is hard to use across different providers - how will bus passes work. Dial a Ride is used by a lot of Deaf people, but not able to use after 5pm. Communication with drivers is difficult as a Deaf person, how can we make this easier? RNIB, vision impaired people very isolated, huge numbers depend on public transport. Usually bus companies don’t want to touch services needed because not financially viable, evening and weekend services are minimal. How will you engage with partially sighted/visually impaired people?

Savings are not coming from concessionary fares pot

Concessionary bus pass can be used on any buses. Dial a Ride not available after 5pm due to lack of funding.

Add to Equalities Impact Assessment.

Review consultation arrangements

We have been assured drivers are able to deal with disabled people

I have had a lot of difficulty getting around city on public transport, because drivers don’t use ramps etc. and exactly the same thing is happening with taxi’s. Still cannot get taxis very easily, when they arrive they are not equipped to take me. Is there any possibility that my bus pass will be cut. It would be appreciated by all equalities groups if you could possibly take advantage of review of procurement and look at all transport system.

Make appointment with shopmobility and other providers Review invitations to stakeholder groups and ensure disability organisations are included.

Review monitoring arrangements for contract

Bus pass regulations are a national decision.

The new contracts will include infrastructure to use new smart cards. Not necessarily will come through contract procurement, working with First group to ensure smart cards can be used.

Suggest smart cards be discussed at same time as new contracts.

5

Add to Equalities Impact Assessment.


Ensure Deaf people are consulted.

Street lighting, BCC looking to dim lighting, concerns about deaf people being out without street lighting, safety issues. Street lighting - the point about deaf concerns late at night, pavements are not well lit, there will be an issue.

Dimming will have effect on lighting in the streets, there may be certain times when people could feel vulnerable. Removal of dimming would be considered if in future residents feel it is not suitable for their road. Something that will have to be considered.

Dimming lights increases vulnerability equalities issue for women and older people may have a voluntary curfew imposed on them. Are you consulting closely with police where you will carry out dimming. You wouldn’t want burglaries to go up following dimming. Areas of high crime and fear of crime will be taken into consideration. Have you considered alternative energy costs – wind turbines

We will be liaising with the Safer City Team to identify areas that may not be suitable for dimming.

Council proactively looks at how energy costs can be lowered and has various carbon reduction proposals / schemes including introducing lower energy streetlights and the building of wind turbines. Energy produced would need to be put back into the national grid for distribution and would not be specifically used for street lighting. To achieve the savings we would not need to dim citywide. To mitigate the risk of increasing accidents and crime roads with an above average accident / crime levels would not be considered for dimming. A very valid point. Something that needs to be picked up in the consultation process. Very good point, looked at IT facilities when moved to Ridingleaze and increased

ÂŁ60,000 not that much money if you compare the saving against the cost of possible accidents and crime.

Dimming lights, you need to ask people who use the route, not just those who live in the area. Re Libraries and sharing facilities. I applaud using other buildings, book lending facilities and IT facilities need to

6

Add to Equalities Impact Assessment

Add to Equalities Impact Assessment. Add to Equalities Impact Assessment.

Include in Equalities Impact Assessment. Add to impact assessment


be looked at and ensure facilities are available. Moving in to shared offices, how much floor space are you looking at saving. Ensure it is still accessible for wheelchair users

the amount of computers in place. We are looking for suitable buildings, Fishponds to increase floor space. Ridingleaze - It was difficult to find a suitable building within this location. Will have to come back on. Intention is to move forward on this. Will feedback to Gillian.

Car parking – Is the council taking on more parking enforcement responsibilities? Parking over dropped curbs is not enforced. When will this happen.

7

Add to impact assessment

Update on current situation will be sent to GD as soon as possible.


Children and Young People’s Services Question/Statement

Panel response

Need further action? Due to the time lines for EqIAs within the CYPS/MTFP, issues raised by the stakeholders will inform the full EqIAs, these will be progressed in early January.

BCC is committed to inclusive education all these cutbacks will not help inclusion and will put it back a step. For the admin review you have not detailed the full budget Young mothers group trust. Trying to ascertain how our service will be cut. Reducing our budget from Supporting People in H&SC presentation earlier, now we learn that additional resources available for teenage parents are being cut - teenage parents service, reduce teenage parents schooling. Teenage parents are being hit three ways regarding cuts. We are the largest providers of housing for teenage parents. Also Quartet funding being cut, not able to access funding either for small pieces of work with our young people to respond to their needs. Internal staff member: Concerned about home to school transport, outsource to contractors, real concern about service because of that. Concerns that staff will face redundancy. Contractors won’t be able to give the same quality of service. The best external providers of transport are telling me that the contract proposals being put out now are so reduced that

8

Finance info not available When we have asked for organisations’ responses to our suggested budget reductions, we also ask about other funding streams and you can identify where other cuts have affected these

We will feed back to service managers about the transport issues.


providers won’t be able to deliver the work. The only tenders/ replies you will get are those who aren’t very good with equalities. Architects don’t understand access so you need an Access expert when you designing refurbishment of schools. The inclusion officer cuts are further cuts to Equalities staff in CYPS which have reduced so much over past 2 years. I am particularly concerned for LGB and disabled young people they are the ones who will lose out most.

We need to ensure that children have a safe journey to journey. Compare our spend with other authorities we are trying to get a more efficient. Capital programme when we are making changes to buildings access issues will be taken into consideration. Will the ethnic minority achievement We need to understand the team remain? way that funding for schools will be changing. In the Government White paper funding goes direct to schools, which means the local authorities funding will reduce significantly. It is the Govt intention for schools to be funded through mainstream grants. We have to review what kind of schools improvement service we will need in the future and that review will include EMAS service. Denominational transport - what is it? – This proposal is out for faith schools. If only funding fro transport consultation for children to faith schools is reduced then this will who attend denominational impact on the rights of parents to send schools. Currently all children to faith schools only. If cuts need children will have transport to be made they should affect all schools paid for by local authority, proposal is for payments to be made for certain categories of children only such as those in receipt of Free School Meals. Some authorities already implemented this. Autism strategy - where does it fit into the If it’s not in the presentation, Equalities Impact Assessment? The only it’s probably not being cut things covered here are proposals to cut as part of Medium Term services. Financial Plan. Until we get final Govt settlement, it will be difficult to know what is happening with other funding streams. We do

9


receive £40m in direct Government grants but we don’t know at present how these will be affected. We hear BCC is pulling out Gypsy and Traveller Education Service. It provides an excellent service to gypsies and travellers who have some of the lowest achievement rates nationally. The service has developed relationships with families which are essential to doing to work. Also with an increasing Romanian Roma community in Bristol – how will needs be met at a practical level? We would like consultation on the changes for Early Intervention funding

We are not renewing the contract. Have a joined up more strategic group, NBT, NHS, PCT sharing intelligence for gypsy and roma. Consultation needs to include front line staff.

Are all the youth services in Bristol are going to be in the Youth Links review? How are decisions being made? Do the people making decisions have disability equality training and who will be on panel?

Are Freedom Youth being included in the cuts?

10

Review to consider 70 services, having huge impact on services. Early intervention review, a great deal of reduced services are now in the review. Business cases in from all services. On Thurs and Fri this week we will go through business cases, which include eqia, performance review and will include equalities impact. Don’t know yet what the scale of the changes will be. The target date for change is April 2012. The process used will be the same one used for all commissioning and procurement so there are legal parameters. We will include involvement and engagement with equalities groups. Anyone who has an interest in being involved let Rose Richards know. Rose been involved with Bristol Youth Parliament and focus groups including one with Freedom Youth. We have undertaken work recently in terms of where we go to our resources. Focus is on vulnerable groups, which would include LGBT young people so our aim is to improve services


for that group Schools will have more responsibility to manage attendance, but nothing in the equalities impact assessment about young carers. Nothing mentioned about advice and signposting to young carers. Young carers have particular educational challenges, without the support they will fail. What is the ‘market-testing’ event in January 2011

The youth Links Review has just under £1m cuts, about a third of the total budget. Enormous cut. Lots of preventative services will end. The same is happening with cuts to preventative work in community safety.

Bristol Youth Links will result in many services being delivered by vol orgs.

11

We will be exploring options for mixed economy to deliver youth provision. We know some providers but there may be other people we don’t know about. Market testing is to identify who might be interested in taking on some of the pieces of work. To inform us how to take on work more effectively. Short presentation and ask providers what they are interested in and not interested in, how they can join up and make a consortium The cut relates to a Government grant of 2.6m (area based grant), within that significant amount is the loss of connexions funding. Connexions service isn’t run through local authority. The plan is to protect services for more vulnerable children. But the universal offer will be affected. The review will look at all services. Most of services affected will be because connexions funding has ceased. Don’t know what 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 funding will be.


Written submission received 7/12/10 – from Deaf equality Officer reflecting views of the community In facebook, there is a big wave of comments on proposal to replace Emfield school with a resource centre. I am very disappointed because there is lots of anger towards to Bristol council where previously that hasn't been much from Deaf community. They have set up a new campaign called Bristol Deaf United, because they believed at least three critical services for Deaf community could be badly affected. 1. Elmfield School facing closures in both Primary and Secondary school, meaning nearest deaf dedicated school will be in Exeter or Birmingham. 2. Centre for Deaf Studies facing closures as well. 3. Youth services, is having major budget cuts, and they think the council will close this service for Deaf children too. The decision will be made in January. Please look at this link: http://www.elmfield.bristol.sch.uk/Documents/Letter_to_parents_07.12. 10.pdf http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_172261466130689 Bristol Deaf United already got 125 members within few hours. Elizabeth Standen – Disability Equality Forum :Budget cuts and staff reductions should not be used as a way of down grading the Council’s commitment to Inclusion. This could so easily happen with cuts to access budgets; and behavioural/exclusion issues being controlled by schools not the Council. The Council could encourage schools to use appropriate in house support. When encouraging new providers to tender for Youth services measures to ensure inclusion; (including appropriate training), should be built into the tendering requirements.

12


Health & Social Care Question/Statement Supporting people funding – recognises many equalities groups will be affected by these cuts. Supporting people is preventative and is saving money Organisations have been notified about what cuts will be made next year of approx 10-15%. However Brigstowe project 100% cut. Three support workers in Brigstowe project will lose jobs.

Panel response JR - Very surprised if it is not possible to make 3% savings on £300 million budget. The proposal is to have a single approach to issues, and not smaller projects. For the services we have written to, we have asked organisations proposals for reduction in costs. Discussions will take place as part of eqia

Need further action? Funding reductions of £2.5m Supporting People budget of £25.8m. In response to strategic need and provider views, we have chosen to implement this from targeted reductions rather than ‘top slicing’ all services, which will mitigate the impact on vulnerable people. The proposals for budget reductions were identified through a process to identify - levels of provision over and above that required by level of need; - high cost of service; - identifiable and efficiencies in in-house services; - lower priority services in which contracts could be reduced or terminated. There has been Equality Impact Assessment conducted in relation to these proposals, plus a De-commissioning Impact Assessment which has been shared with the affected bodies. With the few services that face a potential 100% cut there is an appeals process which will ensure that the basis of a final decision is properly transparent, and that any outstanding needs are adequately addressed.

13


Question/Statement Concern in reducing care home admissions - where is money coming from to enable people to stay at home? Whose budget will it be and who will support these people?

Panel response JR We supply several thousand hours of domiciliary care. We can save of £1000’s by using services effectively. At the moment, we commission services we don’t currently use, and there is waste in council. Funding is available to support people who remain in their homes.

How might funding cuts affect people whose language is not English and the need for more specialist skills training in this area

Need further action? The move to reduce residential care admissions is intended to release fund to improve support for people to remain at home. In order to meet future demand we are looking at how support can be provided more efficiently, e.g. by using assistive technology and developing the market to provide more flexible options for people using personal budgets Any budget reductions should not impact disproportionately on this group. Personal budgets will allow for individual needs to be identified and met in a range of ways which take account of language needs. As the market is developed there is potential to build capacity around language skills. Care Brokerage keep details of service providers who are able to provide particular language skills and we look to develop this knowledge through support planning to help personal budget users. Where we commission a service through Supporting People, for example, we expect all service providers to support their service users to understand the impact of any changes in support, and to do this in an accessible way for that individual.

14


Question/Statement We were looking at Neighbourhoods earlier and now Adult Care, both are looking to reduce B&B placements which has a high impact on drinkers/drug users. At our hostel and extra 12 people housed in this cold weather. Voiceless group, where will they be picked up? Will be huge impact on this group of people Concerns that email submissions can be made by end of day, can’t fully respond to information, only just been given, how can people ensure comments will be taken on board. Why aren’t carers needs included as equalities issues, unpaid carers are largest support, supporting carers must be priority. Economic value £531 million a year. Not adequately looked at carers in the city. There is no waste in vol sector, offers great support to BCC.What difference will this Eqia make?

Panel response

Need further action? In the review of Supporting People funding, we have sought to protect the supply of supported accommodation, in that we have sought to avoid the closure of accommodation schemes that would lead to increased homelessness, plus to review the supply of supported accommodation in a planned way.

Equalities team need to inform people of deadlines for responses

Carers are not part of cuts, we do recognise their work and want to support them and they will not be charged for services in the new charging policy. We will undertake a good equalities impact assessment with its recommendations and all proposals are open to discussion

Carers impact assessments: there is a carers impact assessment which should be completed by all projects and changes to provision within Health and Social Care. We need to ensure that the needs of carers are always taken into account by everyone and need to be robust about this. Through work going on at moment co-producing with carers a toolkit for working with carers through major change, we are reviewing the carers impact assessment, and adding in more to it. We are also coproducing a carers Self Directed Support process which wil help ensure we look at the impact on individual carers and provide access to a more transparent mechanism for providing carers services.

15


Question/Statement We are particularly concerned about running carers ragged – they already ragged, cuts will intensify this and will decreasing their independence and that of disabled people. Plundering charity trusts to pay for what should be statutory provision Commissioning services have to address how small vol orgs can bid for large contracts as in hard times, big orgs can’t afford to go into partnerships and will keep funding for themselves. Which other equalities community has to pay to be in an equalities community? Only disabled are forced to contribute to own care. Need a major rethink on how to address policies. Independent Living Fund has been stopped by the Government and benefits limited so disabled people are struggling on all fronts. I live with three disabled people in my house, three social workers, three lots of payments from BCC. Other councils can offer 1 family package, can’t BCC do the same?

Panel response JR – I would much rather be in a different situation than I am now. Welcomes comments and input. Sees carers run ragged in his surgery every day. How can change what we are doing? Have to recognise these are issues and maybe need to re-direct resources to these issues. Small vol orgs are very important. Not enough impact assessment around gender issues and carers.

Need further action? The issue of the cumulative impact of the budget reductions, in respect of both individual equalities communities and the voluntary sector is raised several times in this consultation. This is something which will need to be assessed corporately.

Well-made comment.

We do provide whole family provision to support disabled parents, through the disabled parents protocol, although currently whilst we joint fund there tends to be an adult and childrens social worker involved. Consideration is being given to an integrated family support team to work with complex families, so that we only need one practitioner per family. Through the demo site we have set up a whole family pilot being run by Barnardos which is very succesful: recommendations about this will be coming out soon.

16

The City Council’s commissioning Strategy recognises the challenge for small voluntary organisations in bidding for contracts and is committed to support them in meeting needs. Personalisation and individual budgets will create more opportunity for this sector. There is also challenge for the vol. Sector, large and small, in responding to these opportunities.


Question/Statement Written submission:ensure if family packages are considered, need to ensure disabled people’s needs are considered separately from carers and that people are seen as individuals False assumption about Vol Sec, you saying you working in partnership with vol sector and we will make savings We have been making efficiency savings for the last 3 years we can’t make more savings. If you insist on more cuts, vol sec won’t be able to make further cuts. Brigstow Project, if cuts go ahead 3 support staff will cut. I need to know where I can go for support. Care & Repair will have to reduce a full time placement care worker to half time. We need guidance on what you want from us, so that we can make comments.

Panel response

Need further action? This will be taken into account.

What we need to know is impact and quantify this with impacts on staffing or on customers. Say as much as possible. Eventually politicians can make informed decision.

There is a target saving for reduction in grants/contracts with Vol. Sector organisations. We have not yet had the opportunity to discuss with the sector where these savings will be made. We will be commencing discussions in the near future.

JR discussions going on with all orgs ( audience Not the case). We are talking about money Bristol is putting into VCS and what impact will be. Recognises that some orgs have become inefficient because of previous cuts. * An individual decommissioning impact assessment has already been done, and shared with the Brigstowe Project, plus an initial EqIA developed for the overall proposals re SP funding reductions. Ongoing support needs for individuals will be addressed through the full EqIA and consultation.

Don’t know what cuts will be made to our service

17


Question/Statement All Nations project supports refugees & asylum seekers etc. Told via email last week we will lose entire funding from March 2011.

Panel response Looked at those services wrote to orgs to discuss reduction in support rather than blanket cut. Strategic management board is looking at recommissioning more services.

As noted above, the few services that face a potential 100% cut, including All Nations, have been offered an appeals process to ensure that all decisions are reasonable, and a full EqIA is considering specific impacts. Final decisions will be reviewed at the 24/01/11 SMB following full EqIA’s and any individual appeals.

Need further action? EqIA for 100% cut for All Nations – BME users SP comment (see column on left)

With reference to the point about emails, a formal letter was sent via email, as is standard practice, plus all letters were send hard copy as well, to ensure that they were received. The SP team has been available to talk to/meet all interested providers, and meetings have been arranged

An individual decommissioning impact assessment has already been done, and shared with All Nations, plus an initial EqIA developed for the overall proposals re SP funding reductions. Ongoing support needs for individuals will be addressed through the full EqIA and consultation. We need to work with commissioners to help standardise decommissioning process. Supporting people example, a lot of commissioners haven’t had training yet, commissioners in health and social care.

The Enabling Commissioning Programme has been established across all city council directorates to improve consistency of commissioning practice and will involve a training programme in 2011.

18


Question/Statement Dhek Bhal – proposals going to affect them but they need to discuss this in their mother tongue. These are people who have to have say, how can I invite people to talk to these people?

Panel response Need further action? Happy to arrange meeting. Meeting to be arranged with Dhek Bhal members.

Written Submissions Care and Repair – impact of reduction in services for older and disabled people No decisions have yet been made about how funding reductions will be made in Health and Social Care spending on the voluntary sector. A clear and transparent methodology will be used to decommission services based on performance against outcomes in the line with the strategic plans of Health and Social Care and the city council and/or operating efficiency. Brigstowe project – request to reconsider funding cut Supporting People – Strategic Assessment hasn’t included needs assessment and one out of the two BME-led organisations have been informed of 100% cut. Cuts seem to move from support for floating support to protecting accommodation Please publish the actual costs in reductions to budgets for Supporting People and Drugs strategy Send to matt.albury@salvationarmy.org.uk What will replace the use of B&B accommodation when supporting people are seeking to reduce bed spaces in emergency accommodation? Context is less private housing from demand from people who can’t get mortgages. How can we house some of the most vulnerable people in the city? The contention that reductions in the Supporting People will particularly impact on BME services is contested: • >25% of all Supporting People short-term services are provided to BME service users, indicating that there is no significant barrier to accessing Supporting People services, and therefore that BME- specific services are not a strategic requirement. • One of the providers identified above (All Nations) is funded to provided a generic service, not a BME-specific service. While it may be a BME-led organisation, this is not why it was commissioned. Many other Supporting People Floating Support services also support BME service users. The statistical information and analysis is contained in the equality impact assessment. The contention that the Supporting People programme has tried to move the programme away from floating support, towards accommodation-based services is not accurate: • One of the prime reasons for making savings in a targeted way, was specifically to avoid having to make across-the-board cuts to floating support, which would have had greater equalities impacts than the targeted approach favoured. • Most of the services identified for savings of 10-15% are accommodationbased.

19


•

On the other hand, we have sought to protect the supply of supported accommodation to some extent, in that we have sought to avoid the closure of accommodation schemes that would lead to increased homelessness, and also to review the supply of supported accommodation in a planned way. This is entirely distinct from favouring accommodation-based over floating models of support, which is not a position that we hold.

The request to publish funding proposals for all services (not just those identified for savings) is an objective that we share, and we will do so as soon as possible, although central government’s delay in publishing the funding settlement for Bristol has complicated this objective. It is worth noting that all providers have also been informed that the new Supporting People governance structure includes the creation of 4 Commissioning Groups (CGs) that report to the Supporting People Strategic Management Board, and these CGs will need to identify additional Supporting People savings of at least a further 10% for 2012-13, in line with the MTFP. This will involve a needs assessment and robust plan of engagement with stakeholders.

20


Neighbourhoods Question/Statement

Panel response

Benefit of extending contracts over longer periods (Sports contract) – could this be used for commissioning as well?

BCC looking at how we contract and more effectively commission to get the best value for money. With the sports contract, this was an opportunity to renegotiate.

Do not use BME as terminology as some people perceive it as out of date and offensive. Replace with people of colour Charging landlords for pest control will result in landlords not using the service – concern for increase in pests for private tenants who are majority socioeconomically disadvantaged and/or from equalities communities

Reduction in PCSO’s, 9 vacant posts, not say which part of city they are in. Every time there is a tendency to focus police support, on street crime, resources get taken away from enforcing parking and pavement parking which has a direct impact on disabled, OAP’s. Additional comment on fear of crime from older people in St Pauls

Re: reduction of homelessness officers, how in practice is the council focussing on advice and intervention. Lot of changes going on at the moment around housing benefits. Where is the prevention going to happen?

21

Will continue current arrangements for control of rat infestations

142 PCSOs in city, deployed in high crime areas. Parking is an issue, part of what wanting to do with Police colleagues, Not able to say where vacancies are in city, but area’s will be moved around according to crime stats. Inner city is a high crime area. Qualitative information shows that PCSO’s have made a real impact and difference. Bristol has done well as an authority, don’t want to see Homelessness increasing again, more work done upstream will be better. There will be no reduction in housing advisors who do the preventative work.

Need further action? Ensure that an equalities focus is clearly present in the procurement and commissioning documents Equalities team to consider. Tracy Morgan will defer proposed reduction for 6 months (June 2011) and will reconsider the impacts identified by the consultation. When EqIA is published, where PCSOs are sited will be published.

Work is underway to model potential consequences of changes in housing benefit on the private rented sector. Once complete work will begin with landlords and tenants to


Question/Statement

Panel response

Need further action? mitigate risk of a rise in homelessness. There is also a longer term piece of work looking at the impact of changes to social sector tenancies. There will be massive homelessness in Chair - Early bird advice is This is specialist city, this has been mapped. The training one of top five priorities of training support that WRAMAS undertake helps advice the Bristol Housing only for other agencies, take that away will increase Strategy but delivery may Supporting the workloads of advice agencies. not just be council but all People funded Significant problems will emerge and if agencies agencies, not a the council takes away benefits training general training and support, this will have negative service. There impact on advice services. has currently been no analysis for Bristol regarding the potential increase in homelessness (see above). This service does not provide a training service for general advice providers. See below for further work on EQIAs.. Reduction in advice and support will We are not trying to gloss See above. This impact on older and disabled people. over any cuts. Advice is one of a With the national situation at the moment services proposals are not number of there will be huge increase in demand for agreed yet. These initial proposed advice on benefits in the future. proposals were made reductions within Concerned that budget will be cut and earlier in the year before the Supporting not increased even though we can the Government people anticipate demand will increase -every announced changes to Programme. The disabled person will have to fight for benefits and tenures strategic benefits in future. management board which oversees the programme has an undertaking to review all the EQIAs and 22


Question/Statement

Panel response

Need further action? consider again the proposed reductions.

Loss of Quartet grants-Vol sector will be left to pick up pieces, if no funding available for small groups. How mitigate impact on sector.

We recognise how much the Vol sector is used and are looking to commission much more services from VCS . Cuts across service directorates 20% but only 7% to vol sec at the moment.

Care and repair :we are front line service, cuts will disproportionately affect disabled, elderly and vulnerable will be affected the very most. If homes are not warm and secure health will deteriorate and increased costs for Health & social care. Concerns that cuts to Quartet and start up grants to small groups will prevent addressing short term issues which need to be resolved, mitigation and alternatives will be put in place.

We are not aware of a cut to Care & Repair however we will check this across all the Directorates.

Re-consider impact of loss of small grants funding. Meeting scheduled with VCS w/c 20/12 to consider/analyse expenditure to date on small grants by Quartet and potential other ways forward whilst still achieving the overall saving. Commissioning managers have communicated the continuity of funding to Care & Repair itself.

Concerns about language “VCS aligned with BCC�. If small grants are cut, don’t allow small groups to develop to their own/local agendas.

23

A full Eqia will be shared. Quartet grant is underspent. We will look at what other funds Quartet receive which can be used for community groups. We will look into who has been applying for small grant funds Community resilience is the one of the priorities for Well being grants. Happy to have conversation to make sure there are no gaps.

As above

Discussion with VCS partners to identify requirements and clarify access to Wellbeing Neighbourhoods funding


Question/Statement

Panel response

ÂŁ1 spent on prevention saved ÂŁ3 in future. Biggest cost is always staff. If you cut staff you lose knowledge, continuity etc. BCC need to look at this before Vol Sect asked to pick up.

In any staff reduction the Business Case will look at future service needs. Under no circumstances will there by any targeted extra work given to the voluntary sector without recognition within the funding contract.

24

Need further action? Emphasise this point in any budget statements

Budget proposals for 2011-2012  

Bristol City Council budget proposals

Advertisement