Social Policy in a Cold Climate: Focus on London Hard Times, New Directions? : The Local Government Cuts in London Presentation to London Funders by CASE January 21 st , 2014
Austerity and Local Government ? LOCAL GOVERNMENT Recession, change Worst local in government government financial settlement in living memory Changes in Localism AUSTERITY , social funding policy change Rising resident need/demand POVERTY, inequality ? People’s lives:
The method THE COUNCIL RESPONSE CASE STUDIES FINANCE ANALYSIS 3 boroughs: £ Brent Camden Redbridge • Formula grant • Interviews with Senior • Revenue Support Officers and Members Grant • Local budget statements • Special & specific grants • Local policy documents • Area Based Grant • Focused on 3 service areas
The size of the cut in London (2010/11 to 2013/14) TIME 33% (£2.7 bn) Overall reduction in 2009/10 to 2010/11 to 2011/12 to 2012/13 to 2009/10 to 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2013/14 0 funding for Change as Percentage of 2009/10 -1 service -5 -6 -6 provision in -10 London -15 (2009/10 to -20 2013/14) -20 -25 -30 -33 -35
Change in estimated Spending Power Per Capita (2010/11 to 2013/14) Reductions of between -12% to -26%
The boroughs that lost most were the most deprived 300 Lower deprivation 250 Rank on IMD 2010 200 150 100 50 Higher deprivation 0 -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% Change in Spending Power 2009/10 to 2013/14
Hard Times. Hard times all round. But, can argue harder times for the more deprived LBs. They lost more in percentage terms. Though…other boroughs might argue as hard for them. Those losing less had less of a base to cut from.
The response: 50 ways to save? Category Description E.g. Efficiency Actions which aim to Re-commission existing reduce costs of council contracts; outsource services; services without changing bring ‘ in- house’ service levels as far as Generic working; integration of public are concerned services; consolidation in ‘hubs’ Investment Actions which aim to Introduce/ expand services reduce the need for aimed to future reduce needs council services or reduce (e.g. reablement in domiciliary the cost of services in care) future Retrenchme Actions which reduce the Asset transfer to community nt council’s role in terms of groups; citizen volunteers to the services it provides supplement or deliver services; and for whom civic responsibility and self- service Hastings et al. 2013
Was provision of services to residents affected? Service Greater Increased Reduced ceased targeting charges VCS support ASC – strict on Youth - Brent eligibility and Introduced not just saying charge for ‘yes’ (also CSF) summer uni ASC – Transport ASC - Funds Camden to day care no directed to longer for low most need sustainable CSF – Reported Youth - Cut a Redbridge greater grant to a targeting mobile library
So, how were the savings achieved? • Procurement (incl. joint-commissioning, in-house) • Reduced headcount • Office accommodation • Cutting out waste • Investment for longer-term savings • Managing demand/new models introduced …Not an easy process and can’t repeat this on this scale a second time!
New Directions? Some conclusions • They had made strenuous efforts to protect front line services and delivery of those services to the most vulnerable • They were doing much of what they were doing previously (local government is resilient!), but they were doing it differently (it is also adaptable!), so maybe new methods rather than new directions • But, limits to efficiencies …further cuts of the same scale would mean bigger changes in local government. Any ‘easy stuff’ has been done and changes now higher risk. Some new directions such as redefinition of responsibilities and even re-scaling, should that occur
And some reflections LBs seem to have weathered the storm and key services pretty well intact – but… • Potential longer term effects may emerge from: – erosion of capacity – effects on residents of multiple small ‘cuts’ – not visible yet? – greater targeting? • Landscape of local service provision has changed – VCS has taken on responsibility for some discretionary service – And evidence in some of the interviews of a view that longer-term the community is going to have to do more for itself – less support for a ‘squeezed middle’ as target most vulnerable – Might we see less localism rather than more?
Report link and contact Full report : http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case/_new/publications/default.asp Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE), LSE: Amanda Fitzgerald (Arqué), Research Officer A.Arque@lse.ac.uk
END
Social care was not the main area of cut 60% Most from 56% Percentage cut Planning and development 50% & Cultural services 40% Less from 28% 30% Social care 20% 20% 20% 12% 11% 10% 10% 0% Highways and Social care Housing Cultural and Environmental Planning and Central transport services (GFRA related and regulatory development services services only) services services services
Higher spend, higher cut £1,600 Higher spend Spend per capita 2009/10 (excluding £1,400 £1,200 £1,000 education) £800 £600 £400 £200 Lower spend £- -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% Change in Spending Power 2009/10 to 2013/14
And... They were more reliant on government funding 45% Percentage of Main Income from Council Tax Richmond 40% Those deriving more 35% of their income through Council Tax 30% were cut least 2009/10 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% Change in Spending Power 2009/10 to 2013/14
Sales, Fees and Charges changed little SFC income fell Sources: Department for Communities and Local Government: Revenue Outturn (RO) returns 2009-10 – Revenue Summary (RS) data; GDP deflators, June 2012
Recommend
More recommend
