Home >Documents >Appendix 4 - Detailed new growth and savings proposals ... · Staffing costs contribution 433 433...

Appendix 4 - Detailed new growth and savings proposals ... · Staffing costs contribution 433 433...

Date post:03-Jun-2020
Category:
View:4 times
Download:0 times
Share this document with a friend
Transcript:
  • Appendix 4 - Detailed new growth and savings proposals 2010/11 to 2012/13 Adults’ and Community Services

    Title of Proposal: Police Community Support Officers (ASC(CS) G3)

    Proposal to meet the increased costs of match funding twenty two PCSOs under an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Authority for a further 5 years to 2013-14.

    Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: George Marshman BU Manager: Ann Corbett

    Full Description of Proposal

    Making Communities Safer is a key priority for the Council and concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour are residents’ top priority.

    The Council agreed to enter into a two year arrangement with the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) from 2007-8 to match fund 22 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) at a cost of £440,000 per annum. Originally funding was allocated from Neighbourhood Renewal Funds with growth being agreed from 2008-9. Currently this funding is within Public Realm but there is agreement to transfer this budget to Community Safety in the current financial year.

    The Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Committee (31.3.09) considered an Evaluation and Options report on the Council funded PCSOs. Key benefits identified were:

    § Increased visibility working with the PCSOs increasing the strength of Safer Neighbourhood Teams in the North and South of the Borough to tackle local crime and anti-social behaviour issues

    § Increased engagement with communities and greater intelligence on crime and anti-social behaviour as a result

    § Additional resources Brixton Town Centre Team providing reassurance and also intelligence on criminal activity

    § Assisting with Local Authority enviro-crime initiatives, including Freshview and Community Freshview

    § Issue of Fixed Penalty Notices including FPNs for cycling on the pavement § Targeted public reassurance patrols § Detention of suspects in a range of offences including robbery, theft, disorderly

    behaviour and drug-related offences § Working with Lambeth’s Trading Standards department in a alcohol and knife test

    purchase operation along Streatham High Road § Working with Lambeth parking and the DVLA to remove untaxed vehicles § Introducing weekly drop-in surgery at Elm Green School § Providing a Single-point of contact for Brighton Terrace residents’ as part of the

    ongoing support for the treatment centre and Lorraine Hewitt House

    The Council was invited to extend this arrangement for a further two or five year basis by the MPA. Strategic Leadership Board (in early June) recommended that the arrangement should be extended for a five year term as this provided better value. Formal agreement to extend the Section 92 Agreement was sent to the MPA on 4 June 2009 from the Executive Director of Adults’ and Community Services.

  • Cost implications are set out below and are based on confirmed costs per annum as set out in correspondence from Assistant Deputy Chief Superintendent Guy Ferguson on 21 November 2008.

    Value for Money

    The arrangement achieved value for money as Lambeth contributed £20,000 of a £33,327 annual salary per officer with the remaining costs met by the Home Office.

    The report presented to Cabinet in January 2007 outlined that replacing the Wardens’ Service with PCSOs was the clear value for money option. Provision of 22 PCSOs was at a cost of about £440,000 per year. Comparing the costs of PCSOs with Wardens (unit cost 0f £40,000) this equates to significant value for money at a 50% saving.

    PCSOs receive 6 weeks police-based training before they join the borough. All salary costs during this period of training are met by the Metropolitan Police Service. Each PCSO is line managed by a Police Sergeant. There are no additional supervisory costs for the local authority.

    Sickness and abstraction levels (i.e. the re-deployment of PCSOs on other duties outside the borough) are extremely low. Long-term sickness costs are met by the MPS. In addition, there are no recruitment or replacement costs to the local authority.

    In addition, it is proposed to give the PCSOs more enforcement powers. If issuing Fixed Penalty Notices for littering, urinating Etc have a positive affect this may result in reduced contract cleansing costs in the future.

    Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

    A Safer Lambeth with strong communities is a corporate priority. Council funded PCSOs have provided increased resources to local Safer Neighbourhood Policing Teams to address local crime and anti-social behaviour problems. They have also significantly boosted capacity of the Brixton Town Centre Team which is the borough’s biggest crime hotspot.

    In addition, PCSOs provide a reassurance through increased visibility in town centre; estates and neighbourhoods. They also support the Police to engage with different communities which results in increased intelligence about crime and anti-social behaviour.

    The recent Budget Consultation Survey 2009-10 (November 2008) with residents indicated that:

    § Drug dealing, street drinking and vandalism are top concerns after knife and gun crime

    § Four in ten (27%) residents agreed that crime had affected their life to some extent and one in eight (13%) stated their life had been affected to a great extent.

    § That the Council should invest more money to tackle crime § The most popular action for the Council and its partners to take to reduce crime and

    disorder were: more activities for youth (40%), more visible policing (33%), better use of CCTV (31%)

    Residents Survey 2009 showed that: § 50% of residents’ rate policing as good to excellent (an increase on 43% in 2007)

    and over the lifetime of the survey it has gone up by 15% § No. of residents mentioning crime as one of their concerns is now less that half

    (49%) which is a 12% drop since 2007 Residents Survey and concern about crime in Lambeth is less than the inner London Boroughs average (56%) for the first time

  • The latest quarterly MPS Public Attitude Survey 2008/9 (January – March 2009) indicated that:

    § 82% of residents had seen Police Community Support Officers working in their local area a rise from 53% on 2007-8.

    § 81% of residents indicated that if they were walking alone and saw a PCSO it made them feel safer (this rate has remained relatively constant since 2007-8)

    Equalities impact

    This proposal will have a positive equalities impact.

    Financial Implications

    This contract does not raise any capital expenditure implications for the Council. The revenue budget financial implication of approving the proposal in this report is the commitment to extend the existing contract for a further five years effective from 30 May 2009 to 29 May 2014.

    The revenue budget has been transferred from the department of Housing, Regeneration and Environment – Public Realm Division to the department of Adults and Community Services’ – Community Safety Division with an inherent shortfall. In addition, the Metropolitan Police Service 5 year contract offer amounts to an effective 12 percent increase over the 5 year period as outlined in the table below:

    Five Year Summary of Financial (Growth) Implications (£’000) Years 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Expenditure 30/05/09

    -29/05/10

    30/05/10 -

    29/05/11

    30/05/11 -

    29/05/12

    30/05/12 -

    29/05/13

    30/15/13 -

    29/15/14

    Total at end

    Year 5

    Source of Funding

    Staffing costs contribution

    433 433 433 433 433 2,165 Budget transfer from HRE to ACS

    Growth 29 51 51 73 95 299 Service and Financial Planning process

    Total 462 484 484 506 528 2,464 For 2009/10, the Chief Executive has agreed to fund £15,400, while the remaining shortfall of £13,600 is being found within the overall ACS budget. This proposal seeks the balance of growth required under the 5 year plan. Should the shortfall remain, it will have to be met from existing resources by way of Budget virement.

    Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure): 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) 51 0 22 TOTAL 51 0 22

  • Title of Proposal: New funding for tackling anti-social behaviour (ASC(CS) G2) An operational budget to facilitate administrative, legal and enforcement work by the ASB Team. This budget will support effective partnership action to tackle persistent ASB and offending.

    Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: George Marshman BU Manager: Ann Corbett

    Full Description of Proposal

    The ASB Team currently have funding for four case workers who case manage a significant workload (on average 25 cases a month for each officer and growing). In order to facilitate the effective operation of the ASB team it is vital that an on-going operational budget is established to facilitate administrative, legal and enforcement work by the Team. This budget will support effective partnership action to tackle persistent ASB and offending.

    Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is identified as a key priority by 16 of the 21 Safer Neighbourhoods Panels in the borough, and has emerged as a key theme in the findings from the recent Lambeth Residents’ Survey.

    Despite falling crime rates: § Lambeth residents feel less safe both in the day and after dark. § Our residents are more concerned about ASB in comparison to other boroughs in

    inner London. Our performance against National Indicator 17 – the percentage of people who feel anti-social behaviour is a problem in their area – is 29.7% compared with 26% across inner London as measured through the Place survey. Findings also showed that younger residents and Black residents are more likely to see ASB as a problem.

    § Lambeth residents are far less likely to think that parents take enough responsibility for their children. NI 22 (23 vs 30).

    § The Place survey also identifies the extent to which local people think local police teams and other local public sector agencies are successfully dealing with and consulting on ASB and crime issues (NI 21). On both these counts Lambeth falls behind other inner London Boroughs.

    The ASB Team, working in partnership with other services in the Council has introduced as ASB Reporting Line (February 2009) to assist residents report a range of ASB related concerns to a single number. The reporting line has been gradually introduced during 2009 to enable the new system to “bed in” and any teething problems to be resolved. However, there is clear expectation that the service should be widely publicised and this is very likely to increase demand for services in 2010.

    The Council is now equipped with a wide range of ASB-related powers, which not only includes the power to serve ASBOs, but also other powers such as Closure Orders. However, there are significant overheads involved in the practical use of these powers, not least the legal and case work required. For example, recently the cost of applying to the courts for an ASBO has increased to £500 with an extra £100 if the application succeeds.

    The lack of an operational budget has hampered the ability of the ASB Team to expand its work to meet public and councillor expectations. Currently the team is provided with £46.5k annually, funded by area based grants, to meet all of its overheads in respect of legal costs, ASBO applications etc. Neither the source of funding nor the amount is sustainable if the Team is to expand its enforcement activities in line with expectations.

  • Risks if growth is not funded

    Key risks include: § Not meeting member expectations – it is a Manifesto priority of the current

    Administration that the Council makes full and effective use of the full spectrum of its anti-social behaviour powers, including the serving of ASBOs, premises closure orders etc.

    § Not meeting public/resident expectations – we are currently promoting the ASB Reporting Line and actively encouraging residents to bring casework to the ASB team for assistance and resolution. Concerns about localised ASB remain high on residents’ list of priorities for which they look to the Council for support.

    § Not meeting partner expectations – MPS, in particular, has made a significant investment in the ‘Safer Neighbourhoods’ initiative with dedicated police teams in every ward and a focus on addressing localised anti-social behaviour. They are looking for reciprocation and support from LBL, including the effective management of ASB casework to which they have assigned dedicated police officers to work with our ASB team.

    § Significant reputational risks if we do not deliver on reducing public concerns about ASB. NI 21 has now been adopted by the Safer Lambeth Partnership as its overarching Single Confidence Target and is included in our Local Area Agreement. A challenging 6 percentage point increase in this target has been set for 2010-11 and reducing concerns about ASB will be a key element of our efforts to bolster public confidence and achieve the target. N1 17 (perceptions of ASB) in Lambeth performs below average when compared to similar boroughs and therefore there is a need to invest in ASB activity to improve performance in this critical area.

    Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

    Effectively preventing and tackling ASB is a key element of the Safer and Stronger Communities corporate priority. Providing the ASB Team with a stable and adequate operational budget will ensure that increased demand from residents is met and that there is more resilience to drive forward effective partnership working and make best use of available partnership resources.

    As stated above, N21 is a key confident target for Safer Lambeth within the Local Area Agreement and the borough is currently is underperforming in comparison to other inner London boroughs. Investment in the ASB Team will ensure that the raised expectations of residents can be met once the ASB Reporting Line is launched and that more focus can be given to preventing ASB.

    While there is strong need for increased staffing, the new ASB Case Management system will support more efficient working and will also enable a much greater degree of analysis to drive an intelligence led partnership response to ASB hotspots and the prioritisation of issues.

    Equalities impact

    There is significant evidence that crime and ASB disproportionately impact on already socially excluded communities including residents living in areas of social housing and in the more deprived areas of the borough. ASB is also proven to attract more serious crime and lead to increased fear of crime.

    Implications for the Local Authority under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

    Section 17 requires local authorities, when discharging their functions, to have regard to the implications for crime and disorder. ASB is a key concern of residents and combating this is a priority for the Safer Lambeth Partnership and the Council. Establishing an operational

  • budget for the ASB Team will enable an expansion of its activities to meet increased reporting of ASB by the public via the new Reporting Line.

    Financial Implications

    Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Tackling Anti-Social behaviour 60 0 0 TOTAL 60 0 0

  • Title of Proposals: Cultural Services revenue and capital implications from physical regeneration projects (CS G1-G4 – Clapham Leisure Centre; Norwood Hall; Streatham Leisure Centre)

    The physical regeneration projects in Clapham, Streatham and Norwood have capital and revenue implications for Cultural Services, both on scheme completions and as a result of delays

    Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: Peter Jones BU Managers: Derek Prentice / Sandra Goodwin

    Full Description of Proposal

    1. Financial implications of delays to physical regeneration programme:

    Streatham: Leisure

    NB All information below may need to be revisited in the light of the current closure of the pool for health and safety reasons and the ensuing structural inspection and evaluation.

    Issue: § The decision by Tesco to retender for the Streatham Hub development delays the

    project by at least 5-7 months, which pushes the “closure” date of the existing centre from October 2010 to April – June 2011. There is no evidence that Tesco would keep to this timeline, or accept the new retender

    § The current centre is closed as outlined above

    Current position: § GLL are operating the existing centre on an open book contract. The cost of this will

    be calculated on income less actual costs, overheads and profit margin. The estimate for 2009/10 is a £500k deficit.

    § Income has been gradually declining. Each pound of lost income is a pound of revenue pressure for Cultural Services.

    § Cultural Services are responsible for all maintenance at Streatham. There has been limited planned and preventative maintenance for the last 2 years, and maintenance is unbudgeted. Full condition surveys have been completed for the centre

    Management fee estimate (revenue): § £500k 2009/10 § £550k 2010/11 (pressure £50k) § £600k 2011/12 (pressure £100k) § £650k 2012/13 (pressure £150k)

    2. Financial implications arising on completion of physical regeneration projects:

    Clapham: Leisure

    § Most management fees for the new Leisure Centre are currently unbudgeted. Financial modelling undertaken by consultants estimates this to be £80,000 annum.

    § The scheme provides for £800,000 for operational fit out of both the Leisure Centre and new Library. Fit out is modelled at £800,000 for the Library and at £600,000 for the Leisure Centre, leaving a funding gap of £600,000 (capital).

    Clapham: Library

  • § The new Clapham library is planned to open in late 2011. Work is in hand to assess the impact of the increased size and design of the new library building on operating costs. It should be noted that no additional revenue costs have been budgeted for, therefore there could potentially be a growth bid required for 2011/12.

    Norwood JSC: Leisure

    § Annual revenue contributions to the PFI sink fund and service charges for the new centre have been addressed in a separate corporate growth bid (leisure contributions: sinking fund contribution £195,000, service charge £105,000). ICT service charges referenced in the Cabinet report are covered in this proposal.

    § Although further financially modelling will be completed once the scheme is finalised, and exclusions from the PFI hard and soft facilities management are elucidated, operation management of the leisure element is estimated at £0, but this needs proper evaluation in the light of the management plan for the facility.

    § Operational fit out of the centre is currently unbudgeted, and modelled at a capital requirement of £300,000 (capital) in 2011/12.

    § The design of the new building was intended to make possible a range of income generation options. Significantly more work is needed to test out the viability of this potential.

    Streatham: Leisure

    § Both fit out costs and revenue costs for management of the centre have been included in the existing leisure management contact, and do not need to be considered in this proposal.

    Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

    § Local people enjoy a good quality of life in a safe, clean and green environment § Inequalities and social exclusion in the community are reducing § Adults, children and young people and older people have improved health and

    emotional wellbeing § Adults, children and young people and older people have an improved quality of life,

    choice and control § Our services represent value for money § Customer satisfaction is improving

    Equalities impact

    EIAs relating to the new development have been completed by Physical Regeneration.

  • Financial Implications

    Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure): 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Clapham Leisure Additional cost of new service over current management fee 80 0 0 Norwood ICT service charges 0 11 0 Cost of new service (management fee) to be confirmed following full financial appraisal Streatham Additional costs 50 50 50 Cost of new service not yet quantified, this will depend on the type of services delivered TOTAL 130 61 50 Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Clapham Leisure Centre / Library, new estate fit out 600 0 0 Norwood Hall, new estate fit out 0 300 0 TOTAL 600 300 0

  • Title of Proposal:- Community Safety – CCTV strategy and implementation ASC(CS) G1)

    A major review of CCTV is currently underway to meet the challenge and a CCTV Development Plan was agreed by Cabinet (23 March 2009). This proposal will ensure the availability of resources critical to the implementation of the programme of actions agreed from the review.

    Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: George Marshman BU Manager: Ann Corbett

    Full Description of Proposal

    Over the past 15 years council departments have installed a number of CCTV networks to protect individual housing estates and the town centres across the borough. This lack of a strategic framework has resulted in the creation of a disjointed and fragmented resource.

    Nationally over the past five years crime reduction and prevention of crime has increasingly followed an intelligence-led, problem solving approach. In line with Home Office guidance for effective partnership working Delivering Safer Communities (September 2007) this approach was adopted by the Safer Lambeth Partnership in October 2007 and the creation of a Partnership Intelligence Unit has begun over the past year.

    Public pressure continues across the borough for more CCTV - a key reassurance tool. CCTV is widely regarded as a ‘panacea’ community safety solution. It is costly to provide and national research has found that to be effective it needs to be developed within a strategic framework.

    The challenge is to integrate CCTV in Lambeth into the mainstream of public protection/community safety activity.

    In future the deployment and targeting of cameras will be based on need, available intelligence and evidence. This approach offers opportunities to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of CCTV and measure its impact and value for money compared with other community safety solutions. Such an approach requires robust strategic vision and direction.

    A major review of CCTV is currently underway to meet the challenge and a CCTV Development Plan was agreed by Cabinet (23 March 2009) which sets out five key priorities:

    § PRIORITY 1 – Integrate CCTV Development and Commissioning into Community Safety/Public Protection Services – the integration of CCTV into the activities of Safer Lambeth, introducing models for needs based commissioning and extending inter-agency collaboration.

    § PRIORITY 2 – CCTV to Support Neighbourhood Problem Solving – The development of a flexible CCTV solution that can be moved around different areas to address public concerns and solve problems in specific neighbourhoods as needs dictate.

    § PRIORITY 3 – CCTV Needs Assessment – the potential of CCTV to support the delivery of the crime and ASB priorities identified in the Safer Lambeth Strategic Assessment, mapping current geographical crime and ASB ‘hot spots’ and relating to coverage and capacity of current systems to ‘hot spot’ areas.

    § PRIORITY 4 – Accountability and Governance – adapting current organisation of CCTV strategic overview, commissioning and operations and integrating into the governance structure of the Safer Lambeth Partnership

    § PRIORITY 5 – Standardisation of Performance Measures – developing measures and simple processes that provide indication of the effectiveness and impact of

  • CCTV that relate to and support the evaluation of service impact on community feelings of safety and broader performance indicators included in the Safer Lambeth Plan and the Local Area Agreement.

    Funding arrangements – the main stages of the CCTV review will be completed by December to inform the production of a programme of action to begin in April 2010 spanning 3 to 5 years, dependant on resource availability. The feasibility of the options selected for action will be heavily dependent on funding and resource arrangements, the financial implications are being assessed as part of the review including the scope for pooling resources across the SL Partnership, exploring opportunities for attracting revenue and charging mechanisms.

    Critical to success is the availability of the resources to ensure the strategic leadership and direction is in place to implement the programme of actions agreed from the review.

    Risk Assessment

    Concern about crime is the number one priority of Lambeth residents and CCTV is seen by many as the solution. As a consequence CCTV modernisation has become a major priority in Lambeth.

    Without the adequate strategic direction the keys risks are: § Increased public dissatisfaction with current arrangements and increased fear of

    crime § The continuation of the current fragmented, disjointed and costly operation of existing

    systems that are of questionable effectiveness § The selection of costly, incompatible and uncoordinated CCTV solutions by council

    service teams that remain detached from the evidence led, problem solving needs approach being developed by the Safer Lambeth Partnership

    § The programme of action resulting from the CCTV review will not be implemented to best effect without strong strategic direction and linkage to mainstream activity and project work to make Lambeth an even safer place.

    Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

    The development and modernisation of the borough’s CCTV provision directly contributes to achieving the outcome under Corporate Priority 1 of “Local communities are safe and the fear of crime is falling.” CCTV in particular has a contribution to make to public reassurance and may improve public confidence as reflected in NI 21, the new Single Confidence Target that features in Lambeth’s Local Area Agreement.

    Equalities impact

    Assisting in the detection and reporting of crime, CCTV has an important role to play in reassuring the public and reducing fear of crime. As crime and fear of crime have differential impacts on different communities (for example, the incidence of hate crime), so CCTV can have a beneficial impact on equality and diversity in the borough.

    Implications for the Local Authority under S17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

    Section 17 requires local authorities, when discharging their functions, to have regard to the implications for crime and disorder. CCTV is a key element of the council’s, and Safer Lambeth’s, approach to reducing crime in Lambeth and reassuring the public. The need to develop and modernise our CCTV provision is a critical element of this.

  • Relevant legislation in relation to CCTV has been taken into account in the formulation of Lambeth’s CCTV Development Plan, including:

    § Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 § Human Rights Act 1998 § Data Protection Act 1998

    This has required specialised expertise provided by the 0.5 post for which funding is sought through this resources proposal.

    Financial Implications

    Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 CCTV Strategy & Implementation 31 0 0 TOTAL 31 0 0

  • Title of Proposal - Lambeth Sports Festival (ACTIVATE) 2010/11 (CS G5)

    The “Activate” Sports Festival is an annual borough-wide sport and cultural festival to engage young people in healthy, positive activity which was established to take place for the first time this year on 5 September 2009 in Kennington Park. It is the central component of the ‘Lambeth Fit for 2012’ programme. Growth funding is requested to enable it to be staged as a two-day event on an annual basis over a 3 year period covering the summers of 2010, 2011 and 2012. In 2009 funding was identified from Lambeth Council’s existing resources. However to deliver the commitment a sustainable solution is required, hence the submission of this growth bid.

    Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: Peter Jones BU Manager: Jon Armstrong

    Full Description of Proposal

    The ‘Lambeth Fit for 2012’ programme anticipates the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and includes an annual borough-wide sport and cultural festival to engage young people in healthy, positive activity. In 2009 we put in place the first major elements of this – the ‘Cultivate’ programme which was delivered through a programme of engagement including the new culture zone at the Lambeth Country Show and the new ‘Activate’ Sports Festival held on 5 September 2009.

    The 2012 team at Lambeth has a draft work programme covering a wide range of work streams, one of which is the festival proposal. In partnership with the Sports & Recreation and Events teams within Cultural Services, it was proposed that a Sports Festival should take place annually during the summer period for local residents to engage with both sport and the Council through the hook of the 2012 Games.

    The Activate Sports Festival acts as a profile raising event combining sport, healthy living and cultural activities. It offers residents and visitors the opportunity to ‘have a go…’ at Olympic and Paralympic sports and find out where they can continue them in a club setting in a sustainable way delivering a legacy for the event.

    The aim for the event has always been to start in 2009 with a smaller but highly professional and deliverable event designed to be built up year on year, including and beyond the year of the 2012 Games, into a month long festival of sport linked with the Holiday Activity Programme led by Children & Young People’s Services.

    The proposal also provided for a creation of a Lambeth associated brand, allowing us to maximise access to 2012 related branding such as the “Inspire” mark or “Host Borough for the 2012 Games”. Therefore the “Activate” brand has been developed in close partnership with the Council’s Communications Team.

    There are no legal or VAT implications, and in terms of HR issues a project manager would need to be hired for the duration of the project on a temporary contract to create the necessary resource within the Events Team, this is accounted for in the budget.

    Consultations occurred at the 2009 Festival to find out what residents want for future festivals if the bid is successful. These thoughts and ideas will be fed into successive years’ festival planning so that the event is user and partner lead rather than council lead.

  • The implications for procurement are as follows: § In this financial year (not covered by this growth bid), ACS procurement and legal

    colleagues have assisted in satisfying the procurement process. § We would recommend that we would procure for all three annual events (2010 –

    2012) via one procurement process. This would be above the EU threshold, so we would recommend that if this growth bid is successful, resource in each team (Events / 2012 / ACS procurement) is identified to begin the OJEU procurement process immediately to minimise risk.

    § There is a risk that elements of the budget would shift, given future pressures e.g. on procuring specialised services in the run-up to the 2012 Games.

    Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

    The proposed project fits well strategically within the Council’s, Adults & Community Services’ and Cultural Services’ existing business priorities and objectives. The Sustainable Community Strategy sets out the Council’s priorities to realise its long term vision and this project will contribute to a number of priorities:

    § Improved health and wellbeing of people which enables them to live active and independent lives

    § Safe and cohesive places where people are empowered and have the confidence to play active roles in their communities

    as well as many targets in the Local Area Agreements.

    Key Risks for the delivery of this event in future years 1. Failure to secure balance of funding required 2. Failure to agree early enough on funding / proposals would :

    § Not allow sufficient planning time § Lead to a risk of inflated costs when procuring at last minute § Not allow close partnership working with partners such as CSPAN / CYPS

    3. Lack of support across council could lead to failure to maximise the event’s outcomes 4. Local organisations/sports groups will not be available on the day to provide stalls 5. The Festival will have objections put up against its licensing request. 6. The police are unavailable and are not in support of the event 7. Residents will not have the will and interest to come along to the festival 8. Park is being used for another event and the courts are not free of bookings. 9. Exposes the Council to reputational risk if manifesto promise is not kept.

    Equalities impact

    The EIA impact level has been assessed as low and no adverse impact on any equality group has been identified.

    Key internal and external stakeholders have been consulted in this project from the outset and have remained well engaged. The Disability Sport and Physical Activity Network were consulted early on in the project on how the event can be made more accessible to young people with disabilities.

    A consultation exercise was carried out at the 2009 Lambeth Sports Festival and any relevant findings will be implemented from 2010.

  • Financial Implications

    No provision was made in the Cultural Services budget for this project. In addition, circa £200k in the 2012 budget had been taken as savings in earlier years. The Events/Sport/2012 Teams developed a detailed budget for the event for 2009. This budget was structured using the detailed expertise of the Events Team in delivering large-scale events e.g. Lambeth Country Show, and by taking best practice examples and budgets from similar events in other London boroughs (including the successful Pro-Active Islington Festival at the Emirates Stadium).

    The budget is representative of the quality expected and therefore is not easily scalable. Future development of the programme would be in line with the budget submitted. Any expansion of the programme will be predicated on securing sponsorship or other income to cover increased costs. It was not possible in the time-scale for this year’s project to deliver sponsorship, and sponsorship is a risk given the constraints around 2012 marketing and the current financial climate.

    Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Lambeth Sports Festival two-day event 69* 0 0 TOTAL 69* 0 0

    * This assumes an additional £20,000 of alternative funding to be raised by the team as matched funds.

    The projected budget for 2009 was £86,740. This can be compared to the actual spend of £86,545. The main variations are due to extra infrastructure and security costs incurred due to late agreement of budget. It should be noted that the awards ceremony section of the event was funded directly from the Sports & Recreation budget and will continue to do so as match funding to the growth bid.

    We have taken the experience of delivering the 2009 event to inform a stronger more robust budget for this growth bid. On that basis, the budget in Appendix A sets out the costs for delivering a two-day event, taking advantage of efficiencies and being able to book goods and services in advance, at a budget level very similar to the one day event in 2009.

    We have also investigated opportunities to generate alternative sources of funding for the project to minimise the call on council resources. To support this we have also benchmarked against similar events (Brighton & Hove and Islington):

    § Islington runs a similar event (£60,658) however they use the Emirates Stadium as the venue, thereby making significant savings on infrastructure, as well as generating huge interest by marketing the opportunity to tour the stadium and meet players. They do not generate any sponsorship; however the PCT provides £34,850 in support.

    § Brighton and Hove run a much larger festival (£97,336) which is well-established and stable. They generate a total of £10,000 in sponsorship, which we understand comes from roughly five different sponsors. The PCT provide £8,500 in support.

    Avenues for alternative funding include: Sponsorship – in the current climate, accessing sponsorship funding will be extremely difficult. There is also an impact on control of the project when a sponsor comes on board. In addition, as the Activate Festival is our flagship 2012 activity, a whole range of branding and sponsorship restrictions (Olympic Act 2005) further reduce the opportunity to raise funding through this route. For example, as Adidas are the sole sportswear sponsors of the Games, we could not accept any support from Nike. DCMS current guidance (Arts & Business survey, November 2008) suggests that private investment in / sponsorship of

  • cultural activities, including sport has fallen by 35%. However we do feel that we may be able to generate a limited amount of sponsorship/commercial support if we are able to approach potential organisations with a minimum of six months lead in time. The budget for communications and marketing reflects the need to activate any sponsorship deal.

    PCT / other public body support – other similar events have received significant support from their PCT. However, if we recognise the current level of investment the PCT is able to make in healthy lifestyles partnership programmes, and the broader pressures on their budget going forward, it is highly unlikely we would be able to raise significant financial support from this source.

    Pro-Active / CSPAN – The Community Sport and Physical Activity network (CSPAN, who have now been branded the Activate Board) may be able, through the membership of Pro-Active Central, to allocate some limited funding to sports specific activities. We will be discussing financial and broader support for the Activate Festival at the Activate Board meeting in November.

    Cross-funding by other Council Departments – whilst we clearly recognise that all council departments are under significant pressure, it may be possible to explore limited funding streams being applied against outcomes for young people’s participation in sport, engagement through Active Communities, or the involvement of older people in physical activity. This is unlikely to generate significant funds but should not be discounted.

  • Appendix A: Projected Budget 2010

    1 day event 2009

    £

    2 day event 2010

    £ Tannoy & PA 3,143 3,000 Catering 500 1,000 Litter 503 1,200 Security 7,335 5,000

    Marquees & Infrastructure 28,338 15,000 Communication 9,251 13,000 Sports 9,217 10,000 Production 7,500 7,000 H&S 4,000 4,000 First Aid 720 1,500 PA & staging 1,700 2,000 Other (licence add) 569 500 Staff costs 13,769 18,000 Contingency (10%) * 8,120 TOTAL 86,545 89,320 Incl contingency (10%)

    * Off set against infrastructure

  • Title of Proposal – Personalising services/Adult social care: - Safeguarding Adults 2010/11 (PS G1) This paper provides the background to Adults’ and Community Services case for growth in mainstream resources for both Safeguarding Adults Operational and Strategic functions for the financial year 2010/11 and the detailed rationale and associated risks.

    Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Directors: Susan Harrison (Strategic) / George Marshman (Operational) BU Managers: Neena Khosla (Strategic) / Visva Sathasivam (Operational)

    Full Description of Proposal

    Adults and Community Services have previously not had a dedicated Safeguarding Adults Service. Over the past two years the national profile of Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults has increased, both in the Government’s policy agenda and through publicity about cases of vulnerable adults who have been seriously injured or killed through abuse or neglect. Increased numbers of referrals of vulnerable adults who are abused or neglected has mirrored the growth in Child Protection referrals over recent years.

    It is critical that the Council has services in place to deal with this growing demand, and its duties and responsibilities set out under new legislation and guidance in the Mental Capacity Act and amendments to the Mental Health Act.

    Background

    In 2008/09 ACS commissioned an independent evaluation of current Safeguarding Adults arrangements. The review highlighted the need for increased investment and a comprehensive overhaul of governance, inter-agency working, policy and practice. The review identified priorities for urgent action in order to deal with the ever increasing volume and complexity in this key area of work. A key priority identified the specific need for specialist managerial and operational support to front line staff as previously the whole workload had been managed by one specialist coordinator for whom the workload had become unmanageable and had led to the inability to manage the increased and complex workload and to protect vulnerable adults adequately.

    The critical needs of the service have intensified in the last 18 months due to the following pressures:

    § Adult social care services lead Safeguarding Adults work on behalf of the Council. Effective safeguarding requires a strong multi-agency approach where each agency and profession has a specific contribution to make in understanding the vulnerable adult’s health and wellbeing and assessing actual and potential risk, therefore it is vital we get our partners engaged in this agenda.

    § Safeguarding referrals continue to increase significantly year on year both in number and complexity both nationally and locally. Handling of cases is subject to strict timescales under the Government’s No Secrets guidance, which are monitored by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on a monthly basis.

    Lambeth Safeguarding Adults Referrals: Year Referrals 2005/06 126 2006/07 189 2007/08 306 2008/09 412 2009/10 (to date) 373 (projected 700+)

  • § The requirement for adult social care services to operate within a Quality Assurance framework that supports continual review and improvement.

    § The new Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) framework, for which the borough will be assessed from 2010 onwards, incorporates a much more robust consideration of the role and value of partnership working than the previous system of Comprehensive Performance Assessment. Judgements will now be made about the effectiveness of service user outcomes delivered through partnership working in the borough, particularly for statutory partnerships. A key outcome includes the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.

    § In 20010/11 the Council and its partners will be subject to an inspection by CQC using a methodology which evaluates the implementation of the Independence, Wellbeing and Choice agenda. One of the aims of the inspection will be to evaluate how well adults are safeguarded in Lambeth. The inspection will contribute significantly to the CAA.

    Growth Proposal

    Currently an enhanced interim Safeguarding service structure is in place and is funded from surpluses across the department; however this cannot be sustained in the long term either financially or through current limited staff resources.

    The key functions of the Strategic Safeguarding team are to review safeguarding policies, procedures and protocols across the partnership and support the full implementation of the multi agency Safeguarding Adults procedures. To support and monitor the business plan of the Lambeth Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board. To monitor the quality and consistency of decision making and adherence to safeguarding timescales. To provide a comprehensive safeguarding training programme to staff in ACS and all our partner agencies.

    The key role of the Operational team is to ensure the No Secrets guidance and the Lambeth multi agency policy and procedures are fully implemented in practice. This team provides on going advice and assistance to all frontline staff and mangers in both internal and external agencies to ensure safeguarding adults policies and procedures are followed. This team also scrutinise and authorise all safeguarding process via FWi and chair strategy meetings and conferences.

    Mainstreaming these functions in both Operational and Strategic Safeguarding remains critical to the needs of the service. Therefore growth is sought in order to regularise the position of this function and to stabilise the provision they make to the service.

    The table below summarises the cost of “bronze”, “silver” and “gold” standard service levels in both Strategic and Operational Safeguarding. Details of the posts included and their costs are contained in the appendix.

    Summary of options: Bronze Standard Silver Standard Gold Standard FTE £’000 FTE £’000 FTE £’000 Strategic 7 378 10 482 10 533 Operational 10* 392 12* 513 13* 513 TOTAL 17 770 22 995 23 1,046

    * 1 FTE in total funded by NHS Lambeth

  • Risks if Growth is Not Funded

    The growth will ensure that both the Council meets its statutory and regulatory requirements and protect vulnerable adults from abuse. This will also help the council to sustain partnership arrangements to coordinate adult protection work in the borough. If the growth is not funded, levels of support particularly to the partnership and governance will be difficult to maintain. Lack of infrastructure and capacity in the Operational function will put the council at serious risk of failing to protect vulnerable adults. This will also have a negative impact on the multi-agency Safeguarding Adults work and ultimately the Council’s CAA rating.

    Last year, councils that did not perform well on Safeguarding Adults in their CQC inspections dropped star ratings, e.g. in Hillingdon inspectors quoted “the delivery of adult safeguarding arrangements in Hillingdon had not been sufficiently rigorous”. The Department needed improvements to arrangements in relation to auditing, training and the future development of a dedicated safeguarding team all of which would impact positively on improved practice. In addition, Hillingdon’s Adult Safeguarding Committee were not operating as an effective strategic driver setting a challenging improvement agenda for safeguarding work couched within a comprehensive performance management and quality assurance framework. “The focus of safeguarding leadership was not clear to stakeholders across multi agency adult services”.

    In both Richmond and Hillingdon Councils they were criticised for their lack of Quality Assurance frameworks (Richmond) …“that there was no quality assurance processes in place regarding the practice, case work and training. Management oversight of quality of case work and compliance with basic risk management requirements was insufficient”. (Hillingdon)…“no clear quality framework was in place and management oversight of practice and outcomes was not sufficiently evidenced … did not include effective monitoring of timescales or outcomes”.

    In Richmond, inspectors concluded that “adult safeguarding has had a low priority within the department and the council as a whole”, this was attributed to a lack of capacity. Both these councils are responding by strengthening their structures post-inspection, and most London boroughs are reviewing their structures with a view to increasing capacity. We are currently trying to obtain more detailed information from neighbouring councils about their Safeguarding Adults structures.

    No Secrets guidance has imposed strict practice timescales for responding and investigating Safeguarding Adults referrals. We are required to report on the compliance with meeting these timescales.

    These timescales include:

    Safeguarding Stage Timescales Alert Immediate Referral to relevant team Within 24 hours of Alert Duty worker or allocated worker to discuss with Practitioner Manager (PM) or Team Manager (TM) and record alert on Framework Decision making on allocation and any initial protection plan agreed and recorded Safeguarding Adults Team formally informed of case and of actions taken/initial protection plan

    Within 24 hours of receiving alert or end of next working day

    Strategy Discussion Within 48 hours Strategy Meeting chaired by TM/PM or Safeguarding Team in complex cases

    Within 5 working days of receiving the Alert

    Safeguarding Assessment & Plan Within 28 days of Strategy discussion or last strategy meeting

    Report to Case Conference and protection plan to be authorised by TM/PM

  • Safeguarding Stage Timescales Safeguarding Case Conference Within 28days of Strategy agreed at

    Strategy meeting Initial Safeguarding Review Case Conference Within 6 weeks of case conference or

    implementation of Safeguarding Plan (or sooner if required)

    Subsequent Review Case Conferences if ongoing Safeguarding issues

    6 or 12 monthly (or sooner if required) until closure of Plan or as determined by Chair.

    Failure to meet these timescales not only impacts on our performance but more importantly on vulnerable people’s lives.

    Increased referrals and complexity of cases requires experienced, competent, skilled staff and managers. It has taken two recruitment campaigns to secure good calibre candidates. We currently still have vacancies for safeguarding Practitioner Managers. Recruitment to safeguarding adults has proved to be difficult due to the high profile nature of safeguarding adults work and we are experiencing similar recruitment difficulties as child protection work in children’s services nationally.

    Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

    A key role of the Quality Assurance function within the Strategic Safeguarding service is to scrutinise practice, performance and operational compliance with procedures through regular auditing of cases, analysis of complaints, and feedback from service users, carers and partners.

    Equalities impact

    This proposal will have a positive equalities impact through improved safeguarding of vulnerable adults.

    Financial Implications

    Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) – minimum growth 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Strategic Safeguarding Adults and Quality Assurance 378 0 0 Operational Safeguarding 392 0 0 TOTAL 770 0 0

  • Appendix

    Strategic Function

    The following are the service critical posts/functions for which growth is sought in the Strategic Safeguarding and Quality Assurance core budget in order to regularise the current situation with respect to provision of the service:

    Post/Grade Anticipated Cost £ Head of Strategic Safeguarding and Quality Assurance (PO9) 71,975 Quality Assurance Manager (PO7) 59,754 Quality Assurance Officer x3 (PO3) 132,621 Safeguarding Adults Policy and Development Manager (PO7) 59,754 Senior Administrator (PO1) Servicing Safeguarding Board, sub groups and training

    39,051

    Supplies, Services and Publications 15,000 TOTAL 378,155 While the Strategic Safeguarding is less directly sensitive to the increasing volumes of referrals, increased volume of referrals represents a challenge for both the council and its partner organisations. However, the Strategic Safeguarding function includes a dedicated Quality Assurance Team; the department previously had no specific quality assurance function. As quoted previously in this report both Hillingdon and Richmond Councils were heavily criticised for not having a quality assurance framework and function to monitor quality of practice, timescales and improved practice outcomes for service users. The role of the interim Quality Assurance Team has provided a comprehensive programme of safeguarding case file audits to identify gaps in practice and have developed an improvement programme linking with training, policy and practice development. The Quality Assurance Team is also leading on working with people who use services and their carers in shaping and evaluating safeguarding arrangements. The Strategic Safeguarding Adults function proposed is similar to that operating currently in CYPS, the team in CYPS have an additional development manager position and a trainer.

    It would be possible to strengthen the function by increasing the number of Quality Assurance Officer posts from three to five and adding a junior administrator post at Sc6 to support training. The additional cost of this would be £120,430.

    Operational Function

    The following are the service critical posts/functions for which we growth is sought in the Operational Safeguarding budget in order to regularise the current situation with respect to provision of the service:

    Post/Grade Anticipated Cost £ Head of Safeguarding Operations and Professional Practice PO9 71,975 Senior Safeguarding Coordinator Practice PO7 59,754 Practitioner Manager PO5 x2 (0.5 FTE funded by NHS Lambeth) 77,766 Senior Safeguarding Man. Info Officer PO1 39,793 Administrator SC6 (50% funded by NHS Lambeth) 16,008 Deprivation of Liberties (DOLs) Officer PO5 (part time) 30,899 Minute Taker SC6 x3 96,048

    TOTAL 392,243

    This provides the minimum structure necessary (bronze standard) to deal with the current level of referrals. The Operational function is under pressure and this structure would be stretched by a significant increase in referrals.

  • The proposal includes funding for specific minute takers; this has been identified for the following reasons:

    § Increased numbers of referrals § The safeguarding process requires a number of complex meetings that require

    detailed minutes and actions within required timescales § The complexity of cases requires increased technical/medical details § Minutes of strategy meetings and case conferences maybe required in cases going

    to court or for serious case reviews as evidence

    Therefore this requires expertise to take accurate minutes all of which requires a skilled and trained workforce. In order to achieve best value the employment of minute taking staff is more cost effective than care managers/case managers taking these minutes.

    Increasing the number of Practitioner Managers from 2 to 5, one for each client group (Older Persons, Learning Disability, Physical and Sensory Impairment, Mental Health, and Substance Misuse / Domestic Violence), would strengthen the structure considerably in anticipation of a continued increase in referrals. (Although the number of referrals varies by client group, the complexity of cases involving older persons is generally less than with other client groups.) That would represent a gold standard of service, at an additional cost of £155,532.

    A less costly option (silver standard) would increase from 2 to 4 Practitioner Managers, for Older Persons, Learning Disability, Physical and Sensory Impairment, and one post covering Mental Health, Substance Misuse and Domestic Violence. The additional cost of this option would be £103,688.

    In comparison CYPS (in Lambeth) have the following structure: a Head of Service, Service manager, six independent reviewing officers (chairs of conferences/advisors) seven minute takers and two administrators.

  • Title of proposal: - Strategy and Commissioning – Preventative Services: (SC G1) Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: Helen Charlesworth-May BU Manager: Alex McTeare

    Background

    A growing population of older people and the increasing cost of acute interventions have focused policy makers on ways of reducing needs. There has not been a tradition of evidence based service provision within social care; this has made it difficult to make the case for investment in prevention services in particular. As a result budget reductions in Lambeth and in many other places have focused on reducing low level services and being very tight in focusing services generally on those most in need. Whilst this was an understandable response to constrained resources and increasing demand it appears to have been counter-productive in terms of meeting the long-term needs of older people. Research by the Personal Social Services Research Unit at the LSE has analysed the impact of some prevention services that aim to shift resources and culture away from the focus on institutionalised and hospital-based crisis care towards earlier and better targeted interventions within community settings. Initial findings indicate that there are reductions in hospital costs, users report improved quality of life and greater satisfaction with services, greater community involvement in the delivery of services, increased volunteering and better relationships between health and social care partners. Similarly research findings for re-enablement and stroke rehabilitation services show real opportunities for savings across the health and social care economy.

    Preventative services are also key to the implementation of the personalisation agenda in Lambeth. The need for preventative services has been highlighted by people in Lambeth through the consultation processes for the Adults with Learning Disability and Older People’s strategies, and the pre-consultation phase of the Adult Physical and Sensory Impairment strategy.

    The development of preventative services in Lambeth has been poor compared to other authorities in London. There are three particular areas where Lambeth is not as advanced as other areas:

    § Assistive technology § Community equipment § Enhanced Handyperson Scheme

    In authority areas where the service is more mature, considerable benefits have been achieved for people by reducing the level of unnecessary hospital admissions, and supporting people to remain in their own homes for longer, rather than having to be as admitted to care home settings.

    Lambeth has a relatively low level of community equipment issued, compared to similar authorities. By being part of the Department of Health ‘Transforming Community Equipment Programme” we are aiming to ensure that community equipment is more widely available in Lambeth, through the issuing of small items of equipment (typically of a value

  • physical and sensory impairment. We have growing numbers of people aged 50+ who have physical and sensory impairment, due to long term conditions and accidents (particularly related to the use of drugs and alcohol). The voluntary sector organisation Action For Blind People, estimate that Lambeth has the highest level of blindness in comparison to other London boroughs, for example.

    We need to embed AT in mainstream services such as the Occupational Therapy service and Home Improvement Agency. There needs to be greater awareness of AT and CE, their uses and applications in the care management and community health teams such as district nurses and GPs. We need to develop the breadth of AT applications available in Lambeth, for example implementing solutions for people with sensory impairment, and use of predictive and interventionist tools. We need to increase the range and availability of community equipment available to people.

    Benefits for people who use services: § increased choice, safety, independence and sense of control § improved quality of life § maintenance of ability to remain at home § reduced burden placed on carers § improved support for people with long-term health conditions § reduction in accidents and falls in the home.

    Estimated annual breakdown of costs (AT and CE): Description Annual costs £ 2010/2011 Change Manager (2010/11 – 2011/12) 50,000 Additional equipment (AT and CE) 150,000 Additional maintenance and monitoring costs 25,000 IT equipment, workshop and meeting costs (2010/11 – 2011/12) 10,000 Training costs (2010/11 – 2011/12) 30,000 TOTAL 265,000 Estimated total number of additional people (Across care groups) to receive AT/ CE

    200 Ongoing cost per person £875

    Handyperson Service We wish to develop an enhanced Handyperson service through a social enterprise model. The aim is for the service to become 75% self-funding following a 2-year period of ‘pump-priming’ support from ACS. It would be expected that the social enterprise would afford an opportunity for work experience, volunteering and paid employment for key vulnerable groups such as adults with learning disability and mental impairment in Lambeth. This would contribute to key performance indicators for the Council. Development of social enterprise is also viewed positively by the Care Quality Commission.

    Estimated annual breakdown of costs (Handyperson Social Enterprise): Description Annual costs £ 2010/2011 Change Manager (2010/11 – 2011/12) 40,000 Supervisors/ Team Leaders X2 60,000 Staff X 4 50,000 IT equipment, etc 13,000 TOTAL 163,000 Estimated total number of people (Across care groups) to receive enhanced Handyperson service 2010-2012

    200 Ongoing cost per person £615

    The revenue costs have been estimated using a review of costs of a range of AT solutions and handyperson services, and likely numbers of people across care groups to additionally benefit from the service. Costs will be incurred from 2010/2011 onwards.

  • Findings from consultations In the consultations for the Older People’s and Physical and Sensory Impairment strategies, people have told us that they would like to see increased use of AT and access to a broader range of equipment. They have also told us the impact that not being able to carry out basic repairs to their properties has on their sense of well-being.

    Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

    § Adults and older people have improved health and emotional wellbeing § Adults and older people are safe from discrimination or harassment and can enjoy

    personal dignity and respect § Adults and older people have an improved quality of life, choice and control § skilled and well-led staff who understand their community § Inequalities and social exclusion in the community are reducing § Our services represent value for money § Local people enjoy a good quality of life in a safe, clean and green environment § Services are supported by effective and efficient processes § Customer satisfaction is improving

    Equalities impact

    It is expected that this proposal will positively impact on equalities, by making equipment AT and CE available to greater numbers of people.

    Financial Implications

    Both the AT/CE and Handyperson proposals are for universal, preventative services. Funding options have been set at levels that should meet demand, thus meeting the criteria for universality and generate the benefits of prevention. The risk of reducing volumes is that the service does not meet demand undermining the aims of prevention and damaging expectations of universality. As each of the proposals is independent of the other it would be preferable to decide on implementation or non-implementation rather than attempting to scale the individual proposals to offer different levels of service.

    Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 AT/CE Service 265 0 (90) Handyperson Service 163 (81) (41) TOTAL 428 (81) (131)

  • Title of proposal – Cultural Services - Park Service improvements and efficiencies (CS S2)

    Improvements and efficiencies in the Parks Services through new contract specifications for grounds maintenance and specialist parks services

    Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: Peter Jones Head of Service: Byron Miller (interim)

    Full Description of Proposal

    The current Grounds Maintenance Service was tendered and the contract won by Veolia in 2004. During the five years of the contract, performance has been adequate and the contractor has worked with the Council to achieve the main KPI of six Green Flags.

    However, as the Council has become more experienced in managing and monitoring the contract, benchmarked with other London authorities and taken more soundings from staff, parks users and stakeholders, it is increasing apparent that the contract should provide both a higher specified service and greater value for money.

    Analysis suggests that the grounds maintenance contract specification is no longer fit for purpose and includes rates that are above the London average. Efficiency savings could be made that will result in a higher quality and more effective service in parks and open spaces. In line with the developing commissioning strategy it is proposed that a number of specialist contracts will be developed, rather than a single general Grounds Maintenance contract as currently. New specifications for grounds maintenance and specialist parks services are currently being developed, and it is expected to let or renew contracts in October 2010. This will result in efficiencies in the region of £1.5m (11% over the lifetime of the contract) or up to £300k per year. The timing means that the full benefits and savings from the proposal will not be realised in the first year. The balance of savings in 2010/11 will be found within the overall ACS budget.

    Improving the contract specification The specification will address include the following areas of quality improvement (not an exhaustive list):

    § More staff that dedicated to single parks or parks groups through a reduction in mobile teams

    § Uniformed and recognisable staff § Staff that provide a presence throughout the day, particularly during summer evening

    when young children are playing in paddling pools – currently there is no presence during late summer evenings, which is a potential child safety issue

    § Localised staff that provide an evening presence will also ensure: § A greater level of recognition by uses and stakeholders § Greater commitment to ‘their’ park § A locking up service for parks that needs to be locked providing savings on the

    current expensive gates locking service § Increase in specialist horticultural staff § More work with community and Friends groups:

    § Activity and planting days § Increased volunteering in ecology and events § Increased input into ecology and environment days

  • Creating efficiencies Efficiencies can be gained in the following areas:

    § Contracting out specialised jobs rather than sub-contracting e.g. sports pitch maintenance, pond maintenance, specialist grounds and infrastructure improvement. This potentially gives the Council greater control over quality and saves on the sub-contracting fee (est. 10%)

    § Removal of potential areas of duplication with other contracts e.g. the Parks Improvement Team (PIT) function and contract either with a specialist provider or with a corporate contract

    § Having the contractor focus more on low value basic items such as grass cutting and litter picking; these items are current over valued in the contract compared with London averages

    § Reduction in high cost low impact but over specified areas including: infrastructure improvements, fly tipping clearance, water body or pond maintenance

    As part of the overall effort to improve the service to parks users and stakeholders, officers will also analyse internal services where continuing efficiencies can be gained whilst improving value and quality.

    Community Impact Although much of the Parks Services is non-statutory, it is highly visible with a high profile in the awareness of members and the community. This proposal will deliver a higher specified service alongside improved value for money.

    Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

    It is considered that this proposal will have a positive impact upon both performance and corporate priorities; particularly in the following areas:

    § 8 Green Flags will be achieved by 2012 § Parks will be safer than they currently are with stronger community involvement

    through dog walkers and new Parks Watch initiative § In partnership with the Friends, Sports Team and the improvements being carried out

    by the Cultural Development/Environmental Improvement Team; this proposal will ensure there are more and safer opportunities for young people and children

    § This proposal will help the council to better protect the environment; particularly the parks environment that we have been recently working so hard to improve; this includes protection from dangerous dogs and anti-social behaviour

    § It will finally demonstrate that we are listening to the needs and wants of our customers and beginning to serve them effectively

    Equalities impact

    This proposal will have a positive equalities impact.

    Financial Implications

    Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Estimated gross savings (300) 0 0 TOTAL (300) 0 0

  • The current Grounds Maintenance contract is valued at around £14m including contract variations. This will result in efficiencies in the region of £1.5m (11% over the lifetime of the contract) or up to £300k per year. The timing means that the full benefits and savings from the proposal will not be realised in the first year. The balance of savings in 2010/11 will be found within the overall ACS budget.

  • Children and Young People’s Services

    Revenue Growth 1.1 Title of Proposal: Implementing Laming report recommendations Executive Director: Phyllis Dunipace Divisional Director: Ade Adetosoye, Social Care BU Manager: Ade Adetosoye

    Background

    1.1 Following the tragic death of Baby Peter in Haringey, the Right Honourable Ed Balls MP commissioned Lord Laming to report urgently on the progress being made across the country to implement effective arrangements for safeguarding children. The kernel of the task was to evaluate the good practice that has been developed since the publication of the report of the independent enquiry following the death of Victoria Climbié in 2003, to identify the barriers that are now preventing good practice from becoming standard practice and to recommend actions to be taken to make systematic improvements in safeguarding children across the country. As part of his investigations Lord Laming’s team visited Lambeth to hear about the work of front line practitioners in safeguarding Lambeth’s children and the work of the Lambeth Safeguarding Children Board. The team were impressed with progress being made in Lambeth and the resulting report contains a good practice example from Lambeth.

    1.2 Lord Laming’s report The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report was

    published in March 2009. Lord Laming reports that the last five years were a particularly intense time of change and that a great deal of progress has already been made in respect of nurturing and protecting every child. However, despite an encouraging start, he acknowledges that real challenges in safeguarding and child protection still need to be addressed.

    1.3 Lord Laming made 58 recommendations for change covering;

    Leadership and accountability Support for children Interagency working Children’s workforce Improvement and challenge Organisation and finance Legal

    2. Full description of proposal: 2.1 The Government Action Plan contains requirements for action to be completed from

    May 2009 through to 2011. There are broadly three types of actions contained in the Plan: Those required of Government or National bodies; those under local discretion that can be implemented straight away; those anticipated changes that can be planned for and implemented locally that will bring about improvements to local practice and outcomes for children, but have not yet been required of local areas.

    2.2 This paper sets out the financial requirements needed to fully implement key aspects

    of the Laming report that can be implemented locally. Recommendations that are led by central government are difficult to estimate at this stage and are not included in this report.

  • Delivery of local recommendations from The Lord Laming Report

    3.1 Children’s Workforce

    3.1.1 Lambeth has made significant improvement in recruiting permanent social work staff and rates of locum staff are on course to reduce to 5% when currently recruited staff have completed the administrative processes and are in post. Newly recruited social workers places additional demands on managers for supervising work and requires additional supports such as mentoring and training to support the development of practice.

    3.1.2 CYPS has taken steps to review the caseloads of all staff so that no social worker carries more than 7 child protection cases and no social worker with less than 12 months experience is required to hold a child protection case, and will receive a protected workload. The skill mix of all teams has been reviewed and a workload measurement scheme introduced to ensure reasonable and equitable workloads. This has required an increase of 13 temporary social work posts and 2 temporary team manager posts to ensure that minimum standards are in place and to meet current demand.

    Proposed Solution

    3.1.3 While recent initiatives to recruit permanent staff have been successful, most of these recruits are new graduates who will have considerable professional development needs over the coming years. It is essential that they receive adequate supervision and support as well as a controlled workload if they are to mature into effective experienced practitioners and to remain with Lambeth. A Mentoring Scheme has now been established as well as a mandatory in - service training scheme. However, to be successful these initiatives will require a staffing level which can manage the proposed caseload of 12 children per social worker while still permitting the release of ‘trainees’ and more experienced staff as mentors and trainers.

    3.1.4 To achieve this, the service will require additional qualified senior social workers to

    ensure that the caseload ratio of 12 children to each social worker is achieved. The costing for these additional staff based on Matrix agency rate is set out in the table below:

    Staff Additional

    Staff Cost Social Workers 13 £840,166.60 Team Managers 2 £186,295.20 £1,026,461.80 Managerial & Admin Support £76,000.00 £1,102,461.80

    3.2 Integrated Children System (ICS)

    3.2.1 Lord Laming recommends that the Integrated Children System (ICS) (an electronic system for recording social work records) is reviewed to reduce the burden on social workers for unnecessary administrative work. The Social Work Task Force has been commissioned to consider the remodelling of Social Work to ensure that Social Workers have more time to spend with children by reducing these administrative burdens.

  • Proposed Solution

    3.2.2 A project group has been in place for some time in Lambeth to develop and refine the ICS system although, to date, there has been little flexibility to deviate from the national system. There is likely to be more flexibility to refine the system to meet local needs following Laming.

    3.2.3 Laming recommends the co-location of police and health staff and this is currently under consideration; there is currently a health visitor, adult mental health and substance misuse worker co-located. The LSCB and social care training programmes have been reviewed in accordance with the Laming recommendations and 2 additional staff have been appointed to increase the capacity of the training programme.

    3.2.4 To achieve this, the service will require additional funding to ensure that ICS is re-configured locally. There is a central government grant of £64,000 which would be used towards this. However, the government has not set aside any additional funding to facilitate the co-location agenda with the police and health staff. To this effect, a sum of £100,000 is required for this purpose.

    4. Leadership and Accountability

    4.1 The Executive Director CYPS currently chairs the LSCB. Lord Laming encouraged local authorities to have an independent chair of the LSCB.

    Proposed Solution

    4.2 The LSCB have agreed that an independent Chair should be appointed for the Board and for the Serious Case Review Sub Committee. To achieve this, the service will require additional funding to ensure that independent officers are recruited to chair both the board and the sub committee. A sum of £50,000 is required for this purpose.

    5. Support for Children (Contact Point)

    5.1 The Council places a high priority on providing a range of excellent child centred early intervention services so that needs are addressed before problems become intractable. The partnership have a clear strategic priority to further improve prevention and early intervention and have already made significant progress in implementing the Common Assessment Framework, Lead Professional and Team Around the Child (TAC), which are well embedded. This approach will be further strengthened with the introduction of Contact Point. Contact Point is a key element of the Department of Children, Schools and Families’ (DCSF) Every Child Matters programme to transform children’s services by supporting more effective prevention and early intervention. DCSF has used the Children Act 2004 to legally create ContactPoint, and has mandated the use of ContactPoint by every authority in England

    5.2 ContactPoint will contribute to earlier intervention of support to vulnerable children through facilitating improved information sharing amongst practitioners. This will contribute to improving the safeguarding of vulnerable children. The aim is for ContactPoint to ‘go live’ in Lambeth in spring/summer 2010. ContactPoint is currently funded via a grant from DCSF. Funding is unlikely to be more than the level of grant (£158,719) received this year and may be reduced as local authorities are expected to fund the maintenance and support of ContactPoint once it has ‘gone live’.

  • Proposed Solution 5.3 Currently the Contact Point team is configured as a project delivery team. The

    requirements to administer and maintain ContactPoint once it goes live in Lambeth will require a different team with new roles. Funding for 2010-11 will need to cover the mainstreaming phase of the project – maintaining and managing Contact Point post launch, completing organisational accreditation of schools, ongoing training of users, and auditing data. It is estimated that ContactPoint will require funding of up to £215k in 2010-11.

    What resource is required

    When is Resource required?

    Resources Costs expected

    ContactPoint Manager

    April 2010-March 2011

    New role to manage CP for LBL

    £62k

    ContactPoint Data Administrator (1 post)

    April 2010-March 2011

    New roles £19k for 6 months

    ContactPoint User Administrators (2 posts)

    April 2010-March 2011

    New roles £34k for 6 months

    Helpdesk Costs Jan 2010 – ongoing

    1 Helpdesk administrator may be required

    £25k (TBC)

    ContactPoint Business Transformation Officer (PO3 – (required for accreditation of schools)

    April-July 2010

    £15k for 4 months

    Training resources (2 posts) and training venues

    April 2010-March 2011

    Training analysis and delivery across all relevant agencies working with children

    £50k

    ContactPoint Tokens for local practitioners

    April 2010-March 2011

    Approx 2400 users from partner agencies will need tokens for secure access

    £5k

    Comms – Production of leaflets and awareness across Lambeth and its agencies

    April 2010-March 2011

    £5k

    Total funding required for 20010/11 financial year £215k Current funding secured (awaiting announcement of DCSF maintenance grant)

    £0

    Total funding deficit £215k

    6. Benefits

    This proposal will allow the local authority to comply with the Laming recommendations on caseload, ICS, and also ensure that vulnerable children in Lambeth are adequately safeguarded.

  • 7. Risks

    If the provision is not made, Lambeth may not be able to implement the Laming recommendations as there is no current capacity to fund this new Government led initiative in the base budget.

    8. Equalities Impact

    Child protection work is a statutory duty. This provision will have a major positive impact on the lives of all vulnerable children in Lambeth. Children with Disabilities are particularly vulnerable and BME children are over represented in the cohort of vulnerable children with whom we are working. This provision will improve the services they receive. There is no adverse impact on any particular groups of children and young people based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or faith.

    9. Financial Implications

    Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Children’s Workforce (Additional qualified senior social workers) 1,102 0 0 Integrated Children System (additional staff) 100 0 0 Leadership and accountability (LSCB) 50 0 0 Contact Point funding gap 215 0 0 TOTAL 1,467 0 0

  • Revenue Saving 1.2 Strategic Review of Service Delivery Models, Partnership Working and Grant Maximisation Title of proposal: Strategic Review of Service Delivery Models and Grant Maximisation Executive Director: Phyllis Dunipace 1. Service and Function review The department is undertaking a strategic review of how it delivers its services and support functions in order to identify further efficiencies by:

    • Launching a project to develop alternative service/ organisational options to allow CYPS to continue to deliver sustainable services more cost effectively. The review is to focus on identifying areas of duplication, economies of scale and aligning/ merging functions where synergies are possible.

    • The number of agency workers has already been reduced across the department in a phased way

    2. Joint working with partners Working in partnership can also release efficiencies, as already seen in 2007, when the Council pooled budgets with schools to deliver a number of successful programmes eg. the management of the Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). This allowed essential partnership priorities to be delivered by the use of pooled budgets, ensuring better outcomes for children. To ensure that partnership resources are used even more efficiently, the department is seeking to identify areas where shared objectives allow the streamlining of resources to meet joint priorities, identify further areas for joint projects, funding of posts, co-locating services and making use of economies of scale. The CYPSP are currently developing an Interagency Resources group, which will consist of the key finance representatives from CYPS, CAMHS, the Metropolitan Police Service and NHS Lambeth. This group will work to map how resources across the partnership are being spent to help Children and Young People and their families in Lambeth and identify areas where budgets could be further aligned or pooled to meet joint priorities. 3. Review of grant utilisation Nearly 80% of CYPS expenditure is grant funded. CYPS aims to extend its strategic review of how services are being funded and delivered to grant funded activities as well. Apart from looking at new areas that could attract grant funding and thereby potentially reduce financial burden on the Council own funding, but also methodically reviewing the use of each existing major CYPS grant. This review would assess the staffing and activities the grants currently support and explore whether there is scope for more effective use of these funds Although the majority of grants are ring-fenced for a specific purpose there is considerable overlap between certain grant-funded services. This overlap can provide opportunities for joint working, synergies, and more effective overall use of funds, which can be translated into efficiencies. Undertaking such a strategic review of grants will identify areas where there are overlaps in objectives and priorities across various grants and Council’s own funding and identify areas where more effective use can be re-directed to cover costs currently funded by departmental cash limit.

  • The review of grants will also take account of the types of employment contracts associated with grant-funded staff. If a grant is specified for a particular period, the staff in that area should be linked to a fixed term contract. The main grants in CYPS are:

    • Dedicated Schools Grant • Standards Fund • Early Years Sure Start Grant • Area Based Grant • Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Grant • Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers Grant • Young Person’s Substance Misuse Project • Leaving Care Grant

    Risks Any major change in how services are being delivered organisationally need to consider the potential adverse impact on staff morale, retention and productivity. Reliance on grants to fund further staff and/or services can be a risky strategy in the current economic climate. If a grant were to be removed or significantly reduced, there would be an impact on staffing levels across the department, therefore sustainability of funding needs to be considered when making any decisions involving grant funding. Achieving the full proposed saving within one year carries risk of reduction in the volume or quality of some services provided by the department. Equality Impact Assessments Equality Impact Assessments will need to be carried out on each specific proposal when more detailed information will become available. Financial implications 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Savings through strategic review of service delivery models, partnership working and review of the use of grants (1,050) 0 0 Strategic Review of Service Delivery Models, Partnership Working and Grant Maximisation is expected to allow CYPS to release £1,050k from its cash limit in 2010/11

  • PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A NEW PROPOSAL BUT ONE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2009 AND AMENDED. 2.1 Title of proposal: Young and Safe in Lambeth: Youth Violent Crime Action Plan (revised profile, original bid approved in 2009) Executive Director: Phyllis Dunipace Divisional Director: John Readman 1. Background Information 1.1 The Young and Safe programme provides multi-agency support to young people at

    risk of violent offending. It aims to reduce serious youth violence, such as gun and knife crime

    Reduction of Youth Offending is a key priority of the Council and the Lambeth Strategic Partnership.

of 123/123
Appendix 4 - Detailed new growth and savings proposals 2010/11 to 2012/13 Adults’ and Community Services Title of Proposal: Police Community Support Officers (ASC(CS) G3) Proposal to meet the increased costs of match funding twenty two PCSOs under an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Authority for a further 5 years to 2013-14. Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: George Marshman BU Manager: Ann Corbett Full Description of Proposal Making Communities Safer is a key priority for the Council and concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour are residents’ top priority. The Council agreed to enter into a two year arrangement with the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) from 2007-8 to match fund 22 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) at a cost of £440,000 per annum. Originally funding was allocated from Neighbourhood Renewal Funds with growth being agreed from 2008-9. Currently this funding is within Public Realm but there is agreement to transfer this budget to Community Safety in the current financial year. The Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Committee (31.3.09) considered an Evaluation and Options report on the Council funded PCSOs. Key benefits identified were: Increased visibility working with the PCSOs increasing the strength of Safer Neighbourhood Teams in the North and South of the Borough to tackle local crime and anti-social behaviour issues Increased engagement with communities and greater intelligence on crime and anti- social behaviour as a result Additional resources Brixton Town Centre Team providing reassurance and also intelligence on criminal activity Assisting with Local Authority enviro-crime initiatives, including Freshview and Community Freshview Issue of Fixed Penalty Notices including FPNs for cycling on the pavement Targeted public reassurance patrols Detention of suspects in a range of offences including robbery, theft, disorderly behaviour and drug-related offences Working with Lambeth’s Trading Standards department in a alcohol and knife test purchase operation along Streatham High Road Working with Lambeth parking and the DVLA to remove untaxed vehicles Introducing weekly drop-in surgery at Elm Green School Providing a Single-point of contact for Brighton Terrace residents’ as part of the ongoing support for the treatment centre and Lorraine Hewitt House The Council was invited to extend this arrangement for a further two or five year basis by the MPA. Strategic Leadership Board (in early June) recommended that the arrangement should be extended for a five year term as this provided better value. Formal agreement to extend the Section 92 Agreement was sent to the MPA on 4 June 2009 from the Executive Director of Adults’ and Community Services.
Embed Size (px)
Recommended