You are on page 1of 62


1PL lMAC1 Cl 1PL LCCAL CCvL8nMLn1 SLnulnC Cu1S ln


ln1L8lM 8LC81

Amanda llLzgerald, 8uLh LupLon, 8onan SmyLh, olly vlzard

ChapLer 1: lnLroducLlon ......................................................................................................................... 1
1he Local CovernmenL lundlng CuLs ................................................................................................. 1
Cur Approach .................................................................................................................................... 2
ChapLer 2 : 1he London-wlde lcLure .................................................................................................... 4
Cverall 8educLlons ln Local AuLhorlLy lundlng Across London 2009/10 Lo 2013/4 .......................... 4
ulfferences 8eLween London 8oroughs ............................................................................................ 6
Local AuLhorlLy 8esponses ............................................................................................................... 10
1hree Case SLudles ........................................................................................................................... 13
ChapLer 3: 8renL Councll 8esponse Lo Lhe CuLs ................................................................................... 18
8renL's CharacLerlsLlcs ..................................................................................................................... 18
1he Slze of Lhe CuL ........................................................................................................................... 19
1he Cverall 8esponse ...................................................................................................................... 20
under-llves Servlces ........................................................................................................................ 23
?ouLh Servlces .................................................................................................................................. 24
Clder eople's Servlces .................................................................................................................... 26
Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 28
ChapLer 4: Camden Councll 8esponse Lo Lhe CuLs .............................................................................. 30
Camden's CharacLerlsLlcs ................................................................................................................. 30
1he Slze of Lhe CuL ........................................................................................................................... 31
1he Cverall 8esponse ...................................................................................................................... 32
under-llves Servlces ........................................................................................................................ 36
?ouLh Servlces .................................................................................................................................. 38
Clder eople's Servlces .................................................................................................................... 40
Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 43
ChapLer 3: 8edbrldge Councll response Lo Lhe cuLs ............................................................................ 44
8edbrldge's CharacLerlsLlcs ............................................................................................................. 44
1he Slze of Lhe CuL ........................................................................................................................... 43
1he Cverall 8esponse ...................................................................................................................... 46
under-llves Servlces ........................................................................................................................ 30
?ouLh Servlces .................................................................................................................................. 31
Clder eople's Servlces .................................................................................................................... 33
Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 33
ChapLer 6: Summary, ulscusslon and Concluslon ............................................................................ 37
Classlfylng Lhe CuLs .......................................................................................................................... 37
ShorL-1erm lmpacLs on Servlce users .............................................................................................. 64
Longer 1erm lmpllcaLlons for Servlce uellvery ................................................................................ 67
Wlder 8eflecLlons ............................................................................................................................ 69
Concluslon ....................................................................................................................................... 71

8eferences ........................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendlx 1: MeLhodology for ueflnlng CuLs Lo Local AuLhorlLy lundlng .......................................... 73
Appendlx 2: 1rends ln 1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure 2009/10 Lo 2013/14 (Less LducaLlon) ................... 76
Appendlx 3: 8eporLed 8educLlons ln Speclflc Servlces Areas 2009/10 Lo 2013/14 ............................. 84
Appendlx 4: Levels of unallocaLed llnanclal 8eserves ........................................................................ 83

llgure 1: ercenLage Change ln CenLral CovernmenL lundlng for Servlces 2009/10 Lo 2013/14, 8eal
1erms 2012/13 prlces. ........................................................................................................................... 4
llgure 2: Change ln LsLlmaLed Spendlng ower er CaplLa, London 8oroughs, 2010/11 Lo 2013/14 .. 6
llgure 3: 8eal 1erms CuL ln Spendlng ower 2010/11 Lo 2013/14 by percenLage of lncome ralsed
from Councll 1ax 2009/10 ...................................................................................................................... 8
llgure 4: 8eal 1erms CuL ln Spendlng ower 2010/11 Lo 2013/14 by 8ank on lndlces of MulLlple
ueprlvaLlon ............................................................................................................................................ 9
llgure 3: 8eal 1erms CuL ln Spendlng ower 2010/11 Lo 2013/14 by Spend per CaplLa 2009/10 ....... 9
llgure 6: Share of 1oLal London Local AuLhorlLy LxpendlLure (less educaLlon) made up by ulfferenL
Servlce Areas 2009/10 ......................................................................................................................... 13
llgure 7: ercenLage 8educLlons (8eal 1erms) ln 1oLal London 8orough Servlce LxpendlLure 2009/10
Lo 2013/14, and 1helr ConLrlbuLlon Lo Cverall 8educLlons. ................................................................ 13
llgure 8: 1oLal levels of unallocaLed llnanclal 8eserves (real Lerms 2012/13 prlces), 2009-2013, all
London 8oroughs ................................................................................................................................. 14
llgure 9: 1oLal lncome from Sales, lees and Charges 2009/10 Lo 2011/12, All 8oroughs ................. 13
llgure 10: Sales, lees and Charges, 8renL 2009/10 Lo 2011/12 .......................................................... 22
llgure 11: Sales, lees and Charges, Camden 2009/10 Lo 2011/12 ...................................................... 34
llgure 12: Sales, lees and Charges, 8edbrldge 2009/10 Lo 2011/12 .................................................. 49


!"#$%&' )* +,%'-./0%1-,

2"& 3-0#4 5-6&',7&,% 8/,.1,9 !/%:

AL Lhe 2010 Spendlng 8evlew, plans were announced Lo reduce Lhe fundlng of local
auLhorlLles by 26 per cenL (7.6 bllllon) ln real Lerms, beLween Aprll 2011 and March 2013
(excludlng schools, pollce and flre).

Concern abouL Lhe lmpacL of Lhese budgeL reducLlons on local communlLles ls wldespread.
AL a Llme of economlc sLagnaLlon, many mlghL expecL more raLher Lhan less help from local
governmenL. ?eL supporL and servlces are belng cuL aL Lhe same Llme as household lncomes
are falllng, reflecLlng noL [usL economlc hard-Llmes, buL also Lhe lmpacL of recenL welfare
reforms. ln general Lerms one would expecL Lo see negaLlve lmpacLs for resldenLs from
Lhese large scale budgeL cuLbacks, and also locally varlable lmpacLs as dlfferenL Counclls
make dlfferenL declslons abouL whlch servlces and whlch groups of users can be more or
less proLecLed.

Powever, relaLlvely llLLle ls yeL known abouL acLual lmpacLs and evldence Lo daLe ls
somewhaL confllcLlng. Local quallLaLlve research by Lhe new economlcs foundaLlon (nef)
(Slay and enny 2013) ln Parlngey and 8lrmlngham reporLed LhaL many servlces were belng
'cuL compleLely' wlLh closures of youLh cenLres, day cenLres and luncheon clubs and wlder
closures and cuLbacks Lo parks, alloLmenLs, llbrarles, nelghbourhood managemenL,
cusLomer walk-ln cenLres, and lelsure cenLres, desplLe rlslng demand for servlces. nef
argued LhaL loss or reducLlon of Lhese servlces, and 'Lurmoll' ln Lhe volunLary secLor, were
leavlng people lsolaLed and wlLhouL supporL ln Lhe face of lnsecure employmenL, falllng
wages and debL. A recenL survey of London Counclllors suggesLed LhaL 91 per cenL LhoughL
servlces had been affecLed by budgeL cuLs and 30 per cenL LhoughL LhaL Lhey had been
drasLlcally affecLed (London CommunlcaLlons Agency 2013). Cn Lhe oLher hand, a 2013
survey by lSCS MC8l found LhaL Lwo Lhlrds of people surveyed had noL really noLlced any
changes Lo Lhe servlces provlded by Lhelr local Councll.
A survey by wC, coverlng Lhls
same lssue, roughly corroboraLes LhaL observaLlon (wC 2013).

1hls reporL ls Lhe flrsL of Lwo ln whlch we seek Lo explore Lhe lmpacL of Lhe local auLhorlLy
cuLs ln London, complemenLlng slmllar research belng underLaken for Lhe !oseph 8ownLree
loundaLlon on non-London local auLhorlLles ln Lngland and ScoLland.
AlLhough London
boroughs have much ln common wlLh oLher local auLhorlLles ln Lhe scale of budgeL

Schools are excluded because Lhe rapld acceleraLlon of Lhe Academles programme, shlfLlng fundlng from
local auLhorlLles Lo Academles, obscures analysls of real changes ln levels of fundlng ln oLher servlces, pollce
and flre are Lechnlcally 'local governmenL' buL are noL under Lhe conLrol of local counclls, whlch are our focus
A flgure somewhaL lower Lhan LhaL of Lhe lSCS MC8l survey ls presenLed buL, aL almosL half of all people,
Lhe flgure ls sLlll hlgh glven Lhe scale of Lhe cuLs.
PasLlngs eL al. 2013 aL Lhe unlverslLles of Clasgow and PerloL-WaLL.

reducLlons, Lhey face a parLlcular seL of condlLlons and pressures: a hlghly quallfled labour
force and growlng economy, rapld populaLlon growLh, eLhnlc dlverslLy, hlgh renLs and llvlng
cosLs, and Lhe need Lo supporL and lnvesL ln lnfrasLrucLure and servlces Lo supporL Lhe
funcLlons of a caplLal clLy (London Counclls 2013, Wllson & 1aylor 2013). London was Lhe
only reglon ln Lngland Lo see no dlp ln economlc ouLpuL durlng Lhe recesslon and lLs
economy reLurned Lo growLh more qulckly and more sLrongly Lhan oLher parLs of Lhe
counLry. ?eL lnequallLy rose ln London ln Lhe years lmmedlaLely followlng Lhe flnanclal crash
as Lhe pooresL Londoners saw Lhelr earnlngs and lncomes harder hlL Lhan Lhose who were
already beLLer off (LupLon eL al. 2013).

London's local governmenL ls also somewhaL dlsLlncLlve. 1he fragmenLed naLure of
governance ln Lhe clLy, wlLh LhlrLy-Lhree separaLe counclls coverlng areas as dlfferenL from
one anoLher as 8lchmond and 1ower PamleLs, makes for a parLlcularly complex plcLure. As
dlfferenL local auLhorlLles respond dlfferenLly boLh Lo Lhelr new powers and opporLunlLles
presenLed by Lhe locallsm agenda and Lo Lhe consLralnLs presenLed by budgeL cuLs, Lhe
poLenLlal clearly exlsLs for slmllar resldenLs ln dlfferenL parLs of Lhe caplLal Lo experlence
hlghly varylng lmpacLs of Lhese changes. London's counclls have hlsLorlcally had relaLlvely
hlgh expendlLure per caplLa (malnly because of Lhelr hlgh deprlvaLlon), hlgh caplLal spend,
and a greaLer Lhan average rellance on cenLral governmenL fundlng (uCLC 2013). 1helr
Councll 1ax aL 8and u has Lended Lo be lower Lhan elsewhere ln Lngland, alLhough Lhelr
average Councll 1ax ls hlgher, because of Lhe hlgher proporLlon of hlgh valued properLles
(Adam, Lmmerson, and kenley 2007). 1hey Lyplcally have a sLronger asseL base Lhan many
oLher auLhorlLles, and a sllghLly hlgher level of reserves as a proporLlon of revenue
expendlLure (uCLC 2013). 1hus Lhey may be boLh more and less able Lo cope wlLh fundlng
consLralnLs and reforms Lhan auLhorlLles ouLslde Lhe caplLal - and of course Lhere ls
subsLanLlal varlaLlon beLween London auLhorlLles as well as varlaLlon beLween London and
Lhe resL of Lhe counLry. All of Lhls makes looklng aL London an lmporLanL complemenL Lo
wlder work lnvesLlgaLlng Lhe lmpacL of Lhe spendlng cuLs ln oLher areas of Lhe counLry.

;/' <$$'-#0"

We Lake a Lwo-sLage approach Lo undersLandlng Lhe lmpacL of Lhe cuLs. ln Lhls reporL, we
examlne Lhe scale and dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe cuLs ln London, comparlng Lhem Lo Lhe slLuaLlon
ouLslde Lhe caplLal. We Lhen hone ln on Lhree local auLhorlLles faclng dlfferenL conLexLs and
demand pressures and wlLh dlfferenL pollLlcal orlenLaLlon: 8renL, Camden and 8edbrldge.

ln '30 ways Lo save: Lxamples of senslble savlngs ln local governmenL' (uCLC 2012), Lrlc
lckles lnsLrucLed local counclls Lo focos oo cottloq woste ooJ mokloq seoslble sovloqs to
ptotect ftootlloe setvlces ooJ keep cooocll tox Jowo." 1hls sLaLemenL ls accompanled by a
llsL of flfLy ways a Councll could save money, ranglng from cancelllng 'away days ln posh
hoLels and gllLzy award ceremonles' Lo 'scrapplng Lhe chlef execuLlve posL enLlrely'.
1hrough Lhe Lhree case sLudles, drawlng on senlor-level lnLervlews and pollcy and budgeL
documenLs, we examlne how London boroughs have, ln pracLlce, acLually gone abouL
maklng savlngs. Pow have Lhey balanced Lhelr budgeLs? WhaL have been Lhe drlvers,

See ChapLer 1 for more deLall of why Lhese 8oroughs were selecLed.

sLraLegles and levers underlylng Lhelr declslons? Pow are Lhey managlng and mlLlgaLlng
lmpacLs on resldenLs - ln parLlcular ln Lhree groups: famllles wlLh chlldren aged under flve,
young people (16-24) and older people (63+) wlLh care needs?

ln Lhe second sLage of Lhe work, Lo be publlshed ln summer 2014, we wlll draw on
lnLervlews wlLh resldenLs of Lhese boroughs and fronLllne sLaff, as well as on secondary daLa
sources, Lo explore how Lhe dlfferenL approaches of Lhe Lhree auLhorlLles are belng
experlenced aL ground level. 1hls work wlll focus more closely on [usL one ward wlLhln each
case sLudy borough, ln order Lo produce a deLalled mapplng of Lhe acLual changes Lo local
servlces, and Lhe ways ln whlch Lhese changes are belng experlenced ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe
wlder economlc pressures and servlce changes LhaL are also aL work.

We make no clalms Lo comprehenslveness - no doubL greaLer dlverslLy of approach and
lmpacL wlll be found ln Lhe LhlrLy London auLhorlLles noL sampled Lhan ln Lhe Lhree on whlch
we have resources Lo focus, and beLween dlfferenL wards wlLhln each borough. Powever,
we hope Lhe work sLarLs Lo provlde some deLalled lnslghLs lnLo Lhe challenges and
opporLunlLles faclng local auLhorlLles ln London, Lhelr opLlons and consLralnLs, Lhe sLraLegles
Lhey are followlng ln response, Lhe facLors LhaL shape Lhese, and Lhe effecLs of Lhese
responses ln Lhe llves of some of Lhe people mosL llkely Lo be affecLed.

!"#$%&' = * 2"& 3-,.-,>?1.& @10%/'&

;6&'#44 A&./0%1-,: 1, 3-0#4 </%"-'1%B 8/,.1,9 <0'-:: 3-,.-, =CCDE)C %-

Cverall, cenLral governmenL fundlng for servlce provlslon ln London's LhlrLy Lhree boroughs
fell by 2.7 bllllon (33 per cenL) beLween 2009/10, Lhe lasL year of Lhe Labour governmenL,
and 2013/14), ln real Lerms, Laklng accounL of lnflaLlon.

1he change from 2009/10 Lo 2010/11 was small (1 per cenL) overall. 1he ma[or fall (20 per
cenL of Lhe 2009/10 budgeL) came beLween 2010/11 and 2011/12 as Lhe CoallLlon's flrsL
local governmenL flnanclal seLLlemenL came lnLo effecL. 1he years 2012/13 and 2013/14
saw conLlnulng buL more modesL reducLlons of 6 per cenL of Lhe 2009/10 budgeL
respecLlvely (see llgure 1). ln per caplLa Lerms, Lhe reducLlon was sllghLly greaLer.

I|gure 1: ercentage Change |n Centra| Government Iund|ng for Serv|ces 2009]10 to
2013]14, kea| 1erms 2012]13 pr|ces.

Sources: AuLhor's calculaLlons of fundlng amounLs based on uCLC ouLLurn daLa (8S) for 2009/10 Lo 2011/12
and budgeL daLa for 2012/13 and 2013/14. nomlnal flgures are converLed lnLo real Lerms (2012/13 prlces)
uslng PM 1reasury Cu ueflaLors publlshed !une 2013. er caplLa calculaLlons for 2009/10, 2010/11 and
2011/12 use Cfflce for naLlonal SLaLlsLlcs (CnS) mld-year esLlmaLes revlsed followlng Lhe 2011 Census. lor
2012/13 Lhey use Lhe CnS annual mld-year populaLlon esLlmaLes and for 2013/14 CnS populaLlon pro[ecLlons
- all for calendar years ascrlbed Lo Lhe relevanL flnanclal year l.e. mld-2009 populaLlon ls ascrlbed Lo Lhe
2009/10 flnanclal year.

1here are numerous ways of calculaLlng 'local governmenL cuLs' and Lherefore Lhe flgures LhaL are reporLed
ln dlfferenL sources do dlffer. We seL ouL our approach ln more deLall ln Appendlx 1. ln brlef, we deflne
'fundlng for servlces' as conslsLlng of local auLhorlLy formula granL plus speclal, speclflc and area-based granLs
excludlng Lhose for schools and slxLh forms (because Lhe wldespread change Lo Academles makes comparlson
over Llme dlfflculL) and excludlng Lhose LhaL cover Lhe cosL of houslng and Councll 1ax beneflLs. We exclude
Lhe new publlc healLh granL whlch was pald Lo local auLhorlLles ln 2013/14 Lo flnance new responslblllLles for
publlc healLh, ln order Lo show comparable flgures for Lhe whole perlod. We converL all sums lnLo 2012/13
prlces Lo Lake accounL of Lhe effecLs of lnflaLlon.
-6 -6
2009/10 Lo
2010/11 Lo
2011/12 Lo
2012/13 Lo
2009/10 Lo





AggregaLe er caplLa

1he loss of fundlng ln London over Lhe four year perlod was Lhe same, overall, as
experlenced by oLher urban auLhorlLles ln Lngland: Lhe meLropollLan dlsLrlcLs and unlLary
auLhorlLles. Accordlng Lo London Counclls, London auLhorlLles dld raLher worse ouL of Lhe
seLLlemenL Lo 2012/13 and raLher beLLer ln 2013/14.

All Lhese flgures descrlbe changes ln lncome from cenLral governmenL Lo local auLhorlLles -
a cuL ln fooJloq. 1he governmenL prefers Lo descrlbe Lhe changes ln Lerms of 'spendlng
power', whlch lncludes lncome from Councll 1ax as well as lncome from cenLral
governmenL. Spendlng power esLlmaLes were produced for Lhe flrsL Llme for Lhe year
2010/11 Lo lnform Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of a '1ranslLlon CranL' whlch effecLlvely capped Lhe
reducLlon ln any local auLhorlLy's revenue spendlng power Lo 8.8 per cenL ln one year, parLly
Lo llmlL Lhe lmpacL on more dlsadvanLaged auLhorlLles and communlLles. lLs calculaLlon
excludes fundlng for schools and some oLher granLs ln order Lo ensure a conslsLenL serles
over Llme. 1hese show smaller reducLlons, slnce Councll 1ax, whlch makes up on average
abouL 16 per cenL of local auLhorlLy lncome, has fallen less Lhan lncome from cenLral

Spendlng power esLlmaLes converLed lnLo 2012/13 prlces Lo Lake accounL of lnflaLlon show a
reducLlon of 17 per cenL for London local auLhorlLles, beLween 2010/11 and 2013/14
, or 21
per cenL ln per caplLa Lerms.

1hus lf we look [usL aL Lhe reducLlon ln lncome from cenLral governmenL, counclls ln London
have losL abouL one Lhlrd of Lhelr lncome slnce Lhe change of governmenL, whlle lf Lhelr
overall 'spendlng power' ls consldered, Lhey have losL abouL a flfLh.

1wo maln changes occurred ln 2013/14 whlch could accounL for Lhls paLLern. llrsL Lhe fundlng sysLem was
fundamenLally reformed Lo allow local auLhorlLles Lo reLaln a share of buslness raLes raLher Lhan reLurnlng all
of Lhese Lo cenLral governmenL whlch would Lhen redlsLrlbuLe Lhem. Second, Lhe populaLlon bases for fundlng
allocaLlons were ad[usLed followlng Lhe resulLs of Lhe 2011 Census. All Lhe per caplLa flgures quoLed here are
based on revlsed daLa (lncludlng for prevlous years) - ln oLher words we show Lhe amounL auLhorlLles acLually
had Lo spend per head. Powever, allocaLlons unLll 2013/14 were based on esLlmaLes pre-daLlng Lhe 2011
Census. 1he facL LhaL London's populaLlon growLh exceeded Lhese esLlmaLes more so Lhan was Lhe case for
many oLher auLhorlLles, and Lhe ad[usLmenL for Lhls ln 2013/14, may accounL for London's relaLlvely smaller
reducLlon ln aggregaLe fundlng ln 2013/14, alLhough we have noL LesLed Lhls.
neverLheless, Councll 1ax has fallen ln London. London Counclls (London Counclls 2013) noLes LhaL Lhe
average Councll 1ax charge ln London fell 100 (or 10 per cenL, ln real Lerms) beLween 2010/11 and 2013/14.
8ecause spendlng power flgures were only produced for Lhe flrsL Llme ln 2010/11, Lhls ls a perlod one year
shorLer Lhan LhaL compared above. Powever, as llgure 1 shows, Lhere was llLLle change beLween 2009/10 and
noLe LhaL uCLC does noL lssue flgures for spendlng power cuLs over Lhe whole perlod because of Lhe
changes Lo local auLhorlLy funcLlons LhaL Lake place from year Lo year. Lach year lL ad[usLs lLs esLlmaLe of
spendlng power for Lhe prevlous year Lo Lake accounL of such changes so LhaL one year's flgures are
compaLlble wlLh Lhe prevlous year's ad[usLed flgures. 1he calculaLlons shown here are based on Lhe ad[usLed
flgures for each year.

H1II&'&,0&: J&%?&&, 3-,.-, J-'-/9":

noL all London boroughs have been affecLed Lo Lhe same degree by Lhe reducLlons ln
lncome. Spendlng power reducLlons, per caplLa, over Lhe perlod 2010/11 Lo 2013/4 range
from 12 per cenL ln 8lchmond upon 1hames Lo more Lhan double LhaL, 26 per cenL, ln
newham (see llgure 2).

I|gure 2: Change |n Lst|mated Spend|ng ower er Cap|ta, London 8oroughs, 2010]11 to

Source: ueparLmenL for CommunlLles and Local CovernmenL, Spendlng ower LsLlmaLes, ad[usLed flgures.

1he reason for Lhese dlfferences lles ln Lhe way counclls are funded. Counclls recelve Lhelr
fundlng from four maln sources. Cne ls Lhe 8evenue SupporL CranL (8SC) whlch ls a general
poL calculaLed accordlng Lo varlous formulae assesslng needs and cosL of servlce provlslon.
1he second ls lncome from buslness raLes. unLll 2013, Lhese were collecLed locally buL
passed on Lo cenLral governmenL whlch Lhen redlsLrlbuLed Lhem on a formula basls. 1hese
re-dlsLrlbuLed buslness raLes and 8SC LogeLher made up whaL was known as 'formula granL'.
lrom 2013/14, a share of buslness raLes ls reLalned by local auLhorlLles, wlLh Lhe resL golng
lnLo Lhe poL whlch flnances 8SC. 1he Lhlrd source ls Lhe wlde range of speclal and speclflc
granLs LhaL cenLral governmenL provldes Lo pay for parLlcular programmes and funcLlons
and whlch are rlng-fenced for Lhose purposes. 1he largesL one of Lhese by far ls ulrecL
Schools CranL. Lxamples of oLhers ln 2009/10 lncluded Lhe Sure SLarL, Larly ?ears and
Chlldcare CranL, new ueal for CommunlLles and Pouslng MarkeL 8enewal. Area 8ased
CranL (A8C), replaced by Local Servlces SupporL CranL, can also be consldered for Lhls
purpose as a speclal granL, alLhough lL ls LreaLed separaLely ln budgeL reLurns. 1he CoallLlon
has dlsconLlnued some of Lhese programmes and has also preferred Lo 'un-rlng fence' some
-30 -23 -20 -13 -10 -3 0
1ower PamleLs
8arklng and uagenham
PammersmlLh and lulham
WalLham loresL
klngsLon upon 1hames
kenslngLon and Chelsea
8lchmond upon 1hames

of Lhose LhaL remaln, rolllng Lhem lnLo Lhe general 8SC poL ln order Lo glve counclls greaLer
flexlblllLy. lourLh, Lhere ls Councll 1ax.

Summlng Lhese four sources accounLs for Lhe mosL of Lhe lncome LhaL local auLhorlLles have
Lo spend on servlces.

Across London ln 2009/10, 8SC and buslness raLes made up 26 per cenL of lncome
, Councll
Lax 18 per cenL, and granLs (lncludlng for schools buL excludlng paymenLs of houslng beneflL)
36 per cenL. 1aklng granLs for schools ouL, Lo be conslsLenL wlLh our oLher analyses here,
8SC and buslness raLes made up a blgger share, 38 per cenL, wlLh Councll 1ax aL 28 per cenL
and granLs aL 34 per cenL.

Powever, Lhere was conslderable varlaLlon beLween auLhorlLles. 'lormula granL' was
dlsLrlbuLed accordlng Lo assessmenLs of need, and Lhe ma[orlLy of speclal granLs were almed
aL reduclng soclal deprlvaLlon ln varlous ways
, Lhus more deprlved and hlgher spendlng
auLhorlLles had a hlgher proporLlon of Lhelr lncome from Lhese sources and less from
Councll 1ax Lhan less deprlved and lower spendlng auLhorlLles. Councll 1ax accounLed for 10
per cenL of Lhese maln lncome sources ln newham compared wlLh 40 per cenL ln 8lchmond
upon 1hames.

ln 2009/10 London's boroughs fell roughly lnLo Lwo groups - Lhose wlLh 18 per cenL or less
of Lhelr lncome from Councll Lax, whlch were Lyplcally, overall, more deprlved boroughs ln
lnner London wlLh hlgher per caplLa spend, and Lhose wlLh 20 per cenL or more of Lhelr
maln lncome from Councll 1ax, whlch were Lyplcally, overall, less deprlved CuLer London
boroughs and had lower per caplLa spend (1able 1).

1he changes ln 2013/14 Lo Lhe way local governmenL ls flnanced means LhaL caLegorles of
lncome (e.g. formula granL) cannoL be sLrlcLly compared over Lhls perlod. Powever, per
caplLa lncome from cenLral governmenL (as deflned ln fooLnoLe 7) has reduced by 37 per
cenL ln London ln real Lerms compared wlLh Councll 1ax lncome whlch has remalned
vlrLually sLaLlc. 1herefore, local auLhorlLles whlch were more dependenL on lncome from
cenLral governmenL have losL a hlgher proporLlon of Lhelr lncome Lhan auLhorlLles LhaL
ralsed more of Lhelr lncome from Councll Lax. 1hls paLLern ls clearly shown ln llgure 3, wlLh
Lhe Croup 1 auLhorlLles (hlgher spenders, more deprlved and wlLh a hlgher proporLlon of
lncome from cenLral governmenL) shown ln red Lowards Lhe boLLom and lefL of Lhe graph.
Slmllar relaLlonshlps exlsL beLween Lhe scale of Lhe reducLlon ln spendlng power and Lhe
level of deprlvaLlon (wlLh more deprlved auLhorlLles loslng more) and Lhe level of per caplLa
spend ln 2009/10 (wlLh hlgher spenders loslng more). 1hese are shown ln llgure 4 and
llgure 3.

Local auLhorlLles may also ralse money from sales of asseLs, lncome from lnvesLmenLs, exLernal Lradlng
accounLs, fees and charges for servlces or penalLy charges, and Lransfers from accumulaLed reserves
. 1hese
smaller sources LogeLher make up approxlmaLely 17 per cenL of local auLhorlLy lncome (uCLC 2013).
1hese calculaLlons are based on 'councll Lax requlremenL' afLer oLher smaller lncome sources have been
Some granLs were for plloL programmes or because of parLlcular local clrcumsLances. lor example, Croydon,
home of Lhe naLlonal asylum screenlng unlL, recelved over 32m ln Asylum Seeker granL ln 2009/10.


1ab|e 1: London 8oroughs grouped by depr|vat|on, per cap|ta spend and |ncome source
8oroughs kange of
ranks on IMD
ercent of
|ncome from
Counc|| 1ax
Group 1
All lnner London excepL ln lLallcs:
1ower PamleLs, Newbom, WandsworLh,
WesLmlnsLer, Packney, 8otkloq ooJ uoqeobom,
Creenwlch, SouLhwark, LambeLh, Lewlsham, lsllngLon,
8teot, PammersmlLh and lulham, woltbom lotest,
Parlngey, Camden
3 (newham) Lo
1,116 10-18 per
(or 13-27 per
cenL lf school
Group 2
All CuLer London excepL ln lLallcs:
8edbrldge, Lnfleld, Lallng, Pounslow, Croydon,
Pllllngdon, 8exley, SuLLon, keosloqtoo ooJ cbelseo,
MerLon, Parrow, 8arneL, 8romley, Paverlng,
klngsLon-upon-1hames, 8lchmond-upon-1hames
64 (Lnfleld) Lo
737 20 Lo 40 per
(or 30 Lo 62
per cenL wlLh
school granLs
Sources: lndlces of MulLlple ueprlvaLlon 2010, ueparLmenL for CommunlLles and Local CovernmenL 8evenue
CuLLurn (8S) 2009-10
noLe: er CaplLa spend refers Lo 1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure (neL of sales, fees and charges) less expendlLure on
educaLlon, and ls shown ln 2009/10 prlces

I|gure 3: kea| 1erms Cut |n Spend|ng ower 2010]11 to 2013]14 by percentage of |ncome
ra|sed from Counc|| 1ax 2009]10

-30 -23 -20 -13 -10 -3 0









Change |n Spend|ng ower 2009]10 to 2013]14

I|gure 4: kea| 1erms Cut |n Spend|ng ower 2010]11 to 2013]14 by kank on Ind|ces of
Mu|t|p|e Depr|vat|on

I|gure S: kea| 1erms Cut |n Spend|ng ower 2010]11 to 2013]14 by Spend per Cap|ta

1hus alLhough some ouLer London boroughs have losL slgnlflcanL sums ln speclflc granLs
Lhelr hlgher rellance on Councll Lax lncome renders Lhese less slgnlflcanL ln Lerms of Lhelr
overall spendlng power Lhan Lhey would be for boroughs more rellanL on cenLral
governmenL fundlng.

And also as a resulL of changes ln 2013/14, lncludlng a revlsed basls for calculaLlng Lhe proporLlon of fundlng
LhaL should remaln wlLh local auLhorlLles or go Lo Academles for educaLlon supporL servlces.
-30 -23 -20 -13 -10 -3 0






Change |n Spend|ng ower 2009]10 to 2013]14
-30 -23 -20 -13 -10 -3 0






Change |n Spend|ng ower 2009]10 to 2013]14

3-0#4 </%"-'1%B A&:$-,:&:

8alslng Councll 1ax Lo compensaLe for loss of cenLral governmenL lncome was effecLlvely
ruled ouL by governmenL ln 2010, leavlng local auLhorlLles wlLh a range of oLher opLlons,
lncludlng maklng efflclency savlngs of varlous klnds, cuLLlng fronLllne servlces, Lrylng Lo
reduce demand, or ralslng lncome from oLher sources.

Several sLudles have explored Lhese sLraLegles slnce Lhe cuLs Look hold ln 2010/11. Cn Lhe
whole, somewhaL surprlslngly glven Lhe scale of Lhe fundlng reducLlons, Lhese have shown
counclls largely managlng (by Lhelr own accounL) Lo balance budgeLs wlLhouL ma[or loss of
fronLllne servlces nor serlous lmpacLs on servlce quallLy. wC's survey of Chlef LxecuLlves
and Councll Leaders (wC, 2013) reporLs LhaL local auLhorlLles have largely made savlngs Lo
daLe Lhrough focuslng on bow tbey opetote totbet tboo wbot tbey Jo" (p4) - by securlng
savlngs ln lnLernal processes, supporL servlces, Lhe managemenL of Lhelr asseLs and Lhlrd
parLy expendlLure" (p1). Cnly around 13 per cenL of Chlef LxecuLlves ln 2012/13 sald LhaL
resLrucLurlng or closlng fronLllne servlces made a slgnlflcanL conLrlbuLlon Lo Lhe savlngs
achleved, compared wlLh around 70 per cenL clLlng 'lmprovlng servlce dellvery processes'
and 'changlng supporL servlces' or 'back offlce'.

1here ls as yeL no comprehenslve accounL of how London boroughs are respondlng. Wllson
and 1aylor (2013), based on a small survey of local governmenL professlonals and some case
sLudles, ldenLlfy four emerglng approaches Lo servlce dellvery, as follows:
CollaboraLlon across boroughs, lncludlng Lhe merged servlces of WesLmlnsLer,
kenslngLon and Chelsea, and PammersmlLh and lulham (Lhe 'Lrl-boroughs'), shared
publlc healLh servlces ln Camden and lsllngLon, and an LasL London parLnershlp
developlng speclflc collaboraLlons ln smaller areas of servlces, for example
LranslaLlon and lC1.
More [olned-up worklng wlLhln boroughs, lncludlng slngle polnLs of conLacL for
mulLlple servlces, and communlLy budgeL plloLs.
lnvolvlng servlce users more ln boLh Lhe deslgn and provlslon of servlces, for
example LambeLh's 'CooperaLlve Councll' approach.
CuLsourclng servlces Lo Lhe prlvaLe secLor, or seLLlng up new !olnL venLure
companles wlLh prlvaLe secLor parLners.

Cur own revlew of publlcly avallable Councll documenLs, carrled ouL ln summer 2012,
revealed a slmllar plcLure. We looked aL local auLhorlLy corporaLe plans and oLher
documenLs such as Councll lans, Councll SLraLegles, 8udgeL 8eporLs or SusLalnable
CommunlLy SLraLegles, for all boroughs across London.
ln Lerms of servlce dellvery, four
clusLers of local auLhorlLles were dlscernlble:

Cne clusLer (A), conslsLlng of Lhe Labour-led boroughs of 8renL, Packney, 1ower
PamleLs and Parlngey, Lended Lo emphaslse publlc dellvery of servlces (Lhrough
parLnershlps wlLh oLher publlc secLor agencles) as a ma[or parL of Lhelr forward

Local auLhorlLles are no longer requlred Lo produce a corporaLe plan, and Lhose LhaL were avallable referred
Lo sllghLly dlfferenL perlods of Llme. Cf Lhe LhlrLy-Lhree London auLhorlLles, Lhere were four where no such
recenL documenL could be found on Lhelr webslLe aL LhaL Llme.

sLraLegy. lL was also noLable LhaL Lhese boroughs also made expllclL pollLlcal
commlLmenLs Lo poverLy reducLlon or soclal [usLlce.
AnoLher clusLer (8), all ConservaLlve auLhorlLles, Lended noL Lo emphaslse
commlLmenLs Lo poverLy and lnequallLy reducLlon, whlle maklng marked deparLures
- as an overall sLraLegy - from LradlLlonal models of servlce dellvery. 1hls clusLer
lncluded 8arneL, whlch had declared LhaL lL would conslder all servlces for posslble
ouLsourclng, and Lhe 'Lrl-boroughs'.
8eLween Lhese Lwo clusLers was anoLher (C) whlch occupled a specLrum of pollLlcal
poslLlons. 1hese auLhorlLles all expllclLly ldenLlfled some klnd of servlce remodelllng
as parL of Lhelr sLraLegy for deallng wlLh ausLerlLy, for example shared servlces,
muLuallsaLlon, or parLlclpaLory budgeLlng and/or Lhey all expressed or enacLed some
commlLmenLs Lo greaLer falrness or equallLy or reduced poverLy (elLher ln Lhe form
of equallLy commlsslons or Lask forces, pollcy sLaLemenLs or hlgh proflle pollcles such
as provldlng unlversal free school meals). 1hus Lhey may have shared elemenLs of
Lhe pollLlcal poslLlonlng or sLraLegles of Lhose ln Lhe flrsL Lwo clusLers, buL Lyplcally
wlLh a less clear overall poslLlon. 1hese auLhorlLles were Camden, Lewlsham,
LambeLh, SouLhwark, lsllngLon, newham, Lallng, klngsLon, SuLLon and Lallng.
AnoLher clusLer (u), all ouLer London auLhorlLles and malnly ConservaLlve-led and
lower-spendlng, Lended Lo emphaslse Lhe lmporLance of efflclenL and responslve
local governmenL, buL noL Lo announce any parLlcularly dlsLlncLlve new servlce
dellvery approaches. 1hls does noL mean LhaL Lhey were dolng noLhlng lnnovaLlve or
dlsLlncLlve, slmply LhaL Lhelr publlcly avallable documenLs aL LhaL Llme were noL
arLlculaLlng an overall approach LhaL characLerlsed Lhem ln one of Lhe oLher clusLers
we have ldenLlfled.

ln Lheory, one mlghL expecL Lo be able Lo llnk Lhese overall sLraLeglc approaches wlLh
paLLerns of spendlng: spendlng represenLlng, as ClennersLer puLs lL, reallsed pollcy"
(ClennersLer and Pllls 1998). Powever, ln reallLy Lhe plcLure ls much less clear, parLly
because servlce redeslgns are all aL early sLages, and parLly because spendlng paLLerns
reflecL an accommodaLlon beLween pollLlcal prlorlLles and amblLlons, sLaLuLory
requlremenLs, and demand pressures, as well as Lhe consLralnLs and opporLunlLles of
counclls' exlsLlng flnanclal poslLlons and pre-exlsLlng sLraLegles Lo whlch Lhey were
commlLLed. AnoLher, subsLanLlal, dlfflculLy ls LhaL Lhe daLa LhaL are avallable ln Lhe publlc
domaln Lhrough counclls' sLandardlsed reLurns Lo cenLral governmenL do noL always maLch
Lhe flgures LhaL counclls Lhemselves are uslng for plannlng purposes, slmply because of Lhe
dlfferenL headlngs used Lo classlfy servlces, Lhe Llme of year, comparlng budgeL wlLh acLual
flgures and so on.

Across London as a whole, reLurns Lo cenLral governmenL on local auLhorlLy spendlng
(2009/10 Lo 2011/12) and planned spendlng (2012/3 Lo 2013/4) suggesL LhaL cuLs ln
spendlng were broadly ln llne wlLh cuLs ln esLlmaLed spendlng power. 1oLal servlce
expendlLure reduced by 13 per cenL beLween 2009/10 and 2013/14,
ln real Lerms, and by

1o calculaLe changes ln spendlng, we look aL counclls' LoLal servlce expendlLure, uslng ouLLurn daLa for Lhe
years where lL ls avallable (2009/10 Lo 2011/12) and budgeL daLa for laLer years (2012/13 and 2013/14). We
exclude spendlng on educaLlon - a ma[or spendlng area for local governmenL, because Lhe lncreaslng
prevalence of Academy schools (whlch are funded dlrecLly by cenLral governmenL) can suggesL very large cuLs
Lo local auLhorlLy spendlng ln counclls where a large number of schools have become Academles raLher Lhan

more (20 per cenL) ln per caplLa Lerms. 1hese flgures compare wlLh a 17 per cenL fall ln
spendlng power, or 21 per cenL ln per caplLa Lerms, as descrlbed earller, over a sllghLly
shorLer perlod (2010/11 Lo 2013/14). 1he cuLs ln spendlng were sllghLly greaLer Lhan ln
oLher unlLary auLhorlLles ouLslde Lhe ma[or clLles (down 13 per cenL) buL a llLLle less Lhan ln
meLropollLan dlsLrlcLs (down 18 per cenL).

8ecause of poLenLlal comparablllLy problems beLween Lhe daLa supplled by dlfferenL
boroughs, we do noL offer a comparaLlve analysls here. 1o demonsLraLe overall paLLerns as
well as Lo lllusLraLe some of Lhe poLenLlal daLa dlfflculLles, we show lndlvldual borough
Lra[ecLorles ln Appendlx 2,
grouplng Lhe boroughs flrsL ln Lerms of Lhelr prevlous spendlng,
deprlvaLlon and lncome from cenLral governmenL (as ln 1able 1) and wlLhln LhaL, ln Lerms of
Lhe 'sLraLeglc grouplngs' ldenLlfled ln our revlew of publlc documenLs. WlLh a few ouLllers,
Croup 1 auLhorlLles have clearly had Lo cuL harder Lhan Croup 2 auLhorlLles, buL Lhere
appears Lo be no relaLlonshlp beLween declared sLraLeglc approaches and spendlng
reducLlons Lo daLe. Some boroughs , malnly buL noL excluslvely ln Croup 1, also show a
sLeeper per caplLa cuL Lhan overall cuL, lndlcaLlng Lhe exLra pressures of growlng populaLlon.
Appendlx 3 shows reporLed expendlLure reducLlons ln dlfference servlce areas. 1hese
appear so wlldly dlfferenL as Lo suggesL LhaL servlce changes and re-classlflcaLlons may be
drlvlng Lhe plcLure raLher Lhan acLual dlfferences beLween boroughs.

Cverall ln London, Lhe largesL percenLage cuLs seem Lo have come ln so-called 'dlscreLlonary
servlces'. Spendlng on plannlng and developmenL servlces reduced by 36 per cenL ln Lhe
perlod 2009-10 (ouLLurn) Lo 2013/14 (budgeL), culLural and relaLed servlces by 28 per cenL
and houslng servlces (oLher Lhan Lhe provlslon and managemenL of councll houslng) by 20
per cenL. Soclal care, by conLrasL, reduced by 12 per cenL.

Powever, some of Lhe servlces LhaL have been cuL mosL ln proporLlonaLe Lerms represenL
only a small proporLlon of local auLhorlLles' overall spend. When educaLlon ls excluded,
soclal care accounLs for more Lhan half of local auLhorlLy spendlng ln London (llgure 6), and
cuLs Lo soclal care budgeLs for 44 per cenL of Lhe LoLal cuL ln spendlng (llgure 7). 1he scale
of soclal care spendlng ls of ma[or slgnlflcance when undersLandlng Lhe opLlons open Lo
local auLhorlLles. 8y way of lllusLraLlon, had Lhey chosen Lo malnLaln spendlng on soclal care
aL lLs 2009/10 levels (ln real Lerms, buL noL Laklng accounL of any lncreased demands),
raLher Lhan cuLLlng lL by 12 per cenL, London's local auLhorlLles would have had Lo make
savlngs elsewhere almosL equlvalenL Lo Lhelr enLlre 2009/10 budgeLs for culLural, plannlng
and developmenL servlces puL LogeLher.

remalnlng under local auLhorlLy conLrol. We also exclude budgeLed spendlng on publlc healLh, slnce Lhls ls a
new responslblllLy ln 2013/14. uslng Lhese comparable deflnlLlons, we flnd cuLs ln spendlng slmllar Lo cuLs ln
lncome - a conLrasL Lo Lhe governmenL's own recenL flgures (uCLC 2013b) whlch show local governmenL
expendlLure havlng gone up over Lhls perlod, buL whlch do noL Lake accounL of changes ln responslblllLy.
Some of Lhe daLa appear erroneous e.g. Creenwlch has an lncreased budgeL.

I|gure 6: Share of 1ota| London Loca| Author|ty Lxpend|ture (|ess educat|on) made up by
D|fferent Serv|ce Areas 2009]10

Source: uCLC 8evenue CuLLurn Summary 2009/10, uCLC 8evenue AccounL 8udgeL 2013/14.

I|gure 7: ercentage keduct|ons (kea| 1erms) |n 1ota| London 8orough Serv|ce
Lxpend|ture 2009]10 to 2013]14, and 1he|r Contr|but|on to Cvera|| keduct|ons.

Source: uCLC 8evenue CuLLurn Summary 2009/10, uCLC 8evenue AccounL 8udgeL 2013/14.

WhaL does seem clear ls LhaL, on Lhe whole, London's local auLhorlLles have noL soughL Lo
compensaLe for revenue shorLfalls by dlpplng lnLo Lhelr reserves - a paLLern also observed
by Lhe AudlL Commlsslon (2012) whlch noLed counclls belng able Lo add Lo Lhelr reserves by
underspendlng agalnsL pro[ecLed savlngs plans, and also seLLlng aslde reserves Lo cope wlLh
Plghways and
servlces, 3
Soclal care,
servlces (Cl8A
only), 9
CulLural and
servlces, 7
and regulaLory
servlces, 12
lannlng and
servlces, 3
servlces, 8
17 17
ercenLage cuL Share of overall cuL

pro[ecLed flnanclal lnsecurlLles. AcLual reserves ln 2011 were aL Lhe same level as ln 2009, ln
real Lerms. 8udgeLed reserves fell ln Aprll 2012 and rose agaln ln 2013, reachlng a level Len
per cenL hlgher Lhan before Lhe cuLs (llgure 8). Appendlx 4 shows levels of reserves for
lndlvldual local auLhorlLles. 1hey show, on Lhe whole, expecLed paLLerns of flnanclal
managemenL. Some auLhorlLles wlLh low reserves aL Lhe sLarL, such as MerLon and
WalLham loresL, added Lo Lhem gradually durlng Lhe perlod. 1wo auLhorlLles, WesLmlnsLer
and 8romley, boLh wlLh comparably very hlgh levels of reserves aL Lhe sLarL of Lhe perlod,
saw slgnlflcanL reducLlons.

I|gure 8: 1ota| |eve|s of Una||ocated I|nanc|a| keserves (rea| terms 2012]13 pr|ces), 2009-
2013, a|| London 8oroughs

Source: uCLC 8evenue AccounL Summarles - 2009 Lo 2011 show ouLLurn daLa, 2012 and 2013 show
budgeL daLa.
noLes: nomlnal flgures converLed lnLo 2012/13 prlces uslng PM1 Cu deflaLors as aL !une 2013.

nor does lL appear from reLurns Lo cenLral governmenL LhaL counclls have lncreased Lhelr
lncome from sales, fees and charges for servlces. 1hese daLa are only avallable as ouLLurn
for Lhe years 2009-10 Lo 2011/12. llgure 9 shows LhaL lncome from sales, fees and charges
fell over Lhls perlod. noLe, however, LhaL Lhls does noL mean LhaL fees and charges for
speclflc servlces may noL have rlsen. Loss of fees/charges lncome from dlscreLlonary
servlces LhaL have been cuL or conLracLed ouL, or from schools, may occur ln parallel wlLh
lncreased charges for servlces LhaL remaln. Sales, fees and charges are ln any case a
relaLlvely small source of local auLhorlLy lncome - approxlmaLely 8 per cenL of general
revenue fund lncome ln 2013.

As aL Aprll 2009 As aL Aprll 2010 As aL Aprll 2011 As aL Aprll 2012 As aL Aprll 2013






I|gure 9: 1ota| Income from Sa|es, Iees and Charges 2009]10 to 2011]12, A|| 8oroughs

Sources: ueparLmenL for CommunlLles and Local CovernmenL: 8evenue CuLLurn (8C) reLurns 2009-10 -
Servlce LxpendlLure Summary (8Sx) daLa, 8evenue CuLLurn (8C) reLurns 2010-11 - Servlce LxpendlLure
Summary (8Sx) daLa, 8evenue CuLLurn (8C) reLurns 2011-12 - Servlce LxpendlLure Summary (8Sx) daLa.

2"'&& !#:& K%/.1&:

1o elaboraLe Lhls plcLure more clearly, and wlLh a vlew Lo ulLlmaLely undersLandlng Lhe
lmpacL aL ground level, we selecLed Lhree case sLudy auLhorlLles for furLher work. We
soughL Lo work wlLh Lhree local auLhorlLles across aL leasL Lhree of Lhe 'sLraLeglc groups'
(clusLers) Laklng accounL of Lhe deslrablllLy of havlng a spread of pollLlcal conLrol, of lnner
and CuLer London and of levels of deprlvaLlon and prevlous spendlng. ln oLher words, Lhe
case sLudles would be dlfferenL from one anoLher, offerlng a range of lnslghLs from across
Lhe clLy. ln Lhe end, pressures on local governmenL sLaff meanL LhaL wllllngness Lo
parLlclpaLe ln Lhe sLudy played a large role, alLhough Lhe flnal selecLlon of case sLudles
provlded Lhe breadLh orlglnally soughL. 1hese are:

8renL: A Labour-led CuLer London borough wlLh relaLlvely hlgh levels of deprlvaLlon
whlch we poslLloned ln clusLer (A) of auLhorlLles ln our revlew and ln Croup 1 ln
1able 1 (a hlgh spendlng, hlgh deprlvaLlon borough).
Camden: A Labour-led lnner London borough whlch we poslLloned ln clusLer (C), and
also ln Croup 1 of 1able 1.
8edbrldge: An CuLer London borough led by a ConservaLlve-Llberal uemocraL
parLnershlp, whlch we poslLloned ln clusLer (u) and ln Croup 2 of 1able 1 (a lower
spendlng, lower deprlvaLlon borough).

Pere, and ln Lhe organlsaLlon of Lhe chapLers, we presenL Lhe boroughs alphabeLlcally. 1he Lhree case sLudy
boroughs are all norLh of Lhe 1hames. 8oroughs we approached souLh of Lhe rlver were unable Lo parLlclpaLe.
WhaL a borough has Lo spend ls a reflecLlon of whaL ls made avallable Lo lL from cenLral governmenL and Lhe
falrness of LhaL allocaLlon sysLem ls conLesLed. Also 'lower deprlvaLlon' reflecLs an overall, borough-level
poslLlon. 1hls borough does have some areas of very hlgh deprlvaLlon, slmllar Lo Lhe mosL deprlved areas of
some lnner London boroughs.

1able 2 summarlses Lhls sLarLlng poslLlon ln 2009/10 for each of Lhe local auLhorlLles. lL
clearly shows Lhe paLLern of Lhe more deprlved auLhorlLles, 8renL and Camden, spendlng
more and havlng a lower proporLlon of Lhelr lncome from Councll 1ax Lhan Lhe lesser
deprlved auLhorlLy, 8edbrldge. Powever, Camden's per caplLa spend was hlgher Lhan LhaL
of 8renL, whlch ranked more hlghly on Lhe lndlces of MulLlple ueprlvaLlon.

1able 3 shows Lhe reducLlons over Lhe perlod 2009/10 Lo 2013/14 ln lncome from cenLral
governmenL, ln esLlmaLed spendlng power (2010/11 Lo 2013/14), and ln expendlLure, boLh
from uCLC and lndlvldual local auLhorlLy sources. 1he esLlmaLed spendlng power daLa show
Camden Lo have had sllghLly hlgher cuLs from cenLral governmenL Lhan elLher of Lhe oLher
boroughs. Powever, daLa on expendlLure suggesL a more sLrlngenL reglme of cuLbacks ln
acLual spendlng ln Camden Lhan ln elLher 8renL or 8edbrldge.

1ab|e 2: key Character|st|cs of the Case Study 8oroughs |n 2009]10
8rent Camden kedbr|dge
opulaLlon 298,100 212,900 270,400
LA 8ank lndlces of MulLlple ueprlvaLlon
33 74 134
1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure (less
educaLlon) 2009/10, s

306,927,000 177,286,000
1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure per caplLa
expendlLure (less educaLlon) 2009/10, s
923 1442 636
1oLal Ceneral lund 8evenue 8udgeL (LA
sources) s
293,433,000 324,420,000 203,131,000
ercenLage of lncome sources 2009/10
- lormula granL
- Speclal and speclflc granLs
- Councll 1ax



ollLlcal conLrol prlor Lo 2010 elecLlon Con-Llb Con-Llb Con
ollLlcal conLrol afLer 2010 elecLlon Labour Labour Con-Llb
- opulaLlon daLa from CnS mld-2009 esLlmaLe revlsed afLer 2011 Census
- uCLC lndlces of MulLlple ueprlvaLlon 2010 8ank of Average Score
- 1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure from uCLC 8evenue AccounL, 2009/10 CuLLurn, shown ln 2012/13 prlces
for conslsLency wlLh analysls elsewhere ln Lhls reporL
- 1oLal Ceneral lund 8evenue 8udgeL (LA sources) , from Local AuLhorlLy 8udgeL 8ooks (8edbrldge),
Ceneral lund 8evenue AccounLs (8renL), CollecLlon lund 8evenue AccounLs (Camden).
- ercenLage of lncome sources ls percenLage of LoLal made up by Councll 1ax requlremenL (Lhus
oLher smaller lncome sources have been lncluded), granLs ouLslde ALl, granLs lnslde ALl, formula
granL and area based granL (as ln 1able 1)


1ab|e 3: ercentage keduct|ons |n Income and Lxpend|ture for Case Study Author|t|es
2009]10 - 2013]14, kea| 1erms 2012]13 r|ces
8renL Camden 8edbrldge
lncome from CenLral CovernmenL (less
educaLlon and publlc healLh)
-29 -30 -31
LsLlmaLed Spendlng ower (2010/11 Lo
2013/14) - a shorLer perlod
-19 -23 -19
1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure (less
educaLlon and publlc healLh)
-16 -23 -9
Sources: uCLC ouLLurn daLa (8S) for 2009/10 Lo 2011/12 and budgeL daLa for 2012/13 and 2013/14, uCLC
spendlng power esLlmaLes.

8eLween March and CcLober 2013, we lnLervlewed senlor offlcers and Councll Members
from Lhese boroughs abouL Lhe exLenL of Lhe flnanclal challenges Lhey were faclng, Lhe
declslons LhaL had been made abouL how Lo achleve Lhe savlngs requlred, and Lhe
lmpllcaLlons for servlce dellvery. 1o help focus Lhe work, we looked parLlcularly aL servlces
LhaL would affecL older people wlLh care needs, famllles wlLh chlldren under flve, and young
people aged 16-24. A selecLlon of senlor offlcers and Members were lnLervlewed, all
Lyplcally for abouL one hour.
1he lnLervlews were lnformed and supplemenLed by pollcy
documenL analysls, such as local pollcy sLaLemenLs, sLraLegy reporLs and mlnuLes from
commlLLee meeLlngs, as well as budgeLary analysls from reLurns Lo cenLral governmenL and
each Councll's more deLalled flnanclal plans.

1he followlng chapLers descrlbe and analyse whaL we found. ChapLers 3, 4 and 3 descrlbe
Lhe response ln each borough, boLh overall and wlLh speclflc reference Lo servlces affecLlng
chlldren under flve, young people, and older people. ChapLer 6 summarlses Lhese and
draws ouL slmllarlLles and dlfferences ln approach, as well as commenLary on shorL and long
Lerm lmpllcaLlons. 1hls lnLerlm reporL provldes Lhe backdrop Lo our lnvesLlgaLlon of lmpacLs
on servlces users ln Lhe mosL dlsadvanLaged parLs of each borough.

ldenLlLy of Lhe lnLervlewees ls anonymous. 1hey are belng referred Lo as 'senlor offlcer' or 'Member'.

!"#$%&' F* J'&,% !-/,014 A&:$-,:& %- %"& !/%:

J'&,%L: !"#'#0%&'1:%10:

8renL ls an CuLer London borough ln CuLer norLh WesL London. 1he borough ls amongsL
Lhe mosL populous ln London. opulaLlon denslLy, also hlgh, resembles more LhaL of an
lnner London borough Lhan LhaL of an CuLer London borough. 1he borough's populaLlon ls
relaLlvely young, one Lhlrd ls below age 23, a hlgher proporLlon Lhan Lhe London average.
1he proporLlon of lLs 63+ populaLlon ls mld-ranklng amongsL London boroughs and maLches
Lhe London average. 1he borough ls hlghly eLhnlcally dlverse. 1he proporLlon of resldenLs
of 8lack, Aslan and MlnorlLy LLhnlc (8AML) groups ls almosL Lwo Lhlrds, a proporLlon 24
percenLage polnLs above Lhe London average. A ma[orlLy of Lhe borough's resldenLs were
born ouLslde of Lhe uk.

AmongsL London boroughs Lhe borough ls relaLlvely deprlved and poverLy relaLlvely hlgh.
Cn all of Lhe deprlvaLlon raLe (lMu average score 2010), chlld poverLy raLe, !SA raLe and
unemploymenL raLe, 8renL ranks wlLhln Lhe Lop Lhlrd of London boroughs (l.e. mosL
deprlved, pooresL). Soclal renLlng ln Lhe borough ls equlvalenL Lo Lhe London average, buL
mean household slze ls amongsL Lhe very hlghesL ln London (1able 4).

1ab|e 4 : key character|st|cs, 8rent L8
ear key character|st|cs 8rent London
kank (8rent]
London 33)

opulaLlon (counL) 312,200 8,204,400 5
opulaLlon denslLy (persons per/ha) 72 32 14
Age <23 33 32 12
Age 0-4 7 7 16
Age 16-24 13 12 12
Age 63+ 11 11 19
LLhnlclLy 8AML 64 40 2
uk 8orn 43 63 JJ
Soclal renLed households 24 24 15
Mean household slze 2.8 2.3 2


lMu 2010 30.30 ~ 11
Chlldren ln poverLy (Mld-2012 esLlmaLes) 26 ~ 11
!SA clalmanLs (CcL 2013) 3.8 3.2 11
unemploymenL raLe (Apr 2012-Mar 13) 10.8 8.9 8
Sources: Mld-2011 populaLlon esLlmaLes, Census 2011 Lables - CS102uk, kS102uk, kS201uk, CS203uk,
kS402uk, P01uk, !SA, nomls, Ll01 Local labour markeL lndlcaLors, Chlldren ln poverLy, mld-2012 esLlmaLes,
uCLC lMu 2010, average score.
* 8ank 1 lndlcaLes hlghesL percenLage of all London boroughs, rank 33 lowesL of all London boroughs. Crey
hlghllghL lndlcaLes noLably hlgh or noLably low ranklng.

8renL Councll ls currenLly Labour led, and has been for much of Lhe lasL forLy years. 1he
leadershlp ln Lhe perlod leadlng up Lo Lhe cuLs (2006-2010) was [olnL ConservaLlve-Llberal


LxLernal assessmenLs by lnspecLoraLes and regulaLors suggesL LhaL 8renL was performlng
well aL Lhe Llme Lhe cuLs were announced. LvaluaLlons of Lhe Councll around LhaL Llme were
favourable, boLh overall and, more speclflcally, ln Lhe servlce areas of dlrecL relevance Lo
chlldren, young people and older people. 1he AudlL Commlsslon's Cne lace reporL
(uecember 2009) assessed Lhe Councll as performlng well overall. Annual chlldren's
servlces assessmenLs by ClS1Lu ln 2009 and 2010 scored lL 3 ouL of 4, raLlng lL 'well'.
lronLllne chlld proLecLlon servlces and fosLerlng servlces were noLed as 'good' (ClS1Lu,
2010 assessmenL). 1he 2009/10 Annual erformance AssessmenL of Soclal Servlces by Lhe
Care CuallLy Commlsslon [udged LhaL deparLmenL Lo be performlng 'well'. 1he AudlL
Commlsslon reporL (2009) hlghllghLs LhaL good progress was belng made aL Lhls Llme ln
ensurlng councll servlces address Lhe needs of older people.

1hese assessmenLs also hlghllghLed areas for lmprovemenL. Cne of Lhese was overall
resources managemenL. 1he AudlL Commlsslon AssessmenL (2009) noLed LhaL ln lLs
resources managemenL Lhe Councll needed Lo conLlnue Lo develop o cooocll wlJe opptoocb
to boyloq setvlces ooJ epolpmeot to fottbet btloq Jowo costs", suggesLlng scope for savlngs.
lL scored 2 ouL of a posslble 4 ln boLh Lhe assessmenL of lLs managemenL of resources and lLs
use of resources lndlcaLlng, agaln, some scope for more efflclenL use of resource. 8eserves
(unallocaLed) were low aL around 8.3m, audlLors had expressed concern abouL Lhls level of
reserves and efforLs would be made Lo lncrease LhaL cushlon.
ln boLh ClS1Lu reporLs,
aLLenLlon was drawn Lo Lhe poLenLlal for lmprovemenL ln Lhe Larly ?ears provlslon, wlLh a
hlgh proporLlon of nurserles and chlldren's cenLres belng assessed as 'saLlsfacLory', raLher
Lhan 'good' or 'beLLer'. 1he AudlL Commlsslon reporL (2009) noLes LhaL older people ln
8renL were noL as saLlsfled wlLh Lhelr area and home as older people ln oLher parLs of

2"& K1M& -I %"& !/%

Accordlng Lo lLs own budgeL daLa, aL Lhe polnL of Lhe 2010 cuLs 8renL Councll's LoLal spend
on servlces (Servlce Area 8udgeLs) was 293m.
MosL of LhaL flgure was accounLed for by
Lhe AdulL Soclal Servlces budgeL (96m) and Lhe Chlldren and lamllles budgeL (64m),
(1able 3). Cver Lhe nexL four years, 8renL's lncome from cenLral governmenL was reduced
by 29 per cenL ln real Lerms (c 91m) and lLs esLlmaLed spendlng power by 19 per cenL
(2010/11 Lo 2013/14, a shorLer perlod), (1able 3).

uurlng Lhe years [usL prlor Lo 2010, 8renL's Lhen ConservaLlve-Llberal uemocraL parLnershlp
admlnlsLraLlon had already ldenLlfled Lhe need Lo make savlngs. 8renL's 'lmprovemenL and
Lfflclency AcLlon lan 2010-2014', produced ln Lhe pre-Spendlng 8evlew perlod, noLed:
jt]be oeeJ fot toJlcol cbooqe ls cleot ooJ.jb]ecomloq o mote efflcleot, effectlve ooJ
stteomlloeJ ootbotlty ls oow oo obsolote lmpetotlve (Chlef LxecuLlve) .

Senlor offlcer lnLervlew
1hese may noL correspond exacLly wlLh Lhe flgures reporLed ln reLurns Lo cenLral governmenL and shown ln
ChapLer 2, due Lo dlfferenL accounLlng pracLlces and Llmlng of reLurns.
8renL's lmprovemenL and Lfflclency AcLlon lan 2010-2014, 8renL Councll, CcLober 2009, p.2.

AgalnsL Lhe backdrop of a recesslon and expecLlng lLs formula granL Lo lncrease very llLLle
over Lhe nexL four year perlod, lL anLlclpaLed needlng Lo dellver cumulaLlve savlngs of aL
leasL 34m.

1haL flgure was abouL 40m less Lhan Lhe nexL admlnlsLraLlon would calculaLe afLer Lhe CS8
announcemenLs. Accordlng Lo 8renL's own daLa, Lhe order of Lhe overall savlngs LhaL Lhe
new admlnlsLraLlon ln 2010 seL-ouL Lo dellver by 2014/13 was 94m.
1he savlngs LargeL
for Lhe Lhree year perlod up Lo 2013/14 was 73m,
alLhough 8renL's 1oLal Servlce
LxpendlLure (less educaLlon) as reporLed Lo uCLC fell by c 43m, ln real Lerms.

1ab|e S: keduct|ons |n Income and Lxpend|ture, 8rent 2009]10 to 2013]14
8rent (m||||ons) 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
lncome* 297.7 304.3 272.9 239.6 231.8 -22
1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure 293.3 304.3 269.1 238.6 277.9 -6
AdulL Soclal Servlces 96.3 92.8 90.3 90.9 ~ -6
Chlldren and lamllles 64.2 38.7 33.9 46.2 ~ -28

CumulaLlve savlngs ~ 11 41 33 73 ~
Sources: lncome and LxpendlLure flgures - Ceneral lund 8evenue Spendlng sLaLemenLs 2009/10 - 2012/13,
Ceneral lund 8udgeL Summary, Approved 8udgeL 2013/14, Cu deflaLors 27Lh !une 2013, noL applled Lo
cumulaLlve savlngs row
*lncome lncludes lormula CranL, Councll 1ax and Area 8ased CranL

2"& ;6&'#44 A&:$-,:&

8renL Councll's maln vehlcle for dellverlng Lhe 73m of savlngs needed over Lhe Lhree years
from 2009/10, has been lLs 'Cne Councll' programme.
As a senlor offlcer noLed:
.evety cooocll wlll bove lts owo Jlffeteot oottotlve bot tbe Ooe cooocll ptoqtomme
wos tbe ooJetlyloq tbesls jlo 8teot]." (Senlor offlcer)
1he overarchlng goal of Lhe Cne Councll programme was Lhe sLreamllnlng of Lhe way Lhe
Councll worked, wlLh amblLlons Lo ellmlnaLe dupllcaLlon, fragmenLaLlon and wasLe, and
move away from a sllo-boseJ" (senlor offlcer) model of servlce provlslon. ln Lhls, 8renL's
response Lo Lhe cuLs had a back offlce focus. A furLher key alm of Lhe Cne Councll
programme was Lo dellver servlce lmprovemenL. 1he drlve Lo dellver savlngs would go
hand-ln-hand wlLh a drlve Lo enhance quallLy. As one respondenL sLaLed:

8renL ls classlfled ln Lhe naLlonal formula for granL dlsLrlbuLlon as a 'floor' auLhorlLy. 1hls makes lL ellglble
for only Lhe lowesL percenLage lncrease ln resources (lmprovemenL and Lfflclency AcLlon lan 2010-14, p.3.).
Level of savlngs deLalled, p.3.
AudlL Commlsslon, Cne Councll lollow-up 8evlew, London 8orough of 8renL, AudlL 2010/11, p.3.
8udgeL and llnance Cvervlew and ScruLlny CommlLLee, 4
uecember 2012, 8eporL from Lhe ulrecLor of
SLraLegy, arLnershlp and lmprovemenL.
1here are dlscrepancles ln naLlonal and local flgures due Lo Lhe dlfferenL accounLlng pracLlces and servlce
classlflcaLlons used for dlfferenL purposes. We show boLh ln order Lo lllusLraLe Lhe upper and lower bounds of
'Lhe cuLs' undersLood ln dlfferenL ways.
Senlor offlcer and AudlL Commlsslon, Cne Councll lollow-up 8evlew, L8 8renL, AudlL 2010/11.

.tbe Ooe cooocll ptoqtomme wos oboot o setles of ptojects tbot wete oboot sovloq
mooey.weve Jooe lt lmptovloq setvlces." (Senlor offlcer)

1he deslgn of Lhe Cne Councll programme had much Lo do wlLh Lhe model of worklng LhaL
had exlsLed ln 8renL Councll ln years prlor. AL Lhe Llme of devlslng Lhe Cne Councll
programme 8renL was a hlghly devolved organlsaLlon, wlLh deparLmenLs worklng Lo a large
degree on Lhelr own operaLlonal models. Accordlng Lo senlor offlcers Lhere was obvlous
dupllcaLlon ln organlsaLlonal processes assoclaLed wlLh Lhls model of worklng:
8teot, lo tbe post, wos o vety JeceottollseJ, JevolveJ, set of setvlces.eocb
Jepottmeot boJ lts owo sepotote floooclol system, lts owo set of book occooots ooJ
tbloqs llke tbot, ooJ tbot wos pott of tbe etbos of bow we wotkeJ, boJ owo nk
teoms, owo locol toles, owo bollJloqs, oll tbot sott of stoff.Ooe cooocll octoolly
meoot tbot.stooJotJlsloq polte o lot of tbloqs ooJet ooe woy of Joloq tbloqs."
Also, Lhere was scope for efflclencles ln sLaff 'spans of conLrol' - Lhe number of people
under each manager. 1he raLlo of managers Lo more [unlor level workers was, relaLlve Lo
Lhe London average, hlgh. 1he Cne Councll programme was an opporLunlLy Lo address LhaL.

under Lhe Cne Councll programme Lhe Councll would be overhauled. ueparLmenLs were
broughL more ln llne ln operaLlonal Lerms, for example, wlLh sharlng of some funcLlons and
more sLandardlsed processes. 1he Cne Councll programme comprlsed elghL prlnclpal
savlngs sLrands. WlLh Lhe speclflc savlngs LargeLs asslgned Lo each, Lhese were: servlce
revlews (10m), properLy managemenL (7.3m), procuremenL/commlsslonlng (7.3m),
revlew of sLrucLure/sLafflng (3m), lncreased lncome generaLlon (3m), sLopplng low
prlorlLy acLlvlLles (3m), new ways of worklng/lC1 (3m) and Cne Councll proposals (3m).

AL Lhe hearL of Lhe Cne Councll programme was Lhe dellvery of a new Clvlc CenLre, opened
2013, where all Lhe Councll's operaLlons are broughL LogeLher under a slngle roof and where
addlLlonal, new, publlc faclllLles have been opened.

1he eLhos of worklng as 'Cne Councll' was Lo run Lhrough Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of
organlsaLlonal changes. ueparLmenLs were asked Lo ldenLlfy recommendaLlons for where
savlngs could be made. 1he approach was bottom-op" (senlor offlcer):
[.] oot os JefloeJ os bete ls yoot petceotoqe. lt wos mote, qo owoy ooJ come op
wltb optloos, oltetootlves fot Membets to cooslJet." (senlor offlcer)
under Lhe 'Cne Councll proposals' sLrand of Lhe savlngs plans, Lhls approach, managed
Lhrough nlne Lask groups, generaLed more Lhan 130 recommendaLlons for more efflclenL
worklng across Lhe Councll.

A core lnLenLlon reflecLed ln Lhe Cne Councll programme of LransformaLlon was Lo proLecL
fronLllne servlces. ln Lhe maln sLraLegy documenL produced by Lhe new Councll
admlnlsLraLlon ln 2010, '8renL: Cur luLure, 2010-2014', Lhls lnLenLlon ls made expllclL:

llgures based on early savlngs LargeLs as per 8renL's lmprovemenL and Lfflclency AcLlon lan 2010-2014,
8renL Councll, CcLober 2009, 1able 2, p.8. 1oLal Lherefore noL 94m. 'Cne Councll proposals refers Lo Lhe
elemenL of savlngs Lo be generaLed by deparLmenLs for more efflclenL [olnL worklng, noL Lhe overarchlng
programme, also called 'Cne Councll'.
1he Cne Councll programme ls noL wlLhouL lLs own cosLs. 1he bulldlng of Lhe new Clvlc CenLre, Lhe
lmplemenLaLlon of new flnance, procuremenL, P8 and payroll sysLems (ro[ecL ALhena) and early reLlremenL
cosLs have been lncurred ln Lhls LransformaLlon.
8renL's lmprovemenL and Lfflclency AcLlon lan 2010-2014, 8renL Councll, CcLober 2009, p.7.

[o]ot Ooe cooocll ptoqtomme bos beeo cotefolly JeslqoeJ to totqet teJoctloos lo
tbe opetotloq costs of tbe cooocll so tbot we coo Jellvet efflcleocy sovloqs wblle
mlolmlsloq tbe lmpoct oo ftootlloe setvlces to tbe pobllc."

1he vulnerable/aL rlsk are Lo be parLlcularly proLecLed, Lhe reporL sLaLes: obsolote
commltmeot to cooceottotloq oot setvlces to ptotect tbe pootest ooJ most voloetoble."

AssoclaLed wlLh Lhls, lL polnLs Lo a move Lowards greaLer LargeLlng.

ln pracLlce, Lhe Councll has had Lo make cuLs Lo some fronLllne servlces. 1he reducLlon of lLs
llbrary offer from Lwelve llbrarles Lo slx ls one example, Lhe closure of a resldenLlal cenLre
and Lwo day cenLres anoLher. 1hls sald, Lhe message was LhaL such fronLllne changes were
noL belng made only Lo achleve savlngs. 1he servlces were, overall, belng lmproved. 1aklng
Lhe example of llbrarles, Lhe Councll had creaLed a brand new, large (referred Lo as a
meqo") llbrary wlLhln Lhe new Clvlc CenLre compleLe wlLh deskLop sLaLlons and a cafe.
Across lLs remalnlng llbrarles Lhe Councll had lmproved Lhe servlce offered, for example, ln
Lhe sLock Lhe llbrarles held.

8eyond back offlce savlngs and savlngs Lhrough redeslgn of servlces, Lhere have been some
lncreases ln servlce charges. 1hls ls lndlcaLed by reference Lo cenLral daLa on Sales, lees and
Charges (llgure 10). 1he change seen ln Lhese flgures, overall, ls roughly ln llne wlLh Lhe
change reporLed by a senlor offlcer for Lhe year 2011/12. lL was reporLed LhaL ln 2011/12
Lhere were declslons whlch would lead Lo 4m of addlLlonal charges. 1haL 4m flgure was
seL ln Lhe conLexL of overall savlngs for Lhe year of 42m and lL was reporLed LhaL o lot" of
Lhe changes were drlven by benchmarklng. Also, lncreases were focussed on servlces where
cllenLs were noL llmlLed Lo Lhe Councll offer, for example, ln venue hlre:
j.] ooJ ptobobly oo tbe mote cbolce slJe of tbloqs lo tetms of, wete o soppllet, ooJ
people coo soy, well, octoolly, Joot bove to qo to my locol cooocll, bot coolJ qo
somewbete else. (Senlor offlcer)

I|gure 10: Sa|es, Iees and Charges, 8rent 2009]10 to 2011]12

Source: uCLC, 8Sx 2009-10 (17-nov-11), 8Sx 2010-11 (27-nov-12), 8Sx 2011-12 (27-nov-12), Cu deflaLors
!une 2012.

lbld, p.22.
lbld, Leader's foreword, p.1.

Alongslde Lhe Cne Councll LransformaLlons, Lhe Councll has made regeneraLlon ln Lhe
borough a hlgh prlorlLy.
Clven Lhe demographlc of lLs populaLlon, wlLh many low-lncome
households assoclaLed wlLh a hlgh unemploymenL raLe (1able 4), Lhe Councll ls mlndful of
supporLlng Lhe local populaLlon Lhrough noL only Lhe proLecLlon of lLs servlce offer buL
Lhrough Lhe opporLunlLles for employmenL wlLhln Lhe borough.
1he creaLlon of [obs ls Lo
be promoLed Lhrough Lhe physlcal regeneraLlon of 8renL, for example, around Wembley. A
sLaLed amblLlon of Lhe currenL admlnlsLraLlon ls Lo reduce Lhe number of people clalmlng
ouL-of-work beneflLs Lo Lhe London average and ralse Lhe lncome level Lo aL leasL Lhe
London average by 2014.

N,.&'>816&: K&'610&:

8eLween 2011/12 and 2012/13 8renL's Chlldren and lamllles dlrecLoraLe needed Lo make
savlngs of 16m.
1he deparLmenL prlorlLlsed Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe chlldren's soclal care
budgeL and, aL Lhe same Llme, soughL Lo manage demand ln Lhls area. ln oLher areas of Lhe
servlce, Larly ?ears lncluded, savlngs had Lo be made.

ln Lhe Larly ?ears servlce, a savlng of 2.2m was made Lhrough Lhe chlldren's cenLres budgeL.
uellvery of Lhe 2.2m savlng had noL lnvolved Lhe closure of any chlldren's cenLres, Lhese
savlngs were made Lhrough drlvlng down expendlLure and Lhrough changes ln sLafflng
noneLheless, Lhe declslon was Laken Lo cuL-shorL a programme Lo lnLroduce
addlLlonal chlldren's cenLres lnLo Lhe borough. loreseelng LhaL Lhere would noL be
sufflclenL budgeL Lo pay Lhe sLafflng cosLs and overheads of addlLlonal cenLres, and wlLh a
quesLlon-mark Lherefore over Lhelr long-Lerm vlablllLy, an orlglnal plan for LwenLy chlldren's
cenLres was sLopped shorL aL sevenLeen.

1he Councll had noL here looked Lo lncome generaLlon as a maln means of offseLLlng budgeL
reducLlons. Much of Lhe provlslon ln chlldren's cenLres ls free Lo resldenLs and so Lhere was
llmlLed poLenLlal ln Lhls servlce area Lo boosL lncome from charglng. Where servlces were
sold, namely nursery places, Lhere had been some lncrease ln charges. 1he vlew of a senlor
offlcer was LhaL Lhls lncrease had been lnLroduced only Lo brlng Lhe charge up Lo a
reasonable level. revlously Lhose places had been heavlly subsldlsed, even ln cases where
famllles could afford Lo pay Lhe full cosL.

8eyond lLs Larly ?ears servlce, Lhe deparLmenL had dellvered savlngs Lhrough ceaslng Lo
commlsslon ouL lLs fosLerlng servlce. revlously Lhey had relled heavlly on lndependenL
fosLerlng agencles. 1hey now do much of Lhe work prevlously ouLsourced ln-house. 1he
resulLs here were sald Lo have been ootstooJloq" (senlor offlcer).
1he deparLmenL had
been able Lo keep Lhe budgeL down whllsL lmprovlng Lhe quallLy of Lhe servlce conslderably.

A 8egeneraLlon SLraLegy for 8renL 2010 - 2030, 8renL Councll
8renL Cur luLure, 2010 - 2014, 8renL Councll CorporaLe SLraLegy, p.13.
Senlor offlcer lnLervlew
1he servlce had already seen resLrucLurlng, chlldren's cenLres were worklng on a 'hub and spoke' model.
1haL had been one means of keeplng cosLs down Lo daLe.
Senlor offlcer lnLervlew
Senlor offlcer lnLervlew

More chlldren could now sLay locally and fosLer famllles were belng offered lmproved
supporL Lhrough a round-Lhe-clock helpllne. 1he deparLmenL had also made savlngs
Lhrough commlsslonlng and procuremenL. 1he Leam had been able Lo negoLlaLe beLLer
deals for some of Lhe speclallsL care places Lhey needed Lo procure. 1hey had achleved Lhls
by parLnerlng wlLh oLher wesL London boroughs, Lo reallse economles of scale savlngs.

lL was anLlclpaLed LhaL addlLlonal savlngs ln Chlldren and lamllles servlces would be
achleved Lhrough lmprovemenLs ln prevenLaLlve work. A new servlce framework was belng
lmplemenLed ln 8renL's chlld safeguardlng servlce. 1he MulLl-Agency Safeguardlng Pub
(MASP) framework ls a model LhaL ls belng rolled ouL ln boroughs London-wlde, as well as
furLher afleld.
8y brlnglng LogeLher lnLo a slngle parLnershlp local governmenL, healLh,
pollce, probaLlon and Lhe CreaLer London AuLhorlLy (CLA), lL ls anLlclpaLed LhaL poLenLlal
prevenLaLlve lnLervenLlons can be ldenLlfled more effecLlvely and Lherefore addressed more
More effecLlve prevenLaLlve lnLervenLlons Lo Lroubled famllles achlevable
Lhrough Lhls vehlcle could help reduce Lhe number of chlldren comlng lnLo care. AL Lhe
same Llme Lhere was menLlon of greaLer LargeLlng. 1he Leam had bullL-up lLs crlsls
lnLervenLlon Leam Lhough work here had become more focused on cases where tbe
obsolote tbtesbolJ" (senlor offlcer) for Lhe servlce was meL.

uurlng Lhe mosL recenL years of Lhe savlngs programme (2012/13 forwards) savlngs,
lncludlng ln Lhe Larly ?ears servlce, are comlng from a ma[or pro[ecL Lo lmprove Lhe 'chlld's
[ourney'. 1hls means LhaL ln Lhelr lnLeracLlons wlLh dlfferenL servlces famllles wlLh chlldren
wlll recelve a more [olned-up and effecLlve servlce. Also, Lhe lnLenLlon ls LhaL more focus on
Lhe 'chlld's [ourney' wlll help ln managlng demand. AddlLlonal savlngs wlll come from
tevlewloq scope ooJ covetoqe of exlstloq cbllJteos ceottes to move towotJs Jellvetloq o
totqeteJ offet"
, suggesLlng a move Lo lncreaslngly focus on Lhe vulnerable/aL rlsk.
8eyond Lhese lnlLlaLlves, a senlor offlcer commenLed LhaL lL would be necessary Lo sLarL
dlscusslng wlLh Members how Lhe Chlldren and lamllles servlce mlghL be dellvered
dlfferenLly. 1here was menLlon of posslbly worklng wlLh nelghbourlng boroughs Lo [oln up
adopLlon or fosLerlng servlces, worklng poLenLlally on a reglonal basls. Looklng ahead
Lhough, a senlor offlcer anLlclpaLed o Jlffeteot bootJ qome"(senlor offlcer). lL could be
LhaL Lhe number of councll run chlldren's cenLres would need Lo be reduced. Pere Lhere
mlghL be scope for geLLlng schools Lo Lake Lhem over. 1here was conslderable relucLance Lo
move ln Lhe dlrecLlon of chlldren's cenLre closures glven Lhe range of Chlldren and lamllles
work belng dellvered Lhrough Lhem. 1he challenges ahead seemed subsLanLlal. lL was
reporLed LhaL any low-booqloq ftolt" (senlor offlcer) had already been plcked.
O-/%" K&'610&:

Cver Lhe flve years leadlng up Lo 2008/09, 8renL's ?ouLh Servlce budgeL had rlsen from
1.3m Lo 2.7m. new posLs had been added Lo Lhe servlce and Lhere had been spend on
refurblshmenLs and repalrs. 1he servlce had aLLracLed a My lace award of 3m for Lhe
redevelopmenL of Lhe 8oundwood ?ouLh CenLre ln Parlesden. 1here were over 43 full Llme

hLLp:// Accessed SepLember 2013.
Appendlx u(l) Analysls of Savlngs

sLaff, of whlch over 80 per cenL were youLh workers. 1he servlce reporLedly managed lLs
budgeL well and was underspendlng raLher Lhan overspendlng. ConLacLs wlLh young people
(13-19) are reporLed Lo have rlsen from 3294 ln 2006/07 Lo 6713 by 2008/09, and young
people's saLlsfacLlon wlLh local parks and play areas was reporLedly Lhe second hlghesL ln

As parL of Lhe Councll's posL 2010 savlngs programme Lhe ?ouLh Servlce has had Lo dellver
savlngs. ln 2010/11 Lhe budgeL for ?ouLh Servlces was 2.2m. 1hls equaLes Lo a 0.3m
reducLlon from whaL lL was Lwo years earller, ln 2008/09.
1he back offlce had been looked
aL. lrom 2010 Lhe cosLs of some conLracLed ln servlces had been reduced. ln 2011/12 Lhere
were reducLlons ln careers guldance conLracLs and, ln Lhe same year, Lhe ma[or savlng ln Lhe
servlce was dellvered Lhrough a Lransfer of Lhe responslblllLy for Connexlons Lo schools
(330k). 1he LoLal savlngs achleved Lhrough Lhe ?ouLh and Connexlons servlce ln 2011/12
were 674k.

Savlngs ln youLh servlces were also achleved Lhrough servlce resLrucLurlng. 1he focus here
was on reduclng sLafflng cosLs. ln 2011/12 sLaff reducLlons ln Lhe ?ouLh Servlce accounLed
for 133k savlngs. Cne means of maklng Lhese savlngs was Lhrough amalgamaLlng Lhe
?ouLh Servlce wlLh Lhe ?ouLh Cffendlng Servlce. 1hrough Lhls amalgamaLlon managemenL
level sLafflng was reduced. 1here were furLher savlngs Lhrough reduclng sLafflng cosLs ln Lhe
Connexlons servlce and, ln 2012/13, ln Lhe uuke of Ldlnburgh award Leam.

noneLheless, desplLe a back offlce focus, a senlor offlcer reporLed LhaL .we bove boJ to
moke teJoctloos lo oot setvlces fot yoooq people." 1here had noL been closures of premlses
- raLher, Lhere were lndlcaLlons of servlce lmprovemenLs, for example, a new youLh cenLre
aL Parlesden. 1here seemed a commlLmenL Lo susLalnlng LhaL faclllLy desplLe budgeL
pressures ln Lhe servlce. ?eL some fronLllne servlces had been lmpacLed. Careers guldance
was one example, savlngs from youLh cenLre servlces, Lo Lhe value of 200k, anoLher. 1here
had also been changes ln charglng. ln 2012/13 charges for Lhe borough's summer unlverslLy
had been lnLroduced.

under Lhe borough's currenL admlnlsLraLlon a revlew of Lhe youLh servlce ls underway so, aL
Lhe Llme of our lnLervlews, dlscusslons were ongolng wlLh Members abouL whaL Lhe youLh
servlce mlghL look llke ln Lhe fuLure. lL was felL by a senlor offlcer LhaL ln fulfllllng Lhe
sLaLuLory obllgaLlon Lo provlde a youLh servlce, Lhere was scope for reLhlnklng Lhe servlce,
and one quesLlon under dlscusslon was how Lhe servlce mlghL be dellvered dlfferenLly. Cne
opLlon could be Lo dellver more of Lhe servlce onllne. lL seemed Lhough LhaL Lhe level of
provlslon ln Lhe ?ouLh Servlce mlghL need furLher reducLlon ln Lhe fuLure.
lL was LhoughL
LhaL Lhe local volunLary and communlLy secLor mlghL play more of a role golng forward.
AlLernaLlve models LhaL mlghL be explored lncluded Lhe seLLlng up of a charlLable LrusL, a
more arms-lengLh model, tbot coo Jellvet setvlces tbot we coot" (senlor offlcer).

All lnformaLlon here drawn from Servlce 8evlew, Servlces for ?oung eople, lnLerlm 8eporL, 19 lebruary
lndeed, a drlve for efflclencles ln Lhe servlce predaLes Lhe CS8 2010, ldenLlflcaLlon of efflclencles belng one
aspecL of a youLh servlce revlew underLaken by Lhe borough's prevlous admlnlsLraLlon.
MeeLlng of Lhe 8udgeL and llnance Cvervlew and ScruLlny CommlLLee, 9 lebruary 2011, lLem 4.

;4.&' @&-$4&L: K&'610&:

Spendlng by 8renL Councll on lLs AdulL Soclal Servlces fell by 6 per cenL from 2009/10 Lo
2013/14. Spend on Lhe older people's segmenL of Lhe servlce, however, rose: lL was 37m
ln 2009/10, 39m ln 2010/11 and 41m ln 2011/12 (nomlnal). 1hls also represenLs an
lncrease ln Lhe proporLlon of Lhe overall AdulL Soclal Servlces budgeL allocaLed Lo older
people's servlces: from 38 per cenL ln 2009/10 Lo nearer half, 46 per cenL, ln 2011/12. An
lmporLanL drlver for Lhls lncrease was rlslng demand.

1he Leam had noneLheless dellvered efflclency savlngs ln lLs older people's servlce. 1hese
had been necessary due Lo lncreaslng demand and Lhe pressures of an hlsLorlc overspend.
uurlng 2010/11 Lo 2011/12, Lhe overall cosL of nurslng and resldenLlal care placemenLs for
older people had been reduced, desplLe an lncrease ln cllenL numbers. 1hls had been
achleved Lhrough drlvlng down unlL cosLs ln Lhe commlsslonlng of boLh resldenLlal and
home care placemenLs. 1he Councll reduced Lhe unlL cosL of a nurslng and resldenLlal care
placemenL for an older person by 7 per cenL from 2010/11 Lo 2012/13.
1hls was also Lhe
case for domlclllary care for older people. 1he average weekly cosL of home care was 30
less ln 2011/12 Lhan lL was ln 2010/11, wlLh a furLher reducLlon pro[ecLed for 2012/13.

1he deparLmenL had also Laken sLeps Lo manage demand. 1he lnLroducLlon of a reablemenL
servlce was a cenLral parL of Lhls and Lhey had recenLly seL-up an enhanced reablemenL
servlce for people wlLh complex needs. Accordlng Lo a senlor offlcer Lhe reablemenL
programme was dellverlng very good resulLs, lncludlng ln Lerms of helplng manage demand.
ApproxlmaLely 80 per cenL of Lhe people assessed as meeLlng Lhe ellglblllLy Lhreshold were
golng Lhrough Lhe reablemenL servlce and, of Lhose, over half would come ouL no longer
requlrlng Lhe servlce orlglnally requesLed.
1he Leam was also ensurlng LhaL only Lhose
people who meL Lhe ellglblllLy crlLerla of subsLanLlal or crlLlcal need were broughL lnLo Lhe
servlce. 1hey were lmplemeotloq tbe ellqlblllty ctltetlo mote tobostly", saylng 'no' and
were belng clear abouL whaL Lhelr sLaLuLory responslblllLles were ln Lerms of meeLlng

1here had been closures of some servlces: one resldenLlal care home and Lwo day cenLres
(one ln Lhe ward of kllburn, one ln Lhe ward of SLonebrldge) had been shuL.
unlL cosLs ln
Lhese faclllLles were descrlbed as havlng been boqe" and, more slgnlflcanLly, Lhe quallLy of
Lhese servlces was consldered poor (senlor offlcer). 1he Leam had replaced Lhese servlces
by buylng ln from Lhe prlvaLe secLor.

Savlngs from Lhe AdulL Soclal Servlces deparLmenL aL large had come from reduclng Lhe
spend on commlsslonlng. As 70 per cenL of Lhe deparLmenL's budgeL was for commlssloned
servlces, savlngs needed Lo be secured ln Lhls area.
1he largesL share of planned savlngs

1he weekly average cosL fell from 607 ln 2010/11 Lo 397 ln 2011/12 and, accordlng Lo pro[ecLed flgures,
would fall Lo 367 for 2012/13.
unlL cosL flgures sourced from '8renL AdulL Soclal Servlces Local AccounL 11/12, p27-28' and '8renL AdulL
Soclal Servlces Local AccounL 11/12, p26-28. All flgures ln Lhls paragraph are nomlnal.
llgure as reporLed ln an lnLervlew wlLh a senlor offlcer.
Senlor offlcer lnLervlew
Senlor offlcer lnLervlew and dlsposals schedule - 3 year rolllng programme, Appendlx k(v)
Senlor offlcer lnLervlew

for 2011/12 were Lo be achleved Lhrough commlsslonlng: 4.1m from a LoLal savlngs LargeL
of 9.8m.
lL had been posslble Lo negoLlaLe savlngs wlLh suppllers Lhrough collaboraLlng
wlLh oLher boroughs Lhrough Lhe WesL London Alllance, savlngs Lhrough economles of scale
could be achleved. Servlce-wlde savlngs had also been made ln sLafflng, for example, more
unquallfled sLaff were belng used for assessmenLs. new approaches were belng plloLed, for
example, a local church had been awarded a granL Lo supporL lL ln seLLlng-up a verslon of a
meal-on-wheels servlce.

Cverall, Lhe vlew of a senlor offlcer was LhaL Lhe quallLy of care for older people had
lmproved aL Lhe same Llme as cosL savlngs had been achleved,
j.] lo tetms of olJet people l woolJ soy olJet peoples setvlces, fot tbose people
wbo ote ellqlble, bove lmptoveJ j.] (5eolot offlcet)
lL was felL Lhls applled across Lhe range of Lhe servlces dellvered wlLhln Lhe AdulL Soclal
Servlces deparLmenL. lmprovlng quallLy had been Lhe Leam's prlmary drlver: Lhere were no
longer walLlng llsLs and Lhe servlces were now more personallsed.
1he senlor offlcer was
overall very poslLlve abouL Lhe achlevemenLs of Lhe Leam and suggesLed Lhe cuLs could be
vlewed as an enabler", lnnovaLlon had been posslble.

lL was noLed Lhough LhaL some resldenLs mlghL now be loslng ouL. As a resulL of savlngs
needed, ellglblllLy crlLerla were belng beLLer adhered Lo, so some former cllenLs, under Lhe
beLLer lmplemenLaLlon of assessmenL crlLerla, would now no longer be accesslng Lhe servlce,
ooJ tbot ls obvloosly vety Jlfflcolt fot tbose loJlvlJools" (senlor offlcer). lor Lhose sLlll
accesslng Lhe servlce, lL was noLed LhaL Lhere had been changes ln Lhe charglng pollcy ln
some areas of AdulL Soclal Servlces. Changes had been made Lo beLLer reflecL Lhe cosL of
Lhe servlce where subsldles had been hlgh.

AnoLher group who appear Lo have been affecLed Lo some exLenL ls Lhe local volunLary
secLor. ln recenL procuremenL exerclses some of Lhe organlsaLlons who had been provldlng
servlces Lo Lhe Councll dld noL have Lhelr conLracLs renewed as, under Lhe procuremenL
rules whlch gulde Lhe award of Lhose conLracLs, some more naLlonal organlsaLlons, belng
able Lo offer a lower unlL cosL, had been recrulLed (senlor offlcer). noneLheless, Lhe
deparLmenL reporLed LhaL Lhey had soughL Lo supporL Lhe local organlsaLlons Lhrough LhaL
Lenderlng process and conLlnued Lo help Lhem prepare for procuremenL exerclses.

1hlnklng abouL posslble furLher budgeL cuLs, lL was clear LhaL Lhe scope for achlevlng furLher
savlngs seemed much more llmlLed Lhan Lhree years prlor:
j.] tbe lssoe ls oot tbe oow, lts wbots qoloq to boppeo lo tbe fotote. we bove
moJelleJ to 2019 ooJ we bove qot vety slqolflcoot floooclol ptessotes." (5eolot

resenLaLlon Lo 8udgeL & llnance Cvervlew and ScruLlny CommlLLee, 11 CcLober 2011. Supplled by
dlrecLoraLe Lo auLhors.
Some of Lhe changes noLed ln Lhls servlce area pre-daLed Lhe announcemenL of Lhe local governmenL
spendlng cuLs. 1he Care CuallLy Commlsslon lnspecLlon from 2009/10 ldenLlfles Lhe LransformaLlon of AdulL
Soclal Servlces as one of Lhe councll's Lop prlorlLles". lL reveals LhaL Lhe AdulL Soclal Servlces deparLmenL was
already lmplemenLlng a number of new lnlLlaLlves Lo promoLe cosL savlngs and manage demand. uue Lo an
hlsLorlc overspend ln Lhe servlce Lhere was already a sLrong lmpeLus for flndlng ways Lo make savlngs pre-2010.
1he sLaLemenLs here on walLlng llsLs and greaLer personallsaLlon are as reporLed aL lnLervlew. 1hey are noL
based on lndependenL research by Lhe auLhors.

Savlngs had been achleved where posslble. ln parLlcular Lhere dld noL now seem much
room for squeezlng provlders furLher, LhaL sLraLegy had already been well explolLed as parL
of Lhe savlngs drlve ln Lhe deparLmenL. A loL seemed Lo hang on fuLure opporLunlLles Lo
develop more lnLegraLed approaches wlLh local healLh servlces. 1he Leam was Lrylng Lo
work more wlLh parLners ln healLh care. 8renL had become parL of an lnLegraLed Care plloL,
worklng more closely wlLh Cs around lndlvldual paLlenLs. CpLlons were belng dlscussed
and Llme was belng lnvesLed Lo Lry and develop Lhe relaLlonshlps wlLh Lhe Cllnlcal
Commlsslonlng Croup.


8renL Councll ls dellverlng over 73m worLh of savlngs across 2010/11 Lo 2013/14. MosL of
Lhese savlngs had been achleved by 2011/12. 1he maln sLraLegles adopLed by 8renL Councll
were: back offlce savlngs, drlvlng down cosLs of commlsslonlng and managlng demand.
1hese savlngs sLraLegles, under Lhe banner of Lhe 'Cne Councll' programme, wenL hand-ln-
hand wlLh a drlve Lo lmprove servlces.

1hrough Lhe Cne Councll programme Lhere had been slgnlflcanL back offlce changes Lo
beLLer sLreamllne Lhe Councll. 1he programme had lnvolved reduclng Lhe number of
managers and oLher sLaff and brlnglng lLs admlnlsLraLlve funcLlons lnLo a slngle bulldlng.
SlgnlflcanL savlngs had been achleved Lhrough securlng lower unlL cosLs for Lhe servlces lL
boughL ln and Lo achleve Lhls Lhe Councll had worked wlLh oLher WesL London boroughs.
1he Councll has been managlng demand Lhrough prevenLaLlve programmes: reablemenL ln
older people's servlces and Lhrough Lhe MulLl-Agency Safeguardlng Pub ln chlldren's
servlces. Also ln evldence was a drlve Lo beLLer dlrecL spend Loward only Lhose who meeL
Lhe ellglblllLy crlLerla (AdulL Soclal Servlces) or are mosL vulnerable/aL rlsk (Chlldren and

ln Lerms of whaL Lhese changes have meanL for fronLllne servlces, a key message from
offlcers was LhaL servlces had lmproved. 1hose who are accesslng Lhe Councll's servlces ln
Lhe Lhree areas explored should, ln Lheory, be recelvlng a beLLer servlce. Where Lhere had
been closures of bulldlngs - for example Lhe Lhree supplylng older people's care and Lhe slx
llbrarles - lL was noLed LhaL Lhe overall quallLy of Lhe servlce had been lmproved. Any cosL
assoclaLed wlLh accesslng Lhe Councll's servlces ln Lhe areas consldered should noL have
gone up slgnlflcanLly. WhllsL some servlce charges had lncreased, for example, for Lhe
summer unlverslLy and for nursery care, accordlng Lo offlcers charglng had noL been a ma[or
elemenL of 8renL's response Lo Lhe cuLs.

Cn Lhe oLher hand, due Lo more careful adherence Lo ellglblllLy crlLerla and a more LargeLed
approach, some people who were accesslng a servlce before 2010 wlll now no longer have
access. Also, some local-level vCS organlsaLlons had losL ouL ln procuremenL exerclses,
unable Lo compeLe wlLh larger-scale organlsaLlons.

8renL Councll's response Lo and poslLlon vls-a-vls Lhe cuLs should be placed ln Lhe conLexL of
lLs parLlcular characLerlsLlcs and hlsLory. uurlng Lhe precedlng decades 8renL Councll had
developed as a very devolved organlsaLlon. lL also somewhaL sLood aparL ln lLs hlgh

manager Lo sLaff raLlo and Lhelr spans of conLrol. ConsequenLly, ln lLs organlsaLlonal
sLrucLure Lhere was scope for 8renL Councll Lo lmplemenL some subsLanLlal changes and,
Lhrough LhaL, achleve efflclencles. 1here was an lmpeLus for change and LransformaLlon
wlLhln Lhe Councll whlch predaLed Lhe cuLs. Some assessmenLs ln Lhe early 2000s had
hlghllghLed poLenLlal for overall lmprovemenL and comlng lnLo Lhe perlod of Lhe cuLs 8renL
Councll was already movlng ln Lhe dlrecLlon of LransformaLlon. 1he Cne Councll prlnclple
had been lnLroduced and was guldlng plans Lo shape a more efflclenL, lnLernally unlfled and
sLreamllned organlsaLlon whlch would dellver an lmproved servlce Lo lLs users.

As efflclencles have been achleved, and wlLh demand on Lhe rlse locally, Lhe on-golng need
Lo make savlngs presenLs a conslderable challenge. As one offlcer puL lL tbe eosy stoff" had
been done. lL was geLLlng harder Lo flnd savlngs and, assoclaLed wlLh Lhls, Lhe savlngs
opLlons avallable golng forward would be hlgher rlsk. Looklng Lo Lhe fuLure lL seemed
offlcers were hoplng Lo be able Lo work more Lhrough parLnershlps, boLh wlLhln borough
and wlLh oLher boroughs, Lo dellver wlLhln budgeL, and Lhey would conLlnue Lo Lhlnk
creaLlvely abouL how servlces could be dellvered lower cosL, for example, perhaps provldlng
more of lLs servlces vlrLually.


!"#$%&' G* !#7.&, !-/,014 A&:$-,:& %- %"& !/%:
!#7.&,L: !"#'#0%&'1:%10:

Camden ls an lnner London borough ln lnner WesL London. opulaLlon denslLy ln Lhe
borough ls relaLlvely hlgh for London, Lhough populaLlon counL ls relaLlvely low. ln Lerms of
Lhe resldenL groups of lnLeresL here: 6 per cenL of Lhe populaLlon are under-flves (ranklng
low amongsL Lhe boroughs), 13 per cenL are 16-24 (Lhe Lhlrd hlghesL amongsL London
boroughs) and 11 per cenL are ln Lhe over 63 group (mld-range amongsL London boroughs).
1he hlgh proporLlon of 16-24's reflecLs Lhe hlgh represenLaLlon of sLudenLs ln Camden.

1he proporLlon of Lhe populaLlon of 8AML eLhnlclLy ls 31 per cenL, lower Lhan Lhe overall
London equlvalenL (32 per cenL) and a relaLlvely low flgure when ranked amongsL all London
boroughs. Cf all 8AML resldenLs, 8angladeshl eLhnlclLy ls mosL represenLed (3.7 of all
1he ma[orlLy of Lhe populaLlon (38 per cenL) ls uk born.

Camden has been descrlbed as a borough of conLrasLs.
Areas of conslderable wealLh exlsL
along wlLh areas of hlgh poverLy. Cn raLes of boLh chlld poverLy and soclal renLlng, Camden
ranks ln Lhe Lop Lhlrd of London boroughs (1able 6). 1he mean household slze, however, ls
one of Lhe lowesL ln London, a reflecLlon of Lhe hlgh proporLlon of slngles ln Lhe borough.

1ab|e 6: key Character|st|cs, Camden L8
ear key character|st|cs Camden London
kank = Camden]
London (33)

opulaLlon (counL) 220,100 8,204,400 2J
opulaLlon denslLy (persons per/ha) 101.1 32 8
Age <23 31 32 21
Age 0-4 6 7 28
Age 16-24 13 12 J
Age 63+ 11 11 17
LLhnlclLy 8AML 34 40 22
uk 8orn 38 63 2J
Soclal renLed households 33 24 8
Mean household slze 2.2 2.3 28


lMu 2010 23.4 ~ 15
Chlldren ln poverLy (Mld-2012 esLlmaLes) 28 ~ 9
!SA clalmanLs (CcL 2013)
2.3 3.2 19
unemploymenL raLe (Apr 2012-Mar 13) 7.3 8.9 21
Sources: Mld-2011 populaLlon esLlmaLes, Census 2011 Lables - CS102uk, kS102uk, kS201uk, CS203uk,
kS402uk, P01uk, !SA, nomls, Ll01 Local labour markeL lndlcaLors, Chlldren ln poverLy, mld-2012 esLlmaLes,
uCLC lMu 2010, average score.
* 8ank 1 lndlcaLes hlghesL percenLage of all London boroughs, rank 33 lowesL of all London boroughs

AdulL sLudenLs (18+) make-up 14 per cenL of Lhe borough's 16-74 populaLlon
llgure Laken from '2011 Census key SLaLlsLlcs and Culck SLaLlsLlcs for Camden', Camden Councll
Camden Area AssessmenL, uecember 2009, Cne lace, AudlL Commlsslon
!SA sLaLs here expressed as Lhe proporLlon of Lhe resldenL worklng-age populaLlon, noL Lhe proporLlon of Lhe
resldenL workforce. Camden would normally use Lhe laLLer (CLA derlved !SA raLes) raLher Lhan Lhe former due
Lo Lhe slze of Lhelr sLudenL and oLher lnacLlve populaLlons. llgures here are presenLed proporLlon of worklng-
age populaLlon for conslsLency wlLh 1able 4 and 1able 8.

arLs of Lhe borough are currenLly seelng enormous caplLal lnvesLmenL, namely Lhe
regeneraLlon area around klng's Cross. 1he borough ls home Lo some of London's mosL
famous aLLracLlons, Lhe 8rlLlsh Museum and CovenL Carden, drawlng Lhousands of vlslLors
each year. lL ls also cenLral Lo Lhe counLry's publlc LransporL lnfrasLrucLure and a gaLeway Lo
malnland Lurope Lhrough Lhe LurosLar Lermlnal - klng's Cross, SL ancras and LusLon
sLaLlons are all locaLed Lhere.

Camden ls presenLly a Labour led Councll and has been Labour led for mosL of Lhe hlsLory of
Lhe London boroughs.
ln 2006 a Llberal uemocraL-ConservaLlve parLnershlp
admlnlsLraLlon Look offlce. 1haL admlnlsLraLlon was ln place unLll 2010, when Lhe currenL
Labour admlnlsLraLlon was elecLed.

LxLernal assessmenLs by lnspecLoraLes and regulaLors suggesL LhaL Lhe Councll was
performlng well ln Lhe perlod before Lhe cuLs. A Cne lace 2009 Area AssessmenL of
Camden raLed lLs performance across a range of lLs acLlvlLles.
Creen flags were awarded
Lo areas of acLlvlLy whlch showed ouLsLandlng achlevemenL or lmprovemenL, red flags were
awarded where Lhere were any slgnlflcanL concerns. Camden was awarded several green
flags and no red flags.
ln May 2008 Camden was awarded scores of 4 ouL of 4 ln all areas
of lLs Comprehenslve erformance AssessmenLs (CA). lL was reporLedly Lhe flrsL Councll ln
Lhe counLry Lo achleve Lhls.
ln Lhe 2009 CA Lhe Councll was raLed, overall, as 'performlng

1he borough was also performlng well ln servlces of lmmedlaLe relevance Lo Lhls research.
lLs AdulL Soclal Care Servlce was raLed as performlng excellenLly on 3 of Lhe 7 ouLcomes
assessed, wlLh a raLlng of 'well', Lhe level below 'excellenL', on Lhe oLher Lwo by Lhe Care
CuallLy Commlsslon (2009). lLs Chlldren, Schools and lamllles servlces recelved an overall
raLlng of 'excellenL' from CfsLed ln 2009 and ln March 2010 Lhe servlce was recognlsed as
'8esL Chlldren's Servlce' aL Lhe Local CovernmenL Chronlcle 2009 awards.
suggesLs LhaL Lhe flnanclal poslLlon of Camden Councll aL Lhe polnL of Lhe cuLs was sLrong, ln
Lhe AudlL Commlsslon's CA Lhe Councll was raLed as performlng 'excellenLly' ln lLs
managemenL of flnances and use of resources.

2"& K1M& -I %"& !/%

Accordlng Lo uCLC reLurns (as used ln ChapLer 2), Camden's fundlng from cenLral
governmenL for servlces fell by 30 per cenL (c 96m ln real Lerms) ln Lhe perlod 2009/10 Lo
2013/14, and 1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure (less educaLlon) fell by 23per cenL, abouL 77m.
1hese daLa broadly correspond Lo Lhe Councll's esLlmaLed cash Lerms savlngs of c83m. lLs
esLlmaLed spendlng power fell by 23 per cenL beLween 2010/11 and 2013/14 (a shorLer

1he London 8oroughs were esLabllshed ln 1964
AudlL Commlsslon, Cne lace Camden Area AssessmenL, 9 uecember 2009
lbld, p.3.
London 8orough of Camden - SLaLemenL of AccounLs 2008/09, p.17
AudlL Commlsslon, Cne lace Camden Area AssessmenL, 9 uecember 2009
London 8orough of Camden - SLaLemenL of AccounLs 2008/09, p.9

Worklng from local level daLa (1able 7) 1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure over Lhe perlod fell by 3
per cenL. Spend on AdulL Soclal Care held falrly consLanL over Lhe perlod, wlLh a reducLlon
of 2 per cenL. Allowlng for changes ln accounLlng, acLual spend on Chlldren, Schools and
lamllles reduced by 12m or 13 per cenL ln real Lerms.

1ab|e 7: keduct|ons |n Income and Lxpend|ture, Camden 2009]10 to 2013]14
Camden (m||||ons) 2009]10 2010]11 2011]12 2012]13 2013]14
lncome 292.1 320.6 233.8 239.4 224.1 -2J
1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure 324.4 317.8 309.9 279.4 308.6 -5
AdulL Soclal Care 92.1 ~ ~ ~ 83.4 -9
Chlldren, Schools, lamllles 90.3 ~ ~ ~ 78.3 -1J

CumulaLlve savlngs ** 9.3 60.8 82.3 92.3
Sources: lncome and LxpendlLure flgures - CollecLlon lund 8evenue AccounLs 2009/10-2012/13, lncome and
LxpendlLure AccounLs 2009/10 - 2012/13, 8udgeL 8ook 2013/14
Cu deflaLors 27Lh !une 2013, noL applled Lo cumulaLlve savlngs row
*lncome lncludes lormula CranL, Councll 1ax and Area 8ased CranL
** Savlngs Lo 2013/14 LoLal 83m when counLed from Lhe flrsL full year of savlngs l.e. from 2011/12 so
excludlng Lhe 2010/11 flgure (9.3m).

A programme of efflclency savlngs was already ln place aL Lhe Llme Lhe CS8 2010 spendlng
cuLs were announced. SubsLanLlal savlngs had already been dellvered ln Lhls perlod: from
2004/03 Lo 2008/09 a reporLed 23.8m of savlngs were achleved and Lhe Councll was
plannlng Lo dellver a furLher 9.3m of savlngs ln Lhe 2009/10-2010/11 perlod. Lxamples of
savlngs ln Lhls pre-2010 perlod lnclude: revlew of Lhe accommodaLlon sLraLegy and of
managemenL roles and sLrucLures, and a revlew of Lhe deslgn and prlnL servlce (all ln
2008/09 and Lo Lhe value of 13.3m).
1hese savlngs were parL of Lhe Councll's '8eLLer and
Cheaper' amblLlons. WlLh Lhe announcemenL of Lhe cuLs ln 2010, ln year reducLlons Lo
budgeLs were made (followlng Lhe cessaLlon of Area 8ased CranL) and an 83m savlngs
LargeL was agreed, Lo be dellvered over a Lhree year perlod beLween 2010/11 Lo 2013/14.
8y !uly 2012 Lhe Councll had dellvered over 60 per cenL of Lhe LoLal savlngs LargeL.

2"& ;6&'#44 A&:$-,:&

AL Lhe announcemenL of Lhe cuLs ln 2010, a newly elecLed Councll had recenLly Laken offlce
ln Camden. 1he Councll had been anLlclpaLlng needlng Lo make savlngs of 33m over a
Lhree year perlod, buL Lhe acLual savlngs needed were more Lhan half LhaL amounL agaln
(83m). 1he Councll made ln year savlngs Lo balance LhaL year's budgeL and, chooslng a
long vlew approach, seL ln place a Lhree year savlngs plan Lo Lake effecL as of 2010/11. 1haL
savlngs programme was mulLl-faceLed lnvolvlng, as descrlbed below, a varleLy of sLraLegles.

London 8orough of Camden - SLaLemenL of AccounLs 2009/10, p.23

1he overall emphasls was on proLecLlng Lhe mosL vulnerable and on drawlng savlngs malnly
from Lhe back offlce.

Camden Councll classlfy 43.3m of Lhe 83m savlngs programme as 'back offlce', so [usL
over 30 per cenL of Lhe savlngs were Lo come from back offlce efflclencles.
Savlngs here
were achleved Lhrough several means. 1here were slgnlflcanL reducLlons ln headcounL, Lo
daLe Lhere has been a removal of abouL 1000 posLs from Lhe Councll, abouL 630 Lhrough
AL Lhe Llme of Lhe cuLs Lhe Councll was procurlng abouL 300m worLh of
servlces. 1hls was reduced by negoLlaLlng wlLh provlders and, ln some lnsLances, worklng
wlLh oLher boroughs. 1he Councll was also consolldaLlng lLs offlce-relaLed overheads,
movlng Lowards more hoL-desklng aL a slngle slLe. nlne of Lhe Councll's admlnlsLraLlve
bulldlngs are belng sold off and Lhe Councll wlll move Lo a new, purpose bullL premlses ln
Lhe klng's Cross developmenL. 1hls move wlll mean LhaL overheads are reduced and
operaLlng efflclencles achleved Lhrough collaboraLlve worklng and reduced dupllcaLlon.

lnlLlaLlves Lo cuL ouL wasLe and spoeeze tbe eovelope" (senlor offlcer) had been puL ln place.
Cne such sLraLegy ls Camden's drlve for 'geLLlng lL 8lghL llrsL 1lme', an approach whlch ls
wrlLLen lnLo Lhe 'Camden lan', Camden's sLaLemenL of ob[ecLlves for Lhe nexL flve year
perlod. 1he approach uses a sysLems Lhlnklng" meLhodology. 1o daLe Camden has applled
lL across a range of servlces, lncludlng: houslng repalrs, P8, purchase Lo pay and
developmenL managemenL. 1hls work has demonsLraLed Lhe poLenLlal of Lhe meLhodology
Lo slmulLaneously make slgnlflcanL servlce lmprovemenLs for cusLomers, release flnanclal
savlngs and change organlsaLlonal culLure Lo one LhaL malnLalns a focus on lLeraLlve servlce
lmprovemenL for Lhe cusLomer.

8ulldlng on Lhls Camden ls rolllng ouL a more sysLemaLlc, Councll-wlde 8lghL llrsL 1lme
approach looklng Lo sLreamllne servlce dellvery Lhrough a more allgned and [olned up
approach. 1he underlylng prlnclple ls LhaL Lhey can reduce cosLs by meeLlng Lhe needs of
Lhelr resldenLs, buslnesses and lnfrasLrucLure as early as posslble and as a whole Lo reduce
Lhe llkellhood of cosLller, more complex, long-Lerm needs developlng. 1hls reporLedly
promoLes a prevenLaLlve, early help approach almlng Lo break cycles of dependency and
develop reslllence.

1he Councll ls movlng Lowards 'ouLcomes based budgeLlng'.
1he prlnclple ls Lo Lhlnk
carefully ahead of Llme abouL Lhe ouLcomes wanLed ln a parLlcular area and Lhen allocaLe
funds ln a way whlch reflecLs LhaL, dlrecLlng Lhose funds parLlcularly Lo acLlons whlch wlll
dellver seL ouLcomes.
As parL of a shlfL Lowards Lhls framework greaLer welghL ls belng
glven Lo Lhe evldence base and Lhe scruLlny of Lhls daLa so LhaL fundlng can be beLLer

Senlor offlcers and Members polnLed ouL LhaL Lhe Lerm 'back offlce' does noL have a sLandard deflnlLlon
across counclls. A Member commenLed LhaL Lhe percenLage clLed ln Camden was a falr lnLerpreLaLlon buL LhaL
some counclls mlghL clalm Lo have dellvered sLrlklngly hlgh percenLages by 'back offlce' savlngs. (Member
llgure approxlmaLe and as aL !uly 2013.
1he lnlLlal lnLroducLlon of Lhls 'ouLcomes-based model' ln Camden Councll pre-daLes Lhe CS8 2010 perlod,
however, for example, 'Commlsslonlng ouLcomes and recovery' London 8orough of Camden, CcLober 2008
lbld and ncvo, 'CuLcomes-based commlsslonlng - Camden case sLudy', Avallable onllne aL hLLp://www.ncvo-

dlrecLed Lowards Lhe lnLervenLlons besL shown Lo dellver Lhe deslred ouLcomes.
deparLmenLs are Lo work LogeLher more closely, sllos and dupllcaLlon are reduced by
recognlslng Lhe acLlvlLles LhaL conLrlbuLe Lo ouLcomes across Lhe organlsaLlon. lL was noLed
by a senlor offlcer LhaL Lhls approach reflecLed a wllllngness of Lhe Councll Lo Lhlnk abouL
Lhe longer-Lerm, Lylng currenL declslons Lo a fuLure vlslon of ouLcomes.

Cne sLraLegy counclls mlghL have used Lo offseL cuLs Lo Lhelr fundlng would be Lo ralse
lncome Lhrough charglng resldenLs more for Lhe servlces Lhey provlde. Accordlng Lo senlor
offlcers lncome generaLlon Lhrough lncreaslng charges had noL been a slgnlflcanL pollcy
wlLhln Lhe savlngs programme. lL cerLalnly seems from cenLral daLa LhaL overall lncome
from Sales, lees and Charges has noL lncreased over Lhe savlngs perlod (llgure 11). 8aLher,
Sales, lees and Charges decllned ln real Lerms, from 92m ln 2010/11 Lo 88.3m ln 2011/12.
As deLalled above, Lhere had been an efforL lnsLead Lo drlve down cosLs and beLLer LargeL

I|gure 11: Sa|es, Iees and Charges, Camden 2009]10 to 2011]12

Source: uCLC, 8Sx 2009-10 (17-nov-11), 8Sx 2010-11 (27-nov-12), 8Sx 2011-12 (27-nov-12), Cu deflaLors
!une 2012.

Accordlng Lo senlor offlcers and Members Lhelr response Lo Lhe cuLs had noL lnvolved ma[or
changes Lo Lhe Councll's fronLllne acLlvlLles. As parL of lLs savlngs programme Lhough,
Camden has needed Lo make some changes ln lLs dlscreLlonary servlces offer. WlLh a large
offer of dlscreLlonary servlces ln 2009/10, Camden had scope Lo make savlngs by reduclng
Lhls non-sLaLuLory area of lLs servlce provlslon.
Some dlscreLlonary servlces, such as
luncheon clubs, had been cuL. 1he Councll also sLopped runnlng lLs play servlce (non-
sLaLuLory) and closed one llbrary. Cfflcers and Members reporLed Lhough LhaL Lhese
servlces had noL necessarlly dlsappeared as a resulL. Some of Lhe luncheon clubs and Lhe
play servlce had been conLlnued by volunLary and communlLy secLor organlsaLlons. ln
addlLlon, Lhree communlLy llbrarles (l.e. charlLy/volunLeer-run) had been creaLed.

Member lnLervlew, senlor offlcer lnLervlew
Accordlng Lo senlor offlcers Camden's dlscreLlonary offer was some way above average, for example lL
offered a play servlce, a non-sLaLuLory CSl servlce.

Pere parLnershlps have been very lmporLanL ln Camden's response. uue Lo hlsLorlcally
sLrong relaLlonshlps wlLh local parLners Lhe Councll has been able Lo reconflgure lLs servlces
Lo beLLer allgn wlLh whaL oLhers are supplylng locally and has found LhaL, ln many cases,
local organlsaLlons have been prepared Lo plck up some of Lhe dlscreLlonary servlces whlch
lL needed Lo cuL as parL of lLs savlngs programme. AL Lhe same Llme, Lhe Councll has been
worklng Lo redeflne lLs relaLlonshlp wlLh Lhe volunLary secLor. lL sLlll offers some core
fundlng Lo local volunLary and communlLy organlsaLlons, buL ls now Lrylng Lo supporL Lhem
Loward greaLer lndependence.
1here was evldence of greaLer LargeLlng of some of lLs
servlces. ln a resLrucLurlng of Lhe youLh servlce, a key concern had been Lo proLecL servlces
ln Lhe mosL dlsadvanLaged areas and means-LesLlng had been aLLempLed ln some of lLs
chlldren's servlces.

An overarchlng Lheme ln Camden guldlng declslons on Lhe cuLs has been a commlLmenL Lo
proLecLlng Lhe vulnerable/aL rlsk.
roLecLlon of Lhe vulnerable was one of Lhe Len pledges
ln Lhe Camden Labour ManlfesLo 2010.
1haL pledge ls furLher reflecLed ln Lhe Camden
lan, Camden's maln sLraLegy documenL whlch covers Lhe 2012-2017 perlod. 1he lan
poslLlons a reducLlon ln lnequallLy as a maln ob[ecLlve of Lhe Councll's work: Lhe amblLlon ls
Lo narrow Lhe long-Lerm lnequallLy ln Lhe borough, as well as bulld susLalnable communlLles
and boosL local employmenL opporLunlLles.
An addlLlonal lnlLlaLlve, Lhe Camden LquallLy
1askforce, and Lhe wlde use of LquallLy lmpacL AssessmenLs wlLhln Lhe savlngs exerclse,
furLher underllne Lhe drlve ln Camden Lo Lry and proLecL and lmprove Lhe llves of
vulnerable/aL rlsk resldenLs.
A second, assoclaLed area of proLecLlon was Lo Larly ?ears.
Larly ?ears was glven speclal proLecLlon Lhrough Lhe savlngs exerclse, LhaL servlce area
needlng Lo dellver only half Lhe level of savlngs (percenLage wlse) looked for from oLher
deparLmenLs (10 per cenL raLher Lhan 20 per cenL).

AnoLher parL of Lhe eLhos has been Lo Lake a consulLaLlve approach. lor example, ln
drawlng up Lhe prlorlLles whlch would gulde Lhe Councll's work ln Lhe savlngs perlod - Lhe
Camden lan - consulLaLlon was cenLral Lo LhaL.
1he Lheme of wanLlng Lo ensure publlc
saLlsfacLlon was noL compromlsed ran LhroughouL Lhe savlngs programme. As deLalled
above, Camden has worked closely wlLh local parLners ln Lhe volunLary and communlLy
secLor, parLlcularly Lhrough Lhe work of lLs CommunlLles and 1hlrd SecLor Leam.

8elaLlonshlps wlLh Lhe local vCS were reporLedly sLrong and Lhere was evldence of Lhe
Councll worklng collaboraLlvely wlLh Lhese organlsaLlons and of seeklng Lo supporL Lhem ln a
muLually challenglng perlod.

lor example, Lhere were cases where Lhe Councll has had Lo wlLhdraw lLs fundlng Lo a vCS organlsaLlon buL
had Lhen granLed Lhe organlsaLlon an award from Lhe Camden eople's lund Lo glve lL Llme Lo flnd susLalnable
fundlng from oLher sources.
Member lnLervlew
'8ulldlng Cur luLure 1ogeLher', Camden Labour ManlfesLo 2010.
Camden lan 2012 - 2017, Camden Councll
Camden LquallLy 1askforce - llnal reporL, May 2014
Member lnLervlew
uellverlng Lhe Camden lan ln arLnershlp wlLh our volunLary and CommunlLy SecLor (vCS), lebruary 2013

Alongslde securlng savlngs and seeklng Lo proLecL fronLllne servlces, Lhe Councll was flndlng
ways Lo lnvesL ln Lhe borough, noLably Lhrough lLs caplLal spend. 1he Councll had suffered
slgnlflcanL reducLlons ln CaplLal fundlng durlng Lhe perlod (2010/11 forward), lncludlng a
loss of more Lhan 200m from Lhe cancellaLlon of all buL Lhree 8ulldlng Schools for Lhe
luLure pro[ecLs and loss of fundlng for Lhe prlmary school caplLal programme. 1he Councll
was dellverlng, noneLheless, a mosslve"
caplLal programme parL funded Lhrough a
CommunlLy lnvesLmenL rogramme. 1he CommunlLy lnvesLmenL rogramme had been
developed as a means of reallgnlng exlsLlng resources Lo ensure LhaL whaL were seen as vlLal
programmes could conLlnue. 1he Councll was Lhus dellverlng new schools, a Lhousand
councll homes, new communlLy cenLres, a llbrary and swlmmlng pool.
ueclslons Laken by
Counclllors ln Lhe 1970s and 1980s Lo buy land ln Camden meanL a sLrong base for Lhe
CaplLal AccounL. 1he capaclLy here Lo lnvesL ln Lhe borough was very slgnlflcanL. 1hese
somewhaL unlque clrcumsLances seemed Lo be glvlng Camden some greaLer room for
manoeuvre ln Lerms of caplLal spend and lLs response Lo Lhe cuLs: jl] Joot woot to moke lt
soooJ llke lt wos eosy, lt wosot, bot we boJ some tbloqs lo oot fovoot tbot otbets JlJot "

N,.&'>816&: K&'610&:

ln 2010 Lhe Councll descrlbed Lhelr level of Larly ?ears provlslon as well beyooJ tbe
stotototy tepoltemeot".
noLably, Camden was amongsL a relaLlvely small number of local
auLhorlLles provldlng 23 hours of free nursery provlslon for all 3 and 4 year olds ln lLs
malnLalned schools and chlldren cenLre nursery classes.
Cver Lhe Lhree year savlngs
programme, Lhe Chlldren's Schools and lamllles (CSl) servlce needed Lo dellver 19.3m of

Larly ?ears was glven speclal proLecLlon ln Lhe savlngs programme. Cnly half Lhe level of
savlngs requlred of oLher servlces (ln percenLage Lerms) had Lo be dellvered ln Lhe Larly
?ears servlce (10 per cenL raLher Lhan 20 per cenL). WhllsL lnlLlal savlngs plans ln 2010
suggesLed 6m
of savlngs would come from Lhe servlce, Lhe flnal LargeL was 3.2m. 1he
raLlonale for Lhls proLecLlon was explalned as such:
.tbe otly eots speoJ wos qlveo o blq ptotectloo becoose of.fltst of oll, tbe
lmpottooce of eotly yeots cbllJcote, otly eots setvlces, oo some of tbe most
voloetoble ooJ JlsoJvootoqeJ fomllles. (Senlor offlcer)

8eporLedly llLLle of Lhe 3.2m savlng was dellvered Lhrough cuLs ln fronLllne servlces:
.tbey [Lhe cuLs] weteot to ftootlloe setvlces os socb, ooless tbete wos o teolly oo
lJeotlfleJ oeeJ, tbot kloJ of ptovlsloo wosot beloq oseJ to best effect, ot wosot
setvloq tbe locollty... (Senlor offlcer)

Member lnLervlew
CablneL meeLlng papers, 1 uecember 2010, Appendlx L, p. 23
lbld. 1he sLaLuLory requlremenL ls 13 hours of provlslon, so Camden was provldlng 10 hours above LhaL.
1hls flgure covered boLh savlngs needed ln Lhe CSl budgeL and Lhe uSC elemenL.
CablneL MeeLlng, 1 uec 2010, Appendlx L, Medlum 1erm llnanclal SLraLegy: 8eLhlnklng Savlngs roposals,

Servlce revlews ldenLlfled poLenLlal for some such savlngs from chlldren's cenLre servlces,
lncludlng drop-lns and supporL for employablllLy and advlce on welfare rlghLs.
1here was
also a declslon Lo cease dellvery of early educaLlon and chlldcare from Lwo local auLhorlLy
chlldren's cenLre faclllLles.
1he servlces would noL dlsappear buL would be dellvered by
volunLary secLor provlders, wlLh Lhe broad range of chlldren's cenLre servlces (famlly
supporL, healLh and employablllLy) sLlll avallable ln Lhose locallLles:
wbot tbe cooocll JlJ wos look ot oot closloq Jowo oll tbose setvlces, bot lookloq ot
oltetootlve ptovlJets. 5o bow coolJ tbe setvlce be tbete, lo ooe pottlcolot veooe, bot
octoolly be fooJeJ Jlffeteotly tbtooqb tbe voloototy ooJ commoolty opptoocb ."
(Senlor offlcer)
1he CSl Leam also revlewed Lhe level of granLs Lhey supplled Lo communlLy nurserles wlLh a
vlew Lo raLlonallslng Lhe servlces commlssloned from Lhem. A reducLlon ln Lhe subsldlsaLlon
of nursery provlslon for under 3s resulLed ln savlngs (0.6m).

1here was evldence of greaLer LargeLlng of Lhe servlce, over a perlod of one year. ln
SepLember 2012 Lhe above sLaLuLory offer of free 3 and 4 year old provlslon (Lhe 10 hours
above Lhe sLaLuLory 13) became a LargeLed offer, Lhere were now 800 Councll supporLed 23
hour places for chlldren of famllles on low lncomes.
As noLed by a Member, Lhe Councll
was keen Lo malnLaln a unlversal offer ln early years and, conslsLenL wlLh Lhls, ln SepLember
2013, 23 hour places were relnsLaLed for all chlldren ln malnLalned schools and chlldren's
cenLre nursery classes. 1hls was achleved by Lhe Councll and schools sharlng Lhe addlLlonal

Cverall, more subsLanLlal savlngs were dellvered ln oLher areas of Lhe CSl servlce. 1hese
lncluded a remodelllng of famlly servlces and soclal work (2.8m) and a resLrucLure of
Speclal LducaLlonal needs and ulsablllLles (SLnu) servlces (c 2.7m savlngs over Lhree years).
ln boLh cases savlngs were achleved Lhrough sLafflng (lncludlng reduclng agency workers
and reduclng Lhe number of posLs) and procuremenL. ln famlly servlces and soclal work,
anoLher savlngs sLraLegy was greaLer LargeLlng of Lhe servlce, refocuslng prevenLaLlve
servlces on Lhose mosL aL need, Lhe range of prevenLaLlve servlces aL lower levels of need
commlssloned from Lhe volunLary and communlLy secLor was reduced. ln SLnu servlces an
ob[ecLlve was Lo dellver enhanced local provlslon and reduce ouL-of-borough and
lndependenL school placemenLs.

!usL as work wlLh local parLners had marked Lhe response ln Lhe Larly ?ears servlce - Lhe
Councll havlng worked closely wlLh schools Lo relnsLaLe an above sLaLuLory and unlversal
level of free chlldren's cenLre provlslon for 3 and 4 year olds - lL also marked Lhe response
elsewhere ln Lhe servlce. Cne dlscreLlonary servlce Camden CSl offered prlor Lo Lhe cuLs
was an ln-house, unlversal play servlce. 1he play servlce offer lncluded some breakfasL and

CablneL MeeLlng, 1 uec 2010, Appendlx L, Medlum 1erm llnanclal SLraLegy: 8eLhlnklng Savlngs roposals,
When comblned wlLh some savlngs from reducLlon ln nursery hours, Lhese closures were Lo dellver 2.6m of
savlngs (uSC elemenL). M1lS Savlngs rogramme 2011-2014: rogramme Analysls, Appendlx 8.
Some schools chose Lo fund more 23 hour places, so Lhe LoLal number of 23 hour places supplled ln Lhe
borough exceeded Lhe 800 places supporLed by Lhe Councll.

afLer school clubs, as well as hollday provlslon.
As parL of Lhe savlngs programme 2.8m of
savlngs were made Lhrough Lhls play servlce. 8aLher Lhan close Lhe servlce, Lhe servlce was
re-commlssloned, lL was conLlnued Lhrough worklng wlLh volunLary organlsaLlons. 1he
servlce has become more LargeLed on Lhe needs of Lhe vulnerable"
and savlngs were also
achleved Lhrough amalgamaLlng Lhe quallLy assurance funcLlons, buL a local play servlce
offer was susLalned.

Cfflcers we spoke wlLh ldenLlfled fuLure pressures on Lhe budgeL. 1he governmenL's
lnlLlaLlve Lo lnLroduce free chlld care for 2 year olds ls noL expecLed Lo supply enough
fundlng for some London boroughs Lo cover Lhe cosLs of Lhe placemenLs (senlor offlcer).

1here ls also Lhe very conslderable pressure of demand for SLnu servlces lncreaslng. 1hese
placemenLs can be very expenslve. Cne sLraLegy Camden ls uslng here (as noLed above) ls
Lo lncrease Lhe number of places wlLhln Lhe borough ln order Lo reduce spendlng on
expenslve lndependenL provlslon. arL of Lhls pollcy ls llnklng wlLh lsllngLon Lo provlde a
[olnL furLher educaLlon faclllLy for young people wlLh hlgh needs.

O-/%" K&'610&:

rlor Lo Lhe announcemenL of Lhe spendlng cuLs ln 2010, Camden's lnLegraLed ?ouLh Servlce
budgeL was 8.1m, spllL across unlversal, LargeLed and speclallsL supporL, wlLh 17.3 per cenL
of LhaL budgeL belng commlssloned ouL Lo Lhe volunLary and prlvaLe secLor.
1he ?ouLh
Servlce budgeL was 2.8m and Lhls equaLed Lo 180 per head of Lhe 13-19 populaLlon,
compared Lo a naLlonal average of 119.
1he servlce elLher dlrecLly manages or supporLs
21 local youLh pro[ecLs, generally focused ln areas of hlgh deprlvaLlon and was supplylng an
average of 334 hours provlslon per week. ln addlLlon, lL operaLes a number of borough-
wlde programmes of supporL for young people lncludlng Camden Summer unlverslLy and
CCC-L (an onllne bursary scheme whlch enables young people ellglble for free school meals
Lo Lake parL ln poslLlve acLlvlLles) and a borough-wlde deLached youLh pro[ecL. ln 2008/09
Lhe reach of Lhe servlce was 33 per cenL of Camden's youLh populaLlon. 1he servlce had
seen .slqolflcoot lovestmeot lo yootb ptovlsloo ovet tbe lost few yeots ftom botb ootloool
ooJ locol boJqets."

1he servlce had begun Lo make savlngs by 2010. As parL of a revlew of Camden's youLh
servlce, lnlLlaLed ln 2008, Lhe changlng flnanclal conLexL had prompLed conslderaLlon of
poLenLlal areas for savlngs Lo be lncorporaLed lnLo Lhe revlew. Cver Lhe Lwo year perlod
forward from 2008, savlngs had been achleved Lhrough lnLegraLlng Lhe youLh servlces,
Connexlons and youLh offendlng servlce lnLo a slngle servlce (maklng 0.2m savlngs) and
Lhrough reducLlons ln Lhe use of agency sLaff.
1here had also been, reporLedly, reducLlons

1hls was noL a unlversally free servlce. Some famllles pald for Lhls and fees had lncreased ln Lhe year prlor Lo
Lhe cuLs.
CablneL MeeLlng, 1 uec 2010, Appendlx L, Medlum 1erm llnanclal SLraLegy: 8eLhlnklng Savlngs roposals,
L8 Camden wlll recelve 6/hour per place. 1he acLual cosL for Lhem ls 30 per cenL hlgher (9).
Camden Chlldren's 1rusL arLnershlp ?ouLh uevelopmenL 8evlew, !uly 2010, p.36
MosL London 8oroughs were above Lhls naLlonal average.
lbld p.33
lbld p.37

ln Councll fundlng Lo some fronLllne youLh servlces, for example a youLh faclllLy,

1he revlew ldenLlfled furLher areas where value for money could be lmproved - key
amongsL Lhese ln Lhe selecLlon of provlders - and consldered where alLernaLlve dellvery
models could dellver beLLer value for money. 1he recommendaLlons of Lhe reporL polnL
Lowards a servlce whlch would become more focused on area-based parLnershlps as Lhe
dellvery model, whlch would look aL sLreamllnlng some servlces Lhrough a slngle polnL of
access and whlch would explore greaLer lncome generaLlon Lhrough charges, based on a
percelved wllllngness Lo pay for unlversal servlces. Cverall Lhe alm was Lo lmprove Lhe
provlslon buL supply lL aL lower cosL and whllsL ensurlng Lhe lmpacLs of any servlce changes
on young people were mlnlmal.

uurlng Lhe Lhree year savlngs programme begun ln 2011, Lhe lnLegraLed ?ouLh Servlce
needed Lo dellver 1.6m ln savlngs. 1he ?ouLh Servlce elemenL of Lhe lnLegraLed ?ouLh
Servlce was Lo dellver 0.7m of Lhe 1.6m. 1he recommendaLlon of Lhe 2010 revlew Lo
lnLroduce a model of area based youLh parLnershlps was adopLed. 1he area based youLh
parLnershlp model was seen as a more efflclenL model of dellvery and a loglcal response ln
Lhe conLexL of needlng Lo make savlngs. 8y brlnglng LogeLher Councll, volunLary and prlvaLe
secLor provlders, dupllcaLlon ln Lhe youLh servlce provlslon could be Lackled and some
resources could be shared, such as back offlce funcLlons and bulldlngs. arLners would work
LogeLher Lowards an overall agreed seL of ouLcomes. 1hese changes could lnvolve young
people needlng Lo Lravel furLher Lo access parLlcular servlces, buL Lhe servlces would be hlgh
quallLy and Lhe Councll had found wllllngness among young people Lo Lravel some dlsLance
for hlgh quallLy provlslon. AllocaLlon of Councll fundlng wlLhln Lhls area based youLh
parLnershlps model would be allgned wlLh Lhe ouLcomes Lhe servlces would dellver. 1hls
sLraLegy was Lherefore ln llne wlLh Lhe ouLcomes based commlsslonlng framework belng
applled aL Councll level.

1he poLenLlal Lo develop Lhls model of youLh servlces provlslon sLemmed from Lhe sLrong
parLnershlp Lhe Councll reporLedly had wlLh Lhe local volunLary and communlLy secLor. 1he
dlfferenL organlsaLlons were prepared Lo work LogeLher Lo dellver a more [olned up servlce
Lo young people and posslbly achleve efflclencles, Lhere were no reducLlons ln fundlng Lo
Lhe vCS or Lhe parLnershlps. Camden was also well placed Lo draw supporL for a number of
hlgh proflle London-wlde youLh cenLres, for example ln lLs new Porlzon ?ouLh CenLre and
Lhe Weekend ArLs College, PampsLead. ln addlLlon Lo lnLroduclng a new parLnershlps based
model, Lhe servlce had also made savlngs ln some oLher areas. A savlng of 0.23m ls belng
dellvered Lhrough procuremenL efflclencles ln Lhe Connexlons conLracL and Lhrough furLher
lnnovaLlon ln Lhe dellvery of youLh councll funcLlons.

hLLp:// AL Lhe same Llme 8lg LoLLery fundlng had
supporLed Lhe developmenL of an exlsLlng youLh cenLre, Lhe new Porlzon ?ouLh CenLre whlch works
parLlcularly wlLh young people who are vulnerable/aL rlsk or homeless.
?ouLh uevelopmenL 8evlew, LquallLy lmpacL AssessmenL p.3
1he youLh councll operaLes dlfferenLly now, wlLh changed focus and greaLer lnvolvemenL from Lhe elecLed
?ouLh M and Lwo depuLles.

uesplLe Lhe conLexL of havlng Lo maklng savlngs - requlrlng LhaL money be Laken ouL of Lhe
youLh servlce - Lhe Councll has, noneLheless, sLlll soughL Lo lnvesL ln youLh ln Lhe borough.
1he Councll has soughL Lo develop lLs supporL for young people ln Lhe borough Lhrough new
pro[ecLs Lo promoLe employablllLy, for example: Camden has supporLed and conLrlbuLed Lo
dellvery of a cross-Councll, borough lnlLlaLlve around apprenLlceshlps, 'one hundred
apprenLlceshlps ln one hundred days', was looklng Lo lnLroduce a local equlvalenL of Lhe
naLlonal 8ecord of AchlevemenL Lo help young people ln Lhe borough secure employmenL
wlLh local employers and was looklng Lo boosL employmenL amongsL young moLhers. 1here
were also plans ln place Lo lmprove Lhe faclllLles of an exlsLlng youLh cenLre uslng
lnvesLmenL Lhrough a Councll-wlde 'CommunlLy lnvesLmenL rogramme'.

uncerLalnLles around Lhe fuLure level of Lhe budgeL from 2013 onwards meanL Lhe offlcers
were havlng Lo Lry and work lo oo ookoowo eovltoomeot to some exteot", Lhough Lhere
was polte o cleot Jltectloo of ttovel" (senlor offlcer). 1he Leam was focussed on learnlng
from Lhe lnlLlaLlves Lhey had lmplemenLed, on an ouLcomes-based model of commlsslonlng
servlces and on lnnovaLlng. 1here was lncreaslng pressure on some parLs of Lhe servlce wlLh,
for example, a noLed rlse ln homelessness appllcaLlons and demand for advlce servlces
LhoughL Lo be assoclaLed wlLh lncreaslng numbers of vulnerable/aL rlsk young people
arrlvlng lnLo London Lhrough Camden-based rallway sLaLlons. 1he drlve Lo supporL young
people lnLo employmenL Lhrough, for example, Lhe apprenLlceshlps programme was
consldered an lmporLanL elemenL ln addresslng need. 1he hope was Lo oevet qet tbem loto
beoeflts lo tbe fltst ploce" (senlor offlcer).

;4.&' @&-$4&L: K&'610&:

ln 2010 Camden's AdulL Soclal Care (ASC) deparLmenL had begun worklng Lowards more
efflclenL and effecLlve use of lLs avallable resources. lLs '8eLLer Care Cholces rogramme'
was lnLroduclng greaLer personallsaLlon and cholce lnLo Lhe servlce and was a maln vehlcle
for dellverlng Lhese efflclencles. uupllcaLlon was belng reduced and sLafflng and buslness
operaLlons were belng sLreamllned. AL Lhls Llme supporL was belng glven Lo resldenLs
assessed as havlng crlLlcal or subsLanLlal need. lL was dellverlng whaL lL descrlbed as a hlgh
level" of dlscreLlonary servlces and clalmed Lo have lower charges compared Lo oLher
1he overall budgeL for Lhe servlce was 86.3m (2009/10 flgure) of whlch 30 per
cenL was spenL on older people's servlces.

Cf Lhe 83m Councll-wlde savlngs LargeL, abouL a quarLer ls belng dellvered Lhrough ASC
(ASC Lyplcally has a slgnlflcanLly hlgher budgeL Lhan oLher servlce areas).
1he savlngs
LargeL for ASC ls 22m overall.
SpllL across Lhe Lhree year savlngs perlod, Lhls represenLs
an annual average of abouL 7m worLh of savlngs.
1he porLlon of Lhese savlngs belng
dellvered Lhrough older people's servlces ls abouL a Lhlrd, 7m. 1hese savlngs LargeLs are
llnked Lo Lhe pressures of Lhe cuLs buL are also drlven by Lhe pressures of rlslng demand for

CablneL meeLlng papers, 1 uecember 2010, Appendlx L, p.14
1he budgeL for Lhe deparLmenL for 2013/14 ls 76.7m (nb 90m ln 1able 7?). 1hls represenLs a decrease of
11 per cenL from Lhe 2009/10 budgeL (-2 ln 1able 7?).
An lnlLlal savlngs LargeL for Lhe ASC deparLmenL under Camden's Lhree year savlngs programme was
CablneL meeLlng papers, 1 uecember 2010, Appendlx L, p.16

servlces and rlslng cosLs of dellvery. 1he dellvery of Lhe savlngs has been fronL loaded, wlLh
over 73 per cenL of Lhe savlngs havlng been achleved by Lhe end of 2012/13.

1he savlngs have been dellvered Lhrough a number of mechanlsms. ln lLs Medlum 1erm
llnanclal SLraLegy (uecember 2010), four savlngs sLraLegles were ldenLlfled ln Lhe ASC
servlce. 1hese were: furLher developmenL of Lhe 8eLLer Care Cholces/personallsaLlon model,
changes ln LransporL servlces Lo be focused on Lhe mosL vulnerable group of sLaLuLory
cusLomers, wlLhln menLal healLh servlces, worklng Lowards a more lnLegraLed approach
whlch would help lmprove access, efflclency and respond Lo lncreaslng need and, fourLhly,
reducLlon ln fundlng for dlscreLlonary servlces. 1he ma[orlLy of Lhe savlngs were Lo be
dellvered Lhrough Lhe cholces/personallsaLlon model and Lhrough a reducLlon ln
dlscreLlonary servlces.

ulscreLlonary servlces were a key area of change ln Lerms of older people's supporL. 1he
funds avallable Lo Lhe local vCS organlsaLlons LhaL were supplylng Lhese servlces were
removed. Servlces lmpacLed were: resource cenLres for older people, luncheon clubs,
befrlendlng servlces and advlce and advocacy servlces. 1he provlslon of dlscreLlonary
servlces ln Camden was hlgh Lo sLarL wlLh, Lhey were spendlng approxlmaLely 3.8m more
Lhan Lhe lnner London average on Lhls. 1he Councll recognlsed how valued Lhese
dlscreLlonary servlces were amongsL Lhelr users. 1he raLlonale lnformlng Lhe declslon Lo
remove Lhe fundlng LhaL supporLed Lhem was LhaL Lhere was noL, aL Lhe Llme, a sLrong
evldence base LhaL such lnvesLmenL acLually dellvered beLLer ouLcomes ln Lerms of
subsLanLlal and crlLlcal care needs. SLaLuLory servlces had Lo be prlorlLlsed.

8y 2012/13 3m of savlngs had been achleved Lhrough Lhe personallsaLlon and 8eLLer Care
Cholces work. 1he savlngs here were around meLhod of dellvery. 1here has been: greaLer
emphasls on enabllng care ln Lhe flrsL lnsLance, a Lransfer of responslblllLy for lndlvldual
cllenL budgeLs Lo Lhe cllenL (whlch has resulLed ln savlngs ln admlnlsLraLlon cosLs) and a
revlew of hlgh cosL packages such as rellance on resldenLlal care provlslon. 1here have also
been savlngs Lhrough procuremenL (~3m)

AddlLlonal savlngs have been achleved Lhrough Lhe LransporL servlce. 1haL servlce has
become more focused on Lhe mosL vulnerable/aL rlsk (Lhose wlLh subsLanLlal moblllLy
dlfflculLles) and on Lhose who are ellglble for care (subsLanLlal and crlLlcal). 1ransporL
servlces had, unllke many oLher boroughs, been free Lo some people ouLslde Lhe subsLanLlal
or crlLlcal care caLegory and Lhere had been dlscreLlonary servlces on Lop of Lhe sLaLuLory
servlces. 1he dlscreLlonary elemenL has been LlghLened and addlLlonal savlngs achleved
Lhrough efflclencles ln Lhe servlce. 1hls lncluded a proposal Lo share some LransporL
servlces wlLh a nelghbourlng borough.

8educed fundlng of dlscreLlonary servlces has led Lo changes ln day cenLre provlslon. 1here
has been a revlew of Lhose accesslng day cenLres and charges have been lnLroduced.
eople wlLh lower level need, who are noL ellglble, are able Lo access Lhe servlce for a

Add refs, Some of Lhe savlngs ln Lhese areas could be consldered 'back offlce' funcLlons, for example, by
2012/13 savlngs achleved lncluded a reorganlsaLlon of and reducLlons ln sLafflng as well as savlngs ln Lhe
communlcaLlons funcLlon and admlnlsLraLlon.
CablneL meeLlng papers, 1 uecember 2010, Appendlx L, p. 17

charge. 1hese charges have reporLedly enabled people wlLh lower needs Lo be able Lo keep
accesslng Lhe servlce wlLh only a mlnlmal flnanclal burden, and some of Lhls populaLlon wlll
sLlll be accesslng Lhe servlce for free Lhrough Lhe vCS.
Charges have been applled also Lo
ellglble cusLomers. Llsewhere ln Lhe servlce Lhere have been a few lncreases ln charges ln
opLlonal servlces: Lhe charge for Carellne Lelecare equlpmenL, whlch offers cllenLs
emergency call ouL supporL, had been lncreased for example, Lhe Lop-Ller package (gold
servlce) charge had lncreased by 13 per cenL beLween 2010/11 and 2011/12. Charglng for
communlLy meals had lncreased by [usL over 3 per cenL.

LfforLs have been made Lo mlLlgaLe poLenLlal lmpacLs of Lhese changes on servlce users.
Cne sLraLegy here has been Lhe lnLroducLlon of Lhe Camden eople's lund, esLabllshed Lo
supporL local organlsaLlons faclng budgeL reducLlons. lL has supplled flnanclal supporL Lo
some dlscreLlonary servlces whlch ASC could no longer dlrecLly supporL. 1he focus here was
on ldenLlfylng and Lhen supporLlng susLalnable lnlLlaLlves (0.43m). CranLs were made Lo
advocacy and acLlvlLles for 8ML resldenLs, a Cood nelghbour Scheme and for some uay
CenLres. users of a dlscreLlonary Lelephone befrlendlng scheme, whlch had been cuL, could
parLlclpaLe lnsLead ln a new neLworkers Scheme offerlng some slmllar sorL of provlslon.
Some of Lhe luncheon clubs had been able Lo conLlnue as more lndependenL vCS lnlLlaLlves,
for example, by modlfylng Lhelr servlces Lhrough provldlng a cafe servlce open Lo Lhe whole

Alongslde Lhese changes, Camden has soughL Lo develop Lhe servlce ln new dlrecLlons.
1here has been an emphasls on lnnovaLlon. Cne aspecL of Lhls has been efforLs Lo moblllse
Lhe capaclLles wlLhln local communlLles Lo lncrease supporL for older people. 1he Councll
has funded one-off pro[ecLs, for example, Lhe Cood Cym whlch brlngs people LogeLher Lo
dellver varlous home help or befrlendlng Lo resldenLs, lncludlng Lhe elderly.
1here has
been Lhlnklng around Lhe 30+ group, glven a Lrend of lncreaslng demand Lhere are foreseen
longer-Lerm pressures around dellvery of prevenLaLlve servlces. A consorLlum has Lherefore
been esLabllshed Lo develop a supporL neLwork amongsL Lhls age group LhaL Lhey belleve
wlll be self-supporLlng. 1haL wlll launch early nexL year.

ln Lerms of Lhe fuLure, demand pressures on Lhe servlce were pro[ecLed. lL was expecLed
LhaL cases mlghL become more complex and LhaL numbers of demenLla paLlenLs could rlse.
1here was menLlon of Lhe poLenLlal of dellverlng more care ln Lhe communlLy as a means of
spreadlng resources furLher. Cverall, Lhe Leam was commlLLed Lo dellverlng poslLlve aglng
for Lhelr resldenLs. 1he deparLmenL reporLed good relaLlonshlps wlLh Lhe volunLary secLor
and healLh provlders and would draw on LhaL caplLal Lo poLenLlally achleve furLher savlngs ln
Lhe fuLure.

Senlor offlcer lnLervlew
CablneL meeLlng 1 uecember 2010, Appendlx l
hLLp:// Called Lhe Cood Cym as volunLeers develop Lhelr flLness Lhrough
dolng physlcal work LhaL helps your communlLy".


Camden has seL a savlngs LargeL of 83m Lo be dellvered beLween 2010/11 and 2013/14. A
ma[orlLy of Lhese savlngs had been dellvered by 2011/12. 1he maln sLraLegles LhaL have
been used ln Camden have been back offlce savlngs, reduclng Lhe level of dlscreLlonary
servlce lL dlrecLly offers and worklng wlLh parLners as parL of LhaL. CLher means whlch have
feaLured lnclude deLalled revlews of budgeLs and a conslsLenL approach Lo fees and charges.

1he Councll classlfles [usL over half of lLs cuLs as back offlce (43.3m). PeadcounL has been
reduced, some admlnlsLraLlve bulldlngs are belng sold off and Lhe Councll wlll work ln fuLure
from a slngle slLe. As parL of Lhe savlngs programme Lhe Councll ls worklng Lowards an
ouLcomes based budgeLlng approach, as a means of ldenLlfylng whaL spend ls acLually
dellverlng and has lnLroduced frameworks Lo shave off wasLe wherever posslble, ln geLLlng
servlces rlghL flrsL Llme and Lhrough more sysLems-based Lhlnklng. 1here had been changes
ln Lhe way some servlces for under-flves, youLh and older people were conflgured. lor
example, youLh servlces had been raLlonallsed by uslng an area based model whlch
removed dupllcaLlon wlLh oLher local provlders and focussed on hlgh quallLy.

ln boLh AdulL Soclal Care and ln Chlldren Schools and lamllles, Lhere were examples of
reducLlons ln Lhe Councll's above sLaLuLory servlces and/or greaLer LargeLlng ln Lhese.
Camden had many dlscreLlonary servlces hlsLorlcally, whlch somewhaL supplles Lhe conLexL
for Lhls response. Some speclflc examples of reducLlons ln dlscreLlonary servlces relevanL Lo
older people and chlldren are luncheon clubs, free day cenLre provlslon for people below
Lhe ellglblllLy Lhreshold and Lhe play servlce. 1hls ls noL Lo say LhaL Lhose servlces no longer
exlsL. Camden has drawn on local organlsaLlons and parLners, such as schools and Lhe vCS,
Lo conLlnue some of Lhe dlscreLlonary servlces lL had Lo sLop. noLably Camden has reLalned
lLs above sLaLuLory offer of 23 hours chlldcare, on a unlversal basls, by worklng wlLh schools.

Cfflcers reporLed LhaL, on Lhe whole, local resldenLs were sLlll able Lo access levels of servlce
noL dlsslmllar from Lhose LhaL exlsLed before 2010. 1hrough a sLrong caplLal programme
and a CommunlLy lnvesLmenL rogramme, Lhe Councll has conLlnued Lo bulld on lLs servlce
offer, for example, Lhrough bulldlng new schools, a llbrary and communlLy cenLre. Camden
ls also seeklng Lo reduce lnequallLy ln Lhe borough, wlLh programmes for example LargeLlng
eLhnlc mlnorlLles, nLL1s and moLhers. Comlng lnLo Lhe cuLs Camden's performance and
servlces were very well raLed by exLernal assessmenLs. 1he Councll had good levels of
reserves and had hlsLorlcally bullL up a slgnlflcanL asseL base. 1haL asseL base was a key
facLor ln Lhe Councll belng able Lo conLlnue Lo lnvesL ln Lhe local lnfrasLrucLure beyond Lhe
Llme when governmenL fundlng ln LhaL area, noLably Lhe 8Sl, drled up.

Looklng ahead Lhere are pressures ln boLh soclal care, where Lhe level and complexlLy of
need ls expecLed Lo rlse, and ln Lhe caplLal programme where, Lhough well-resourced, a
large sLock of councll homes and oLher bulldlngs have Lo be repalred and malnLalned. AL
Lhe same Llme as supplylng servlces, Lhe Councll ls Lhlnklng abouL ways Lo grow Lhe local
economy, Lackllng lnequallLles ln parL by supporLlng people lnLo work. up Lo now, Lhe
changes lnLroduced had noL, as offlcers and Members saw lL, drasLlcally alLered Lhe
Councll's servlce offer locally. lurLher hefLy cuLs Lhough would force, for local governmenL
ln general, more far-reachlng change.

!"#$%&' P* A&.Q'1.9& !-/,014 '&:$-,:& %- %"& 0/%:

A&.Q'1.9&L: !"#'#0%&'1:%10:

8edbrldge ls an CuLer London borough ln CuLer norLh LasL London. 8y populaLlon counL,
8edbrldge ranks amongsL Lhe mosL populous Lhlrd of boroughs. lLs relaLlvely low populaLlon
denslLy reflecLs an CuLer London locaLlon. 1he percenLages of chlldren and young people ln
Lhe borough are noLably hlgh, proporLlons of under 23s and under 3s are boLh above Lhe
London average. 8edbrldge comes [usL ouLslde, and [usL wlLhln (respecLlvely) Lhe Lop flfLh
of London boroughs on Lhese measures. 1he proporLlon of over 63's ls hlgher Lhan Lhe
London average, 8edbrldge ranklng amongsL Lhe Lop half of boroughs on Lhls measure. 1he
proporLlon of 8AML eLhnlclLy ls amongsL Lhe hlghesL ln London, 8edbrldge ranklng fourLh
amongsL London boroughs. Cver Lwo Lhlrds of Lhe populaLlon are uk born (1able 8).

8edbrldge ls mlddle ranklng amongsL London boroughs on poverLy and deprlvaLlon
lndlcaLors. Cn unemploymenL 8edbrldge ranks amongsL Lhe Lop half of London boroughs
(hlgher unemploymenL) and on !SA clalmanL raLe, [usL ouLslde LhaL. Powever, overall
deprlvaLlon as measured by lMu 2010, and Lhe raLe of chlldren ln poverLy, are Loward Lhe
boLLom Lhlrd of London boroughs (less deprlved, less poor). 8ehlnd Lhls overall plcLure ls a
geography of conLrasLs: 8edbrldge ls home Lo some hlghly deprlved nelghbourhoods, as well
as some very wealLhy nelghbourhoods.
Mean household slze ln 8edbrldge ls very hlgh,
8edbrldge ranks second amongsL London boroughs on Lhls measure. 1he raLe of soclal
renLlng, by conLrasL, ls amongsL Lhe lowesL ln London (1able 8).

1ab|e 8: key Character|st|cs, kedbr|dge L8
ear key character|st|cs kedbr|dge London
kank = kedbr|dge]
London (33)

opulaLlon (counL) 281,400 8,204,400 11
opulaLlon denslLy (persons per/ha) 49.3 32 20
Age <23 34 32 7
Age 0-4 8 7 6
Age 16-24 12 12 17
Age 63+ 12 11 14
LLhnlclLy 8AML 37 40 4
uk 8orn 63 63 16
Soclal renLed households 11 24 J2
Mean household slze 2.8 2.3 2


lMu 2010 20.0 ~ 22
Chlldren ln poverLy (Mld-2012 esLlmaLes) 21 ~ 19
!SA clalmanLs (CcL 2013) 2.8 3.2 17
unemploymenL raLe (Apr 2012-Mar 13) 8.9 8.9 15
Sources: Mld-2011 populaLlon esLlmaLes, Census 2011 Lables - CS102uk, kS102uk, kS201uk, CS203uk,
kS402uk, P01uk, !SA, nomls, Ll01 Local labour markeL lndlcaLors, Chlldren ln poverLy, mld-2012 esLlmaLes,
uCLC lMu 2010, average score. * 8ank 1 lndlcaLes hlghesL percenLage of all London boroughs, rank 33 lowesL
of all London boroughs, noLable ranklngs ln grey.`

Seven per cenL of 8edbrldge's nelghbourhoods (LSCAs) rank amongsL Lngland's mosL deprlved flfLh of
nelghbourhoods. L8 8edbrldge, ueprlvaLlon ln 8edbrldge (lndlces of deprlvaLlon 2010).

Cver Lhe lasL decade Lhe borough has seen a raLe of populaLlon growLh above Lhe CuLer
London mean. 8eLween 2001 and 2011 Lhe populaLlon lncreased by 17 per cenL (CuLer
London 11 per cenL). 1he borough ls well-connecLed Lo cenLral London and a large
proporLlon of Lhe populaLlon works ouLslde of 8edbrldge. WlLh 8edbrldge seL Lo become
even beLLer connecLed wlLh Lhe arrlval of Crossrall ln 2018, and wlLh Lhe added facLor of lLs
hlgh-performlng schools, ongolng populaLlon growLh can be anLlclpaLed.

8edbrldge Councll ls currenLly led by a ConservaLlve-Llberal uemocraL parLnershlp. lor
much of Lhe borough's hlsLory, lncludlng ln Lhe perlod leadlng up Lo Lhe cuLs, lL has been
ConservaLlve led.

LxLernal assessmenLs by lnspecLoraLes and regulaLors suggesL LhaL 8edbrldge was
performlng well ln Lhe perlod leadlng up Lo Lhe 2010 cuLs. 1he Cne lace Area AssessmenL
(2009) lndlcaLes LhaL Lhe Councll was managlng lLs performance and uslng lLs resources well.
1he Councll scored 3 ouL of 4 ln boLh of Lhese areas. 1he same assessmenL noLes LhaL jt]be
cooocll ls well too ooJ moooqes tlsks vety well" and LhaL jt]be cooocll ls qooJ ot moooqloq
lts mooey ooJ mokloq sovloqs to botb telovest lo lts ptlotltles ooJ eosote tbot setvlces
ptovlJeJ tepteseot qooJ voloe fot mooey.
1he Cne lace Area AssessmenL also awarded
one green flag Lo 8edbrldge (recognlLlon of ouLsLandlng achlevemenL) for an lnlLlaLlve
around resldenL consulLaLlon, 8edbrldge l, and no red flags (areas of slgnlflcanL concern).

8edbrldge Councll was also performlng well ln servlce areas of parLlcular lnLeresL Lo Lhls
research. AdulL Soclal Servlces recelved an overall raLlng of excellenL" ln 2008/09 from Lhe
Care CuallLy Commlsslon (CCC, Annual erformance AssessmenL 8eporL). 1he 8edbrldge
Cne lace Area AssessmenL (uecember 2009) referred Lo Lhe servlce as excellenL" and
noLed LhaL [o]lder people ln parLlcular are belng glven pracLlcal help"(p.6).
ln reference
Lo Chlldren's Servlces, Lhe Cne lace Area AssessmenL noLed LhaL [c]hlldcare provlslon ls
ofLen good" and Lhe deparLmenL was [udged Lo be performlng well" ln lLs 2010 CfsLed

2"& K1M& -I %"& !/%

Accordlng Lo uCLC, cenLral governmenL fundlng for servlces ln 8edbrldge fell by 31 per cenL
beLween 2009/10 and 2013/14 (clrca 61m), wlLh a parLlcularly marked fall ln 2013/14 .
8edbrldge along wlLh oLher CuLer LasL London counclls argues LhaL lL has been parLlcularly
dlsadvanLaged by Lhe changes Lo Lhe local governmenL fundlng sysLem ln 2013/14, and has
launched a lalrer lundlng campalgn Lo lobby for change. LsLlmaLed spendlng power fell by
19 per cenL over Lhe perlod 2010/11 Lo 2013/14 and 1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure (less
educaLlon) as reporLed Lo uCLC fell by 9 per cenL (c 16m), over Lhe perlod 2009/10 Lo

CuLslde of Lhls assessmenL Lhere ls furLher evldence LhaL flnanclal managemenL ln Lhe Councll was hlghly
raLed. 1he llnance 1eam had been recognlsed ln naLlonal level awards for lLs work. ln 2010 Lhe Leam recelved
Lhe llnance 1eam of Lhe ?ear award from Lhe Local CovernmenL Chronlcle and, Lhe followlng year, Lhe
AccounLancy Age llnance 1eam of Lhe ?ear: ubllc and volunLary SecLor Award.
AudlL Commlsslon, Cne lace 8edbrldge Area AssessmenL, 9 uecember 2009

Accordlng Lo local daLa, spendlng on servlces has fallen by 3 per cenL beLween 2009-10 and
2013/14 (1able 9). 8eal Lerms spend on AdulL Soclal Servlces held consLanL over Lhe savlngs
perlod and Chlldren's Servlces spend lncreased by 6 per cenL. Cver Lhe Lhree year perlod
2010/11 Lo 2013/14 8edbrldge Councll has almed Lo dellver approxlmaLely 23m ln savlngs.
MosL of Lhe savlngs were dellvered ln 2011/12 (20.3m), wlLh furLher savlngs of 9.8m
(LargeL flgure) ln 2012/13 and 8.7m planned for Lhe followlng Lwo years.
1he Councll
expecLs Lo need Lo make furLher savlngs of around 30m over Lhe Lhree years from

1ab|e 9: keduct|ons |n Income and Lxpend|ture, kedbr|dge 2009]10 to 2013]14
kedbr|dge (m||||ons) 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
2009]10 to
lncome* 216.9 222.0 203.7 193.3 181.3 -16
1oLal Servlce LxpendlLure 203.2 213.6 198.9 193.1 194.0 -5
AdulL Soclal Servlces 67.4 70.7 70.8 69.2 67.3 0
Chlldren's Servlces 33.6 36.8 33.2 31.0 36.9 6

CumulaLlve savlngs ~ ~ ~ ~ 23.0
Sources: 8edbrldge Councll 8udgeL 8ooks 2009/10 - 2013/14, Cu deflaLors 27Lh !une 2013 (savlngs row
noL deflaLed)
2"& ;6&'#44 A&:$-,:&

8edbrldge needed Lo flnd 23m of savlngs over a Lhree year perlod from 2010/11-2013/14.
1he Councll's overarchlng prlorlLy ln Lhls was Lo proLecL, as far as posslble", fronLllne
1haL ob[ecLlve was descrlbed as a consLanL ln offlcers' and Members' mlnds. A
number of sLraLegles were employed, Lhese lncluded: reducLlons ln back offlce cosLs,
resLrucLurlng of servlces (lncludlng beLLer meLhods of dellvery), conslderaLlon of oLher ways
Lo make savlngs, such as channel mlgraLlon
and prlorlLlsaLlon.

Cverall, lL was reporLed by a senlor offlcer LhaL, ln percenLage Lerms, far more cuLs had been
back offlce raLher Lhan fronLllne. 8udgeLs for cenLral (corporaLe) funcLlons had been
reduced, examples lncludlng: reduclng buslness supporL and legal servlce cosLs ln Legal and
ConsLlLuLlonal Servlces, sLreamllnlng of LransacLlonal processlng and reduclng audlLlng fees.
1here were large savlngs Lhrough procuremenL, for example ln AdulL Soclal Servlces savlngs
of 1.7m were achleved Lhrough conLracLs wlLh volunLary organlsaLlons lncludlng
supporLlng people conLracLs and wardens. ln llnance Lhere were savlngs ln corporaLe

8edbrldge CorporaLe SLraLegy 2012-14
Channel mlgraLlon refers Lo a LranslLlon from face-Lo-face and phone based conLacLs Lo onllne
communlcaLlons. lor example, a resldenL mlghL prevlously have called Lhelr local councll Lo reporL a faulLy
sLreeL llghL. ln some local auLhorlLles Lhls funcLlon has been mlgraLed Lo an onllne channel wlLh Lhe faulL belng
reporLed vla Lhe local auLhorlLy's webslLe.

conLracLs. Members had, early on, made savlngs ln Lhelr own expendlLure, for example, by
reduclng Lhe number ln CablneL by one and reduclng refreshmenLs and Lravel expendlLure.

WlLh Lhe back offlce only of a cerLaln slze lL was noLed LhaL fronLllne servlces had had Lo be
looked aL.
ln Lerms of changes ln fronLllne servlces, Lhe Councll had looked aL meLhods of
dellvery and had redeslgned some servlces Lo achleve savlngs:
.wbete posslble, eveo tbe ftootlloe setvlces yoo coo Jellvet tbe some setvlces
sometlmes lo o mote efflcleot woy ot lowet cost. (Senlor offlcer)
Cne example was Lhe Councll's llbrary servlce. ln 8edbrldge Lhere have been no closures
wlLhln LhaL servlce and an addlLlonal llbrary had been added. 1he means of avoldlng
closures was Lhrough changlng boLh Lhe managemenL of Lhe servlce and way Lhe servlce
operaLed. 1he Councll's llbrarles were puL ouL Lo a volunLary secLor LrusL. AddlLlonal
savlngs were achleved Lhrough lnLroducLlon of a self-servlce faclllLy, use of volunLeers and a
new sLafflng sLrucLure whlch creaLed Llbrary Manager posLs raLher Lhan uslng professlonal

8educLlons ln sLafflng cosLs applled aL all levels of Lhe organlsaLlon. AL senlor-level one
ulrecLor and Lhree Chlef Cfflcer posLs were deleLed.
Lxamples from more [unlor levels
lnclude reducLlons ln admlnlsLraLlve/buslness supporL sLafflng. Members and offlcers allke
emphaslsed LhaL savlngs here had been achleved, Lo a relaLlvely large exLenL, Lhrough
naLural wasLage, redeploymenL and by noL fllllng vacanL posLs. ln a couple of lnsLances, Lhe
Councll had worked wlLh a nelghbourlng borough Lo share Lhe cosLs of a sLaff member, one
example belng wlLhln Legal and ConsLlLuLlonal Servlces. lL was reporLed LhaL Lhe Councll
had had one of Lhe lowesL levels of redundancles ln London. 1he acLual number of
redundancles was 288 wlLh a small number of Lhose belng non-compulsory.
1he uepuLy
Leader sLaLed publlcally ln 2011 LhaL Lhese sLafflng changes were noL expecLed Lo lmpacL on
servlce dellvery.

1he Councll had looked aL addlLlonal forms of cosL avoldance. Channel mlgraLlon - movlng
Lo greaLer onllne communlcaLlon wlLh resldenLs - was one. 1he Councll had lncreased Lhe
number of communlcaLlons and LransacLlons conducLed onllne.
An Cfflce
AccommodaLlon rogramme had been puL ln place Lo move sLaff ouL of Lwo of Lhe Councll's
maln offlce bulldlngs, brlnglng Lhem lnLo a slngle slLe, ln whlch Lhere would be more hoL-
desklng. 1hose vacaLed bulldlngs could be sold off and overall operaLlonal overheads
reduced. 1hls was also an example of an 'lnvesL Lo Save' lnlLlaLlve, Lhese belng small
lnvesLmenLs ln areas where spend now would yleld savlngs Lhrough longer Lerm cosL
avoldance. CLher 'lnvesL Lo Save' examples lncluded: exLra lnvesLmenL ln Lhe collecLlon of
Councll Lax and raLes, a reablemenL programme ln AdulL Soclal Servlces and green pro[ecLs,
such as more energy efflclenL sLreeL llghLlng. lL was reporLed LhaL lL had been posslble Lo

lronLllne servlces were deflned as Lhe Lhlngs whlch people day-Lo-day come lnLo conLacL wlLh.
Councll MeeLlng (LxLraordlnary) 1hursday, 21 CcLober 2010. Agenda lLem 3a.
8edbrldge Annual AccounLs: 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13.
lL's sLlll people's [obs buL lL won'L lmpacL on servlce dellvery." quoLe from hLLp://www.guardlan-
L.g. Lhe llnance 1eam had Lrebled Lhe number of LransacLlons lL conducLed onllne. (Local CovernmenL
Chronlcle, '8esL pracLlce makes a Lop Leam', SepLember 9 2010)

make Lhese lnvesLmenLs due Lo Lhe level of savlngs achleved early on ln Lhe savlngs

8eyond back offlce savlngs, resLrucLurlng of some servlces, and oLher ways of flndlngs
savlngs, Lhe Councll had prlorlLlsed and had ttlmmeJ" lLs spend on some fronLllne,
dlscreLlonary servlces. 1here were some reducLlons ln Lhe level of subsldles Lo Lhe lelsure
servlce and ln Lhe youLh servlce, for example, Lo a salllng cenLre and Lo an ouLdoor
educaLlon cenLre. 1he number of publlc LolleLs had been reduced and Lhere were some
small reducLlons ln Lhe regularlLy of grass cuLLlng and of sLreeL sweeplng. 1he Councll had
soughL ln Lhls way Lo reLaln Lhe breadLh of lLs servlce offer, alLhough some fundlng sLreams
dld cease, for example, fundlng Lo Lhe 8edbrldge ArLs Councll.

ln lLs savlngs declslons Lhe Councll had made conslderable efforLs Lo engage Lhe publlc. 1hls
ls someLhlng whlch marks Lhe 8edbrldge response. 1he Councll ploneered an onllne publlc
consulLaLlon Lool, ?ou Choose.
1he Lool gave resldenLs an opporLunlLy Lo express Lhelr
oplnlons as Lo whaL areas of Lhe Councll's spend should be reduced.
1he Councll also
soughL Lo brlng sLaff along ln savlngs declslons, consulLlng Lhem for savlngs suggesLlons. ln
seeklng Lo be LransparenL, Lhe Councll, from Lhe ouLseL, planned Lhe savlngs programme
across a Lhree year budgeL. ueparLmenLs would be beLLer able Lo ad[usL and plan ahead.

1he Councll had soughL Lo boLh respond Lo parLlcular resldenL concerns wlLhln lLs savlngs
declslons, and Lo proLecL Lhe vulnerable/aL rlsk. A proposal Lo close all publlc LolleLs was
amended ln response Lo concerns of elderly resldenLs, half Lhe orlglnal number proposed
were closed. lans Lo end fundlng for Lhree dlscreLlonary youLh servlces - Lhe muslc servlce,
Lhe drama cenLre and an ouLdoor educaLlon cenLre - were noL pursued. Monles were
guaranLeed Lo Lhose servlces, albelL aL a reduced raLe of subsldy, across Lhe Lhree year
savlngs perlod. ln Lhe Councll's CorporaLe SLraLegy 2012-14 Lhere ls a commlLmenL Lo ose
oot tesootces lo o folt ooJ epoltoble woy to meet tbe oeeJs of tbe most voloetoble people."
WlLh every growLh and savlngs opLlon an equallLles and susLalnablllLy lmpacL appralsal was
compleLed. lL was reporLed LhaL one of Lhe savlngs opLlons offlcers felL Lhe Councll mlghL
need Lo conslder ln Lhe savlngs programme was a furLher LlghLenlng of Lhe ellglblllLy crlLerla
ln AdulL Soclal Servlces. 1he Councll had noL, however, changed lLs ellglblllLy crlLerla slnce
Lhe cuLs, Lhus affordlng proLecLlon Lo servlces for resldenLs wlLh greaLer subsLanLlal need.

8edbrldge had reporLedly noL soughL Lo offseL reducLlons ln cenLral fundlng Lhrough
slgnlflcanLly lncreaslng lncome from resldenLs. WlLhln Lhe Councll's savlngs proposals
lncreases ln charges for fronLllne acLlvlLles were consldered, for example, posslbly lncreaslng
conLrlbuLlons requlred from servlce users Lowards Lhelr CommunlLy 8ased Care were Lhey
assessed as able Lo pay or lncreases ln charges for some youLh servlces.
Powever, Lhe
Councll reporLed LhaL changes ln charges had noL feaLured heavlly ln lLs savlngs programme.
Analysls of cenLral 8evenue CuLLurn daLa appears Lo supporL Lhls (llgure 12). nelLher had
Lhe Councll drawn heavlly on lLs reserves. 1hough Lhe Councll had drawn down reserves for

8edbrldge CorporaLe SLraLegy 2012-14
1hls Lool has slnce been adopLed by oLher counclls.
LquallLles lmpacL AssessmenL - 8evenue 8udgeL roposals Analysls, CablneL MeeLlng, 13

lebruary 2011.

Lhe conLlnued subsldlsaLlon of elemenLs of lLs youLh servlce, overall, reserves had been
bullL-up (Appendlx 4).

I|gure 12: Sa|es, Iees and Charges, kedbr|dge 2009]10 to 2011]12

Source: uCLC, 8Sx 2009-10 (17-nov-11), 8Sx 2010-11 (27-nov-12), 8Sx 2011-12 (27-nov-12), Cu
deflaLors !une 2012.

8elaLlonshlps wlLh Lhe local volunLary secLor were reporLedly good. vCS organlsaLlons were
belng encouraged Lo look furLher Lhan Lhe Councll for fundlng buL Lhe Councll reporLed LhaL
granLs Lo Lhe volunLary secLor had noL been cuL overall, Lhough granLs fundlng had noL
lncreased. A new fundlng poL had been creaLed for Lhe local vCS. SubscrlpLlon fees Lo
London Counclls have been reduced slnce Lhe cuLs, wlLh Lhe effecL LhaL 8edbrldge had
declded Lo redlrecL parL of Lhose funds Lo creaLe a 8edbrldge CommunlLy lund (Lo Lhe value
of 0.2m) for whlch Lhe local volunLary secLor could bld.

Cverall, Lhe feellng amongsL senlor offlcers and Members was LhaL Lhey had responded very
effecLlvely Lo Lhe cuLs. lL was felL LhaL Lhe parLnershlp admlnlsLraLlon had been conduclve Lo
Lhe maklng of sound declslons, proposals were Lhoroughly scruLlnlsed and Lhere were whaL
was descrlbed as Lwo Leams baLLlng for Lhe Councll. 1here were also commenLs Lo Lhe
effecL LhaL, havlng long been a 'value-for-money' borough, used Lo dellverlng Councll-wlde
savlngs of 2-3 per cenL per annum slnce Lhe early 2000s
, Lhey had robusL processes ln
place, whlch helped when lL came Lo maklng much more ma[or reducLlons ln 2010. 1hls
sald, maklng savlngs had been a hard process. 1he magnlLude and suddenness of Lhe cuLs
were descrlbed as LraumaLlc and a noLable challenge for Lhls Councll was LhaL some of Lhe
savlngs opLlons oLher counclls could conslder ln 2010 were noL on Lhe Lable, Lhey had
already been done Lhe prevlous decade. now seemlngly [usL ln half-Llme", Lhere was

lL was noLed LhaL Lhe sLraLegy Lo lncrease reserves was a reacLlon Lo Lhe greaLer rlsks whlch are comlng Lo
bear on counclls as a resulL of Lhe cuLs from cenLral governmenL and relaLed Lransfers of some responslblllLles
from cenLral Lo local governmenL, whlch lL was noLed brlng more rlsks. lL was also noLed LhaL lncreaslng
reserves reflecLs anLlclpaLlon of furLher cuLs.
uellverlng Lfflclency - lorward Look 2006/2007 8eporL, CablneL MeeLlng, 18Lh Aprll, 2006.

concern abouL furLher cuLs and how Lhose could be absorbed, parLlcularly agalnsL a
backdrop of whaL was regarded as an unfalr level of fundlng from cenLral governmenL.

N,.&'>816&: K&'610&:

ln 2010 8edbrldge Chlldren's Servlces had a sLock of fourLeen chlldren's cenLres, from
hases 1 and 2 of Lhe Sure SLarL programme. 1here were plans Lo creaLe a furLher elghL ln a
Lhlrd phase
, by Aprll 2011.
1hese chlldren's cenLres were provldlng Lhe sLaLuLory 13
hours of weekly chlldcare Lo 3 and 4 year olds ln Lhe borough, as well as supplylng a range of
supporL servlces for famllles. Chlldren's Servlces was parL managed as a Chlldren's 1rusL and
Larly ?ears servlces came under Lhe remlL of Lhls 1rusL. 1he 1rusL had been esLabllshed ln
2004, 8edbrldge was one of Lhe flrsL Local AuLhorlLles Lo move Lo Lhls lnLegraLed model.

Cne reason for Lhls form of parLnershlp worklng and lnLegraLlon of servlces ls LhaL resources
can be maxlmlsed.
8y Aprll 2007 all fronLllne servlces ln soclal servlces, healLh, as well as
many ln educaLlon, were operaLlng as lnLegraLed mulLlagency Leams ln parL Lhrough Lhree
Chlldren's 8esources CenLres.
As well as dellverlng savlngs lL was also felL LhaL servlce
lnLegraLlon had dellvered beneflLs ln Lhe servlce lLself:
we belleve tbot tbe loteqtotloo of oot setvlces bos boJ o posltlve lmpoct oo tbe llves
of cbllJteo ooJ fomllles lo tbe botooqb."

Slnce 2010, Lhe Larly ?ears elemenL of Chlldren's Servlces has had Lo dellver 0.3-0.4m of
savlngs. 1hls was sald Lo be a small cuL glven Lhe servlce basellne, whlch was descrlbed as
polte qeoetoos":- Lhe overall budgeL, as orlglnally seL for Lhe 2010/11 flnanclal year, for Lhe
Chlldren's 1rusL and Lhe non 1rusL elemenL of Chlldren's Servlces comblned was 34m. 1he
Chlldren's 1rusL had Lhe larger budgeL, 30m compared Lo 24m for non 1rusL Servlces.

Llke oLher areas of Lhe Councll, Lhe deparLmenL had also had Lo dellver an overall annual 2-3
per cenL of savlngs.

1he 0.3-0.4m cuL had reporLedly had llLLle lmpacL on Lhe provlslon for under-flves.
acLual changes LhaL had been made ln Lhe Larly ?ears servlce conslsLed of a reducLlon ln
headcounL of a group of Leachers employed Lo supporL Lhe Larly ?ears rlvaLe, volunLary,
lndependenL secLor (from nlne Lo Lhree), modesL" reducLlons ln granLs Lo Lhe volunLary
secLor and greaLer LargeLlng ln Lhe servlce:

Schemes and LsLlmaLes for a programme of seven hase 3 Chlldren's CenLres ln 8edbrldge 8eporL, CablneL
MeeLlng, 27Aprll 2010.
L8 8edbrldge Chlldren's Servlces 8esource ack 2011: SlgnposLlng key servlces for chlldren and Lhelr
famllles provlded by Lhe Local AuLhorlLy and by PealLh.
uue Lo Lhe changes around rlmary Care 1rusLs, 1rusL funcLlons had been broughL back ln house aL Lhe
polnL of Lhls research, so Lhe 1rusL no longer exlsLed.
Schemes and LsLlmaLes for a programme of seven hase 3 Chlldren's CenLres ln 8edbrldge 8eporL, CablneL
MeeLlng, 27Aprll 2010, 4.2. 8eferrlng speclflcally Lo value for Money of Chlldren's CenLres.
L8 8edbrldge Chlldren's Servlces 8esource ack 2011: SlgnposLlng key servlces for chlldren and Lhelr
famllles provlded by Lhe Local AuLhorlLy and by PealLh.
lbld. CuoLe from a senlor offlcer sLaLemenL as reporLed p.3.
1ransfer of 8udgeLs wlLhln Chlldren's Servlces 8eporL, CablneL MeeLlng, 2 november 2010.
lL was noLed LhaL ln Lhe perlod 2011/12 Lo 2013/14 lncreased fundlng LoLalllng 2.2 mllllon has been
lncluded ln Lhe uSC budgeL Lo fund Lhe Larly ?ears Slngle lundlng lormula ln rlvaLe, volunLary and
lndependenL seLLlngs Lo fund 3 and 4 year olds accesslng free enLlLlemenL Lo 13 hours of educaLlon.

l tblok sloce 2010 tbete bos beeo o petceptlble sblft owoy ftom oolvetsol setvlces to
mote totqeteJ setvlces, bot we stlll molotolo polte o lot ooJ polte o btooJ tooqe of
setvlces." (Senlor offlcer)
Cverall, ln Lhe oplnlon of a respondenL, Lhe under-flves servlce ln 8edbrldge had been
largely proLecLed ln Lhe posL 2010 savlngs programme. 1here had also been proLecLlon of
Lhe Larly lnLervenLlon CranL. Cne explanaLlon suggesLed for Lhls was tbe Jlsposltloo of
locol Membets" (Senlor offlcer).

noL only had Lhe servlce been afforded proLecLlon, lL had also been expanded. 1he
programme for lnLroduclng hase 3 of Lhe chlldren's cenLre programme was dellvered. ln
addlLlon Lhere was evldence of Lhe Councll havlng lnvesLed ln provlslon for under-flves. As
parL of lLs lelsure provlslon Lhe Councll had agreed a 0.3m loan Lowards a new lndoor play
cenLre aL lalrlop WaLers, Lhrough lLs lelsure 1rusL - vlslon 8edbrldge CulLure and Lelsure.

1he play faclllLy, lalrlop Cwls lndoor lay CenLre, opens Lhls year and creaLes an lncome
generaLlon opporLunlLy from Lhe posslblllLy of prlvaLe hlre.
1he lnLroducLlon of a MASP
(MulLl Agency Safeguardlng Pub) ln Aprll 2013 was provldlng a fronL door Lhrough whlch
people comlng lnLo conLacL wlLh Lhe servlce would have Lhelr cases dealL wlLh more
effecLlvely. Cverall, Lhe vlew expressed was LhaL:
.tbete bosot beeo ooy oeqotlve lmpoct oo ftootlloe setvlces ot tbe poollty of
setvlces. 1bose bove beeo molotoloeJ. lo foct.tbe poollty ooJ tbe copoclty of tbe
setvlce bos locteoseJ lo tbe lost yeots..." (Senlor offlcer)

ln Chlldren's Servlces more broadly Lhere were some larger savlngs lLems. ln Lhe Chlldren's
1rusL, for example, a revlew of non-sLaLuLory servlces would dellver almosL 0.3m of
savlngs, 'Mlscellaneous Savlngs wlLhln Lhe Chlldren's 1rusL' a slmllar flgure over Lhe Lhree
years of Lhe savlngs programme. 1here was a reorganlsaLlon aL mlddle managemenL level
and a revlew of LransporL cosLs assoclaLed wlLh educaLlon servlces. 1here was evldence of
'channel mlgraLlon' - shlfLlng Lhe way LhaL users lnLeracL wlLh Lhe Councll Lhrough movlng Lo
more dlglLal models. Cne example glven was of school admlsslons, whlch were belng dealL
wlLh now as far as posslble dlglLally.

1here were a number of challenges ahead. 1here are demand pressures on Chlldren's
Servlces due Lo Lhe demographlc of Lhe borough's populaLlon. 8edbrldge's populaLlon
lncludes a hlgher Lhan average (1able 8) percenLage of chlldren and Lhere ls pro[ecLed
furLher growLh ln LhaL segmenL of Lhe populaLlon due Lo ln-mlgraLlon lnLo Lhe borough,
someLhlng lL was LhoughL was llnked Lo Lhe hlgh performance of 8edbrldge's schools. A
furLher pressure was Lhe provlslon of places for Lwo year olds and maklng sure LhaL all Lhose
parenLs enLlLled Lo LhaL servlce and wanLlng lL would have a place for Lhelr chlld.
O-/%" K&'610&:

ln 2010 8edbrldge Councll's ?ouLh Servlce lncluded four youLh cenLres and a youLh bus, parL
of Lhe Councll's deLached youLh servlce - boLh offerlng a varleLy of servlces. 1he Councll



offered a range of dlscreLlonary servlces lncludlng a drama cenLre, ouLdoor educaLlon cenLre
and a subsldlsed muslc servlce. 1here were 4700 conLacLs wlLh Lhe servlce durlng 2009/10.
ln 2009 Lhe Councll was worklng Lowards Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of an lnLegraLed ?ouLh Servlce
and was consulLlng on a SupporLlng ?oung eople sLraLegy as parL of Lhls. 1he borough's
Chlldren's 8esource CenLres, already worklng on an lnLegraLed model, would provlde a
plaLform for lnLroduclng Lhe new lnLegraLed dellvery model for young people's supporL. As
well as belng a sLraLegy for servlce lmprovemenL, Lhere were also efflclencles Lo be achleved
ln remodelllng Lowards an lnLegraLed youLh servlce.

ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe cuLs, Lhere had been some changes ln Lhe servlce beLween 2010/11 -
2013/14. Cver Lhls perlod Lhe ?ouLh Servlce had Lo make savlngs of 2.1m. 1he 2.1m of
savlngs were dellvered Lhrough flve maln areas: Connexlons (0.74m), Lhe prlnclpal ?ouLh
Servlce budgeL (0.38m), Lhe muslc servlce (0.34m), ?ouLh Cffendlng and 1argeLed
revenLlon (0.13m) and Lhe drama servlce (0.11m). 1he focus was, as elsewhere ln Lhe
Councll, on proLecLlng fronLllne servlces. 1here were savlngs ln Lhe Connexlons conLracL,
Lhrough lLs reLenderlng and exLenslon, savlngs ln Connexlons was, overall, Lhe maln area of
savlngs. 1here was also a removal of dupllcaLlon ln parL of Lhe servlce, Lhrough Lhe
cessaLlon of an lnformaLlon faclllLy, llformaLlon.
ln addlLlon Lhere was deleLlon of some
posLs, dellvered as parL of Lhe resLrucLurlng of Lhe servlce. 1hese savlngs lmpacLed boLh
manager level (ln Lhe ?ouLh Cffendlng and 1argeLed revenLlon Servlce) and supporL sLaff

1here were, however, whaL were descrlbed as some qooJ oews ltems" ln youLh servlces.
1hough Members had planned, aL one polnL, Lo cuL Lhe granL Lo Lhe dlscreLlonary muslc
servlce, drama cenLre and Lhe Councll's ouLdoor educaLlon cenLre, Lhls declslon was
revoked, so proLecLlng abouL 0.3m of spend on Lhe ?ouLh Servlce. 1he slze of Lhe granL Lo
Lhese servlces dld geL cuL, as noLed above, buL Lhe servlces conLlnued wlLh a vlew Lo glvlng
Lhe organlsaLlons Llme Lo look for longer-Lerm, susLalnable flnanclal supporL. 1hese servlces
were consldered some of Lhe '[ewels ln Lhe crown' of Lhe Councll's dlscreLlonary servlce
offer, Lhe drama cenLre belng, for example, Lhe only cenLre of lLs klnd ln Lhe counLry and
boLh naLlonally and lnLernaLlonally known.

ln Lerms of changes Lo fronLllne servlces, Lhere had been a move Lowards greaLer LargeLlng.
1he Connexlons Servlce has become more focused on Lhe mosL vulnerable/aL rlsk and ln Lhe
?ouLh Servlce more broadly, Lhere ls a refocuslng on youLh work wlLh vulnerable young
ln 2011 Lhe Councll reduced Lhe number of ouLleLs Lhrough whlch lL supplled lLs
youLh servlce provlslon, from four Lo Lhree, wlLh Lhe closure of Lhe uownshall CenLre. 1he
servlces provlded would conLlnue Lo be avallable from Lhe remalnlng cenLres.
lL was
reporLed LhaL Lhere had noL been an lncrease ln charges over Lhe savlngs perlod, nor an
lnLroducLlon of new charges.

ueveloplng lnLegraLed ?ouLh SupporL Servlces 8eporL, CablneL MeeLlng, 28 Aprll 2009.
L8 8edbrldge, llnal 8eporL of Lhe lnLegraLed ?ouLh Servlces ScruLlny Worklng Croup, Aprll 2012, p.11.
lbld, p.20
L8 8edbrldge, llnal 8eporL of Lhe lnLegraLed ?ouLh Servlces ScruLlny Worklng Croup, Aprll 2012.
L.g. a Lermly 4 charge for youLh cenLre use predaLes Lhe CS8 2010 cuLs and assoclaLed savlngs programme.

1here was evldence of 8edbrldge seeklng Lo lnvesL furLher ln Lhe ?ouLh Servlce, ln splLe of
Lhe savlngs drlve. Cne area where Lhe Councll has developed lLs youLh offer slnce 2010 ls
Lhe 'Work 8edbrldge' programme, coordlnaLed by Lhe Councll's lnward lnvesLmenL unlL.
Work 8edbrldge ls a local parLnershlp of LhlrLy members LhaL alms Lo supporL people ln Lhelr
[ob search. 1he role of Lhe programme was descrlbed as focllltotloq" (senlor offlcer), Lo
brlng people, lncludlng young people, lnLo conLacL wlLh employers and Lralners and Lo Lry
and break down some of Lhe barrlers ln Lhe way of LhaL conLacL. CLher Lhan Lhls, some
Members of Lhe Councll have called for furLher lnvesLmenL ln Lhe PalnaulL ?ouLh CenLre.

;4.&' @&-$4&L: K&'610&:

ln AdulL Soclal Servlces slgnlflcanL efflclency relaLed changes had been dellvered prlor Lo
2010. Llke oLher parLs of Lhe Councll, Lhe AdulL Soclal Servlces Leam had had Lo make year-
on-year savlngs of 2-3 per cenL from Lhe early 2000s. AddlLlonally, Lhey had offseL a
deparLmenLal overspend whlch had exlsLed aL Lhe sLarL of LhaL decade. key examples of
back offlce savlngs LhaL had already been made lncluded: ouLsourclng Lhe deparLmenL's
Pome Care (early ln Lhe 2000s)
and, ln Lhe resldenLlal care servlce, a long-Lerm resldenLlal
care conLracL had been puL ln place. 1here had been fronLllne changes also ln Lhls pre-CS8
perlod: Lhe servlce ellglblllLy crlLerla were changed ln 2007 from subsLanLlal and crlLlcal care,
Lo 'greaLer subsLanLlal' and crlLlcal. 1aken LogeLher, Lhese changes had been a means of
achlevlng Lhe mllllons ln savlngs needed over Lhe flrsL decade of Lhe 2000s, wlLh some of Lhe
blg savlngs belng made around Lhe LlghLenlng of Lhe ellglblllLy crlLerla ln 2007. lL was felL,
noneLheless, LhaL Lhe efflclencles and removal of Lhe overspend had been dellvered along
wlLh servlce lmprovemenL.

AL Lhe polnL of Lhe 2010 cuLs Lhen, a loL of efflclencles had already been dellvered ln Lhe
servlce. 1here were boLh advanLages and dlsadvanLages Lo belng ln Lhls poslLlon. Cn Lhe
one hand, Lhe Councll had LranslLloned Lhrough an efflclencles programme more gradually
and so Lhls meanL LhaL Lhe 2010 cuLs were noL Lhe blq booq" Lhey were ln some places
(senlor offlcer). Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhere was now a llmlLed amounL Lo look aL ln Lerms of
whaL could be done Lo achleve savlngs. AbouL elghLy per cenL of deparLmenLal expendlLure
was, by Lhls polnL, on people geLLlng a servlce. 1he blL lefL from whlch Lo make savlngs was
relaLlvely modesL.

noneLheless, from 2010 forwards furLher savlngs were achleved. 1he back offlce was
looked aL agaln. 1he maln source for savlngs ln Lhe posL cuLs perlod was sLafflng. A sum of
1.73m was removed Lhrough a reorganlsaLlon and resLrucLure. 1hls lmpacLed sLaff worklng
ln back offlce and fronLllne funcLlons. erformance, sLraLegy and commlsslonlng Leams
were looked aL. Some senlor managemenL posLs were deleLed and Lhe slze of Lhe learnlng
and developmenL Leam was reduced. Some posLs were spoosbeJ", so one person mlghL

lbld, p.19
8edbrldge had been one of Lhe flrsL auLhorlLles naLlonally Lo do Lhls.
8y 2010 Lhe servlce was very hlghly raLed by exLernal assessmenLs, wlLh a Lhree sLars raLlng (Lhe hlghesL
raLlng posslble) by CCC.

now have responslblllLy for boLh performance and communlcaLlons, prevlously spllL
beLween Lwo people.
lmpacLlng fronLllne sLaff, a recrulLmenL and reLenLlon paymenL
whlch soclal workers and occupaLlonal LheraplsLs had hlsLorlcally recelved ln 8edbrldge,
over and above Lhelr salary, was removed. MarkeL comparlson revealed LhaL Lhls
recrulLmenL and reLenLlon paymenL was above markeL raLe and lLs removal was seen as a
beLLer opLlon Lhan Lhe alLernaLlves - cuLLlng some soclal worker and C1 posLs, or havlng
people walL longer for a servlce (senlor offlcer). 1hls savlng was descrlbed as a Lough plece
of work buL, overall, Lhe fronLllne servlce was noL lmpacLed, lL:
.JlJ oot Jltectly lmpoct oo olJet jost moJe os mote efflcleot." (Senlor

A second sLraLegy for posL-2010 savlngs was lnvesLmenL ln prevenLaLlve work. 8ecognlslng
LhaL Lhe Councll cannoL absorb lncreaslng long-Lerm care pressures lndeflnlLely, Lhe Councll
had looked for ways Lo prevenL people comlng lnLo Lhe servlce earller. Small pleces of
equlpmenL such as keLLle sLands and baLh ralls were offered wlLhouL assessmenLs or delays.
eople could Lhen be self-supporLlng over a sllghLly exLended perlod. 1he Councll also
lnLroduced a reablemenL programme. Cn comlng ouL of hosplLal people who needed lL
would recelve a package of care, usually slx weeks aL around nlne hours a week of care.
Cnce properly back on Lhelr feeL, LhaL care could Lhen be wlLhdrawn. 1he Councll had
reLalned a communlLy meals servlce. 1he servlce was sLrucLured so LhaL meal dellvery was
more Lhan [usL a door-sLep drop-off, wlLh drlvers spendlng Len or so mlnuLes wlLh each
person. arL of Lhe explanaLlon was Lhe value of a dally personal conLacL for Lhe well-belng
of elderly people. A respondenL quoLed anecdoLal evldence LhaL Lhe servlce had a
prevenLaLlve funcLlon.

1hlrdly, Lhe Leam had begun resLrucLurlng elemenLs of Lhe servlce onLo a hub model. An
example here was of Lhe Lransfer of some day care servlce provlslon Lo a local communlLy
cenLre. users had welcomed Lhls change as lL lnLegraLed Lhem lnLo a larger communlLy
servlce where a range of acLlvlLles were Laklng place. 1here was some Lhlnklng golng on as
Lo wheLher Lhls hub model could be lnLroduced more wldely. lL would mean LhaL people
would be able Lo access a broad range of servlces Lhrough a slngle local ouLleL. Cne savlng
LhaL mlghL follow from Lhls more locally based model would be savlngs ln LransporL cosLs.

Cverall Lhe message was LhaL fronLllne servlces have, Lo Lhls polnL, been proLecLed slnce
2010 and, based on Lhe CCC reporLs, are of a hlgh quallLy. Servlce user saLlsfacLlon ls
reporLedly hlgh wlLh 8edbrldge ranklng Lop ln London on ASC saLlsfacLlon when compared
Lo lLs nearesL nelghbours.
ln addlLlon Lhe Councll has added some new elemenLs Lo Lhe
servlce, for example, new servlces around supporLed llvlng for people llvlng wlLh menLal lll
healLh, dellvered ln parLnershlp wlLh norLh LasL London loundaLlon (MenLal PealLh)
lL was also reporLed LhaL sLrong relaLlonshlps wlLh Lhe volunLary secLor had been
malnLalned and LhaL Lhe Councll had noL cuL granLs Lhere. ln 2013/14, wlLhln Lhe ASC

Senlor offlcer lnLervlew
1he Leam reporLed LhaL
Summary Local AccounL uecember 2012, 8edbrldge Councll, p.16-17
lbld, p.13.

budgeL, Lhe Councll had acLually allocaLed a small amounL of new fundlng Lo Lhe 8edbrldge
volunLeer CenLre.

lurLher cuLs on Lhe horlzon poLenLlally pose a challenge however. 1here were ldeas up for
debaLe abouL how addlLlonal savlngs could be achleved. Along wlLh Lhe posslble greaLer use
of a hub model, Lhe poLenLlal Lo ouLsource day care was one. lurLher, Lhe Leam ls aL Lhe
early sLages of lnLroduclng an AdulL Soclal Care CuLcomes 1oolklL (ASCC1) so lL can beLLer
grasp how Lhe servlces lL offers lmpacL on Lhe quallLy of llfe of lLs servlce users
, reflecLlng
a move Lowards more ouLcomes based budgeLlng. noneLheless, wlLh rlslng demand
pressures, and rlse ln hlgh-level need, any furLher cuLs would pose a problem. AnoLher
concern was LhaL some opporLunlLles were belng mlssed due Lo reduced capaclLy. lor
example, Lhe Lralnlng Leam had had Lo be reduced meanlng less resource for learnlng and
developmenL long-Lerm.


8edbrldge ls dellverlng 23m savlngs across a Lhree year perlod from 2011. 1hese savlngs
were found Lhrough a comblnaLlon of: back offlce savlngs, servlce resLrucLurlng, oLher ways
Lo make savlngs (such as channel mlgraLlon and 'lnvesL Lo Save' pro[ecLs), as well as
prlorlLlsaLlon of servlces. 1he back offlce had been Lhe maln focus ln flndlng Lhese savlngs.
1he Councll had negoLlaLed wlLh servlce provlders Lo secure savlngs ln conLracLs. SLaff cosLs
had been reduced, Lhrough brlnglng [obs LogeLher, noL fllllng vacanL posLs, some deleLlons
of posLs and, ln a couple of examples, worklng wlLh anoLher borough. 1hrough an offlce
accommodaLlon programme Lhe Councll's cenLral deparLmenLs are comlng ouL of Lwo of lLs
maln admlnlsLraLlve bulldlngs. 1he Councll had made oLher small lnvesLmenLs Lo yleld some
longer Lerm savlngs, for example Lhrough green lnlLlaLlves and debL collecLlon. lL was also
mlgraLlng some of lLs communlcaLlons wlLh resldenLs Lo onllne channels.

ln Lerms of whaL has been done Lo fronLllne servlces, Lhe Councll has focussed on Lrlmmlng
servlces raLher Lhan reduclng Lhe range of servlces. 1here were cases where a faclllLy had
been closed (one youLh cenLre, for example) or a fundlng sLream cuL (Lo 8edbrldge ArLs
Councll). Cn Lhe whole, however, much of Lhe fronLllne servlces provlslon had been
malnLalned. Subsldles Lo some dlscreLlonary servlces had been reduced, and Lhe Councll
had used some of lLs reserves Lo do Lhls. 1he Councll was worklng wlLh local parLners Lo
conLlnue servlces lL could noL conLlnue Lo run wholly ln house, llbrarles and parks had been
puL ouL Lo a vCS LrusL. ln lLs savlngs declslons Lhe Councll had afforded speclal proLecLlon Lo
dlscreLlonary youLh servlces. Also, Lhe Larly ?ears elemenL of Chlldren's Servlces had noL
been asked Lo make relaLlvely small savlngs above a sLandard 2 per cenL. 1he Councll was
also flndlng ways Lo manage demand. ln AdulL Soclal Servlces a reablemenL programme had
been lnLroduced and exLra care faclllLles developed so LhaL people could llve lndependenLly
longer, someLhlng whlch cllenLs reporLedly prefer.

lbld, p.14.

ConsulLaLlon and resldenL vlews have fed lnLo Lhe savlngs exerclse Lhrough an lnnovaLlve
consulLaLlon Lool, ?ou Choose. 1he Councll had responded Lo resldenL vlews by malnLalnlng,
for example, Lhe borough's muslc servlce, drama servlce and ouLdoor educaLlon cenLre and
by keeplng open half of lLs publlc LolleLs. uue Lo successes ln Lhe early sLages of Lhe savlngs
programme, Lhe Councll had laLer been able Lo puL some money back ln and have some
'good news' lLems. 1here has been an emphasls on Lransparency and on brlnglng
sLakeholders along ln Lhe savlngs declslons. As a ConservaLlve-Llberal uemocraL parLnershlp
Lhe Councll had adopLed a collaboraLlve approach, wlLh boLh parLles feedlng lnLo careful
conslderaLlon of proposals, Lo Lhe end, lL was felL, LhaL sound declslons were made.

When Lhe cuLs were announced ln 2010, Lhe Councll had been maklng annual savlngs of 2-3
per cenL for much of Lhe precedlng decade. 8y lLs own [udgemenL, as well as by LhaL of
exLernal lndependenL assessmenLs, lL was a value-for-money auLhorlLy. Cn Lhe one hand,
havlng been value-for-money orlenLed for a long whlle
Lhe Councll had sysLems ln place
already Lo ensure LhaL careful scruLlny and consulLaLlon were aL Lhe hearL of Lhe response Lo
Lhe cuLs. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe facL LhaL slgnlflcanL savlngs had already been made prlor Lo
2010, meanL LhaL Lhere was less scope for easy galns. Cfflcers and Members noLed some
hard declslons LhaL had been necesslLaLed, savlngs had been achleved, and Lhey felL Lhey
had responded very effecLlvely, buL lL had been dlfflculL work. lL was LhoughL LhaL any
requlremenL Lo make furLher cuLs would be all Lhe more challenglng glven Lhe lmpacL upon
8edbrldge's lncome of recenL changes ln Lhe way local governmenL fundlng ls calculaLed.

8edbrldge arLnershlp AgreemenL, 20 May 2010.
Accordlng Lo one respondenL Lhls had much Lo do wlLh Lhe borough havlng never been generously funded".

!"#$%&' R* K/77#'BS H1:0/::1-, #,. !-,04/:1-,

!4#::1IB1,9 %"& !/%:

A recenL reporL by PasLlngs eL al. (PasLlngs eL al. 2013) on Lhe approaches of Lhree Lngllsh
local auLhorlLles Lo Lhe local governmenL fundlng cuLs presenLs a framework by whlch local
auLhorlLy responses may be classlfled. 1he framework classlfles Lhe sLraLegles adopLed
under Lhree maln headlngs: 'Lfflclency' '8eLrenchmenL' and 'lnvesLmenL'. 'Lfflclency' Lype
approaches are Lhose whlch alm Lo reduce cosLs of councll servlces wlLhouL changlng servlce
levels, as far as Lhe publlc are concerned. '8eLrenchmenL' descrlbes Lhose approaches
whlch reduce Lhe councll's role ln Lerms of Lhe servlces lL provldes and for whom.
'lnvesLmenL' approaches are Lhose whlch alm Lo reduce Lhe need for councll servlces or
reduce Lhe cosL of servlces ln Lhe fuLure. under each of Lhese Lhree maln Lypes Lhere are
several sub-caLegorles, deflnlng more preclsely Lhe naLure of Lhe change and some
examples (1able 101able 1). 1hese headlngs were generaLed Lhrough Lhe PasLlngs eL al.
Leam's prlmary research and were agreed wlLh Lhelr case sLudy auLhorlLles.

ln 1able 11 we apply Lhls framework Lo Lhe sLraLegles of Lhe Lhree London auLhorlLles. 1hls
ls noL compleLely comprehenslve, slnce our focus has been on servlces for young chlldren,
youLh and older adulLs, and Lhus ls domlnaLed by Lhe large spendlng areas, ln parLlcular
soclal care. lurLhermore, as Lhe orlglnaLors noLe, classlfylng Lhe sLraLegles ls a maLLer of
[udgemenL. lor example, a sLraLegy of ralslng sales, fees and charges could be caLegorlsed
as 'lncome generaLlon' (1.2 wlLhln Lhe 'Lfflclencles' caLegory) and lL could also be
caLegorlsed wlLhln Lhe 'lndlvldual charges' sub-caLegory (2.3 wlLhln Lhe '8eLrenchmenL'
caLegory). Some lLems lncluded under 're-deslgn of fronL-llne servlces' mlghL also be
lncluded ln Lhe 'reLrenchmenL' secLlon. 1he framework overall ls a way of maklng sense of
managerlal sLraLegles noL a quallLaLlve analysls of Lhe more profound changes ln
relaLlonshlps beLween Lhe cenLral sLaLe, local sLaLe, and clvll socleLy LhaL may unfurl as a
resulL. neverLheless lL ls a useful way Lo caLegorlse Lhe sLraLegles we observed and glves
some lndlcaLlon of wheLher Lhe same klnds of sLraLegles were uLlllsed wlLhln and ouLslde


1ab|e 10: Strateg|es to Manage the '8udget Gap': A C|ass|f|cat|on
nead||ne strategy

Spec|f|c sub-strateg|es key d|mens|ons
AcLlons whlch alm Lo
)&*+%& %,-.- of
councll servlces
wlLhouL changlng
servlce levels as far as
publlc are concerned

1. 8educe 'back offlce'
and 'flxed' cosLs
ManagemenL delayerlng, corporaLe redeslgn,
reduced supporL funcLlons, Lechnology used for
supporL, reduced lnLeresL paymenLs, reduced
offlce space
2. lncome generaLlon or
loss reducLlon
lncrease Lraded lncome vla selllng servlces,
more effecLlve debLor managemenL
3. Seek savlngs from
exLernal provlders
8e-commlsslon exlsLlng conLracLs (unllaLerally
or wlLh oLher LAs), ouLsource servlces, brlng
ouLsourced servlces 'ln-house'
4. 8e-deslgn fronL-llne
Cenerlc worklng, lnLegraLlon of servlces,
consolldaLlon of servlces ln 'hubs', smarLer
worklng uslng Lechnology, hoL-desklng
AcLlons whlch alm Lo
)&*+%& .2& '&&* for
councll servlces or
reduce Lhe cosL of
servlces ln fuLure

1. Lncourage economlc
growLh or lncrease local
reLurns from
ALLracL lnvesLmenL or [obs, lmprove resldenLs'
access Lo [obs, lmprove reLurns from work (e.g.
Llvlng Wage)
2. (AcceleraLe) caplLal
CrowLh-orlenLaLed lnvesLmenL (e.g. slLe
preparaLlon), servlce-orlenLaLed lnvesLmenL
(e.g. Lechnology or faclllLles whlch reducd
servlce dellvery cosLs)
3. revenLaLlve revenue
lnLroduce/ expand servlces almed Lo fuLure
reduce needs (e.g. reablemenL ln domlclllary
AcLlons whlch )&*+%&
.2& %,+'%$45- ),4& ln
Lerms of Lhe servlces
lL provldes and for

1. 8enegoLlaLe dlvlslon of
beLween councll and
oLher agencles
ass responslblllLles/cosLs Lo or share Lhese
wlLh oLher agencles (e.g. nPS, vol. secLor),
developmenL of collaboraLlve acLlvlLles, new
models of provlslon (e.g. co-operaLlves)
2. 8enegoLlaLe dlvlslon of
beLween councll and
AsseL Lransfer Lo communlLy groups, clLlzen
volunLeers Lo supplemenL or dellver servlces,
clvlc responslblllLy and self-servlce
3. lndlvldual charges (for
exlsLlng servlces)
new or lncreased charglng for servlces
4. 8educe Lhe range of
servlces supporLed by
Lhe LA
Servlce no longer provlded, 'sLaLuLory' only
level of servlce provlded, wlLhdrawal of subsldy
for servlce,
3. ConLlnue Lo provlde Lhe
servlce on a unlversal
buL reduced level
8educed number of a speclflc faclllLy (e.g.
llbrarles), reduced frequencles (e.g. refuse
collecLlon), reduced sLafflng of servlce
6. ConLlnue Lo provlde Lhe
servlce buL LargeL
Lowards 'need'
rovlslon LargeLed proporLlonaLely across Lhe
soclal gradlenL, provlslon focused only on Lhe
mosL needy groups or nelghbourhoods
Source: PasLlngs eL al. 2013