Kevin who has worked hard on the ASG to give the community as much detail as possible. Wrote to Paul Burstow MP a Minister in the DoH (Department of Health) raising the issue of the removal of the "ring fencing" and future of the grant itself.
He is the response received, written on behalf of the minister.
"DE512887
Dear Mr ,
Thank you for your recent email to Paul Burstow about social care funding. I have been asked to reply on Mr Burstow’s behalf.
Local authorities are being asked to play their part in helping to reduce the nation’s deficit. The most urgent task facing this Government is to tackle the country’s record debts, because without sound finances, none of the Government’s ambitions will be deliverable.
By removing ring-fencing of grants, the Government is giving local authorities more freedom to direct funding in the most effective way and give local people the best service possible. Removal of ring-fenced funding is a long-standing Department policy designed to increase local flexibility and the Department of Health has made major steps to promote this approach in recent years.
However, I can confirm that no Department of Health grants for adult social care will be reduced in 2010/11. This will aid the Department’s commitment to provide personalised, preventative services that put people in charge of their care and in control of their lives and to continue to support councils to make these critical improvements to front line services.
With regard to the AIDS support grant, as you know, on 24 May the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that ring-fencing on most local authority grants will now be removed from 2010/11. I can confirm that the AIDS support grant is among the grants affected by this announcement.
The Department understands your position on the importance of ring-fencing and appreciates the points you made about the valuable work achieved through the AIDS support grant. However, the Department’s view is that, in the current economic climate, local authorities on the ground are best placed to prioritise their own spending commitments based on the local pressures they face. By removing the ring-fencing of grants, local authorities are being given more freedom to direct funding in the most effective way and give local people the best service possible.
The future of the AIDS Support Grant after 2010/11 will be considered by the government's next Comprehensive Spending Review, which will decide on the direction of overall Government spending for the three years from 2011/12 onwards, and which is due to conclude this October.
Finally, you ask in an attachment to your email why only 142 of the 412 UK local authorities are listed on the Department’s website as receiving funds from the Department. I hope it is helpful if I clarify that many local authorities do not have social services responsibilities (as care services in that area are provided by another council, for example a county council) and therefore do not receive Department of Health funding.
I hope this reply is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health"
The All Party Parliamentary Group on HIV/AIDS reports via twitter that "Good news re #AIDS Suport Grant.It's rolled into the LA grant but as an identifiable and increasing budget line.Thanx MPs!Campaign paid off!"
LA is the Local Authority.
Also that the ASG (AIDS Support Grant) is covered in a letter from Eric Pickes the Communities Minister which you can read by clicking here.
Given the notification by HM Government for the next 4 years under the ASG, I have summarised, based upon a population of 92,000 people living with HIV/AIDS increasing by 6% each year, my figures show. Also given that the number of people living with HIV/AIDS has been distorted or the presentation used was based upon about 63,000 our figures presented http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums-keywords/benefits/social-care-rights... show a higher figure. We know from our previous analysis that not all local authroities added additional monies.
| Baseline | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2014/15 | 2015/16 | |
| AIDS Support | 25500000 | 27700000 | 30300000 | 33100000 | 36200000 |
| Est. No.of People - Living with HIV/AIDS | 92000 | 97520 | 103371 | 109573 | 116148 |
| Cost spent per person | 277.17 | 284.04 | 293.12 | 302.08 | 311.67 |
An estimated figure based upon the 2009/2010, equates £21.8m / 92,000 = £236.96. Given the numbers pubished by the Health Protection Agency suggests about a 50/50% of living with London and outside London. This would calculated at about just under 17% increase in real terms upon the baseline figure above. These figures exclude any additional monies or contrubitions addedd to the overall budget allowance and is just the ASG allocation only.
Following a recent campaign led by NAT (National AIDS Trust) to protect funding for social care services in England for people living with HIV, the Government has committed in the recent Spending Review to take account of HIV social care needs within the overall local authority grant over the next five years. Furthermore, funding linked to ‘AIDS Support’ will increase from £25.5 million in this year to £36.2 million by 2014/15.
The campaign, which took place over the last few months, involved rallying organisations from across the country to write to the Government and highlight the importance of retaining this funding as an identifiable amount within local authority budgets.
Following the Spending Review, all specific grants – including the AIDS Support Grant which previously provided funding for HIV social care – will be rolled into the Formula Grant.* However, there should continue to be identifiable allocations relating to HIV social care within the Formula Grant distributed to local authorities.
Deborah Jack, Chief Executive of NAT, says:
‘NAT is extremely pleased to see a commitment from the Government to increase funding for HIV social care following our recent campaign. This commitment shows an acknowledgment of the importance of funding these services, and recognition that the rising numbers and ageing population of people living with HIV will result in both continuing and increasing social care needs within this group.
‘However, we do remain concerned that with the removal of the ring-fence around this funding and the increased emphasis on local flexibility, there is a risk that HIV social care funds could be spent elsewhere. NAT encourages all local authorities to ensure the needs of people living with HIV in every area are met, and this means using the funding committed to HIV social care to provide the services necessary.’
- Ends -
Notes to the editor:
*Further information can be found within a letter on Local Government and the Spending Review from The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1745945.pdf
http://www.nat.org.uk/News-and-Media/Press-Releases/2010/November/Social...
As we now know the ASG allocation by the Seceratry of State for Local Communities and the other various published grants http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/fair-deal-local-taxpayers-freezing-c... , I have re-calculated the ASG analysis using various information and factors already obtained and provide as an example the below table.
Using the Health Protection Agencies figures of 28,285 people accessing HIV care in 2009 in London http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1204031522939 and using the grant amount of £284.04 per person (please note: this will change when the DOH allocates it formula to each London Borough as the DOH uses a different formula to calculate each award, I have today submitted a request to the DOH seeking this information. DOH ASG allocation for 2010/11 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Lettersandcirculars/Lo...
Using the information collected and shown within the projected ASG analysis 2010/11 http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/projected-asg-spend-and-budget-20102... , I have shown as an example the reduction in % given that that ASG allocation is used only against the current costs of services provided. Each LA would have to allocate the amount needed to fund without any reduction in people or services.
This is an example and this will be open to change when the DOH allocation is known, also as we don't know the level of cuts each London Authrority is to attach to HIV/AIDS services, this factor must also be taken into consideration.
http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/london-set-lose-least-%C2%A3355-mill... and http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/closure-warning-london-projects-foll... may also be of interest.
| 2011/2012 | No. of | £284.04pp | Other | £needed | ||
| People | Income | Total | ||||
| City of London | 48 | 12600 | 0 | 12600 | ||
| L B Barking & Dagenham | 530 | 150435 | 0 | 325814 | 150435 | -216.58% |
| L B Barnet | 621 | 176404 | 0 | 76361 | 176404 | -43.29% |
| L B Bexley | 275 | 78226 | 77039 | 333228 | 155265 | -214.62% |
| L B Brent | 806 | 228977 | 0 | 35381 | 228977 | -15.45% |
| L B Bromley | 381 | 108313 | 0 | 36587 | 108313 | -33.78% |
| L B Camden | 1359 | 386063 | 0 | 665659 | 386063 | -172.42% |
| L B Croydon | 1000 | 284084 | 21911 | 158667 | 262173 | -60.52% |
| L B Ealing | 665 | 188756 | 0 | 75106 | 188756 | 39.79% |
| L B Enfield | 721 | 204908 | 0 | 310139 | 204908 | -151.36% |
| L B Greenwich | 872 | 247663 | 0 | 174174 | 247663 | -70.33% |
| L B Hackney | 1282 | 364210 | 0 | 146136 | 364210 | -40.12% |
| L B Hammersmith & Fulham | 1035 | 293902 | 0 | 568032 | 293902 | -193.27% |
| L B Haringey | 1191 | 338241 | 0 | 174159 | 338241 | -51.49% |
| L B Harrow | 278 | 78859 | 0 | 78859 | 78859 | |
| L B Havering | 181 | 51306 | 1758 | 7301 | 49548 | -14.73% |
| L B Hillingdon | 408 | 115914 | 0 | 213208 | 115914 | -183.94% |
| L B Hounslow | 602 | 171020 | 0 | 171020 | 171020 | |
| L B Islington | 1379 | 391764 | 0 | 510784 | 391764 | -130.38% |
| R L B Kensington & Chelsea | 1056 | 299919 | 3800 | 569198 | 303719 | -187.41% |
| R L B Kingston upon Thames | 200 | 56690 | 0 | 165385 | 56690 | -291.73% |
| R L B Kingston upon Thames | ||||||
| L B Lambeth | 2827 | 802846 | 28834 | 140134 | 774012 | -18.10% |
| L B Lewisham | 1352 | 384163 | 0 | 162572 | 384163 | -42.32% |
| L B Merton | 504 | 143150 | 0 | 49000 | 143150 | -34.23% |
| L B Newham | 1458 | 414250 | 3380 | 483882 | 417630 | -115.86% |
| L B Redbridge | 476 | 135233 | 9856 | 397285 | 145089 | -273.82% |
| R L B Richmond | 222 | 63024 | 17500 | 103961 | 80524 | -129.10% |
| L B Southwark | 2192 | 622641 | 0 | 171159 | 622641 | -27.49% |
| L B Sutton & Merton | 237 | 67458 | 0 | 95215 | 67458 | -141.15% |
| L B Tower Hamlets | 986 | 279967 | 0 | 167451 | 279967 | -59.81% |
| L B Waltham Forest | 724 | 205541 | 0 | 205541 | 205541 | |
| L B Wandsworth | 1072 | 304353 | 0 | 70497 | 304353 | -23.16% |
| L B Westminister | 1342 | 381312 | 0 | 545542 | 381312 | -143.07% |
Based upon the DOH circular http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Lettersandcirculars/Lo... which shows the amounts awarded for 2010/11, I have used these figures and have increased the projected estimate award by 16% based upon the new guidance from the local communities grant. The number of people accessing HIV care is that of the HPA figures for London of 28,285 (2009)
The extrapilated figures shows and would require an input of an estimated £635,000 in total to be found to address a pan London approach to HIV services if such a course of action was to be taken to meet current levels of service. By acculamating the awards in London and meeting the 2010/11 costs of services could be a way forwarded?
Like that of the LSCG, London HIV services and provision could be administired by one provider these costs would have to be found or met from the London awards and added into the calculations. Instead of the 32 seperate local authorities and the City of London, this could safe guard the resources, outside control, empower ourselves and truly address the needs of those living with HIV/AIDS directly accross London. As it is the idea of HM Government through the localism bill to seek such a response to deal with community issues and lives, this I submit to the HIV/AIDS community to be given full consideration, thought and response.
Also given the further possible surplus of the PCT, this would add to the support and needs of those living with HIV/AIDS. As stated and advised the HPA suggest some 28,285 people within London access HIV care, 40% of which will be women and children and 60% men.
Thank you.
| 2011/2012 | ASG | No. of | Other | £needed | ||
| Projected | People | Income | Total | |||
| 11/12 | ||||||
| City of London | 48 | 12600 | 0 | 12600 | ||
| L B Barking & Dagenham | 340180 | 530 | 0 | 136069 | 340180 | 136069 |
| L B Barnet | 334355 | 621 | 0 | 81590 | 334355 | 81590 |
| L B Bexley | 156110 | 275 | 77039 | 255344 | 233149 | 332383 |
| L B Brent | 439205 | 806 | 0 | 174847 | 439205 | 174847 |
| L B Bromley | 224845 | 381 | 0 | 79945 | 224845 | 79945 |
| L B Camden | 558035 | 1359 | 0 | 493687 | 558035 | 493687 |
| L B Croydon | 579005 | 1000 | 21911 | 136254 | 557094 | 158165 |
| L B Ealing | 348335 | 665 | 0 | 234685 | 348335 | 234685 |
| L B Enfield | 438040 | 721 | 0 | 77007 | 438040 | 77007 |
| L B Greenwich | 471825 | 872 | 0 | 49988 | 471825 | 49988 |
| L B Hackney | 634925 | 1282 | 0 | 124579 | 634925 | 124579 |
| L B Hammersmith & Fulham | 463670 | 1035 | 0 | 398264 | 463670 | 398264 |
| L B Haringey | 602305 | 1191 | 0 | 89905 | 602305 | 89905 |
| L B Harrow | 164265 | 278 | 0 | 164265 | 164265 | 164265 |
| L B Havering | 102520 | 181 | 1758 | 43913 | 100762 | 45671 |
| L B Hillingdon | 209700 | 408 | 0 | 119422 | 209700 | 119422 |
| L B Hounslow | 318045 | 602 | 0 | 318045 | 318045 | 318045 |
| L B Islington | 542890 | 1379 | 0 | 359658 | 542890 | 359658 |
| R L B Kensington & Chelsea | 433380 | 1056 | 3800 | 435737 | 437180 | 439537 |
| R L B Kingston upon Thames | 107180 | 200 | 0 | 114895 | 107180 | 114895 |
| R L B Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| L B Lambeth | 1165000 | 2827 | 28834 | 222020 | 1136166 | 250854 |
| L B Lewisham | 700165 | 1352 | 0 | 153430 | 700165 | 153430 |
| L B Merton | 279600 | 504 | 0 | 87450 | 279600 | 87450 |
| L B Newham | 834140 | 1458 | 3380 | 63992 | 837520 | 67372 |
| L B Redbridge | 276105 | 476 | 9856 | 256413 | 285961 | 266269 |
| R L B Richmond | 100190 | 222 | 17500 | 66795 | 117690 | 84295 |
| L B Southwark | 1024035 | 2192 | 0 | 230235 | 1024035 | 230235 |
| L B Sutton & Merton | 137470 | 237 | 0 | 25203 | 137470 | 25203 |
| L B Tower Hamlets | 377460 | 986 | 0 | 69958 | 377460 | 69958 |
| L B Waltham Forest | 368140 | 724 | 0 | 368140 | 368140 | 368140 |
| L B Wandsworth | 490465 | 1072 | 0 | 115615 | 490465 | 115615 |
| L B Westminister | 549880 | 1342 | 0 | 376974 | 549880 | 376974 |
We have created a quick 5 question/answer survey seeking your views upon a Pan London approach to HIV social care and support for you to complete. This survey is only seeking the views of those affected or are living with HIV/AIDS, this survey will help build upon the idea of localism and community support envised through the Localism Bill.
The survey can be completed by visiting http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/C2BHZGB
Thank you.
refer http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/online-surveys-need-your-support #23and # 24
Is there anyway of clarifying what things like 'other costs' refer to? In some cases it's really high!
Yes, where you require more detailed information you can use the same method employed to get data and submit a Freedom of Information request to the apprioprate body. Specify what you require the detail on.
For more information of Freedom of Information see www.ico.gov.uk


Consultation on changes to the allocation formulae for the Learning Disability Commissioning Transfer Grant, Preserved Rights Grant and AIDS Support Grant
Closing date 6 October 2010
The Department of Health (DH) is asking for your views on options for distributing three DH social care grants from 1st April 2011. This consultation does not prejudge the outcome of the Spending Review, which will be announced on 20 October 2010.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_117893
also refer http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/consultation-changes-allocation-formulae-aids-support-grant-amongst-others-doh-closes