PDF version
Council care for vulnerable adults aged 18 to 64 includes the following:
- services for adults with learning disabilities (costing over £500 million in London 2005/06, more than 17 per cent of the England total)4
- services for adults with physical disabilities and sensory impairment (costing over £255 million in London in 2005/06, 19 per cent of the England total)5
- services for adults who are mentally ill (costing over £239 million in London in 2005/06, over 25 per cent of the England total)6
- other adult services including the cost of treating adults with HIV/AIDS and those who misuse drugs or alcohol (costing just under £57 million in London in 2005/06, almost 32 per cent of the England total)7.
The total cost of social care for vulnerable adults aged 18 to 64 provided by London councils in 2005/06 was over £1 billion which represents almost 20 per cent of the England total8.
Projections based on client trends and increasing need indicate that London's expenditure on younger adult social services will continue to rise, reaching £1.16 billion by 2010/119. London is expected to face a greater increase in the cost of looking after adults with learning disabilities because of the "significantly higher prevalence of learning difficulties being reported in south Asian, black and minority ethnic groups; this impacts disproportionately on London councils given the higher percentage of south Asian, black and minority ethnic groups in the capital10."
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/localgovernmentfinance/publications/fai...
The strategy sets a challenge to London boroughs, partner agencies and providers to work together to provide quality services with fair access across the capital. The strategy sets priorities and targets for the programme in London including a plan for joint working between the boroughs, links between capital and revenue funding and protection for 'cross-authority' services. There are proposals for meeting the need for move-on accommodation and joint commissioning.
The strategy will be monitored by the London Supporting People Strategic Forum which contains representatives from London Borough Housing and Social Services Directors, London borough sub-regions, ODPM, GLA, GOL, Probation, Housing Corporation and the independent sector.
The Forum will also work closely with the London Housing Federation's Supported Housing Forum to ensure all aspects of the programme are addressed. Small working groups will take forward work on the strategy, reporting back to the Strategic Forum and, where appropriate, London Councils Housing Directors and Leaders' Committee.
download publication
London Supporting People Strategy 2005-10 (Adobe PDF document, 751.40Kb)
Councils are not doing enough to prepare their communities for the fallout from the recession and face a surge in social problems such as addiction, alcoholism and domestic violence, the leading public sector watchdog warned yesterday.
The Audit Commission said that local authorities in England were now facing the "second wave" of the downturn, as the effects of rising business failures, bankruptcies and unemployment bite.
"Many councils should be doing more to prepare for the expected social, financial and economic development challenges ahead," it said. "This includes councils that have escaped the worst effects to date, some of which are complacent."
It coincided with a separate report that found that despite predictions that the recession would lead to an exodus of non-UK nationals, one in 12 employers in the UK plan to recruit migrant workers in the next few months. The study, by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the consultants KPMG, found that the number of migrant workers rose between the first quarters of 2008 and 2009 while employment of UK nationals fell.
Gerwyn Davies, public policy adviser at the CIPD, said many employers found it hard to fill vacancies with UK workers. "The idea that migrant workers comprise a marginal segment of the UK workforce that is dispensed with when times are tough is clearly wide of the mark. Most are recruited and retained by employers because they provide skills or attitudes to work in short supply amongst the home-grown workforce."
Official figures due to be published tomorrow morning will be closely scrutinised for evidence that the economy is bottoming out. The broad measure of joblessness, which covers those looking for work rather than simply those eligible for state benefits, has been rising at a record rate.
A third report today found that low earners are being disproportionately hit by the recession. Amid growing political concern about the alienation of UK-born workers, the Resolution Foundation, a charity, said people with household incomes of between £11,600 and £27,150 were facing severe financial pain, were being overlooked by the government, and missed out on help from employers.
The chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, Sue Regan, said despite signs of economic recovery it was likely that job losses among low earners would continue to rise. "If you look at the sectors where they are most likely to work, they are areas which are likely to [have been] depressed for a long time," she said.
In its report, Squeezed: The Low Earners Audit, the Resolution Foundation said low earners in work were more vulnerable to the softening labour market "than benefit-dependent households – who are less likely to be reliant on earned income – or higher earner households – who are more likely to have savings and insurance".
The charity reported a 45% jump in benefit claimants in the distribution, hotels and restaurants sector since April 2008, from 49,000 to 71,000.
The charity estimates that 400,000 low earners were receiving jobseeker's allowance in April 2008 and at least 180,000 more have joined them since the recession began. "In truth, the figure is likely to be higher because of the higher levels of vulnerability and job insecurity faced by low earners," it said.
The charity said these workers were likely to have difficulty "bouncing back" from unemployment because "employers don't tend to invest as much in training them … but the government tends to focus on people with no skills. We would like to see the skills strategy extended specifically to help low earners."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/jobsadvice/2009/aug/11/firms-hiring-migrant-wo...
There appears to be universal agreement that the current system for funding and accessing adult social care in England is inequitable, confusing, complex and unsustainable. It is also widely agreed that the system needs to be addressed to help people currently in the system and needs to be reformed in the long-term so that the future funding of social care in the UK is sustainable for younger generations.
Overview
The UK faces an ageing population that is living longer but not necessarily living longer more healthily; equally the number of dependents relying on a shrinking workforce and tax-base has meant a whole system reform and broader vision for social care is needed. The areas of most contention are the precise structures and outcomes that are most desired for the social care system and how these outcomes are to be funded, as there is currently an estimated £6bn funding gap over the next 20 years. There are tensions between;
- State vs. personal responsibility
- Low/high income, asset rich/poor
- Private/social insurance
- Working/retired population
- Short-term/long-term solutions
Ultimately most social care funding models advocate mixed funding mechanisms and shared responsibility along continuums. This brief will present current social care funding models advocated by different UK stakeholders under themed funding model types which follow;
- General Taxation
- Pension Funds
- Partnership/Co-payment Models
- Social Insurance Model
- National Care Fund Models
- Short-term Funding moves
Please find a detailed explanation in the briefing on UK Stakeholder Funding Models Opens in a new window.
Examples from other countries
Key to all debates in developed countries is how to pay for an appropriate range of longterm care services and how to sustain the availability of services in the face of growing demands and diminishing revenue. When questions of access, equality, standards and coverage of care are central - governments have moved to encouraging preventative measures such as promoting healthy ageing, delaying disability, increasing familial support and increasing services in homes and communities.
Many developed countries share similar situations and aims with respect to the delivery and financing of long-term care. Many are also facing demographic imperatives that have forced them to reconsider their social care systems to provide for their ageing populations. Italy, Greece, Sweden and Japan topped the list of countries with the oldest populations in 2000 - each with 17% or more of its population age 65 or over. 16% of the population of the UK in 2006 were over the age of 65. Common country aims in service delivery include;
- Choice and independence through consumer directed home care and the personalisation
- of budgets and services.
- Greater access to services in the home and the community.
- Support for family and other caregivers.
- Integration of health, social and housing services.
In the funding arena an increasing number of countries have moved to providing universal coverage for long-term care through a mix of public and private finance sources. As a general overview Austria, Japan, Germany and the Netherlands are among those that have established universal long-term care programs that provide benefits to all eligible individuals regardless of income. All of these countries have had to increase resources, allocating funding at the national level so access is not determined by local priorities. As a general rule the funding structures require taxpayers to make regular, mostly income related contributions that are not tied to benefit use, which disperses risk and responsibility more broadly across a population.
This briefing details social care funding models and experiences from other countries to place in context proposed approaches to social care funding from the government and other UK stakeholders and organisations. To read the briefing click here Opens in a new window.
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/HealthAndAdultServices/briefings/AdultS...
LGA press release - 11 August 2009
New figures published today show that town halls have been hit by a £4bn deficit in income over the course of the last two years, currently equivalent to losing out on almost £11m every day in this year compared to financial year 2007/08.
Figures revealed by the Local Government Association, which represents over 350 councils in England, show that some key council income flows have been hit hard by a combination of the depressed property market and low interest rates.
Estimates based on the research show that in the last year, income from:
- Sales of land, council buildings and other capital projects have fallen by £2.7bn since 2007/08
- Interest earned on councils’ cash deposits has fallen by £1.3bn since 2007/08 due to low interest rates.
Despite the squeeze on their finances, other statistics published by the LGA show that councils are continuing to plough significant resources into helping people and businesses through the recession.
A sample survey of 202 council leaders and chief executives shows that over the last six months:
- One in five councils is providing local people with help with their mortgage payments
- Eight in ten councils have concentrated resources on ensuring local people receive take up of the benefits they are eligible for
- Half of councils have set up or supported credit unions to help local people borrow money from a reliable source
- One in four councils has allowed businesses to defer paying their rates
- Seven in ten councils have provided or plan to provide tailored support to local business
Sir Jeremy Beecham, Vice-Chairman of the LGA, said:
”Town halls are being hit by a perfect storm caused by the recession. Sources of income have dropped sharply at a time when more and more people are turning to councils to help them through tough times.
“Town halls are feeling the effect of recession in exactly the same way as hard pressed homeowners and families. Low interest rates mean councils are much less able to rely on their savings, plummeting house and land prices have hit hard and income from leisure centres and a range of other services has fallen.
“At this time of repossessions and redundancies, even more people need the vital support that only councils can provide. Town halls are taking decisive action to protect local people and businesses from the worst effects of the recession. They are helping to keep people in their own homes, offering support to the unemployed and helping small companies stay afloat.
“The tough economic outlook is forcing councils to take a look at almost every aspect of their finances. Almost 7,000 jobs have gone in the last six months alone and as the effects of the recession continue to be felt, we fully expect councils to keep on cutting jobs over the course of the next twelve months. Despite this, local government has delivered the lowest council tax rise for over a decade and is continuing to make big efficiency savings.
"Young people are being hit particularly hard by the recession, with hundreds of thousands finding themselves unemployed and not in any kind of training. The LGA has committed to working with local authorities to increase the number of council apprenticeships by 7,500."
ends
NOTES TO EDITORS
Examples of councils helping people and businesses through the recession are:
- Essex County Council has launched ‘Banking on Essex’, to help firms struggling to get finance during the recession. The council is setting aside £50m for loans of up to £100,000 for small and medium-sized businesses.
- Knowsley Council, in partnership with Vertex, is acting as a recruitment agent to find 600 workers for a local company that has vacancies in order to get residents into full time employment.
- Stevenage Council has supported its local credit union to help people gain access to reliable credit during the recession. The Council has sponsored weekly drop-in sessions at its customer service centre and pays the credit union’s rent.
2.. The tables in the technical note below show that in 2007/08 authorities received 5.5 billion from interest on balances and capital receipts. This source of this figure is Cipfa stats, 2007/08, Capital Expenditure and Treasury Management Statistics. The LGA undertook a survey of Finance Directors across England between 15 May and 4 July 2009 about the financial impact of the slowdown. 88 authorities responded to the survey (a response rate of 25 per cent, of which 55 (63 per cent) were district authorities. 78 respondents answered the capital receipts question and 84 answered the interest on balances question. Using the results of this survey and assuming that other councils will be affected in the same way as respondents, we have inferred that the combined budget for capital receipts and interest on balances in 2009/10 will fall £4 billion lower than budgets just two years earlier. For further details please refer to the technical note: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/2812483
I can't make any sense of the government's attitude to financial risk. When big companies or rich individuals are willing to take it, the official view is that they must be rewarded for having the courage to gamble. That's why PFI schemes are potentially so profitable for the private sector, why bankers still get bonuses, and why profits on share dealings are taxed at less than income. Yet when it comes to the poorest people, the policy now is to push them into taking tremendous risks, with a high probability of loss, and no corresponding hope of tremendous gains.
The welfare-to-work reforms are intended to discourage everyone but the very ill or disabled from leading a life on benefits. Fine, except for two problems. The first one we all know about: as last week's figures made plain, the jobs aren't there. The second problem is just as serious. Jobs aren't what they were. The government and the welfare system tend to talk and act as if finding work is the end of the problem, and as if happy jobseekers will have nothing left to think about except the gold watch they'll receive when they retire. But many jobs on offer, particularly those advertised in jobcentres, are precarious, temporary or part-time, or have uncertain hours. Leaving the security of benefits for jobs like these is like stepping out on to cracking ice. And our antiquated welfare system hasn't worked out where the life rafts and lifebelts ought to be.
Maeve McGoldrick, of the charity Community Links, which works with unemployed people in east London, says the benefits system simply can't cope with modern working life. It is designed for predictability, and that is just what has become so elusive, particularly at the bottom of the market.
If a single mother, say, is offered a steady minimum-wage job for 24 hours a week, the system can deal very effectively with that. It can calculate the tax credits and the housing benefit subsidy that will make work pay.
It falls apart, though, when it has to respond to fluctuating incomes or rapid changes in people's circumstances. McGoldrick says the majority of benefit claimants are now going into unstable jobs. They may be commission-based, or agency work, or zero-hours contracts. That means the income and hours worked can vary wildly from week to week. Someone on zero hours, perhaps with a shop or a cleaning firm, may have to be available for work at any time over a 40-hour working week. But there's no corresponding requirement on the employer actually to give them anything to do. So a worker may do a three-hour stint one week, 17 hours the next, 32 in the third week, and four hours at the end of the month.
Trying to deal with that sends benefit offices into meltdown. People earning a low wage can still be entitled to all kinds of financial help. But if their incomes fluctuate from week to week, so will their entitlement, and the system can't keep up. Weekly changes must be reported, and it can take weeks for each claim to be processed. Meanwhile, panicking claimants may find that their housing benefit has been cut or suspended, or their jobseeker's allowance withdrawn, on the assumption that what they earned three weeks ago is what they're earning now.
The system is just as bad at responding to people who leave benefit for what turns out to be a short-term job. Housing benefit is supposed to run on for the first month in work, while people wait to be paid, but half of all claimants don't get it because that's not generally known. The Department for Work and Pensions claims to have a rapid return scheme to make it easier for long-term claimants who are laid off to get their allowances back. In this age, you might expect that an official could just push a button for payments to restart. Not at all. Claimants must queue, phone offices and wait – frequently for weeks.
Delays like these mean nothing to people who have savings and equity and jobs. They are savage, searing experiences to those who live as close to the edge as long-term claimants inevitably do. These people have no resources. A month or more without income can be just what it takes to pitch people into the arms of loan sharks, or find themselves in terrifying rent arrears. Kate Wareing at Oxfam says that housing benefit is so badly run that it often takes six weeks to be reinstated. That causes immense stress. People sometimes lose their homes in that time.
The news that jobs of some kinds can't be trusted, and that the system won't protect you if you take them, runs like bush fire through New Deal courses. It makes people scared to leave what they know. That's rational. They may not have much but, if they stay put, at least they can be sure that their homes and essential bills will be paid for. As the TUC's report on vulnerable employment said last year, for this group "security of income has to be a priority. The risks of a catastrophic fall in income when they change benefit status are too great."
The significance of this widespread fear and insecurity is hopelessly underplayed. The government thinks, for instance, that its tax credit scheme to support people in work is the answer. Yet that too can make life worse for those who earn erratically, or switch between jobs and the dole. At the end of the year, poor families can be asked to repay thousands of pounds – a shock they cannot absorb. Instead, they may decide not to risk official work at all.
The government sticks to its mantra that work will always pay. It preaches the virtues of entering the workplace, in any form, on the assumption that low-paid jobs are just a starting point, and that people can work their way up. Its extra financial help to single mothers working under the New Deal runs out after a year, presumably because it thinks the mothers will be on higher pay by then. That's unlikely. A Treasury analysis in 1999 warned that low-paid jobs were rarely a ladder to high-paid ones. The days of moving from being a teaboy to MD have long gone, partly because the teaboy will now work, often precariously, for a contract catering company, and the MD won't ever know his name.
We have to deal with this new reality. Otherwise it will make sense for people to cling to benefits, some constructing their own safety nets by working on the side. The TUC and several of the poverty action groups think that nothing less than a rethinking of the welfare system for the 21st century will do.
Our government is responsible because it embraced the culture of flexible workforces and contracting out. Companies have cut their risk by transferring it to the lowest possible level – the low-skilled worker. These people are taking the full force of the economic storm, and yet they are the least able to bear it, either financially or psychologically. There is now a whole stratum of individuals who are likely to spend their lives spinning between low pay and no pay. The only way to make that tough existence even tolerable is to make the bridges and financial supports between the two much stronger than they are now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/19/unemployed-benefits-...
30 September 2009
Starts at: 09:00 - 14:00
Central London - tba
This event will explore the opportunities to achieve savings through joint initiatives in the provision of online self-service. Capital Ambition recently commissioned a Feasibility Study which identifies the significant savings that can be achieved by authorities through a joint development programme providing key online registration services for new residents.
Representatives from the authorities who participated in the study (Hammersmith & Fulham, Bexley and Wandsworth) will join us at the event together with Agilisys consultants who undertook the study, to discuss the findings of the report and the potential savings to be gained through the provision of online services, looking at Council Tax Registration and Parking Permits in particular.
Up to 700,000 people move into and between London Boroughs every year resulting in significant costs for the authorities as they register for services. The event will take a closer look at the move towards ‘full self-service’ and the benefits to be gained, both in customer service improvements, and in realising efficiencies.
In summary the event will:
- Present the purpose and scope of the business case
- Present the business case findings, the journey and insights
- Include a roundtable discussion with the Project Board including a Q&A session
Copies of the Feasibility Study will also be available for attendees.
This event will finish with lunch.
| Organised by: | Connected London, Capital Ambition |
| For further details contact: | Saida Davies |
| Telephone: | 020 7934 9790 |
| Email: | saida.davies@londoncouncils.gov.uk |
Add this to my Outlook Calendar (select open) 
Opens in a new window
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/capitalambition/events/event.htm?pk=79
From hosting the 2012 Games, to delivering a transport system fit for the 21st century; from building the homes Londoners need and can afford, to supporting the businesses that will lead us out of recession; from fighting crime, to delivering a first class education service; London local government is seizing the agenda.
And we know that all of these challenges must now be viewed in the context of severely restrained public finances.
Drawing on contributions from leading politicians from all major parties, along with key public policy shapers representing a wide range of thinking, this series of essays makes clear that localism will be a key part of how we set about delivering more for less for Londoners in coming years.
download publication
Developing a Manifesto for Londoners (PDF, 1,890.00Kb)
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/publications/manifestoforlondoners.htm
Find out how we assess council social services for adults and get the performance assessment guide for 2008-09. You can also read our council inspection reports.
Duration: April 2006 - March 2007
In order to inform future funding and planning priorities around social care, support and information services for people with diagnosed HIV in the UK, the AIDS Funders Forum funded Sigma Research to conduct a review of commissioning and service provision in the HIV sector. The AIDS Funders Forum includes Crusaid, The Derek Butler Trust, The Elton John AIDS Foundation, The MAC AIDS Fund, The Monument Trust, and The Peter Moores Foundation.
The research had two elements.
Epidemiological review: Using the most recent published epidemiological data to 01-12-2006, we conducted a critical overview of the HIV epidemic across the United Kingdom.
The key findings of the review of epidemiological data were:
- Although there has been a recent decline in the rate of growth of numbers of people with diagnosed HIV, prevalence continues to increase by 10-15% every year.
- With the introduction of anti-retroviral treatment, the number of people with HIV dying every year radically declined ten years ago and has remained stable ever since (at about 500 deaths per year).
- Prevalence of diagnosed HIV infection is highest in England, then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Half of people with diagnosed HIV in the UK today live in London.
- In the UK, HIV disproportionately affects men rather than women and adults rather than children.
- There has been a recent decline in the number of new diagnoses among migrants with HIV, suggesting the number of people moving to the UK with HIV has stopped growing. In the UK overall, 52% of people living with diagnosed HIV are White, 43% are Black and 5% are of other ethnicities. Among the Black people with diagnosed HIV resident in the UK, 89% are African, 7% are Caribbean and 4% are from other Black groups.
- There has been no decline among the number of domestic HIV infections, suggesting the number of people living in the UK who acquire HIV (sexually) continues to grow. About 80% of all domestically acquired HIV infections occur as a consequence of sex between men.
Stakeholder survey and interviews: 1111 unique email addresses (456 in charities, 492 in the NHS, and 163 in Local Authority) were targeted with an invitation to complete an online survey which was available for five weeks in April and May 2006. After exclusions, the sample consisted of 371 responses including workers/volunteers from 111 different charities serving people with HIV; commissioners of HIV services from 60 local Health Authorities; staff from 60 different NHS providers and commissioners / staff from 37 Local Authorities. 197 survey participants volunteered for follow-up telephone interview of whom 18 (eight commissioners and ten charitable providers) were interviewed. Respondents were selected to maximise variation between urban and non-urban, high and low prevalence areas.
The key findings of the survey and interviews were:
- There are no government targets against which performance with respect to HIV prevention or care is measured.
- There are no core competencies, skills or formal training for NHS HIV commissioners.
- Constant NHS restructuring and shrinking budgets means that NHS deficits figure more prominently than need in commissioning decisions.
- HIV social care, support and information services are seen as secondary to treatment and care budgets.
- Retraction and mainstreaming of Local Authority services threatens to disrupt continuity of HIV social care.
- Social services are increasingly unable to serve the acute needs of asylum seekers with HIV. This is putting undue pressure on charitable providers.
- The majority of respondents did not think all people with HIV were equally well served by the current configuration of services. Migrants, asylum seekers and ethnic minorities were seen as particularly poorly served.
The research concluded that current service configuration in the UK is unlikely to meet the changing needs of all people with HIV because it is not needs-led. Services are funded due to historical precedent and funding tends to roll forward year-on-year. Change in population need to compete with other factors (NHS funding shortfalls, Local Authority mainstreaming and political pressures) in decisions to change service provision.
The final report was called A growing challenge: a strategic review of HIV social care, support and information services across the UK. An Executive summary is available to download.
http://www.sigmaresearch.org.uk/go.php/projects/project37/
London boroughs provide adults in the capital with a wide range of social services, including care and support at home. These services are coming under pressure as demands rise.
The ageing population means that increasing numbers of older people need care and support. There are also growing numbers of adults with severe disabilities who may require intensive social care. Shorter hospital stays and cost increases can further increase the call on boroughs.
Boroughs offer services to people whose needs are assessed as being critical or substantial and the eligibility criteria for services are likely to be further tightened in order to keep within existing budgets.
London Councils commissioned RSe Consulting to examine the current and future costs to the London boroughs of providing social care services. The findings have been included as part of London Councils' contribution to the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.
The report finds that a total of £2.3 billion is currently spent by London boroughs on community care for adults and older people, and that even taking efficiency savings into account this total is set to have reached £3 billion by 2010/11 (an £147 million a year increase - 5.5 per cent ). The financial model developed by RSe takes into account local authority expenditure data, current trends in the care and support needs of vulnerable adults and policy shifts which are likely to lead to changes in the way that services are delivered in the future.
It highlights a number of risks, including the risk of a transfer of costs from PCTs, the risk of a reduction in client contributions and the risk of a reduction in Supporting People Grants.
The report also includes recommendations for managing the pressures such as boroughs commissioning on behalf of PCTs to generate efficiencies from improved commissioning practices.
Contents
- Executive Summary
- Background to the Report
- Current Cost of Care by Local Authorities
3.1. How the Current Cost of Care Was Calculated
3.2. Results of Analysis - Future Cost of Care by Local Authorities
4.1. How the Future Cost of Care Was Projected
4.2. Summary of Results
4.3. Drivers of Cost Changes by Client Group
4.4. The Future for Older People Care Costs
4.5. The Future for Learning Disabilities Care Costs
4.6. The Future for Mentally Ill Care Costs
4.7. The Future for Physical Disabilities Care Costs
4.8. The Future for Other Adult Services Care Costs
4.9. The Future for Assessment & Care Management Costs
4.10. Trends in Supporting People Grant
4.11. The Impact of Potential Efficiency Savings
4.12. Factoring in the Implementation of the White Paper
4.13. The Future for Client Contributions and Other Income - NHS expenditure on continuing care and implications for Local Authorities
5.1. Current Situation
5.2. Implications for Local Authorities - Implications of Analysis
download publication
Review of costs of community care and continuing care in London (PDF, 336.40Kb)
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/healthandadultservices/publications/rev...
New research points way to save capital billionsReleased on 25 January 2010
New research unveiled today by London Councils suggests that devolution from central government and quangos to a local level could save billions of pounds from the capital's public purse.
London Councils commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) to map public expenditure in the capital and to investigate how the government's 'Total Place' approach might improve services for Londoners. Their research showed that £73.6 billion of public money was spent in London in 2008/09- or around £10,000 for each Londoner.
However, less than half was directed through bodies that are directly accountable to Londoners - the capital's boroughs and the Greater London Authority.
Local government in London has no control over the 156 quangos responsible for £5.6 billion of the capital's public expenditure bill in 2008/09.
Nor does it have any say over the £25 billion spent by national government departments in the capital. Just one government department (Department for Work and Pensions) accounts for £11 billion of the capital's total public expenditure.
related documents
Total Place final report 25 Jan 10 (PDF, 956.91Kb)
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/media/current/pressdetail.htm?pk=926
The Better Government Initiative produced four reports for its first plenary meeting at the Ditchley Foundation in April 2007 on "Parliament and the Executive", "Secretaries of State and Departments", "The Centre of Government", and "The NHS and Local Government". The reports were revised in the light of discussion at that meeting, sent to all three political parties and posted on this website in July 2007. These reports can be found by clicking here: Previous Reports
A further meeting was held at the Ditchley Foundation in October 2007, and the earlier reports were refined in the light of the discussions there, and new ones added.
Three of the reports which emerged from the October 2007 Conference can be found by clicking on the links below. Others will be added shortly.
http://www.bettergovernmentinitiative.co.uk/da/57699
Councils will no longer be assessed annually on their adult social care performance by the Care Quality Commission from next year.
Care services minister Paul Burstow made the announcement today at the National Children and Adult Services Conference in Manchester.
The final assessment of councils' performance in commissioning care will come out on 25 November.
The reform will take immediate effect so councils will no longer have to collate or submit data against the CQC's outcomes framework for 2010-11.
The annual assessment will be replaced by a more localised assessment system, which will be defined over the coming months.
Burstow told council leaders he wanted to strip out "unnecessary bureaucracy" and rein back "regulatory pressures that are needlessly burdensome on your day-to-day work".
He added: "You've already told us that the CQC's annual performance assessment of commissioning isn't the best way to tackle under performance. We've listened, we've understood and we've acted. We will not be taking forward the assessments next year.
"In their place, real time, ongoing...not the artificial snapshots that are currently taken within the system. It's a more proportionate and constructive system built around local accountability, driven by sector-led, mutual support, not the unhelpful stigma of priority for improvement status."
Cynthia Bower, CQC's chief executive, said: "The annual performance assessment played an important role in driving improvements in council commissioning of care. However, we recognise the need for change.
"We welcome this move to further devolve responsibility for the monitoring and improvement of council performance, bringing it closer to local people. This supports the drive to have more local accountability of public services."
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/11/03/115726/Burstow-scraps...
Burstow: CQC will continue to probe councils when there are concerns
The Care Quality Commission will continue to inspect councils when it has concerns about their adult social work practice, care minister Paul Burstow has revealed.
Earlier the week Burstow announced that the CQC would no longer conduct an annual assessments of councils.
Burstow said: "There will still be the possibility of inspections being triggered on the basis of risks and concerns."
He said the government wanted inspections to be more responsive, adding that the current system took up to a year between inspection and publication.
"It will change CQC's relationship with councils. It will be more about quality assurance and working with them to ensure quality across providers," he added.
Burstow said more details on how inspections would be triggered would be published later this year in a consultation document on the transparency and outcomes framework for adult social care, due to be published alongside the government's vision for adult social care.
Full coverage of the NCAS conference
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/11/05/115744/cqc-will-conti...
Communities secretary Eric Pickles has upped the ante in his battle to tackle perceived 'excess' in chief executives' pay - publishing a list of council bosses who have defied his demand for restraint.
Ahead of next month's local government elections, Mr Pickles has released details of those chief executives who have refused to take a minimum 5% pay cut if they earn in excess of prime minister David Cameron’s £142,000 salary – and those who are on lower salaries but who have refused to freeze their pay levels as councils make cuts.
The list includes Paul Walker, chief executive of Hartlepool MBC, who has accepted a £10,000 annual pay increase – taking his annual salary to £168,000.
Critics have pointed to Hartlepool's recent decision to slash £5.5m from the council's budget, and questioned whether the authority’s most senior manager should accept a pay rise during the period.
In similar fashion, Mr Pickles' list highlights also pay rises for Middlesbrough Council chief Ian Parker (reported at £7,300), Halton's chief David Parr (£5,270) and Newcastle Council's Barry Rowland (£5,000).
'This reveals how the vested interests of some chief executives are taking precedence over protecting frontline services,'Mr Pickles said.
But Mr Pickles himself stands accused of playing party politics with council chief executives’ pay in advance of next month's votes. The majority of the councils on his 'hit list' are led by either Labour or Liberal Democrat administrations.
Just one Conservative-led council – Chorley BC – finds its way onto the list. Chorley’s Donna Hill has, according to Mr Pickles' figures, accepted a £900 annual pay rise.
A senior Labour Party source told LocalGov.co.uk:'Eric Pickles would score very highly for party politics so close to the local elections. It’s time to stop these attacks on apolitical council chief executives. It does little to help [local government] during tough times for councils.'
http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=97916
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1