Issue - meetings

Supporting People Programme - Budget Proposals

 

 

Meeting: 04/12/2012 - Cabinet (Item 93)

93 Supporting People Programme - Budget Proposals pdf icon PDF 115 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Report of the Head of Health and Housing

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Health and Housing to provide details of the proposed changes to the distribution of the Supporting People Programme Grant across Lancashire.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

 

 

 

Option 1: 60/40 model

Option 2:

50% need:50 deprivation

Option 3:

75 % need; 25% deprivation

Option 4: 100% need

Advantages

None 

None

Lancaster district’s current budget allocation would increase by 0.24% and is the preferred model that the county wish to implement.

Lancaster district’s budget allocation would increase by 7.94% and by 0.38% even after the savings have been applied. Less savings to be achieved to commission the proposed homeless hostel.

Disadvantages

Lancaster district would see a current budget reduction of -10.31% increasing to -16.14% when the savings are applied.

Lancaster district would see a current budget reduction of –4.11% increasing to -10.61% when the savings are applied.

Lancaster district’s future budget reduction would decrease by -5.11%.

This is not the county’s preferred model.

Risks

Loss and/or reduction in services particularly when the savings are applied.  

Loss and/or reduction in services particularly when the savings are applied. 

Potential loss or reduction in some services when the savings are applied but to a lesser extent than Option 1 and 2. Some districts may not support this model as the 100% needs model presents better outcomes for 10 out of the 12 districts.  Would require savings of £300k from 2015 to commission the new service.  The reduction in existing services could place more pressure on the council meeting its statutory duties although the council is not thoroughly meeting its current statutory duties towards single homeless households in a satisfactory way at present.

If there is a majority vote from districts to adopt this model, the county are not likely to support and adopt it because of the budget implications upon a neighbouring district, which is exacerbated when this model is applied.

 

The officer preferred option was Option 3, which was the County Council’s preferred model.  Whilst it did not represent the greatest financial gain for the Lancaster district, the county have to take into account the potential impact and any financial reductions imposed on all districts within the partnership by any model applied, and if districts were to vote against this model, it was highly likely that the county would refuse to implement the 100% needs model, as before with the 60/40 model, which would result in delays in planning for and implementing the necessary savings by the end of 2014/15, or the county might be forced to implement Option 3 anyway.  The preferred model meant that the resultant reductions in budget were below -20% of current budgets, which the county believe was a reasonable and rational approach.  Although there would be a need to identify savings if option 3 was approved in order to commission the homeless hostel, officers would provide a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93