a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 1/47 - A Quiet Crisis

A Quiet Crisis

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 2/47 - About the New Policy Institute

About the New Policy Institute

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 3/47 - Table of Contents

Table of Contents

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 4/47 - 5. How spending on disadvantage varies f…

5. How spending on disadvantage varies for different types of area........................................... 34 5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 34 5.2. The role of core spending power in determining spending reductions .............................. 34 5.3. Variations in spending by type of local authority ............................................................... 34 5.4. Variations in spending by level of local deprivation........................................................... 36 5.5. Variations in spending by region ....................................................................................... 40 5.6. Variation in spending by urban/rural ................................................................................. 41 5.7. Summary .......................................................................................................................... 43

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 5/47 - Executive summary

Executive summary

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 6/47 - single element (�5.4bn). This was follow…

single element (�5.4bn). This was followed by looked-after children (�4.4bn) and temporary accommodation (�0.9bn).

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 7/47 - boroughs, mainly in the eastern half of …

boroughs, mainly in the eastern half of the capital. A third of the total are coastal districts. By contrast, the least deprived councils in England have increased spending on disadvantage. Finally, different types of council have faced different demand pressures, and so have responded to revenue cuts in different ways. The most striking case is London, which has increased spending on housing disadvantage by 20% in the face of a 30% increase in its homelessness acceptance rate. This is in contrast to cuts ranging from 16% to 45% elsewhere. London has also cut spending on disadvantage in adult social care more than other areas and has cut, rather than increased, its spending on disadvantage in child social care. Conclusions Although spending on disadvantage has been reduced by less than overall spending, reflecting a mixture of prioritisation and statutory responsibility, it has still been cut overall and in the context of rising demand for many of these services. Changes to the local authority funding model � further reductions in central government grant and a greater reliance on locally generated revenue, both from council and business rate, further undermine the link between an areas need and an areas capacity to fund. Without a change of direction, some authorities may be trapped in a downward spiral when it comes to spend on disadvantage. Even if a council as a whole is not in crisis, many of the people who depend on its services may be. There needs to be a broader debate on how many services local authorities are expected to deliver with a reduced revenue base, whether statutory or preventive, and to what extent differences in this delivery � and ultimately the level of service and outcomes achievable for some of our most disadvantaged and vulnerable citizens � should be tolerated across the country. The risk is instead that the areas and people that face disadvantage are left further behind.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 8/47 - 1. Introduction

1. Introduction

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 9/47 - looks at how different types of areas ha…

looks at how different types of areas have fared over this time period. Chapter six considers the policy implications of the findings.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 10/47 - The time period was selected for the ana…

The time period was selected for the analysis to go as far back as possible within the constraints of earlier, less detailed spending data. Welsh authorities have been excluded to maintain a consistent data source for this analysis.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 11/47 - 2. Overview of local government funding …

2. Overview of local government funding and responsibilities

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 12/47 - Geographically, London boroughs, the Nor…

Geographically, London boroughs, the North East and the North West have experienced the most significant cuts in central government funding per person.5

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 13/47 - Retrenchment: rolling back volume or ac…

Retrenchment: rolling back volume or access to services.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 14/47 - councils, who received more from central…

councils, who received more from central government based on higher need and have less capacity to raise their own revenue. � Councils have also received more responsibilities from central government in recent years, such as administering local welfare schemes or council tax support schemes. These additional responsibilities are generally inadequately funded. � Councils have responded to these circumstances in a range of ways. Originally this was through increasing efficiencies, but also including reducing services, charging fees to service users, increasing thresholds for eligibility.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 15/47 - 3. Defining spending on disadvantage

3. Defining spending on disadvantage

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 16/47 - 3.3. Childrens social care

3.3. Childrens social care

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 17/47 - 3.5. Other areas of spending supporting …

3.5. Other areas of spending supporting people facing disadvantage

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 18/47 - the total is constructed, and secondly a…

the total is constructed, and secondly according to the categories of disadvantage to which the spending is applied.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 19/47 - Figure 1. Service spending on disadvanta…

Figure 1. Service spending on disadvantage by category in 2016/17

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 20/47 - 4. How service spending and demand for s…

4. How service spending and demand for services have changed over time

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 21/47 - Figure 2. Total expenditure by service t…

Figure 2. Total expenditure by service type in 2016/17

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 22/47 - Change in spending between 2011/12 and 2…

Change in spending between 2011/12 and 2016/17

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 23/47 - reductions in social security are then l…

reductions in social security are then likely to make people facing disadvantage more likely to use council services, such as housing advice or homelessness support. Also important in this context is the growth in Englands population over this period, 4% between 2011/12 and 2016/17, and higher in London (7%). The child population (0-15) and the older adult population (65+) have grown faster over this period, by 5% and 13% respectively. This is also putting pressure on local authority budgets.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 24/47 - Number of people facing disadvantage sup…

Number of people facing disadvantage supported by adult social care services

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 25/47 - Services have flagged the risk of cuttin…

Services have flagged the risk of cutting discretionary services at the cost of long-term rising demand26.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 26/47 - London boroughs31. Rough sleeping too ha…

London boroughs31. Rough sleeping too has increased, from 1,800 people sleeping rough on one night in 2010, up to 4,000 in 2016 based on MHCLG data.32

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 27/47 - fallen by 25%, services for adults who m…

fallen by 25%, services for adults who misuse drugs fell by 21% and those for adults who misuse alcohol rose by 15%.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 28/47 - There have been quite large increases in…

There have been quite large increases in asylum seeker support spending: a 25% increase of �6m per year for adults and a large 68% or �56m increase for support for children. These reflect statutory responsibilities for councils, and an increase in asylum applications and grants between 2010 and 2015.36 Asylum grants rose from 5,200 in 2010 to 13,900 in 2015, before falling again to 6,500 in 2016. There were also increases in spending for safeguarding children and young people of 9% or �167m over this period and for looked-after children of �179m or 4%. In contrast, many smaller expenditure streams were cut: over the course of two years, spending on carers support and family support both fell 5%, and youth justice spending fell by 14%. The largest cuts were in services for adults with substance misuse problems, which fell by 59% or �59m over these two years.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 29/47 - Figure 5. Prevention and crisis spending…

Figure 5. Prevention and crisis spending in housing services.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 30/47 - spend on non-housing and non-urgent serv…

spend on non-housing and non-urgent services for those facing disadvantage. These cuts in preventive services come with risks: they may simply be deferring costs and risk increasing them in the longer term. For example, cutting upfront services such as advice and support to help people remain in accommodation could then lead to further costs if the tenancy is lost through homelessness processes and temporary accommodation.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 31/47 - homeless households in priority need unt…

homeless households in priority need until inquiries into the application have ended or secure accommodation is found. In other cases, a statutory duty can be more flexible. For example, childrens centres are to be provided to meet local need, as far as that is practical. These are not the only factors that influence whether a service will be `protected or not. There are others such as political priorities � for example, in some authorities councillors had promised no library closures before their election, so these councils may prioritise these. The relatively strong inspectorate for childrens social care services is another factor in the protection of these services.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 32/47 - Box 1. The impact of local authority cut…

Box 1. The impact of local authority cuts on service users

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 33/47 - 4.11. Summary

4.11. Summary

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 34/47 - 5. How spending on disadvantage varies f…

5. How spending on disadvantage varies for different types of area

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 35/47 - Figure 6. Composition of spending on dis…

Figure 6. Composition of spending on disadvantage by authority type.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 36/47 - In contrast, spending on disadvantage in…

In contrast, spending on disadvantage in housing has fallen drastically in both unitary authorities and metropolitan districts, by 38% and 45% respectively.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 37/47 - Local authorities in the most deprived f…

Local authorities in the most deprived fifth allocate 23% of spending to those facing disadvantage. This declines for less deprived authorities: 20% for the middle fifth, and 19% for the least deprived fifth of councils.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 38/47 - Figure 9. Change in spending on disadvan…

Figure 9. Change in spending on disadvantage by area deprivation.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 39/47 - Change in spending from 2011/12 to 2016/…

Change in spending from 2011/12 to 2016/17 (�Millions )

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 40/47 - 5.5. Variations in spending by region

5.5. Variations in spending by region

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 41/47 - The other two regions are London and the…

The other two regions are London and the East Midlands, both of which had relatively large average reductions in core spending power (16% and 18% respectively), but low reductions in spending on disadvantage in Londons case, and an increase in the East Midlands case. For London, this is despite cuts on childrens social care (-2%) and large cuts to spending on disadvantage in adult social care. The low overall reduction, therefore, is largely due to rapidly increasing spending on providing housing support for rising statutory homelessness: Londons spend on disadvantage in housing has increased by 20%, whereas other regions have cut their housing spend by up to 52%. This implies a compositional shift in Londons spending on disadvantage, having to meet more housing-related need at the expense of social care.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 42/47 - Figure 13. Change in spending on disadva…

Figure 13. Change in spending on disadvantage by category and geography.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 43/47 - Figure 14. Comparing housing disadvantag…

Figure 14. Comparing housing disadvantage spending and homelessness acceptances

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 44/47 - The biggest reductions in spending on di…

The biggest reductions in spending on disadvantage have been by metropolitan districts: 8% reductions compared to smaller cuts or increases by unitary authorities, London boroughs, and shires and districts. Metropolitan districts are generally northern cities with high levels of deprivation.

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 45/47 - 6. Conclusions and policy implications

6. Conclusions and policy implications

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 46/47 - outreach, less access to employment, tra…

outreach, less access to employment, training and education provision, and less capacity to respond to complex needs."49

a-quiet-crisis-full-report.pdf - page 47/47 - disadvantage receive is dependent on the…

disadvantage receive is dependent on the economic success of their local authority and not their level of need. This could create a postcode lottery for services. The research in this report suggests a few key requirements for a local government finance system which allows for: