Local solutions for family breakdown

Conservative MP Mark Field on Westminster Council's Family Recovery Programme

We live in a fractured society. Amongst other developments the rise of the internet, multiple media outlets and global travel, on a scale unimaginable a couple of decades ago, have wrenched apart the traditional guises of community and common experience. The rise of anti-social behaviour, sickening media reports of child abuse, the increase in violent crime and the trappings of a woefully inadequate benefit system all reflect utter social transformation in many of our communities.

This sense that society is, in some part at least, broken has attracted many newspaper headlines and, in response, some tough-sounding policies from central government. Yet, these problems persist and social breakdown on such a mass scale is not an exaggeration nor a political football - it is a sad reality. The issues involved are serious and it is time to realise that they can be countered best not at the national level but locally where the nature and scale of such problems can differ enormously.

I strongly believe that local breakdown requires local solutions. As such I was delighted to welcome to the House of Commons on Wednesday a team highlighting Westminster City Council's Family Recovery Programme (FRP). The FRP is an encouraging example of a Conservative run local authority taking a pioneering lead in tackling social deprivation in all of its forms.

Tackling child poverty in Kent

This week Cllr Paul Carter the leader of Kent County Council gave evidence this week to the Child Poverty Bill committee. the Tory MP for Henley, John Howell, pointed out that Cllr Carter evidence was also relevant to another matter - the requirement under the Sustainable Communities Act for public bodies to give a breakdown of spending in different localities. The Government has effectively wriggled out of the undertaking.

The point is to look at the total amount of public spending from different sources to see if some of the duplication and bureaucracy could be stripped away.  Cllr Colin Barrow, the leader of Westminster Council, has outlined an approach of looking at the small number of families with serious problems and pulling together public services to provide effective help.

Cllr Carter says Kent are following the same course. He says:

We are only just starting the journey. Clearly, Westminster is further ahead in looking at the 50 or 100 such families in Westminster and therefore in trying to establish what the solutions are, what the totality of public resource going into the support of those families is, and what are the better solutions that give better outcomes at lesser cost. As I say, it is one of our themes in the Total Place concept around the Margate renewal programme. For example, I am told that, regarding the assessment cost of vulnerable families, you get two, three or even four different officers of the various public agencies knocking on the same doors and asking the same questions, so the assessment cost is not what it ought to be, because we have not joined up helping and supporting families with either single access to the support mechanism or single assessment of their needs.
 

He adds:

In one shape or form, the amount of public agency support going to each of those families is more than £100,000 or £150,000. When you then start to talk to the health economy and the educational economy through to special needs, all of them are acting in isolation. With the health economy, the special needs economy and the public agencies, if you looked at the totality of expenditure on those 15, 20 or 100 families—more than £150,000—and thought about that pooled resource, would you start to do things dramatically differently that would lead to much more positive outcomes for those vulnerable families?

Hammersmith and Fulham Council are protecting the vulnerable

It would have been easy for Hammersmith and Fulham to achieve a cut in the Council Tax by cutting grants to voluntary groups. This was not the approach we chose to take. In my borough the amount we have spent on the voluntary sector has increased overall despite our cutting the Council Tax each year. When we took over we reviewed which groups were getting funding and some, such as Law Centres, had cuts. We also reduced the numbers administering the grants. But we also gave new groups a chance and we increased total funding has from £4,192.233 to £4,276.077 and have continued to increase it since. This year it is £4,480, 299.

Yet a reportin The Guardian this morning suggest the Council Tax cuts are financed by a "squeeze" on the voluntary sector. I think the use of the word "squeeze" is clever. It implies the money has gone down but is a term compatible with the amount of money going up - albeit by less than the writer would have liked. The Labour MP Andrew Slaughter is quoted expressing indignation. He has got a nerve. When he was Council leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council he cut the spending on this by 10% in just one year from £4,452, 009 in 2002/03 down to £4,025,989 in 2003/04. Faced with a budget out of control and bureaucracy at the Town Hall expanding he took it out on the poor and vulnerable by slashing spending to the voluntary sector. Now he poses as their champion. What a fraud.

The Guardian also suggests our Council Tax cuts were based on Home Care charges. They say we are charging £12.40 an hour charge to 600 of our 1,800 home care users. It's actually £10.50. But there is a wider point: Is it just for a Home Care user with a high income to have the service provided free or subsidised at the expense of a Council Taxpayer on a low income?

Here are some details of our excellent record for adult social care services:

Adult social care

• Helping those in moderate need: We are one of eight London authorities (25 nationally) to offer support to the "upper moderate band of need."
• Home care charging: Held at £10.50 an hour currently. The maximum charge could have been £12.40 which is cost to the council even that is well below average charge for London (£13.30). Only one council in London and four in the country do not charge for home care. Out of 78,000 households around 1750 to 1800 people receive home care and only 340 people have been invoiced for home care. Only those who can afford to do so are asked to make this contribution to the cost of their care (they must have income 25% above income support levels).
• Meals on wheels: The demand for the this service is down from 600 service users in 2002 to 320 in 2008. The proposed price for H&F hot delivered meals is £3:80. This is still below many other councils.
• Occupational therapy:  No waiting list over past three years; waiting times for adaptations reduced from 1 year to 3.5 months and £150,000 saving.
• Procurement:  70% of adult social care spend with independent suppliers; smart commissioning and procurement to reduce costs and improve satisfaction.
• Sheltered housing: The Government’s Supporting People Grant is being cut from £14 million down to £11 million. There are 17500 elderly people in Hammersmith & Fulham and around 1400 in sheltered housing. By recommissioning the housing related support services the council  will ensure that sheltered housing landlords provide enhanced housing management services. Supported housing funding levels for the elderly will be maintained and services will also be extended to  the
  elderly that are not currently in sheltered housing via floating support services across all tenures.
   

Memo to Alan Duncan: Make prisoners work

Glyn Gaskarth, of the Local Government Information Unit, says prisons provide poor value for money - devolving responsibility for prison work to councils would help.

The Governments borrowing requirement this year is £175 billion. Next year it is projected to be £173 billion. This is unsustainable. To reduce it politicians will have to cut public spending not merely limit it’s growth. To limit these cuts existing programmes need to be redesigned to provide the same level of service for less money. In particular, prisons need to be comprehensively reformed to ensure taxpayer value. Below are five suggestions to improve the prison system, which I make in a personal capacity. They do not represent the policy line of the LGiU but we would welcome the contribution of Conservative Home readers to influence our thinking in this area.

1. End prisoner unemployment and sick pay:

Prisoners’ unemployment and short term sickness pay amounts to £2.50 per week. Long term sickness pay amounts to £3.25 per week. These allowances are paid if the offender has expressed an interest in working but has not been found employment or is otherwise unable to work. The Home Office reveal that it is too costly to differentiate at a central level between how much is paid to prisoners who work and how much is paid in unemployment benefit. However, the combined budget for prison earnings and prisoner benefit payments amounted to £32,617,477 in 2007/08. This is disbursed at the discretion of the Prison Governor pursuant to national guidelines. There seems to be little reason for these allowances. They could be terminated. If prisoners are not working they should not be paid. The fundamentals of substance, shelter etc are already provided free of charge. The expenditure on unemployment benefit constitutes waste. It should be cut.

Barnet adopts EasyCouncil model

There's a (reasonably balanced) report splashed in The Guardian this morning about the philosophy as well as practical changes in Barnet Council in seeking savings of £16 million a year. The approach has been dubbed EasyCouncil. Providing good, reliable basic services, keeping the costs down and being transparent about those costs, on the EasyJet model. Their Future Shape of the Council proposals plan greater involvement for the private sector and the voluntary sector and a "self help" philosophy.

The most controversial proposal is considered to be a reduction in the number of live-in wardens covering sheltered housing for the elderly. They are felt to be simply too expensive. A system of "floating wardens" is planned. Some residents are worried about the replacement of an emergency cord in their room as it would take longer for them to get help in an emergency. One would have to know the details. Are the "live-in" wardens actually there 24/7? Would the floating wardens be available 24/7? In sheltered housing block in my ward, residents complained that they have two wardens working Monday to Friday, nine to five, while they would rather have them working in shifts and covering evenings and weekends. 

The Fire Brigade advise that the most effective way for savings lives in installing sprinkler systems and Barnet are fortunate in this regard in having Brian Coleman who is a champion of this life saving measure - whatever we might think of his enthusiasm for taxis.

Apart from health and safety it is pointed out that wardens help to combat loneliness for residents. But surely this is an area where greater involvement from the voluntary sector should be encouraged? There are plenty of us who are happy to keep old people company because we want to, not because we are paid. That can do far more that the state possibly could.

Another change which is proving popular with the elderly, as well as saving money, is greater help for people to remain independent.

The Guardian reports the case of 87-year-old Sarah Walker.

When discharged she had to use a walking frame, struggled with the stairs and couldn't cook meals or make her own bed. She worried the local authority would want to put her in a home, but because it now has a policy of trying to avoid expensive long-term care, it instead offered a burst of intensive help in a bid to help her regain her independence, and it worked.

"I had three carers a day for the first week," she said. "One in the morning, one at lunchtime and one in the evening. They gave me the confidence to get back to doing things for myself. At the end of six weeks I was managing quite well and I am independent now. It would be a waste of money if they were sending someone once a week for evermore, so this was the right approach for me."

How else might the self help approach be encouraged for residents in general? "The snowfall this winter was a good example," said Nick Walkley, the Council's Chief Executive. "A lot of people phoned the council to ask when we were going to come along to clear the pavement. In the past most residents would have got out their spades and cleared the pavement in front of their house … We need to think about which of those approaches is the right model."

Growing old in Westminster

Cllr Christabel Flight, a Conservative member of Westminster Council, on initiatives to prevent the elderly being lonely and isolated - from tea dances, to cricket to musicals.

I joined Westminster City Council representing Warwick Ward in May 2006.  When interviewed prior to becoming a Councillor I stated that what I really wanted to do was to make a difference to the lives of many of the elderly who live in Westminster. I was very grateful to be made Westminster’s Older People’s Champion.

The appointment of an ‘Older People’s Champion' is something new which some, but not all Councils have adopted.  I had virtually a blank sheet of paper to define the role and the objectives, but invaluable support from Sir Simon Milton, who was then Westminster’s Leader.  It became clear that the key aspects of the role were:

1. To be a special point of contact for senior citizens across Westminster to help address all manner of problems.
2. To inspect and review our many existing facilities for older people, and to act as an ombudsman where clearly changes and improvements were needed.
3. To organise major, attractive entertainment events.  Here the key challenges were to line up the sponsorship/funding and to establish the machinery to communicate forthcoming events and to organise the bookings from our older citizens.

Westminster had decided to launch “Every Older Person matters” at the time and also launched a quarterly magazine called “Westminster Plus” which is now circulated to every person in Westminster who applies for
a Freedom Pass – over 21,000 people.  I jointly edit this journal with NHS Westminster, but the input is very much a combined effort from people working in Westminster’s Adults Department.

What Councils could do to promote marriage

Nick Gulliford says Councils run registry offices but don't make the best use of this responsibility.

Those interested in this subject may like to see - now or later - what I wrote at Conservative Home Platform under, "The Government could be doing much more to encourage strong relationships". The excellent news since then has been the announcement during her speech to the Conservative Party Conference on 30th September by Maria Miller MP, Shadow Minister for the Family:

"Most young couples now get married in a civil ceremony. Unlike a church wedding, there is no tradition of pre-marriage preparation for couples marrying at a registry office. We want that to change. We want local registrars to start signposting couples to pre-marital education as a matter of routine. The Local Government Association who co-ordinate the role of wedding registrars, agree and I am pleased to say that they [are] putting forward this policy so that every young couple getting married will be made aware of the benefits they would get from relationship support at this critical point in their life. In the US, couples who have this type of pre-marriage education are a third less likely to divorce. We want this type of support for couples to be routine in Britain too."

The tough 3%. Tackling anti social behaviour in Westminster.

Cllr Colin Barrow, leader of Westminster Council, says 3% of the families in his borough are in chronic difficulties causing great trouble and expense for the other 97%. He has a plan.

The impending recession will inevitably mean a change of emphasis from social and environmental to economic issues. But as stretched incomes and poorer job prospects impact on families, the need for Conservatives to address the pressing social problems identified in Breakdown Britain will become more urgent.

Westminster Council is currently trialling an approach to restore the pride and purpose of families facing the most chronic and complex difficulties. We think it will reduce crime, improve life chances and in time reduce public spending. It’s called Family Recovery and will use a combined public services team to address the needs of those families living in the heart of London who have a history of behavioural problems, from petty crime to drug abuse.

There are up to 600 families in Westminster, around 3% of the total population with these severe difficulties.  They account for around 80% of the social spending we undertake, a massive commitment to a tiny minority of citizens. These are people who may never live contented lives with a good job, whose children fail at school and live in homes where rent payments are made irregularly.

Should Conservative councils cut council tax for all or give rebates to some?

Both the Daily Mail and the East Anglian Daily Times report on Tory-controlled Essex County Council's plan to give £200 council tax rebates to some low income council taxpayers.

Lord Hanningfield, leader of Essex CC, hopes to work with the Department of Work & Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs to identify those most deserving of help.  Poorer families, pensioners and servicemen's families are apparently most in his mind:

“A lot of people are suffering, particularly old people, through increases in energy and food costs and this wouldn't just be for people over 65. Our job as a county council is to help these people. Essex (County Council) is for Essex people and they are suffering and are likely to suffer even more in the winter.”

The move has been welcomed by Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers' Alliance.  Mr Wallace told the EADT that "economic conditions are increasingly difficult and taxes are placing an intolerable burden on household budgets.”  Some will wonder, however, about the administrative complexity of Essex's proposal and whether rather than targeting relief on some families it would be more sensible to deliver across-the-board cuts in council tax.  The Guardian contrasts the Essex approach with Hammersmith & Fulham's delivery of a 3% cut in council tax over two successive years.

This is not the first time that Essex Tories have been willing to embrace an innovative approach to a topical problem.  Earlier this year the Council put aside £1.5m to save endangered post offices.  The Council also runs an online vote on spending priorities.  Participants in the vote can win £50 a week.