Budget Consultation Research Findings presented to Gloucestershire County Council October 2006.

Budget Consultation

Research Findings presented to Gloucestershire County Council

October 2006

Main objectives

• A two-part study to examine residents’ views on specific budget areas and proposals for keeping Council Tax down

• Research objectives were to

– develop a framework through research that will inform budget planning for the next three years

– identify people’s priorities for savings, spending or charging within a context of low council tax

– research a series of specific budget ‘dilemmas’, designed to improve cost-efficiency for the future three years

– provide input towards development of the budget package in January 2007

Method• First phase of qualitative research based on the Budget Stories

Document supplied by GCC – comprising six budget workshops (8-10 people in each group)– held in Cheltenham, Gloucester and Cirencester and including residents

from Stroud, Tewkesbury and the Forest– a wide range of ages (from 17 to 80) and a split of males & females– with varying family circumstances and levels of income

• Second phase quantitative survey– a telephone interview with 303 randomly-selected residents across the

County (50 in each District)– a 16-minute interview with the person in the household ‘solely or jointly

responsible for the payment of Council Tax’– the questionnaire was developed in association with Officers, building on

the outcome of the Workshops

General budget attitudes

Overall budget attitudes

• Respondents were pleased to hear that there was a mood to keep Council Tax down

– people on lower incomes and pensions were quite agitated about rising CT

• In terms of making savings, respondents were reluctant to make ‘cuts’ in services, but they had views that overspending lay in

– overheads, such as salaries or employees– perceived wastage in projects around the County

• In general, there was some interest in using ‘charging’ to raise revenue

and little interest in selling off buildings and land without good reasons

• Raising Council Tax was resisted strongly– although some people were more willing to consider rises in relation to the

needs of vulnerable people

Attitudes towards CT• Nearly 60% agreed they would pay for the current service level to be maintained

– although a large majority said that the first priority should be to make savings

77

59 57

50

-11

-28 -26

-35 -34

61

35

-51

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

the first priority shouldbe to make savings,

before asking for moremoney

I object to payingincreased CT

services should bemaintained at current

levels and I amprepared to pay

I accept CT increasesas inevitable

I cannot afford to payincreased CT

services are adequatealready; there's no

need to improve

disagree, disagree strongly

agree, agree strongly

Budget priorities

Where did people want money prioritised?

• The people-related items were prioritised, especially – schools, more so primary– care for people with mental health needs– services for older people

• Environmental initiatives such as renewable energy and methods to reduce landfill were also popular

– when people were made aware that rubbish disposal might include this, they prioritised it

• Their mood appeared to be– more about targeted services rather than ‘blanket’ provision– about long-term thinking, rather than ‘the quick fix’– encouraging people to be more self-sufficient where they can

Candidates for making savings 1

• Some interesting logic was applied– road safety was cut if it meant reducing money spent on new road

layouts or signage• but not when it meant less on education campaigns or reducing speed

outside schools

– trading standards was also considered by some people to be too over-extravagant, with the belief that people are more aware through the media now

– street lighting could also be considered unnecessary except for crime black spots

• it can also be viewed an energy wastage


• Various demographics were at play– younger people without children tended to save on libraries, whilst

older people would prioritise them

– older people without children in schools were less interested in education but still prioritised it

– urban residents thought that gritting was over-done and this was often nominated for cuts, whilst rural residents were more in favour


• Unfortunately people also saved on services which they did not understand fully, for example

– youth services, on the basis that youth club buildings are abused or not used BUT not if it is things for young people to do

– public transport because it was seen to be private and profit making

– interest on loans: people do not accept that some initiatives are financed this way

Priorities for more spending 1• There were seven service areas where more than a half of the

population believed that more money should be spent

43

47

57

77

34

55

42

51

60

41

54

17

24

17

56

45

22

17

26

21

37

22

8

38

22

25

23

28

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

secondary schools

primary schools

special education

care for older people

support/care of children & families

support/care for people with learning disabilities

fire & rescue service

repair & improvement of pavements

repair & improvement of local roads

repair & improvement of main roads

support/care for people with physical disabilities

transport from home to school/college

rubbish disposal

libraries

care for people with mental health needs

youth services

pre-school education

street lighting

education outside school

gritting & snow cleaning

public transport

consumer protection & trading stds

planning services

road safety

lifelong learning

grants to charities & the voluntary sector

economic & community development

flood defence

registrar & coroner services

Priorities for more spending 2

• The order of priorities is very similar to the last budget consultation survey (in 2004 with the Panel), although there are a few major differences amongst the top dozen

Category Rank in 2006 Rank in 2004

care for older people repair & improvement of local roads special education care for people with mental health needs support/care for people with learning disabilities support/care for people with physical disabilities repair & improvement of pavements primary schools youth services secondary schools fire & rescue service repair & improvement of main roads

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

1 2= 5 4 7 6

2= 9= 8

9= 7

2=

Priorities for less spending• Outwith the context that a workshop discussion can deliver, there were almost

no candidates for spending less money next year

3

2

3

1

13

1

2

8

5

4

1

15

5

12

2

6

18

16

14

8

6

7

20

8

15

16

17

14

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

secondary schools

primary schools

special education

care for older people

support/care of children & families

support/care for people with learning disabilities

fire & rescue service

repair & improvement of pavements

repair & improvement of local roads

repair & improvement of main roads

support/care for people with physical disabilities

transport from home to school/college

rubbish disposal

libraries

care for people with mental health needs

youth services

pre-school education

street lighting

education outside school

gritting & snow cleaning

public transport

consumer protection & trading stds

planning services

road safety

lifelong learning

grants to charities & the voluntary sector

economic & community development

flood defence

registrar & coroner services

Responses to ‘your voice’ themes and specific issues

Supporting communities and vulnerable people 1

• There was significant concern about the growing population of older people and how to serve them

– however, there were also requests to tailor services to demand and a realisation that many older people are independent and need little support

• Discussions around disabled people were mostly supportive of funding and, for the most vulnerable, this is exactly what CT should pay for

• There was some emerging backlash towards paying to ensure all people with disabilities had access to everything, without taking into account the reality of whether that person would be able to take full advantage

The overall response was strongly supportive of this theme as an area of funding as long as proper assessment and controls are in

place


• In response to specific questions about using volunteers– as long as grants are properly monitored, then using the voluntary sector in principle is

perceived to be a good thing

• BUT ‘using too many volunteers’ can be understood as expecting people to prop up social services or the health services

– it is welcomed when talked of in terms of commissioning an organisation with expertise in certain areas, or providing a very niche service, especially if the alternative is to hand out blanket grants to people to do anything with

• Respondents found it difficult to answer how to best help people make choices and run their own lives

– they agree with self-sufficiency, but it depends on the circumstances and whether in-home support is actually delivered and easy to access

– they agree with helping older people in their own homes, but they resist closing residential care homes as they believe there are people who suit the social interaction of such facilities

These issues received a high qualified ‘yes, but…’


• In general, respondents were happy with the idea of a simple self-assessment for basic services in order to reduce lead times and save money

– as long as the full-assessment was improved as well– “It’s only common sense!”

• The library proposals were broadly agreed with and people were more in favour of ‘social need’ provision of libraries rather than a service for ‘everyone’, although this was strongly polarised

– “It think it is an excellent service, it is a bit intimidating at first but once you get used to it.” 55+

– “It’s important for older people but I say save money on them because young people don’t need them” 18-25

• Whilst there was support for ensuring ‘the same access as the rest of us’ for ill or disabled people, this varied depending on the circumstances (eg leisure versus workplace)

– “If you are disabled, it doesn’t mean you can’t afford things.”

Mostly broad agreement for these issues

Ensuring every child thrives 1• Focussing spending ‘for every child’ was generally prioritised

• The problems of families in difficulties were considered to be very topical and caused significant anger about the lack of parenting skills and discipline generally. A level of exasperation expressed from all age groups

• There was, therefore, hidden resentment at the idea of ‘mainstream’ kids possibly losing out because funding was now having to deal with ‘behavioural’ issues or ‘problem families’, although they agree with earlier prevention strategies

– nevertheless, a few individual cases or stories of successful support came through and demonstrated the benefits of channelling funding this way

Acceptance that the situation needs sorting but not at the expense of ‘every child’

“It is a tightrope to walk.”

Ensuring every child thrives 2

• With regard to the ‘provision of buildings’– ‘spending on new buildings’ was not perceived to solve all the problems

and, if this was at the expense of services, they would not be happy• but it does depend - eg people make positive comments about GL1, new health

centres and new facilities in regeneration areas

– if maintaining old buildings was uneconomic and they weren’t being used enough or properly, then it was considered appropriate to dispose of them

• unless historically significant• unless sold to ‘luxury flat developers’

– more concentrated youth work or concentrating on specific youth events or programmes was considered better than ‘providing a building’

• but only because many youth club buildings were considered unsuccessful

There seems to be concern about ‘selling off the family silver’ but people will listen to the economic arguments as long as they can be re-assured

about the credibility of purchasers and ultimate use

“There is one at Abbeymead and I don’t know what it is used for? What’s in there?”

Ensuring every child thrives 3• With regard to school transport, it is not felt to be acceptable to cut other

services in order to pay for this (although it depends which services are being considered)

• People tend to think that a US free transport system is good but, seen in the context of saving money, they were more happy for charging to be introduced for people who can afford it or for nurseries etc

– some feel that the school buses are empty at the moment; so make them full or scrap them

• However, charging for school transport is seen as less acceptable when seen in the context of people that have to travel some distance to get to a decent school rather than being able to ‘go next door’

– also rural kids going to their catchment school should not be penalised– doubts as to whether, realistically, charging would raise much and would the Council

only save significant amounts by stopping services altogether!• and this was felt to be a step too far

Managing our environment and economy 1

• In answer to specific questions on recycling and landfill– of course people wanted educating about recycling and reducing

landfill• they also wanted information about energy efficiency and reducing household

carbon footprints

– spending more on recycling facilities depended on what was meant• people wanted the council to invest in finding companies and organisations that

will take more niche products so that landfill can be reduced• people were in favour of more public recycling facilities in urban areas but less so

in rural areas (depends if talking about large modern ‘tips’ or small bottle/clothing banks by supermarkets)

– a charge on people who don’t recycle was not immediately rejected as an idea (by people who do) but was highly controversial and caused incredulity over how it would be enforced

• despise the idea of micro-chips in wheelie bins• believe that weight measuring would encourage fly tipping

The environment is possibly one area where people would stand an increase, perceived as investment in renewables and ‘the future’

“I think we get inundated with green

messages from various sources but it

is actually having useable close

facilities.”

Managing our environment and economy 2

• In answer to specific questions on economy and regeneration– people feel rather unqualified to pronounce on these subjects but they do

tend to think that the job/economic situation is good

– certainly regeneration schemes were valued by people in Gloucester, felt to be on the up (although some complain of over-concentration on the Docks)

– there was agreement that communities should be strengthened, but it was not always felt that this should be achieved through ‘regeneration’

– attracting investment from business was liked, but there was concern whether this meant building too many shiny business parks, which did not fit with their image of Gloucestershire

– it was not understood why Gloucestershire had to lobby for investment and people where not positive about (in their minds) having to pay someone to do this!

Making transport work 1• This was considered to be an important service area; of special interest were

– park-and-rides– reducing congestion– countryside footpaths

• There were also specific concerns, dependent on area eg.– A48 in the Forest, in terms of speeding and lorries– the Cheltenham ring road in terms of congestion and joy riders

• There was spontaneous criticism about work to improve local roads and pavements, especially new road layouts and fancy kerbs

– some ‘improvements’ seem to be regarded as unnecessary– also the ‘timetable’ seemed relentless in terms of traffic disruption

• People were not commenting on the ‘repair’ side of things and also there were certain groups who did want the improvement

– older residents wanted better, flatter pavements but young people think it is unnecessary– more rural people eg. Cotswolds were more in favour of local road improvements

However, compared with the other themes, it was not a high priority for investment in Gloucestershire

Making transport work 2

• Residents were very attracted by the idea of saving money by ‘driver education’ rather than traffic calming or new road layouts

– however, in answer to whether it was more ‘effective’, they were less sure– on the whole they think some traffic calming is ineffective and causes them personal

annoyance, except for outside schools and other blackspots– in conclusion, they tended to think that new road layouts and traffic calming had gone

too far and it was time to rein back on this

• Spending on new ‘signs’ in order to reduce speed limits was highly controversial

– in part due to whether this was ‘code’ for more speed cameras– many more careful drivers professed to the ‘flash up’ signs having modified their

behaviour and so these could be seen to be good– more general ‘non-interactive’ signs were not felt to be necessary and even lower

speed limits were also resisted

Making our communities safer

• Respondents needed significant help in translating this service area– in general they think it means the police

– they can be made to understand education campaigns geared toward crime prevention or cleaning up ‘drug dens’ in the context of Council activity

• Of course, overall, they will agree with the sentiment ‘to make something safer’– however, when talking of flood defence they question the on-going drain on finance

– similarly with contingency plans they think it is important to focus on prevention (especially where terrorism is concerned) BUT they do not see it as an either/or (like you’re not going to deal with a situation when it happens?)

– many are philosophical about GCHQ being a target

– they believe they see the need to look at prevention within Gloucester’s Muslim community but they don’t know what that means

– they don’t see why businesses should be helped to keep running because they feel it is up to them and CT shouldn’t pay for it

Tough decisions

Charging for services 1• There is a quite strong acceptance of the idea of charging in several areas

– although there are clearly a few ‘no-go’ areas too

-7

-56-53

-34

-71

-21

1016

20

27

16 17

81

2423

38

12

90 60

-54

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

a charge forwedding services

congestioncharging

a charge for schooltravel

a charge for out-of-school activities

a charge for respitecare

increased chargesfor illegal parking

fines for non-recyclers

yes, definitelyyes, possiblyno

Charging for services 2

• Many suggested charging for litter and graffiti, rubbish left out and fly-tipping– other ideas included …

Charge disruptive families for constant

disturbances(Tewkesbury)

Maybe charging to put certain hardcore waste and things in the local tip - but not a high charge

(Forest)

They could introduce a nominal charge for library registration

(Cheltenham)

Yes, I don’t think libraries should be free

(Stroud)

Holiday Cottages charges

(Cotswold)

Increase various fines already in place

(Gloucester)

Small charge for museums etc. Nothing astronomical but a nominal charge would help

with running costs(Cheltenham)

Cuts in services 1• The only area where there was broad support (on balance) was “a reduction of services at

less well-used libraries in the County”

-70

-36

-67-74 -73

-47

13

27

16 15 15 16

13

34

14 10 1017

29

-64

16

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

less time/effort onfire prevention

reducing libraryservices

reducing pavementmaintenance

reducing local roadmaintenance

reducing main roadmaintenance

reducing footpathmaintenance

stopping transportfor

nurseries/churchschools


Cuts in services 2

• An enormous range of suggestions was put forward for cutting services altogether– with the largest number complaining about Council waste and bureaucracy

I would say parks, plants and flowers. So much money, it’s not

needed(Tewkesbury)

I don't see why people should be bussed across Cheltenham to

school at the tax payers' expense

Stop digging roads up all the time

(Forest)

Collect the rubbish once a fortnight(Stroud)

There are far too many people working for the council

(Stroud)

All adult education, also public transport

(Cotswold)

Reduce the number of people in council houses, because some people don't deserve it, as they

damage something and then the council replaces it free

(Gloucester)

Council buildings

• There is overwhelming support for the idea of selling off property that the Council doesn’t need

-75

-53

-41

15 1619

277

78

2216

-5

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

spend less on improvingschools/youth clubs

sell off un-needed Council property spend less on making buildingsenergy efficient

build new, rather than maintain oldbuildings


Dilemmas 1

• Residents were forced to choose between alternative policies in six areas

– trading standards either dealing with rogue traders, or educating people on their consumer rights

– the Council either spending more money on services for older people, or limiting services to older people to keep costs down

– the Council either targeting spending on children & families experiencing problems, or treating all children equally in terms of spending

– the Council either targeting its funding on voluntary groups that provide a service, or giving general grants to all voluntary groups

– the Council either educating people on how to be safer on the roads, or concentrating on safety features such as traffic calming and better road layouts

– the Council either putting rubbish that isn’t recycled into landfill, or using it to create heat and power

Dilemmas 2

60

33

7

deal with rogue traders

educate on consumer rights

unable to choose

73

90

spend more on services for older people

limit services for older people to keep costs down

unable to choose

Dilemmas 3

36

58

6

target spending on those with problems

treat all children equally

unable to choose

1432

54

target funding in the voluntary sector

give general grants to all

unable to choose

Dilemmas 4

39

52

9

educate people how to be safer on roads

concentrate on safety features (eg traffic calming)unable to choose

3

94

3

non-recycled rubbish into landfilluse to create heat and powerunable to choose

www.researchbox.co.uk

Budget Consultation Research Findings presented to Gloucestershire County Council October 2006.

Documents

Transcript of Budget Consultation Research Findings presented to Gloucestershire County Council October 2006.