Lambeth’s budget choices · 2014. 12. 18. · Lambeth’s budget choices OPM page 1 1....

252B Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8XG tel: 020 7239 7800 fax: 020 7837 5800 email: [email protected] web: http://www.opm.co.uk/default.htm

Lambeth’s budget choices

Involving residents and stakeholders in the council’s budget setting process

Report for Lambeth Council

January 2007

Docum

ent2

– r

igh

t cli

ck t

o u

pd

ate


To request a large-text version of this document, phone 020 7239 0877

OPM is a registered trademark of the Office for Public Management Ltd. ILM accredited

OPM

Contents 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1

2. Summary and recommendations ....................................................................................... 2

Residents’ survey........................................................................................................... 2

Deliberative workshops .................................................................................................. 2

Stakeholder consultation - voluntary, community and business sectors ......................... 4

Youth Council................................................................................................................. 5

Business interviews........................................................................................................ 5

Focus groups ................................................................................................................. 6

Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 1

3. Method............................................................................................................................... 2

4. Main findings...................................................................................................................... 5

Residents’ survey............................................................................................................... 5

Presentation of data ....................................................................................................... 5

Sample........................................................................................................................... 6

Initial views – Lambeth’s budget................................................................................... 11

‘The size of the cake’: Future council tax levels................................................................ 13

‘Relative sizes of the pieces of cake’: priority service areas ......................................... 15

Reasons for spending priorities .................................................................................... 18

‘What each slice is made from’: Focus on detailed budget proposals........................... 23

Deliberative workshops.................................................................................................... 26

Initial views................................................................................................................... 26

Priority service areas.................................................................................................... 27

Detailed budget choices............................................................................................... 32

Closing views ............................................................................................................... 52

Stakeholder discussion – voluntary, community and business ......................................... 56

Initial views................................................................................................................... 56



Stakeholder discussion – Youth Council .......................................................................... 66

Initial views – living in Lambeth – good bad and lacking............................................... 66


Detailed budget comments........................................................................................... 67

Closing comments........................................................................................................ 68

Business interviews ......................................................................................................... 69

Sample profile .............................................................................................................. 69

Initial views – Lambeth’s budget................................................................................... 69


OPM

‘The size of the cake’: future council tax levels............................................................. 70

‘Relative sizes of the pieces of cake’: priority service areas ......................................... 72

‘What each slice is made from’: Focus on specific service proposals .......................... 74

5. Focus groups – young people.......................................................................................... 77




Postcards to the leader of the council........................................................................... 81

Black and minority ethnic (BME) residents ....................................................................... 83

Portuguese residents ....................................................................................................... 83



Comments on specific service areas............................................................................ 85

Closing remarks ........................................................................................................... 87

Somali men...................................................................................................................... 88



Comments on specific service areas............................................................................ 89

Closing remarks ........................................................................................................... 91

Somali women ................................................................................................................. 92



Closing remarks ........................................................................................................... 95

6. Appendix.......................................................................................................................... 96


OPM page 1

1. Introduction

OPM® (Office for Public Management) was asked by the London Borough of Lambeth to

consult residents about the council’s budget priorities and choices for the next financial

year. OPM and Lambeth worked together to plan a programme of activity which would

help residents to understand and comment on the issues behind the budget and the

process the council goes through each year, as well as the range of services which

unitary local government provides.

Specifically the following engagement activities were undertaken:

a. residents’ survey (representative of Lambeth’s population profile)

b. deliberative workshops (two half day sessions with members of the public, reflecting

the population of North and South Lambeth)

c. stakeholder consultation (workshop session with voluntary and community

organisations and business, Lambeth’s Youth Council and interviews with businesses)

d. focus groups with ‘harder-to-hear’ groups (targeting young people, particular BME

groups)

e. on-line survey (open access, hosted on Lambeth Council’s website) and associated

self-completion survey (administered by Lambeth)

f. a comprehensive communications and publicity campaign involving the council’s

newspaper, Lambeth Life, poster and web communication.

OPM worked with Lambeth Council on the first four elements above, giving advice and

support as needed on the remaining aspects.

This report gives a summary of key findings and recommendations, detail about the

methods used, and main findings of all elements of the consultation in separate chapters.


OPM page 2

2. Summary and recommendations

OPM and Lambeth Council designed a programme of research and consultation activities

to involve people in Lambeth in decision making about the 2007-2008 budget. We carried

out activities including a residents’ survey, residents’ deliberative workshops, stakeholder

consultation and targeted focus groups.

Residents’ survey

In the survey of over 650 Lambeth residents, people were able to give their “top of mind”

responses to a range of questions concerning Lambeth’s budget and finances. The

survey was conducted on-street, to reflect Lambeth’s population, with additional

questionnaires being completed by Lambeth residents on the web and on paper.

People have very diverse views about Lambeth’s finances and budget management

generally. Looking at the more representative on street survey figures, around the same

proportions agree and disagree respectively that Lambeth provides better value for money

compared to a year ago, has the right level of council tax compared with other councils or

provides good value for money generally – around a third of residents agree or disagree

with each of these statements. However, people are more likely to disagree that Lambeth

shows good financial management or that it provides enough information to residents

about financial performance.

When asked in abstract about whether council tax levels should be increased, without any

definite figures being given, in the on street survey people are slightly more likely to

express a preference for a rise in council tax in line with inflation to maintain the council’s

current services. However, when asked which specific percentage rises they would

choose, people are much more likely to say they would prefer no council tax rise than

opting for the 3% inflationary rise, contradicting the answer they gave to the more general

question. However, views are relatively evenly split between people nominating no rise

and those opting for any rise at all.

Thinking about broad spending priorities, Lambeth residents prioritise community

safety/crime reduction over other service areas; youth provision is also seen as important.

Streets and highways is nominated by far fewer people and is also more likely to be seen

as the least important option from the five choices.

Looking within these two priority areas, the creation of a dedicated team to reduce anti-

social behaviour and increasing the availability of sports (and other) facilities for young

people are seen as priority items for spending.

Deliberative workshops

The deliberative workshops allowed people to think in more depth about issues, hear new

information and reflect on it, discuss and debate issues with others. They involved a

mixture of qualitative discussion and quantitative voting. Questions about key issues were


OPM page 3

asked at the beginning and the end of the day to ascertain how views had developed and

changed.

Priority service areas that people chose at the start of the day; namely youth provision and

community safety, were highlighted as key important themes throughout the workshop

discussions. Children’s social services were also highlighted as a priority towards the end

of the day, with a theme of “investing in the future” and in young residents of the borough;

being strong throughout. Streets and highways were not generally seen as such priority

services overall.

Participants were asked about their preferred council tax levels at the beginning and end

of the day. It is interesting that they were slightly more likely to opt for a smaller rise (3%)

at the end of the day, but that in both votes majorities nominated any degree of rise. In

both votes four in ten people did not want a rise at all.

People in these sessions recognised the need to consider other services which were not

on the agenda, such as the delivery of education and housing (including housing shortage

and homelessness); and also the importance of protecting vulnerable groups in society

(including children as above, but also older people, the disabled, and, from a significant

minority, those at risk of falling into drugs and crime).

Within the five service areas, people nominated the following specific service items as key

(items given in order of priority);

• youth provision; increasing the provision of facilities for young people across the

borough

• children’s social services; recruiting more social workers

• adults’ and community services; maintaining the Careline service that provides support

to older people, people with disabilities, serious medical conditions and people at risk

of racial or domestic violence

• community safety and crime reduction; improving the quality and level of support

available to victims of domestic violence and undertaking more preventative work

• streets and highways; improving the current street patrolling service by piloting ‘Street

Watch’, which aims to involve the public in looking after their environment

Whatever decisions are made, residents are sure that they want Lambeth Council to

spend their money wisely and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies and

initiatives, to ensure they achieve the outcomes required by residents.

People were also concerned that Lambeth took their views on board as a result of this

consultation and was seen to do so.


OPM page 4

Stakeholder consultation - voluntary, community and business sectors

A meeting was held with representatives from the voluntary, community and business

sectors. Small group discussion allowed participants to look at budget issues in greater

depth.

Participants were first asked their views on the level of council tax for the coming year and

for more general reactions and questions. There was no clear consensus from

participants on the option to be chosen, although people tended to suggest any increase

should be modest (3% or 4%) and result in tangible and evident benefits for residents.

People also raised more general issues about the council and its spending, including

issues about population increases in the borough, monitoring of spending and efficiency,

prioritisation of resources and allocation to the ‘wrong’ areas and insufficient investment in

front line staff. Comments were also made about the importance of consultation,

involvement and communication.

Participants were then asked to think about their priorities for council spending from the

five service areas forming the basis of the consultation. From a paper-based vote, there

was not a great deal of difference in emphasis between four of the five service areas.

However, people rated children’s services as slightly more important, with youth provision

and community safety felt to be important too by many, and adults’ services not far

behind. Streets and highways were not felt to be as important overall by voluntary and

community representatives, with nobody nominating this as most important.

Members of the group were then asked to take each budget area in turn, and choose the

level of funding they would allocate to each of three suggested items within that budget

area. Broad priorities given by groups are shown below, although it is important to note

that no “vote” was taken, and views were relatively split across some areas (e.g. adults’

social services, youth provision):

• children’s social services; providing financial support for adopted children who have

previously been in care and covering the costs of providing social work support to

these children and their families

• youth provision; working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet

• community safety and crime reduction; creating a dedicated team to reduce anti-social

behaviour in the borough

• adult and community services; starting a campaign to ensure that Lambeth residents,

especially low income, vulnerable groups, are receiving all the benefits to which they

are entitled

• streets and highways; improving the current street patrolling service by piloting ‘Street

Watch’, which aims to involve the public in looking after their environment


OPM page 5

Youth Council

OPM were present at a session of the Lambeth Youth Council meeting. Following a

general warm up session about members’ reactions to living in Lambeth, people at the

meeting were asked to consider information and plans about the council’s budget for

2007-2008, looking at the five priority service areas, and then specifically focusing on

community safety and youth provision, as these were the areas that had been identified in

the consultation to that point as being priorities for Lambeth residents.

People were first asked to discuss among themselves what was good, bad and lacking

about living in Lambeth. Young people praised facilities and support for youth, the culture

and diversity of the area and facilities/amenities in general. Bad points centred on crime

and community safety, particularly concerning young people as perpetrators and victims

and relationships with the police, concerns about Lambeth Council and their relationship

with young people and lack of facilities and support for particular service areas and groups

in the borough. Reflecting these views, people thought that support and development for

young people were lacking, along with specific services.

Youth Council members then worked in small groups to discuss their priority service areas

from the five choices. Community safety/crime reduction and youth provision were seen

as the most important overall, followed by children’s and adults’ services, with streets and

highways being given a low priority.

Talking about youth services and community safety in more detail, participants felt the

suggested approaches to community safety were quite reactive, and that there need to be

more positive preventative measures. In particular, people did not like the emphasis on

anti-social behaviour. On youth services, one person said that if there was a youth cabinet

it should mirror the structure of the council cabinet. The facilities that are currently being

provided for young people generally are not being used by the type of people they need to

attract i.e. youth on the verge of crime. They felt that young people need to be educated

about the benefits of using the facilities. People felt there might be a need for a friendly

youth one stop shop…all the services in one place

Making closing comments, the need to join up between services (e.g. provision for adults

and children, funding streams) and the importance of feedback from this budget

consultation were stressed.

Business interviews

Forty businesses in Lambeth were interviewed using the same structured questionnaire

that was used in the residents’ survey. Due to the relatively small sample size results

should be seen as indicative only. We spoke to people who said they had responsibility for

managing the business.

Businesses gave a variety of responses to questions about the quality of Lambeth’s

financial management and reporting. Approximately a third of participants agree that

Lambeth provides better value for money than one year ago; that Lambeth Council has

the right level of council tax relative to other councils; and that Lambeth Council provides


OPM page 6

good value for money. About a quarter agree that Lambeth Council provides enough

information to residents about its financial performance and management and that

Lambeth Council shows good financial management. However, large proportions (at least

a third and over) of respondents said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the

statements listed or that they did not know.

When presented with a list of options relating to possible changes to the amount of council

tax in the next year along with descriptions of related increases or decreases in service

levels, respondents were more likely to be in favour of a rise of some kind. However when

presented with the actual figures relating to the different options respondents were more

likely to opt for no increase.

Thinking about broad spending priorities, business respondents prioritised community

safety and crime reduction; children’s social services and youth provision were also seen

as important priorities. Streets and highways and adult social services were considered to

be the least important spending priorities.

Within the top three priority areas, the following items were rated as important for

increased spending:

• the creation of a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour in the borough

• financial support for adopted children and the costs of providing social work support to

these children and their families; and

• an increase the availability of structured sports activities for young people and

extension of the opening times of facilities for young people

Focus groups

The young people’s focus groups revealed concerns about the following areas:

• crime and fear of crime, including gun culture and bullying

• lack of community cohesion (including concerns about relations between young and

older people), and the changing nature of the area

• a lack of activities for young people; and

• environmental concerns in flats and estates

Asked which of the five service areas they would identify as a priority, participants were

more likely to assign a high priority to youth services and children’s services. They

recognised a link between youth services and community safety (for example that some

young people were perpetrators of crime)

Provision of better services generally for young people was seen as a priority. There was

also agreement that vulnerable children should be supported. On community safety, in

particular, people felt that anti social behaviour was a contentious issue – that a team to


OPM page 7

tackle anti social behaviour (ASB) may instead provoke it, and that it is hard to pinpoint

what is ASB and what is just young people ‘hanging around’, not doing anything wrong.

In their closing remarks, many young people wished to see youth facilities and activities

prioritised.

Among Portuguese residents, participants felt that bad things in Lambeth included

perceptions of corruption in the council, poor housing and community safety issues,

including the borough’s drug policy. People also felt that the council and other services

did not understand the Portuguese community and its needs.

Priority service areas identified included housing, customer services (including translation

services), recycling and education (for children and adults)

Thinking about the specific services Lambeth was considering in its budget consultation,

people rated the following as important:

• tackling anti social behaviour (in a holistic way, and also focusing on lighting and

CCTV)

• providing information to non English speakers on benefits, social services and other

council/health services

• providing activities for young people (linking to community safety)

• approach to community education on environmental issues, possibly combining

recycling and Streetwatch initiatives

• spending on social workers

Giving closing remarks as to what people would suggest to prioritise in the future, people

mentioned the following:

• training and lifelong learning

• cleaning up of front gardens and streets in front of shared houses

• tackling corruption (within the council) and pursuing transparency and accountability

• activities for young people

When talking with Somali men, participants felt that services specifically for Somalis were

lacking in the borough, including language or translation provision, and that public

services did not always understand the specific issues relevant to the Somali community.

On the positive side, people felt that it was good that Lambeth is multi-cultural and there is

a good Somali community for support.

Services most often used by participants included housing services and education

services to learn English. It was thought that service providers need to use a more


OPM page 8

systematic approach to dealing with different communities and cultures; too often the

service received is not good enough in both these areas.

On community safety and crime reduction, people made more general comments rather

than focusing on the specific suggestions, but felt that safety in the Somali community was

achieved through the family as much as from outside intervention; crime happens in

certain places at certain times and the community just avoids these places. It was felt to

be important, though, to focus on crime prevention and young people (especially as there

is a high and rising rate of crime among young Somali men, who make up the largest

BME group in the Feltham Young Offenders’ Institute). Regarding youth provision;

participants commented that underachievement at school is prevalent in the Somali

community – with only 12% of schoolchildren achieving appropriate standards at key

stage 4 – and that also, the drop out rate from school is very high. To improve poor

outcomes people said that achievement needs to be prioritised in schools, and that

providing role models would help in this.

Thinking about children’s social services, it was thought to be hard for Somalis to

understand the UK way of thinking around services and vice versa. Issues tend to be

solved within the family; there is a widespread distrust of children’s services; youths that

are taken into care end up in places that are not safe for Somalis. However, in terms of

the specific services suggested, it was felt that Somali people could be more involved in

fostering and adoption but they already do a lot informally. People are not as keen to be

involved formally, but rather to take a more informal role in caring for others’ children for

short periods.

Thinking about adult and community services, people felt that a scheme to increase

awareness of benefits was a good idea. This would need to rely on the oral tradition

though – for example, the council could use Somali community radio. Information needs to

be in the Somali language as well. Some key principles were stated by the group in

providing social services (which it was felt could be applied to other statutory services

provided in the Borough); namely improving access to the services and information, the

need to understand the difference in need between the Somali community and others and

within the community; reducing unemployment and targeting activity. On streets and

highways, the streets of Lambeth were generally thought to be clean and tidy, and so this

issue was less of a problem than the others.

In conclusion, participants said that three key improvements to focus on were to improve

education outcomes for Somali youth, provide leisure activities for the entire community

through a multi purpose centre and get qualified Somalis into jobs through tailored support

so they can get UK experience.

In conversation with Somali women, talking about bad things in the area, the group

mostly focused on their housing situations. Many women with families were in very

cramped conditions with families. There were also concerns about repairs and the time it

takes to get a response. These were often linked to length of time on waiting lists for new

housing.

Thinking about specific service areas, on community safety and crime reduction, people

talked about feeling unsafe on the streets and obvious drug dealing among other issues.


OPM page 9

Looking at the specific spending proposals, creating an anti-social behaviour team was

thought to be needed most, although there was also support for the idea of clearing up

hazardous waste from sex and drug use.

Thinking about adult and community services, most of the focus group members did not

use social services for support as they supported each other within the community. Social

services as whole were not perceived as a particularly good support mechanism for them.

Of the three specific policy proposals, starting a benefits campaign got the most support

as the Somali community support each other in terms of providing care but would like to

know what benefits they are entitled to.

For youth provision, the group thought that sports facilities and ICT were priorities but that

a place for young people to hang out and meet other people from the same culture would

be very useful.

Finally, considering children’s services, as with adult services the group felt that they and

their communities were able to look after themselves in this area. There was however a

call for more free childcare to allow mothers to work and develop skills for work. The

group agreed that a lot of mothers want to work but the tax credit system did not help

them as they have to pay from their wages for childcare which acts as a deterrent.

In making closing remarks, people made a variety of suggestions concerning the following

areas:

• community safety (CCTV cameras, better lighting, support and supervision for young

people at risk of offending, environmental improvements on estates)

• young people’s facilities (sports, skills training, literacy); and

• family/community support generally and for Somalis (community centres, sports for

families, neighbourhood offices).

Results across consultation groups

The table below shows the “spending priority” results by audience. Gaps denote that the

question was not asked due to time pressure or lack of relevance; italics that another

suggestion than those offered was given.


OPM page 1

Surveys Stakeholder consultation Focus groups

On-street Online Deliberative

workshops

Vol/comm.

workshop

Youth Council Business Young people Portuguese Somali men Somali women

Top spending

priorities

Community

safety and

crime

reduction,

youth

services

Community safety and

crime reduction, youth

services

Youth services,

children’s social

services

Children’s social

services, youth

services,

community safety

Community safety

and crime

reduction, youth

services

Community

safety and

crime

reduction,

youth

services

Youth

services/children’s

social services

Key proposal

in adult/

community

services…

Maintaining

Careline

service

Maintaining Careline

service

Maintaining Careline

service

Benefits campaign,

maintaining

Careline service

Maintaining

Careline

service

Improving

accessibility/quality of

information

Benefits

campaign

Benefits

campaign

Children’s

social

services…

Financial

support for

adopted

children

Financial support for

adopted

children/recruitment of

social workers/foster

carers

Recruiting social

workers

Financial support

for adopted

children/recruiting

social workers

Financial

support for

adopted

children

Recruiting social

workers

Community

safety…

Creation of a

dedicated

team to

reduce anti

social

behaviour

Dedicated team to

reduce anti social

behaviour

Improving quality

and level of support

available to victims

of domestic violence

Dedicated team to

reduce anti social

behaviour

Emphasis on

prevention, support

Dedicated

team to

reduce anti

social

behaviour

Emphasis on

prevention, support,

role models

Anti social

behaviour/domestic

violence

Emphasis on

prevention,

support to

young people

Creation of a

dedicated team

to reduce anti

social behaviour

Streets and

highways…

Piloting the

Street Watch

initiative

Piloting Street Watch

initiative

Piloting Street

Watch

initiative/investing in

a strategy to

increase recycling

Piloting Street

Watch initiative

Piloting

Street Watch

initiative

Piloting Street Watch

initiative/pilot

recycling collections

Youth

provision

Increase

availability of

activities for

young people

Activities for young

people


people

Create a Youth

Cabinet

Youth

Cabinet/activities

for young people

Activities for

young people

Provide support to

young people who are

vulnerable, increase

availability of activities

for young people


people

Activities and

facilities,

culturally

specific

provision

Activities for

young people

Other

suggestions

Focus on supporting

young people and

vulnerable, value for

money

Efficiency,

consultation and

involvement

“Joining up”

between different

service areas,

feedback from

consultation

Link between

community safety and

youth services

Need for

understanding of

Portuguese

community, tailoring

services

Targeted

information,

access to

services,

employment

Concerns about

housing,

particular

needs/culture of

Somali

community,

employment


OPM page 1

Recommendations

• OPM feels that the consultation and research results highlight clear messages for

Lambeth Council, which should be taken into account in decision making:

– A need for a council tax rise appears to be acknowledged by a significant

proportion of residents.

– However, and especially without further prompting and discussion of the resulting

effects, other residents appear to be wary of such an increase. In fact there is a

split in opinion in the residents survey and deliberative sessions between residents

who would nominate a rise (of any kind) and those who would not countenance

such an increase.

– This is linked to an express wish that money however spent, is used wisely.

– There is considerable consensus around prioritising community safety/crime

reduction and youth provision for spending.

– Residents also recognise the need to provide services for vulnerable groups

(social services as well as targeted community safety and youth service

measures).

– Particular groups also tended to reveal a preference for supporting children’s

services; this was often related to the expressed wish to support the borough’s

future and was linked to the support for youth services and the fear of young

people otherwise turning to crime.

– Streets and highways are consistently rated as low priority from all consultation

exercises.

– There are clear messages from groups targeted for additional consultation

(particularly BME groups) about service expectations which are not being met,

including issues such as housing, education and information about/access to

services.

• These overarching messages mask some differences and detail between and within

audiences and methods, but we feel the results are relatively consistent, given the

differences in methodology and numbers of people involved.

• We recommend that Lambeth takes the main points above on board when making its

decisions about next year’s budget, while considering the detail in the report to

augment these headlines.

• We recommend that the council is comprehensive in its reporting of this exercise, and

its feedback to those involved and the wider community.

• We also know that this kind of wide ranging consultation process is relatively rare and

ambitious in local authority corporate work, and that Lambeth could and should

capitalise on what has been achieved this year. As well as the reporting mentioned

above, which may have the effect of raising trust and confidence in Lambeth as an

accountable, open and listening authority, we recommend that Lambeth sustains and

build on this approach in subsequent years, feeding results in to other corporate

exercises such as community planning, to build a reliable and sustained picture of

residents’ priorities.


OPM page 2

3. Method

The on-street survey involved more than 500 interviews with Lambeth residents in

October and November 2006. Interviews were conducted to match a population profile of

the borough. The survey was intended to provide data representative of the borough, had

the whole population been interviewed. It also provided residents’ “top of mind” views and

opinions, without going into any great depth but providing a chance for residents to have

their say on a wide range of budget topics.

The same survey was placed on Lambeth Council’s website and advertised through

Lambeth Life magazine, JCDecaux advertising boards and the South London Press, and

sent out as a paper self-completion questionnaire to those residents who requested it.

This was designed to allow anyone who wished to take part to fill in a questionnaire, but

as respondents decided themselves to fill in the form, there was an element of self

selection in the response.

With regards to stakeholder consultation, one workshop was recruited by Lambeth

Council and facilitated by OPM in late October. A business workshop was also set up and

recruited by Lambeth but was abandoned due to low interest. Instead, OPM conducted

around 40 interviews with businesses using social research interviewers at premises and

over the phone. We also met with Lambeth’s Youth Council in November. These

exercises give an overview of what particular audiences important to Lambeth Council

think. The workshops allowed for debate and discussion although time was relatively

limited and we could not go into too much detail. The business interviews give only an

indication of what businesses in the borough think, as the sample size is relatively small

(40 interviews).

Two deliberative workshops were held with Lambeth residents. They were held in

Brixton Town Hall on Saturdays in October and November 2006, for four hours each.

These workshops aimed to provide the best characteristics of quantitative and qualitative

research in that we recruited to achieve a profile of participants reflecting the Lambeth

population, and also designed the workshop to discuss issues in depth. We feel that this

technique is the best in allowing people to come to informed judgements and consider

others’ viewpoints.

Focus groups were held with young people (two sessions) and specific BME audiences

(Somali and Portuguese residents). These had the benefit of allowing for some depth of

discussion while ensuring that those under-represented in other forms of consultation are

included, or who may have different opinions from the population at large. These have

been recruited by social research interviewers, OPM and Lambeth Council.

Whatever method was used as described above, the same broad structure for the

consultation was followed; namely questions were asked around:

• levels of council tax (initial views) – size of the budget ‘cake’


OPM page 3

• priority service areas from five (adults’ social services, children’s social services, youth

provision, crime and community safety and streets and highways) – how to ‘slice the

budget cake’

• budget choices – service options/items within each service area; ‘what’s in each slice’

This is illustrated in this slide below used in some of the face to face consultation.

Lambeth needs to make decisions on…

• The size of the budget “cake” (and therefore levels of council tax)

• Relative size of the pieces of cake

• What’s in each piece

More detail about the specific method used and questions asked is given with description

of each exercise.

Note to the reader

OPM and Lambeth Council worked together to design a programme of engagement using

a mix of methods – allowing participants to consider the range of service areas as well as

the detail of service delivery and options for change within these. As noted above, some

methods like the survey are designed to provide representative and broad data; others

like focus groups can only reflect opinion of the population from which the group is drawn

but do allow for some depth and richness of discussion. The deliberative workshop

methodology aims to provide both breadth and depth through using voting and discussion

in one event.

Because of these factors, the types of responses from the range of methods used will

differ in form and content. Therefore, we have set out the findings in this report as they

were presented to us and have summarised them below, along with recommendations,

drawing conclusions and inferences as appropriate.

In the presentation of quantitative data, where responses do not add to 100%, this is due

to computer rounding, multiple responses or in electronic voting, non-response.

Budget proposals

Throughout the report, we have made reference to a number of service areas and

spending options. These have generally been abbreviated in the text but the proposal

names are given in full below and were shown in full to participants in consultation (as

indicated by the appended consultation materials).


OPM page 4

Service

area

description

Adults’ and community services

(adult social services) - this service

ensures that Lambeth’s vulnerable

residents receive support they need –

particularly people living on low

incomes, with long term serious

health problems or disabilities, and

older people. These groups often rely

on benefits. The proposals would

maximize their benefit income, and

provide support towards moving into

employment.

Children’s social services -

help vulnerable children in our

community, ensuring that they

live in a secure and caring

environment. Where children

cannot live with their own

families, it is our responsibility to

find these children new homes

and social worker support. The

proposals focus on supporting

this process.

Community safety and crime

reduction - crime is a key

concern of Lambeth residents

and investment in community

safety aims to prevent anti-social

behaviour through the

establishment of a dedicated

team. Increased spending will

also provide improved after-

support care for people and

areas affected.

Streets and highways -

increased investment in

‘streets and highways’ will

result in future initiatives

engaging the public in looking

after their environment,

greater frequency in street

cleansing and further

investment in the council’s

strategy to increase and

improve recycling.

Youth provision - the aim

of this investment is to

expand and improve

services to all young

people, enhancing

engagement in their

community and providing

an additional focus on

those at greatest risk of

social exclusion and drifting

into crime.

1. Starting a campaign to ensure that

Lambeth residents, especially low

income, vulnerable groups, are

receiving all the benefits to which

they are entitled.

1. Providing financial support for

adopted children who have

previously been in care and

covering the costs of providing

social work support to these

children and their families.

1. Creating a dedicated team to

reduce anti-social behaviour in

the borough.

1. Improving the current street patrolling service by piloting ‘Street Watch’, which aims to involve the public in looking after their environment.

1. Working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet.

2. Maintaining the Careline service

that provides support to older people,

people with disabilities, serious

medical conditions and people at risk

of racial or domestic violence.

2. Recruiting more foster carers

by increasing allowances paid to

foster carers who look after

vulnerable children in our

community. Currently the

average payment to foster

carers in Lambeth is £267 per

week, well below the average in

Wandsworth of £354 per week.

2. Improving the quality and level

of support available to victims of

domestic violence and

undertaking more preventative

work.

2. Increasing the frequency of street cleansing in retail areas

2. Increasing the provision of facilities for young people across the borough.

De

tail

on

e

ach

of

thre

e s

pe

nd

ing

op

tio

ns

3. Improving the accessibility and

quality of information available to

vulnerable adults in Lambeth

3. Recruiting more social

workers

3. Ensuring the continuation of

the rapid response service for

the clearance of hazardous

waste from sex and drugs use.

3. Investing in a strategy to increase recycling. Running a pilot of door-to-door recycling collection from flats

3. Providing better access to effective support for young people who are either vulnerable or involved with the criminal justice system.


OPM page 5

4. Main findings

Residents’ survey

On street element

Five hundred and thirty-three face-to-face survey interviews were conducted on-street

with people who live and work in Lambeth using the five main town centre areas as

sampling points. OPM worked with a partner organisation, Plus Four Market Research, to

carry out the work. Fieldwork was conducted between 25 October and 13 November

2006. Interviews were conducted with a quota sample according to a defined population

profile (of age, gender, ethnicity and working status) of Lambeth. These profiles were

drawn up to match 2001 census data. The chance to be entered into a £50 prize draw

was offered as an incentive. The interview used a 15 minute, structured questionnaire with

mainly pre-coded questions, with opportunities for interviewees to explain some of their

answers in their own words. The questionnaire was developed in conjunction with

Lambeth Council and is appended.

On line and postal element

To ensure inclusivity the questionnaire was also available on the Lambeth website or by

post on request. The availability of the questionnaire was publicised through a range of

organisations and publications. A further 133 questionnaires were self-completed using

these methods. The survey ended on 20 November 2006. Again, the chance to be

entered into the £50 prize draw was offered as an incentive. The same structured

questionnaire used in the face-to-face interviews was used for the on-line survey and

postal requests. This document is also appended.

Presentation of data

It should be remembered when interpreting the data that a sample and not the entire

population of Lambeth residents has been surveyed. In consequence, all results are

subject to sampling tolerances, which means that not all differences in the data are

statistically significant. However, the differences reported on in this document are

significant.

The statistical reliability of the 666 responses to this survey is +3.8% at the 95%

confidence interval. If considering the 533 responses achieved on-street the statistical

reliability is + 4.2%, and that of the 133 on-line and postal responses is +8.5%

When results are compared between sub-groups within the sample, or across two

samples, different results may be obtained. The difference may be ‘real’, or it may occur

by chance. To test if the difference is a real one – i.e. if it is ‘statistically significant’ – we

have to know the size of the samples, the percentage giving a certain answer and the

degree of confidence chosen. If we assume the ‘95% confidence interval’, the difference

between the two sample results must be greater than the values given in the following

table:


OPM page 6

Differences required for significance at or

near these percentage levels

10% or

90%

30% or 70% 50%

Sub-groups Sample sizes ± ± ±

On-street vs.

on-line and postal

533 and 133 5.7 8.7 9.5

For example, if 30% of the on-street sample of 533 give a particular answer, and 35% of

on-line and postal respondents give the same answer, there is not a statistically

significant difference between the responses of the two groups. If, however, 40% of the

latter group give the same answer, then this is a statistically significant difference (since

there is more than a 8.7 point difference between the two).

In the tables of survey results in this document, * denotes a value of above 0 but below

0.5 per cent. Where figures do not sum to 100, this is due to multiple responses or

computer rounding.

Throughout the report, for each survey question, main findings are reported first for the

whole sample and then, after the main data table or figure for the question, for sub-groups

of the sample. The data from the on-line and postal findings (self-completed) and the on-

street findings (face to face) are included separately for each question. This is due to the

self-selecting nature of the online and written replies and to highlight any potential

differences resulting.

The report gives findings from Lambeth residents which may represent perceptions of the

council and the area, rather than facts.

Sample

Of the 666 Lambeth residents who responded to the survey the majority (80%) were

interviewed face to face in an on-street survey with the remainder (20%) completing an

on-line or postal survey.

The on-street survey responses were solicited and received from a range of geographical

locations across the borough. Interviews were conducted in the areas of Clapham High

Street (22%), Streatham High Road (20%), Brixton Road (19%), Lambeth North (19%)

and Norwood Road (20%).

There are roughly equal proportions of women and men in the total sample (51% vs.

49%).

A spread of ages was achieved with the largest proportion of the total sample falling into

the 18 – 34 bracket (39%). A quarter (26%) of respondents are aged between 35 and 44,

17% are aged between 45 and 54, 10% are aged between 55 and 64, and the remaining

8% are over the age of 65.


OPM page 7

The total sample is ethnically diverse. Using the summary categories of ethnicity 63% of

respondents describe themselves as White (Including White British, White Irish and White

other), a quarter (25%) of respondents describe themselves as Black and the remaining

respondents describe themselves as either mixed heritage (5%) or Asian (4%).

The vast majority (81%) of all those surveyed describe their sexual identity / orientation as

heterosexual. Six per cent describe themselves as lesbian, gay or bi-sexual. Around one

in ten people (12%) chose not to answer this question.

The large majority (71%) of the total sample are working with around half (47%) of the

sample in full-time paid employment, a further 15% in part-time paid employment and nine

per cent self-employed. One in ten respondents (11%) is wholly retired from work. 5% are

unemployed and looking for work, 5% are full time students and 4% are looking after the

home. Almost half (42%) of respondents live and work in the borough with further third

(33%) living in the borough but working outside. The remaining six percent work in

Lambeth but live outside the borough.

One in ten (10%) of the total sample own their houses outright and around a quarter

(24%) are buying with a mortgage. The majority (61%) of the sample are renting with

around a quarter (26%) renting from the council, just under a quarter (22 %) renting from a

private landlord and the remaining (13%) renting from a housing association or trust.

The majority (60%) of the respondents do not have any children under 17 living in their

home with around a third (34%) stating that they do.

Seven per cent of the sample consider themselves to have a disability.

The table overleaf displays a breakdown of both the on-street and the on-line and postal

sample profile.

The on-street survey was targeted to pursue a representative sample whereas the on-line

and postal survey was self-selecting and used to supplement the representative sample.

This has resulted in slightly different demographic make-up of the on-line and postal

sample. The respondents are generally older, more often from a white ethnic group (72%

vs. 61%) be employed full time (58% vs. 45%) and are more likely to own their own

homes (17% vs. 8%) or be buying with a mortgage (37% vs. 21%).


OPM page 8

Sample profile table

On-line and

postal sample

profile

%

On-street

sample profile

%

Total sample

profile

%

All respondents 20 80 100

Face to face - 100 80

Online and postal 100 - 20

Gender

Male 47 49 49

Female 49 51 51

Not stated 4 0 1

Age

Under 17 - - -

18-34 years 26 42 39

35-44 years 29 25 26

45-54 years 22 15 17

55-64 years 10 11 10

65 years and over 8 7 8

Not stated 5 - 1

Ethnicity

White 72 61 63

White-British 51 47 48

White-other background 16 11 12

White-Irish 5 3 4

Black or Black British 15 27 24

Caribbean 10 12 11

African 3 13 11

Any other black background 2 2 2

Mixed 2 6 5

White and Black Caribbean - 2 2

White and Black African 2 3 3

White and Asian - * *

Any other mixed background - 1 1

Asian or Asian British 3 5 4

Indian 2 2 2

Pakistani - 2 1

Bangladeshi - 1 1

Any other Asian background 1 1 1

Chinese - 1 1

Other ethnic group 2 1 1

Not stated 6 * 1


OPM page 9

Sexuality

On-line and postal

sample profile

%

On-street sample

profile

%

Total

sample

profile

%

Heterosexual 56 87 81

Gay or lesbian 19 3 6

Other 5 1 2

Not stated 17 10 12

Employment

Full time paid work (30+ hours

per week)

58 45 47

Part-time paid work (under 30

hours per week)

7 17 15

Retired 7 12 11

Self-employed 11 8 9

Student 5 5 5

Unemployed (available for work) 2 6 5

Looking after the home 1 5 4

Permanently sick or disabled 1 2 2

Other 3 1 2

Not stated 5 - 1

Housing Tenure

Rent from Council 11 30 26

Buying with a mortgage 37 21 24

Rent from private landlord 15 23 22

Rent from housing association /

trust

9 14 13

Owned outright 17 8 10

Other 5 3 3

Not stated 8 - 2

Children

No children under 17 living in

house

73 57 60

Children under-17 living in house 20 38 34

Not stated 7 5 5

Disability

Does not consider self to have

disability

87 93 92

Considers self to have disability 9 7 7

Not stated 5 1 1

Respondents were also asked which services they, or any member of their household,

had used in the past twelve months. They could choose as many as they had used. The

figure below shows those services which are used most often, with people who completed

the on line/postal survey being slightly more likely to recycle and use parks and open

spaces than respondents to the on street survey, along with arts and cultural facilities.


OPM page 10

Services used in last 12 months – on-street survey

12%

13%

15%

46%

55%

55%

58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Arts and cultural activities

Primary or secondary education provided by

Lambeth council

Housing benefit

Leisure and sports

Libraries

Parks, playgrounds and open spaces

Recycling facilities

% of respondents

Base: 533

Services used in last 12 months – on-line and postal survey

8%

9%

34%

38%

47%

73%

74%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Primary or secondary education provided by

Lambeth council

Housing benefit

Arts and cultural activities

Libraries

Leisure and sports

Parks, playgrounds and open spaces

Recycling facilities

% of respondents

Base: 133


OPM page 11

Initial views – Lambeth’s budget

In the first attitudinal question of the survey, people were asked to what extent they

agreed or disagreed with a set of statements regarding the current quality of Lambeth’s

financial management and reporting. The net level of agreement for the representative on-

street sample is included in the graph overleaf.

As outlined in the tables overleaf there was a distinct lack of consensus around these

issues for both samples. Around three in ten respondents from both samples agree that

‘Lambeth provides better value for money than one year ago’ (31% on-line, 29% on-

street); that ‘Lambeth Council has the right level of council tax relative to other councils’

(30%, 32%); and that ‘Lambeth Council provides enough information to residents about its

financial performance and management’ (29% and 30%).

Almost a quarter of on-street respondents (24%) felt that ‘Lambeth council shows good

financial management’ compared to almost four in ten that felt it did not (38%). The on-line

respondents disagreed more strongly with around one eighth agreeing with the statement

(12%) and almost half disagreeing (45%).

Another statement on which the samples differed was that while over a third of on-street

respondents felt that ‘Lambeth council provides good value for money’ (35%), less than

two in ten of on-line respondents agreed (17%).

With the exception of ‘Lambeth provides better value for money than one year ago’ overall

more respondents disagreed than agreed with these statements. It is also worth noting

that for all questions at least three in ten respondents for both samples (30% and over)

said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statements listed or that they did not

know whether they agreed or disagreed.


OPM page 12

Attitudes to Lambeth’s budget: on-street survey

Lambeth Council provides good value for money for the council tax

that residents pay

Lambeth council provides better

value for money compared to a year ago

Lambeth council shows good financial management

Lambeth council provides enough information to residents about its

financial performance and management

Lambeth council has the right level of council tax - relative to other councils

Disagree

35%

31%

36%

39%

33%

40%

45%

38%

Agree

35%

29%

24%

29%

32%

0%

-2%

-12%

-10%

-1%

Net agree / disagree

17%

32%21%

12%

29%

29%36%

-23%

11%

-33%

-9%

-7%

Questions: Q1A-E, Base: 533/133. Not stated <1/<6 for all questions


OPM page 13

‘The size of the cake’: Future council tax levels

Next, people were given a list of options relating to possible increases or decreases in

council tax in the next year. These increases were presented along with descriptions of

related increases or decreases in service levels. Lambeth residents were asked to specify

which option they would prefer.

The questions asked in the on street and self completion surveys were slightly differently.

Those self-completing the questionnaire through web or post were not offered an option

for ‘no increase’ in council tax. The options offered to each are shown in the tables below.

The majority of on-street respondents (59%) were in favour of a raise of some kind. A

notable minority of respondents in both the on-street and the on-line / postal survey (on-

street: 16%, self completion: 20%) proposed a rise lower than the rate of inflation which

would still require cuts in services.

The most popular response overall (on-street: 32%, self completion: 55%) was a rise in

line with the rate of inflation and Lambeth’s services being maintained at the same level. A

larger rise and an increase in service spend was the least popular option for both on-line

and on street with 17% and 11% choosing it respectively.

Next year’s council tax – on street survey

No council tax

increase with

significant cuts in

services, 26%

Don't know, 14%

A rise in council tax

above the level of

inflation to increase

the amount of

money available to

spend on council

services, 11%

A rise in council tax

in line with inflation

to maintain the

council's current

services, 32%

Selected cuts in

current services to

allow for a lower

council tax

increase, 16%

Q2, Base: 533, Not stated: 3


OPM page 14

The option to not raise council tax was not offered on the on-line survey the results are

presented separately here. It is interesting to note that when this option is removed

respondents appear more likely to move their choice to a rise in line with inflation than to

selected service cuts to allow for a lower increase.

Next year’s council tax – on-line and postal survey

Preferred option %

A rise in council tax in line with inflation to maintain the council's current services 55

Selected cuts in current services to allow for a lower council tax increase 20

A rise in council tax above the level of inflation to increase the amount of money available

to spend on council services

17

Don't know 5


Despite respondents primarily being in favour of a raise in council tax of some level in the

previous question, when presented with the financial options for the level of this raise, as

illustrated in the tables below, almost a half (48%) of the on-street respondents and a

quarter of the on-line and postal respondents (25%) stated that they did not think it should

be increased.

Looking at those who felt it should be increased, the large majority (28% on-street, 31%

on-line) felt that it should be increased by three percent, in line with inflation. 11% and

16% of the on-street and on-line sample respectively felt that it should be increased at

four per cent and six per cent and 15% of the on-street and on-line sample respectively

felt that felt it should be increased by five per cent, two per cent above inflation.

Next year’s council tax – on-street survey

Preferred option %

3 per cent – approximately £25 per household per year

(Overall, this would raise £2.5 million towards maintaining current services)

28


(Overall, this would raise an additional £3.3 million to spend on services, this would be £2.5

million towards maintaining services and a possible £0.8 million investment in services)

11




6

I do not think it should be increased 48

Don't know 7



OPM page 15

Next year’s council tax – on-line and postal

Preferred option %


(Overall, this would raise £2.5 million towards maintaining current services)

31




16




15

I do not think it should be increased 25

Don't know 8


‘Relative sizes of the pieces of cake’: priority service areas

Respondents were then given an outline of the five different service areas that the council

is considering spending more money on next year. Participants were asked to indicate

where in their opinion spending should be prioritised and asked to choose which service

area they felt should be the first, second and third most important for Lambeth’s spending

next year.

Taking a combination of all three priorities it can be seen that ‘community safety and crime

reduction’ came out as the most important to respondents both on street and on-line with

around half (46% on-street and 48% on-line) choosing it as the most important priority,

with around eight in ten people (82% on-street and 79% on-line) choosing this area as

one of the top three. Youth provision was the second most popular priority for both on-

street and on-line respondents with over six out of ten of the on-line respondents and over

seven out of ten of the on-street respondents (63% on-line and 72% on-street) choosing it

as one of their top three priority areas


OPM page 16

Spending priorities : On- street survey

10%

17%

22%

46%

11%

16%

23%

27%

22%

22%

23%

24%

15%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Streets and highways

Adults social services

Children's social services

Youth provision


reduction

% of respondents

First priority Second priority Third priority

Questions: Q4A,Q4B,Q4C

Base: 533, DK / None: Q4A: 2, Q4B: 3, Q4C: 20


OPM page 17

Spending priorities : On- line and postal survey

13%

10%

8%

19%

48%

8%

22%

23%

20%

22%

26%

24%

17%

10%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Youth provision


reduction

% of respondents


Questions: Q4A,Q4B,Q4C

Base: 133, DK / None: Q4A: 3, Q4B: 7, Q4C: 8

Respondents to the on-line and postal questionnaire were more likely to choose streets

and highways in their top three priorities (50% vs. 30% for on street), and less likely to

choose adults’ social services (37% vs. 49% for on-street).

Respondents were also asked to choose which area would be their least important

spending priority. This was found to be ‘streets and highways’ for both on-line and on-

street respondents with around half of on-street (49%) and over a third of on-line (35%)

saying this was their least important priority. The second lowest priority was adult social

services which was chosen by almost one in three of the on-line sample (28%) and just

under a quarter of on-street of respondents as their least important priority. Children’s

social services was chosen by 11% of the on-street respondents and youth provision by

13% of on-line respondents but all other priorities received less than ten per cent of the

vote for each sample.


OPM page 18

Reasons for spending priorities

Respondents were then asked to explain why they had chosen a specific service area as

their top priority and also why they had chosen the service area that they did as the least

important. Respondents gave their answers in their own words and then during analysis

the different responses have been grouped into themes.

This section of the report refers primarily to the whole sample (666 responses). Any

differences are shown in the data tables accompanying the commentary. Throughout this

section no significant difference were found. Any differences that do exist should be

treated with caution due to low sample sizes for the majority of these questions.

As discussed above community safety was a top priority for the majority of those

surveyed. Community safety was chosen by respondents as a priority because of a

perception that the crime rate in Lambeth is increasing. Safety is felt to be a priority for

people and a smaller group of people also felt that community safety is important for

economic and social development.

Of those people who felt that community safety and crime reduction should not be a

spending priority, the main reason given was that crime is the responsibility of the police.

Other reasons given were that crime will reduce if money is spent on residents and that

lack of community safety is not perceived to be a major problem.

‘Community safety and crime reduction’ – on-street

Most %

(n=245: those who

chose as most

important)

Least %

(n=43: those who

chose as least

important)

Crime rate is increasing

in the borough

56 Crime is the

responsibility of the

police

47

Safety of the community

is a priority

29 Crime will reduce if

money is spent on

residents

9

Safety is a priority for

social / economic

development

7 Not a major problem 5


OPM page 19

‘Community safety and crime reduction’ – on-line and postal

Most %

(n=64: those who

chose as most

important)

Least %

(n=8: those who

chose as least

important)

Crime rate is increasing

in the borough

69 Crime will reduce is

money is spent on

children

25

Safety of the community

is a priority

56 Crime will reduce if

money is spent on

residents

13

Safety is a priority for

social / economic

development


Youth provision is also perceived to be a key priority by a notable number of participants.

When asked why, respondents said that young people in Lambeth needed facilities such

as clubs, activities and parks. Other main reasons given included that young people are a

priority and the country’s future and also that they are in a vulnerable position and need

the support.

Of those who believe that youth provision is the least important service area in which to

increase spending, the main reason given was because there is already sufficient spent

on it by the government and the council. Another popular reason given was that parents

and families should provide support for their children.

‘Youth provision’ – on-street

Most %

(n=118: those

who chose as

most

important)

Least %

(n=38: those

who chose as

least important)

Young people need clubs /

activities / parks

53 Government / council

already spend enough

18

Young people are a priority /

country’s future

19 This should be the least

priority

13

Too many youth problems /

ASBOs in Lambeth

18 Youth misbehaviour must be

a priority

8


OPM page 20

‘Youth provision’ – on-line and postal

Most %

(n=25: those

who chose as

most

important)

Least %

(n=17: those

who chose as

least important)


country’s future



47


activities / parks

36 Parents / families take care

of children

18

Young people are vulnerable

and need support

32 Not cost effective / not a

major problem, should be

the least priority

6

Reasons for future spend on youth provision were also echoed amongst those who

prioritised children’s social services. One of the main reasons given by those people who

felt that children’s social services should be a top priority was the belief that young people

are the country’s future. Other key reasons discussed were that young people are

vulnerable and need support and that facilities should be provided for them. At the stage

that this question was asked the respondents had not seen the proposals for the different

slices. This may be the reason that areas that could be seen to come under youth

provision such as activities and clubs were chosen as reasons for funding children’s social

services.

The main reason given for not prioritising children’s social services was that the council or

government already spends enough on this area and that children’s needs will be met

through meeting adults’ needs.

‘Children’s social services’ – on-street

Most %

(n=90: those

who chose as

most important)

Least %

(n=61: those

who chose as

least important)


country’s future



21


activities / parks

7 Children will be alright if

adult’s needs are met

18

Important to me / need more

and better schools


of children

13


OPM page 21

‘Children’s social services’ – on-line and postal

Most %

(n=11: those

who chose as

most important)

Least %

(n=11: those

who chose as

least important)

Young people are vulnerable

and need support



46


country’s future


of children

27


activities / parks

18 I do not use this service 9

The main reason given by participants who believe that adult social services should be a

priority over other service areas was that adults need more support and facilities..

Reasons for choosing this as the lowest priority were that adults can look after themselves

and that there is already enough money spent in this area.

‘Adults’ social services’ – on-street

Most %

(n=51: those

who chose as

most

important)

Least %

(n=120: those

who chose as

least

important)

Adults need more support /

facilities

67 Adults can look after

themselves

33

It is more relevant to me 6 Adults have enough care /

money spent on them

24

Elderly and disabled must be

cared for / supporting adults

will help children

4 They should be the least

priority

8

‘Adults’ social services’ – on-line and postal

Most %

(n=17: those

who chose as

most

important)

Least %

(n=37: those

who chose as

least

important)

Adults need more support /

facilities

53 Adults can look after

themselves

19

Elderly and disabled must be

cared for

18 Adults have enough care /

money spent on them

14

Need to support deprived

families



OPM page 22

Streets and highways was most often chosen as the lowest priority compared to the other

service areas and the reasons given for this were that the streets are already in a good

condition and that they are less important than people.

Reasons given for prioritising this area over others were that it is an issue of safety to

maintain the streets and highways and that a clean environment is a priority. It was also

stated that street rubbish must be cleared up.

‘Streets and highways’ – on-street

Most %

(n=27: those

who chose as

most

important)

Least %

(n=262: those

who chose as

least

important)

Roads and pavements must

be maintained for safety

48 Streets are already in a

good condition

23

Clean environment is a

priority

26 Should be the least priority 19

Street rubbish must be

cleared up / collected

15 Streets / Highways are less

important than people

17

‘Streets and highways’ – on-line and postal

Most %

(n=13: those

who chose as

most

important)

Least %

(n=46: those

who chose as

least

important)

Roads and pavements must

be maintained for safety

23 Streets / highways are less

important than people

41

Street rubbish must be

cleared up / collected

15 Too much money already

spent on roads

17

Clean environment is a

priority for economic

development

7 Streets are already in a

good condition

15

Question: Q4A, Q5, Q6, Q7

Base: 133 (on-line / postal), 533 (on-street)

On-line / postal: No reason / DK / Not stated: 11 (‘Most’), 23 (‘Least’)

On-street: No reason / DK / Not stated: 17 (‘Most’), 34 (‘Least’)


OPM page 23

‘What each slice is made from’: Focus on detailed budget proposals

Finally, all respondents were presented with three specific service proposals under each

of the five service areas discussed, irrespective of the service areas they had prioritised.

Each of those surveyed were asked to say which of three specific proposals, under each

service area, they would choose as a priority. As set out in the methodological note at the

start of the report, proposals were given in full to participants but are abbreviated here and

in subsequent sections.

As outlined in the findings below, people’s opinions on the type of service that should be a

priority varies, with limited agreement being reached under each of the service areas. The

differences between the on-street and the on-line results are small with the rank order for

all options coming out as identical.

‘What each slice is made from’: Focus on detailed budget proposals

In adult social services, the majority (50% on-line and 55% on-street) of respondents felt

that if they had to choose, ‘maintaining the Careline service…’ would be their top priority

compared to the other proposals in this service area.

As shown in the table, the second most popular option amongst both samples was ‘a

campaign to ensure that Lambeth residents are receiving all the benefits they are entitled

to…’ as their top priority. Only 10% and 17% chose: ‘improving the accessibility and

quality of information…’.

Specific service proposals in adult social services

On-street

%

On-line / postal

%

Maintaining the Careline service 50 55

Benefits campaign 38 23

Improving accessibility and quality of information 10 17

None of these 2 -

Q8, Base: 533 (on-street), 133 (on-line / postal), DK/NS: 5 (on-street), 8 (on-line/postal)

When asked about specific proposals under children’s social services, the most popular

response for both samples was ‘financial support for adopted children…’ with 42% and

33% of the on-street and on-line respondents choosing it respectively. Over three in ten of

respondents in both samples (32% on-street and 31% on-line) would prioritise the

‘recruitment of more social workers’ and the ‘recruitment of more foster carers’ was least

favoured (19% on-street and 32% on-line). The on-line respondents were very evenly split

across all three options with only 1% separating the most chosen from the other two

options. This was the only service area where the rank order differed for the two samples.


OPM page 24

Specific service proposals in children’s social services

On-street

%

On-line / postal

%

Financial support for adopted children 42 33

Recruitment of more social workers 32 31

Recruitment of more foster carers 19 32

None of these 4 -


As discussed, the majority of survey participants said that youth provision would be one of

their priority service areas. When presented with specific service proposals under youth

provision, around half of both samples (47% on-street and 56% on-line) said they would

choose to ‘increase the availability of …activities for young people’ as a priority compared

to the other proposals in this service area. The second most popular option was ‘providing

… support for young people who are …vulnerable…’ (32% on-street and 23% on-line) and

around two in ten (19% on-street and 17% on-line) would prioritise ‘giving young people

the opportunity to participate…’.

Specific service proposals in youth provision

On-street

%

On-line / postal

%

Increase the availability of … activities for young people … 47 56

Provide … support for young people who are …vulnerable… 32 23

Give young people the opportunity to participate… 19 17

None of these 2 -


Again, community safety and crime reduction was identified as a key priority for many

respondents. When asked which of three specific service proposals they would prioritise if

they had to choose, and as illustrated below, the most popular choice for both samples

(40% on-street and 58% on-line) was ‘the creation of a dedicated team to reduce anti-

social behaviour…’. Around three in ten of both samples (32% on-street and 26% on-line)

would prioritise ‘improving the quality and level of support available to victims of domestic

violence…’ and a quarter of the on-street (25%) and one in ten of the on-line respondents

(12%) would choose ‘…clearance of hazardous waste from sex and drugs use.’


OPM page 25

Specific service proposals in community safety and crime reduction

On-

street

%

On-

line /

postal

%

The creation of a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour in the borough 40 58

Improve the quality and level of support available to victims of domestic violence

…

32 26

Ensuring the continuation of … clearance of hazardous waste from sex and drugs

use.

25 12

None of these 2 -


Finally, those surveyed were presented with three specific service proposals under streets

and highways. Despite being respondents’ least important service area, as shown below,

nearly half (47% on-street and 49% on-line) of respondents in both samples stated that

they would prioritise ‘…piloting the ‘Street Watch’ initiative…’ if they had to choose. A third

(32%) of on-street respondents and a quarter of on-line respondents (24%) choose ‘an

increase in the frequency of street cleansing’ and around two in ten of each sample (17%

on-street and 23% on-line) would prioritise ‘running a pilot of door to door recycling

collections from flats…’

Specific service proposals in street and highways

On-

street

%

On-

line /

postal

%

…piloting the ‘street watch’ initiative… 47 49

An increase in the frequency of street cleansing 32 24

Running a pilot of door to door recycling collections from flats… 17 23

None of these 2 -



OPM page 26

Deliberative workshops

Forty-nine people were involved in a debate about the council’s budget during two half-

day workshops in late October and early November. A range of techniques were used in

the workshops including plenary discussions, small group work, individual paper-based

questionnaires and electronic voting, to allow participants to work in ways they felt

comfortable. We returned to some key “benchmark” questions asked at the beginning of

the workshop at the end of the day, to ascertain whether views had changed and

developed and how.

Around 40 people were recruited by on street interview to attend each workshop, and

offered £40 as an incentive. People were recruited to match the population profile of the

borough. At the first workshop (northern residents), 20 people took part, with 29 attending

the second session (southern residents). In OPM’s experience this is a low turnout,

compared with other London boroughs where we have done similar work. This may be

because the incentive level was relatively low compared with some other market and

social research exercises, that the salience of the subject matter was not sufficient to

persuade larger numbers of people to attend, or that people simply had other things to do

on a Saturday morning. Follow up phone calls to people who had said they would attend

suggested a combination of these reasons.

However, as the recruits to these sessions still reflected the borough’s population profile,

we can say that, had the whole of Lambeth been involved in a similar exercise, the

“headline” results would have been broadly similar.

Initial views

An initial presentation about Lambeth’s finances and budget process gave people

information on which to base their deliberations for the day. The presentation focused

particularly on the questions into which people were to give their input – the size of the

budget cake, the relative size of slices and what was in each piece. Basic comparative

information about budgets was also given, along with some headlines about the types of

services they were going to think about.

Workshop participants were then involved in early general discussions, about their

thoughts and reactions, first in plenary and then small groups. In plenary, people raised

issues that gave a good sense of people’s key thoughts and feelings, which continued to

be raised throughout the workshops.

They raised concerns about the following issues:

• levels of council tax in general and the budgeting process overall (including whether

their involvement was genuine and whether the council would listen to their views);

• the council’s efficiency and accountability.


OPM page 27

Participants also asked specific questions, and raised concerns, about how housing and

education budgets were decided, the importance of these services, and why they were not

involved in this process.

A participant asked why housing could not be considered; there was a sense that there

was a shortage of affordable housing in the borough, and high levels of homelessness

(particularly from the Northern group). The Council response was that the housing

account was separately administered for these purposes but these concerns would be

taken into account

Another resident said that housing was “the most important issue” and wanted to know

why when someone is released from prison they are classified as “vulnerable and get

housed”; possibly meaning that others in need do not get an opportunity to have social

housing. Another resident said that the authorities “had a responsibility” [to house ex-

offenders] as “they put you inside so have to house you when they put you back into

society”.

There was also concern at recent closure of schools in the area (the council response was

that money from closed schools should all go directly back into education, and not be

redirected into other areas as the funding is ring fenced).

Another area of concern was around service provision for young people, community

safety and support for particular population groups, including children and older people.

The following bullets and quotes give a flavour of the types of issues discussed:

• how the council classifies / categorises ‘vulnerable’, and how they know when

someone falls into this category. (Northern group) (Council response that elderly

single people, people with learning disabilities, young people and children at risk or in

need of extra support were some of those classified as vulnerable.)

• questions raised about support for children and younger people, and older people.

(OPM/council response that these areas would be covered in later discussions in more

detail)

• question around how much money was going to be allocated for community

safety/crime reduction

• concern that some crime reduction measures were overly punitive and did not tackle

“root causes”; “ASBOs are ruining people’s lives”!

Priority service areas

These themes, set out from the start of the workshops tended to be consistently raised

through the process. When split into small groups to start discussion in detail about

council services, concentrating particularly on reactions to the presentation and

discussion, some of the issues above were raised in greater detail. A selection of the

quotes and views from this initial discussion are given below.

There was anger and concern from some that council tax comprised an ever increasing

proportion of their income, but resignation over this from others;


OPM page 28

“I agree that inflation must mean higher council tax but it does not necessarily mean

any pay rises so we are paying more as a proportion of our salaries”

People discussed whether Lambeth was a good guardian of taxpayers’ money; there was

some debate about this;

“Lambeth has a reputation as being very inefficient with its funds”

“There is a lot of myth and exaggeration around inefficiencies (of Lambeth Council)”

“Lambeth needs independent regulation – outside help to bring efficiencies. I would be

happy to pay more council tax for this to happen”

“External help just brings cuts – there is no efficiencies to be made: this is the way

things are”

There was also a sense that other organisations could and should be working for local

people in providing services:

“We should be giving money to smaller community groups rather than large

organisations”

There was also comment and discussion again over the closure of schools and state of

repair of council housing, and some disquiet that these issues could not be brought to the

table in terms of discussions over budget priorities in quite the same way as other areas.

There was also comment in this initial session and throughout the workshop about

savings that could be made by organisations and service areas working effectively in

partnership and communicating better between themselves.

Debate also circled around the purpose of the day, one resident said “we need more

consultation, Lambeth say they are for the people so they need to find out what the people

think”. Some others were more sceptical, saying “what is the point in all this – consultation

has no effect”.

Some discussion also took place regarding services provided by Lambeth and the quality

of these vis a vis other councils and whether there was difference by area;

“I have just moved here from Wandsworth and the street cleaning is excellent here

compared to there”

“You just get your street cleaned because you live in a posh area”

“There are great recycling facilities, but where does it all go?”

This discussion served to prepare people for the first quantitative voting session of the

day. After an explanation of how the voting equipment was used and a warm up question,

people were asked to choose which service areas, of the five under consideration, they

would prioritise when making decisions about the budget. They used a fact sheet


OPM page 29

provided for them in advance of the day with a paragraph of description about each

service under consideration. The question we asked is given below.

Which of the following service areas do you think should be the council’s top three spending priorities for 2007/8?YOU CAN VOTE 3 TIMES, STARTING WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT

A. Adults’ social services

B. Children’s social services

C. Community safety and crime reduction

D. Streets and highways

E. Youth provision

The question was repeated at the end of the day’s discussions to ascertain how views had

changed.

Reflecting the first discussion of the day and the themes within it, almost four in ten people

(37%) nominated youth provision as their top priority, following by community safety and

crime reduction, chosen by one in five (22%). Adult social services were a close third

place.

4%

4%

22%

20%

12%

37%

20%

14%

12%

20%

18%

14%

8%

14%

27%

22%

18%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

NR



reduction

Adults’ social services

Children’s social services

Youth provision

% of respondents

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority


OPM page 30

Taking the second and third placed scores into account, people still prioritised youth

services above others, but social services for children and adults were seen as important

in some way by around half of participants, with four in ten choosing community safety.

Street and highway services were not prioritised to anything like the same extent.

People were also asked to think about council tax levels and nominate which rise, if any,

would be acceptable to them. The question we asked is shown below.

Overall, how much do you think the council tax level should change if at all in 2007/08?

A. 3% increase (approx £25 per household

per year – £2.5m towards maintaining services)

B. 4% increase (approx £34 per household

per year - £2.5m maintaining services, £0.8 investment)

C. 5% increase (approx £42 per household

per year – £2.5 maintaining, £4.2m additional for services, £1.7 investment in services)

D. I do not think it should be increased – leading to a significant

reduction in services

Again this question was repeated at the end of the day.

The lighter bars show that the majority (57%) chose a rise of any kind over no rise at all,

with over a fifth (22%) opting for a 5% increase, 20% saying 4% and 15% opting for a 3%

rise, although a notable proportion - over four in ten people (43%) - said they were not in

favour of any rise at all.

The darker bars show the change in voting patterns when the question was asked again

in the afternoon – with people slightly more likely to opt for a lower rise. We talk more

about this later in this chapter.


OPM page 31

43%

15%

20%

22%

43%

24%

13%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

No increase

3% increase

4% increase

5% increase

% of respondents

Morning Afternoon


OPM page 32

Detailed budget choices

Participants were then taken through exercises in small groups which encouraged them to

talk and make budgeting decisions about particular service areas. Again, people were

provided with detailed fact sheets which gave information about the service areas and

options for growth within these. After these discussions, people voted on their priorities

for spending.

Some groups worked at different paces in discussion due to language and literacy needs

or simply needing more time to come to judgement about issues.

There was a tendency among many participants to discuss wider issues than those on the

table for consideration – which OPM experiences in much of this type of consultation

work. In addition, some people did change their minds during discussion, after listening to

presentation, reflection from others and weighing up their own views. Other people’s

views remained more constant through discussions.

We have reflected these issues in our reporting where they are relevant and they add to

readers’ understanding of the discussions undergone.


In thinking about adults’ and community services, people were given an overall description

of the service area, followed by information on specific service items, and choices to make

as to budget priorities. Abbreviated descriptions are given as follows (full factsheets

including descriptions of the various spending options are given in the appendices):

This service ensures that Lambeth’s vulnerable residents receive support they

need….

Item 1. …Benefits campaign…

Option A Option B Option C

£125k £225k £275k

Item 2. Maintaining the Careline service ….


£50K £100K £150K

Item 3. Improving the accessibility and quality of information…



OPM page 33

£50k £75k £100k

Vote results

Thinking first about adults’ and community services, people felt this was a difficult and

emotive issue to make choices about: “heartbreaking”. However, when asked to choose

between the three specific service items – a benefits campaign for vulnerable adults,

maintaining the Careline service and an information campaign – discussions in small

groups revealed more support overall for the Careline service. This was closely followed

by the benefits campaign, although both areas were felt to be key. Information was

thought to be less important overall.

People voted using their fact sheets in the small groups and these sheets were used by

participants to help them vote electronically after discussion. It is important to note that

this e-voting task asked people to choose between options, which they had not been

forced to do in small group discussion. Therefore, the results of the final votes may not

reflect the tenor of discussion in all cases. The votes for each option are given below, in

order of importance to people:

First priority electronic vote

(%)

2. Maintaining the Careline service…. 43

1. …Benefits campaign…. 33

3. Improving the accessibility and quality of

information…

14

More detailed information is given about each of the service area discussions below:

Detailed discussion

In general, people found it difficult to decide between options as they felt all were

important.

Many groups agreed that the council has a duty to look after the most vulnerable people in

the community – people felt Lambeth had many who would be classed as vulnerable - and

that in general all the proposals under this service area were important. It was also felt

that they would become increasingly important with an ageing population.

Some people in discussion in a further group made the distinction between providing

services for people who made themselves “vulnerable” (e.g. through drink and drugs), and

people who had become “vulnerable” through something other than a lifestyle choice (e.g.

domestic violence, older people):

“(Older people) have done their bit for society”.


OPM page 34

1. …Benefits campaign….

This service area was felt to be important by many, but would only work if it was targeted

effectively. Some felt that national government TV campaigns might be more effective

than anything that local government could do; others felt a face to face approach through

existing service delivery might be effective, though.

It was agreed by another group that ‘genuinely’ vulnerable adults (how many were there in

the borough?) should be “made more aware of their rights” – some had heard of people

having poor experience with services such as CAB and housing services: being given

wrong information and not receiving the help they needed quick enough; “they said he

couldn’t get a place for 14 days and that’s not right, it’s all about how they classify people”.

But a few participants expressed concern that some vulnerable individuals would need

additional support in spending additional benefits wisely – i.e. people with drug and

alcohol problems are “vulnerable” but would giving them access to more money without

support be beneficial for them? Others were concerned that the publicity might encourage

benefit fraud.

“There should be more investigation into who is really ‘vulnerable’. You’ve got to sort

out the fakers from those who are proper ill and don’t get benefits, that’s why I’d say

[option] A (the smallest spend)”

Rather than advertising, they felt that “vulnerable adults” inevitably come into contact with

a service at some point. They saw it as the job of the service provider they had contact

with to highlight what other services and benefits someone should be entitled to – they felt

that a GP surgery would be somewhere this could happen.

When one group started to review the proposals in detail it was felt that any option that did

not include some kind of outreach to the vulnerable was unhelpful as much subsequent

activity hinged on this. Similarly another group agreed that Option C (the largest spend)

was the best as it was decided it was pointless having benefits there if people couldn’t

claim them.

There was discussion in one group over whether money could be saved if people got

support from their parents and families. However one resident said he would not spend

any money on any of those options. He said that:

“There is not enough care for pensioners – money should be spent on OAPs not on

immigrants. OAPs deserve the money – we need to look after our own”

This provoked a debate amongst the rest of the group who decided that pensioners did

deserve more support but so did everyone else and that not everyone has a family to help

them work out what benefits they are entitled to so more money needs to be spent. The

debate did make some of the group consider options A and B more, although in the end

they still chose C.


OPM page 35

2. Maintaining the Careline service…

There was consensus amongst many groups that Careline was an important proposal in

this service area. The point in the previous section about outreach to and support for the

vulnerable was important here.

“They (disabled people) need some kind of reassurance”

“Could save someone’s life”.

One group underlined the need to operate on evenings and weekends as that is when

vulnerable people need the most support.

Members of groups were keen to understand the details of how Careline operates – what

kind of support did it actually offer, who was entitled to use the service, what hours it

operated etc.

A couple of participants commented on the fact that they had elderly and vulnerable

relatives who live in the borough yet they were unaware of the Careline service. They

discussed incidents that had occurred (for example their gran falling and lying for hours

until they were discovered by a visiting relative) in which Careline could have been useful.

They were interested in how they could access more information about the service.

One resident had had direct experience of contacting Lambeth’s domestic violence

services and she felt that they were not very good (e.g. poor provision for people who

don’t speak English) so choosing Option C (most expensive) when it was underperforming

was not good value in her view. She wanted to see Option A done well instead of Option

C done badly.

Some thought this was important because the groups mentioned were considered

“genuinely vulnerable”. Elderly people in particular were highlighted as a group who would

need extra support, especially as some felt the standard of care offered to this group has

declined recently in the borough:

“Since the sheltered accommodation was privatised it’s got worse, they used to have

wardens but they’re not around so much now”

The issue was raised that it would have to be provided equally to each of these very

different groups, the problems faced by disabled people differ greatly from those faced by

victims of domestic violence.

However, a significant amount of people found it initially difficult to make a judgement on

the service without knowing whether it was something people would actually use:

“Do people use it? If it’s a broadly used service then it’s worth keeping”

The general consensus in one group was for Option B as it was felt to be the most

realistic and the money wasn’t available to always choose Option C across the board.


OPM page 36

Although many in another group would have liked to have seen more support for the

elderly, overall, this service area was considered less important than services for children

and youth provision:

“You wouldn’t want to shave money off the clearly vulnerable but I suppose I would

say the youth stuff is more important – you see them hanging around in half term,

nothing for them to do”.

3. Improving the accessibility and quality of information…

One group felt that this option depended upon how effective the measures would actually

be. They were sceptical of the effectiveness of leaflets. It was agreed that more

innovative ways of targeting people with different needs were needed. One resident said

that information was widely available in Somali, Spanish and Japanese but that she

couldn’t find information in Urdu. She said there should always be information available in

the correct languages, which was again about effective targeting. Many participants said

that word-of-mouth was a good way of spreading information and should be utilised more

(eg. via police, key workers, social workers or shop keepers, volunteers etc). Web and

email could be used but only in appropriate and specific circumstances. Voluntary

organisations might also be a good conduit.

Equity in accessing information was considered important by the group. A minority felt

general information improvement was preferable to improving information on benefits

only:

“You want to guarantee good accessibility to all”

Some were worried about homeless people with mental health problems – they were seen

as a threat to the wider community, and people felt they should be helped but in a way

that was sensitive to the wider population:

“You see a lot of them in the street. The problem is they’ll have a half way house for

them but they’ll put it right next to a school. It’s not fair on the children, it’s ridiculous”

Participants in a further group were quite surprised that the council was not providing this

kind of information as part of their day to day responsibilities. They were also sceptical

about whether it would actually cost the amount of money stated in the different options –

they thought the costs sounded expensive for what was being proposed.

No consensus was reached on an option by many groups, but it was agreed that

monitoring and targeting of information should be factored in to both items 1 and 2

anyway, not just in to Option C.


OPM page 37


The information that people were given about this service area in fact sheets is given

below:

Children’s social services helps vulnerable children in our community, ensuring

that they live in a secure and caring environment...

1. Providing financial support for adopted children…


£675k £850k £1,025k

2. Recruiting more foster carers…


£125k £200k £325k

3. Recruiting more social workers….


£50k £75k £100k

Vote results

Again, participants found it hard to make decisions about children’s social services.

However, although strong views were expressed around all service areas, when it came

to choosing from the three options, recruiting more social workers was a clear priority

choice. They recognised that this may be a ‘spend to save’ option and that money

allocated here could quickly provide benefits for the future for young people – again an

important theme running through the deliberation.

It was interesting that there was some negativity on the fostering and adoption options as

a significant number of people felt that carers should not be ‘in it for the money’.

Again e-vote results are given below, followed by detailed proceedings from discussions.


OPM page 38

Priority (%)

3. Recruiting more social workers… 63

1. Providing financial support for adopted children… 16

2. Recruiting more foster carers… 14

Detailed discussion

Many people felt that this was a very important area generally; “we are failing a lot of kids,

we need to look after children’s welfare”.

There was a sense from other participants that this was an area where it would be difficult

for ordinary citizens to ‘see the benefit’, unlike with community safety or streets and

highways. However, it was still considered one of the more important areas.

“Unless you use the service yourself you’re not going to see the benefits of this one,

but it’s still important”

Another group generally felt that it was an important service area. However it was evident

that one woman in the group had experience of children’s social services and she was

very negative about the service; “they just want to take your children from you – all I

needed was somewhere to stay not for them to take my children – I can look after my own

children”.

Again, there were a number of comments about the difficulty of choosing between

different services; “how can you possibly choose between them?”


This service was ‘very important’ to some groups, especially one group where there were

a good proportion of ABC1 social grade participants. They felt that attitudes to the rest of

your life are developed at a young age and it is important to give as many children as

good a childhood as possible. Removing the barrier of financial burden would be a good

incentive for people to get involved in adopting. The scheme would also pay for some

level of social work support which was felt to be important.

However, there was general consensus in this group that while adoption was an emotive

subject there were more pressing issues in Lambeth. There was also some concern that

the money would leave Lambeth if a Lambeth child was placed outside the borough.

One participant from another group felt that it was very difficult to choose if the

professionals state that Option B gives too little support (i.e. she felt that they were obliged

to choose Option C).

This was a popular service option in another group – it was agreed that children in care

(or recently in care) were deserving of support to help them have stable, happy lives;

“for children in care it’s so important to get the right staff and facilities. They’re very

vulnerable, they can be left to fend for themselves”.


OPM page 39

Financial help for this group was seen as fair and justifiable given that some support

measures such as counselling can be expensive.

However, others felt that children in care and not being fostered may need the money

spending on them instead.

There was cynicism from individuals in some groups, and some groups as a whole, about

people receiving money for adopting or fostering children. One resident said that “if you

take the decision to adopt a child, you should pay for it”

Another resident questioned why adopted children have to go to a nuclear family and not

to a single-parent family and said that the meaning of family had changed (and implied

that this should be reflected in the regulations for adopting). There were also questions

around age restrictions for people wanting to adopt and a general feeling that the current

regulations were not flexible enough.

One group who displayed no general consensus on an option felt that Options A and B

were not sufficient support but Option C was too expensive.

2. Recruiting more foster carers…

One group wanted to know why there was such a disparity between Wandsworth and

Lambeth. This same group thought that if savings were made by choosing Option C (i.e.

spend to save), then these savings needed careful monitoring by the council. There were

also questions as to why fostering payments were not subject to national tariffs.

There was more suspicion around this service option – some participants asked quite

particular questions about whether it was £267 was before or after tax, and whether this

was per child or an average for foster families of different sizes. This seemed to be related

to the fear that foster carers might be being greedy and whether this would be the best

way to spend the money to benefit the children.

Related to this, there was some cynicism about foster carers and their motivations for

fostering. Some participants said that they should not receive any money.

However, a further minority felt this option was important to ensuring continuity of foster

carers. There was also recognition that more black foster carers were needed and

perhaps better payments would encourage them to come forward.

Some felt that payment should be related to the age of the child.

3. Recruiting more social workers…

Many residents felt that there was a ‘spend to save’ possibility by choosing Option C. One

resident said that “children needed to be able to rely on someone they see regularly –

permanent staff with a permanent overview [as opposed to agency staff] because these

children are the future”. This was backed up by participants in another group as they felt

more permanent support was important for continuity of care and stability for young

people.


OPM page 40

The need for social workers in the borough was not questioned as it was felt there were

many children with challenging lives in Lambeth. High turnover of staff was also thought to

be highly detrimental to children, possibly cancelling out the benefit of social worker

support.

“I would imagine that there’s a heavy case load here, but if you look at this none of

them are permanent and that means no continuity of care”

“If they’re paid more then they’re less likely to move around, the kids are more likely to

get the counselling they need in place”.

Sheer numbers of social workers was not seen as the only issue: “there should be more

training to help children in care and for social workers. Recruit more, yes, but make sure

they’ve got more training and experience”. This view was echoed by a number of people.

There was general consensus from many on Option C, the most expensive option.

Community safety and crime reduction

Key information given to participants is shown below:

Crime is a key concern of Lambeth residents…

1. Creating a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour …


£175k £225k £275k

2. Improving the quality and level of support available to victims of domestic

violence…


£200K £400K £525K

3. Ensuring the continuation of … clearance of hazardous waste from sex and

drugs use.


£50k £75k £100k

Vote results

Reflecting the earlier votes and discussion, generally community safety and crime

reduction was rated a priority area.

There was a less clear priority here on services to victims of domestic violence. It was

seen as a complex subject and one where many participants were unable to speak with

authority, but some participants expressed very strong views.


OPM page 41

Some clearly supported the option to reduce antisocial behaviour (ASB) whereas others

opposed this. The rapid response service for the clearance of hazardous waste from sex

and drugs was given an equal score overall.

Vote data is given below followed by detail on discussion.

Priority

(%)


violence…

39

1. Creating a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour… 27

3. Ensuring the continuation of … the clearance of hazardous waste from sex

and drugs use.

27

Detailed discussion

Reflecting the earlier votes and discussion, generally this was a priority area, though

some participants had broader concerns relating to serious crime that were not addressed

by the investment options.

“I find it quite intimidating on the streets, especially if you were elderly. You hear about

the guns and the knives – it’s frightening”

“You see them, the muggers, on the street”

Similarly, some comments related to the police’s relationship with the community, visibility

and the wider determinants of crime rather than just the options put forward for

consideration:

“The police need to have respect, especially for young people”

“You’ve got to think about why they’re robbing. If the crime is bad then maybe it’s

because they’re not getting enough benefits. You need money”.

However, some people did think that the perception of levels of crime in some areas was

worse than the reality (from a Southern group).

Another group felt that the emphasis should be on the cause not the effect i.e. policy

should be preventative not reactive, and that many of the youth and children’s social

services options were linked to crime reduction in the short and long term.

A long discussion took place in one group about how nice the police cars are in Lambeth.

Some respondents felt that money was wasted on buying high spec cars unnecessarily

but others felt this was necessary for the police work that Lambeth undertake.

Throughout this section the issue of respective responsibility was brought up – what the

police and council can and should be doing separately and together; and also what should


OPM page 42

be funded by Lambeth and the Government. It was felt the government needed to make

this a priority, not necessarily just Lambeth.

1. Creating a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour…

There was some discussion in one group about what a “dedicated team” meant:

“Does this mean they read a lot more or that they know from doing it?”

and what they would focus on e.g. drug dealing, nuisance neighbours. “Is littering ASB?”

People around the table were in agreement that the ‘perceived’ level of ASB is very high –

young people are out on the streets a lot and this intimidates people.

One group mentioned that there is already a well known drug and alcohol team who work

with the borough. They work very well with those who drink in public in particular and have

had a great impact. This helps to combat the feeling by many residents that young people

are the problem rather than working together with them to work out how to solve the

problem of ASB.

However, another group had had previous issues with the police and the criminal justice

system and felt that imposing more authority around this issue would not work. The group

felt teams of people who had been involved in crime and “come out the other side” -

positive role models - may be listened to more that any kind of authority figures. One of

the group had previous experience of a probation officer and felt that the probation officer

did not understand or support him adequately as the probation officer did not understand

where he was coming from. He found that younger people did listen to him though and

that he might be able to have more of a positive impact:

“They might listen to people like us”.

A hard line on anti social behaviour, including ultimately prison or probation, were not

seen as good responses;

“The more we send kids to jail the more they’re going to get worse”.

If the dedicated team were to be role models rather than those who had not experienced

crime directly, the group were in favour of either option C or B with an even split between

the two.

One participant wanted to know if there was somewhere that they could report anti-social

behaviour to. Others were aware of a local “shop-front” that served this function (the

facilitator suggested this was possibly a Safer Neighbourhood Team office).

People discussed various incidences of extreme behaviour that they had witnessed and

there was some agreement that there was a need to get to the root of the problem (and

that ASBOs were not the way to do this as by this point it was too late).


OPM page 43

There was a divide in opinion between the younger and older members of one group on

this issue. The older members of the group prioritised it, on the condition such an initiative

had been proved successful elsewhere.

“Does this anti-social behaviour team thing work? Has it been tried out in other

places?”

However the younger members of the group were more suspicious of anti-ASB initiatives

and emphasising that:

• anti-ASB often meant anti-young people, and that young people need to be shown

respect if they are not to become even more disengaged from mainstream society

• “you need to explore why young people are committing crime and not just hand out

ASBOs”

• if the dedicated team were to work it would need to build bridges and work with young

people rather than against them.

“Don’t just give the ASBOs out – they don’t wipe out crime. The youths need to

change in themselves but only by working with people the youths can relate to. Need

people on the right wave-length. It looks like control more than support”

This was reflected in another discussion where most of the group were not particularly

keen on ASBOs. The group wanted more police, community support officers and CCTV;

“ASBOs just give people street cred”.

In the same way, one group rejected all options and said that they would put the money

towards other facilities such as parenting advice, leisure facilities, etc. Another felt this

should be a police, not a local authority job.

A further group felt that ASB meant tackling young people’s criminal behaviour alone and

that this should be a focus across all crime, not just what was seen as “low level”.


violence...

Men and women had more markedly different views on this issue than on most other

issues under discussion. Also, many people recognised this issue as contentious and

complex and found it difficult to come to a firm conclusion. For example, one male

resident didn’t feel he could comment on this issue as it was out of his realm of

experience.

In one group discussion, one of the participants asked who had heard of the Gaia

Domestic Violence Centre or had any experience of it – no one had heard of it. Some

discussion followed about the need to raise awareness of a service like this. There was

also some discussion about who had access to the service, how it was funded at the

moment and how people were referred.


OPM page 44

One female participant who had had experience of the service said in another group

discussion that the contracts in safe houses should be for more than 6 months as the

women have nowhere to go when they come to the end of their stay at the project and

that supported hostels should be provided for Asian women as they needed “a particular

type of support”.

She also asked “why are we not educating in schools about domestic violence? These

options are end of the line measures”. She wanted the budget to be focused on more

preventative measures.

Some female participants felt this was a priority area for investment: “there should be

more money for domestic violence, there’s not enough accommodation, the shelters are

full”.

However, a further participant said that if the victim returns to the abusive relationship they

should have to “pay all the money back” that they received in support and would therefore

choose Option A.

Some people in another group felt the focus should be wider than just domestic violence

e.g. street violence as well, and that working with the police here should be a focus.

One group felt that central government funding for this area should be higher rather than

coming through locally raised tax.

3. Ensuring the continuation of … the clearance of hazardous waste from sex and

drugs use

There was a low level of awareness about the council’s telephone number from some

(“I’ve never heard a phone number advertised; Is it the same as the other waste

number?”)

One southern group felt that if people make a complaint about it to the council it is dealt

with anyway so there probably is not a need for a specialist team. However, a northern

resident’s experience was different - the council hadn’t cleared away used condoms from

outside her house despite asking them to several times. She said that problems in this

area were like others in the realm of community safety and crime prevention in her view,

that “CCTV in one area just pushes the problem over the road”. Another resident in the

same group living at Loughborough Junction said that there had been used needles in a

local park that hadn’t been cleared straight away.

It was agreed hazardous waste is both unpleasant and potentially very dangerous;

“Condoms and needles – no one wants to see it”

“You don’t want to take your five year old out to find the needles from the crackheads”.

However another group felt this was too limited an initiative when thinking more widely

about community safety. A further participant said that he thought the community should

take some responsibility for this. He said that by using a little common sense it was


OPM page 45

probably much quicker, safer and efficient just to clear up this type of waste yourself,

despite the fact it was dangerous material.

This provoked significant debate in another group about wider issues. Some members of

the group thought that drug users should not be given needles in the first place as that

would prevent them being left in the street later.

“They give you clean needles – 5 a week! Where are you going to sling the needles –

you don’t care”.

Others were highly concerned that children or other vulnerable people might play with the

needles when outside which puts them at risk. One participant told of when she was

manic at one point and had picked up a lot of needles which had been discarded; she was

not aware of what she was doing.

Most of the residents felt the money needed to be spent on preventing people form using

drugs in the first place rather than on cleaning up the waste but that in the mean time

children needed protecting.


Information was given as follows:

Increased investment in ‘streets and highways’ …

1. Improving the current street patrolling service by piloting ‘Street Watch’…


£50k £100k £150k

2. Increasing the frequency of street cleansing in retail areas.


£200k £300k £400k

3. Investing in a strategy to increase recycling…


£250k £500k £750k

Vote results

Thinking next about streets and highways, the decision on a top priority was split here,

with equal numbers favouring the Street Watch scheme and extending recycling.


OPM page 46

Priority (%)

1. Improving the current street patrolling service by piloting ‘Street Watch’… 33

3. Investing in a strategy to increase recycling… 33

2. Increasing the frequency of street cleansing in retail areas 16

Detailed discussion

A few groups felt that this was an unimportant policy area – they did not want to spend

time discussing it in any detail, or felt there were more important areas for the council to

focus spending on.

However, a minority of groups (mainly from the Southern workshop) felt it was a big issue;

that the environment they lived in was important to them and that street cleaning,

recycling and rubbish disposal was vital for that.

There was some division between people from different areas of Lambeth as to how good

the council is at maintaining cleanliness. Some areas were felt to be excellent (Streatham

and Gypsy Hill) but some participants felt their areas lacked attention.

1. Improving the current street patrolling service by piloting ‘Street Watch’…

One resident said that in general things had “got a lot better” and had noticed a clean-up

truck up to twice a day on the streets, and so further action did not necessarily need to be

prioritised.

Others felt that in some cases this would be a duplication of effort. There are already good

street wardens patrolling and participants were generally well aware of these people and

their powers.

Some people felt that those dropping litter were unpredictable and that it was not safe to

intervene if you saw people littering the environment or dumping rubbish.

However, there was a different view from some – that this scheme was felt to be a good

way of involving people with their own environment and it was hoped that it would educate

people not to litter rather than just paying to clear it up. This would treat the cause rather

than the outcome. Parallels were drawn with the ‘Keep Britain Tidy’ campaign – highly

visible and effective. People also said that there was dumped rubbish that didn’t get

cleared away and so suggested that more needed to be spent in this area; “Option A is

absurd”!

There was some confusion about how this scheme would work. Some people felt that it

was like asking neighbours to snoop on each other;

“If you get called a grasser you are in Shit Street”

“Encouraging people to take photos of each and other and spy. It will be like reporting

on hosepipe bans”


OPM page 47

whilst others felt that it was a nice idea to get the community involved in looking after their

environment;

“We could report things like pot holes and fly tipping”

Still others felt that the patrolling system was not working and would not work on some

estates;

“If they are just cleaning up that’s fine – if they are uniformed that’s gonna get them

aggravation”

Some members of the group felt that it was best to keep the area clear and clean as it

showed respect for the area in which you lived but others felt this would not really address

the underlying issues. Others felt that Lambeth could build on what already happened in

reality in some estates and areas;

“Get a proper graffiti wall and do nice graffiti on the graffiti wall”.


People from the South of the borough tended to be more positive about cleanliness than

in the North.

“They are not that dirty”

“They clean up quite well after themselves”

again, of retail areas, Gypsy Hill and Streatham Hill were felt to be good examples, Brixton

was felt to be a poor example.

One group from the North discussed whether retail outlets such as McDonalds should

have to pay anything for the litter that they create and were in favour of having bins

divided into two (like Westminster and Camden) for recycling on the streets. The group

wanted to see the council work with business and devise a “more intelligent approach” to

street cleansing. There was a lot of support for “bags for life” and for more recycling

efforts.

The feeling from others was that there was scope for street cleaning to be improved, but

that it was a ‘thankless task’;

“The streets are dirty but they clean it and it’s no better”

“They need to check the street cleaners are doing their jobs”.


OPM page 48


There were very mixed views in one group. One resident said that there weren’t enough

recycling collections and despite phoning up for recycling bags several times, he had still

not received them. This was seen as a question of administering the current situation

efficiently rather than necessarily extending the scheme.

Another group felt this option was important – but that as part of this recycling must be

dealt with responsibly; “I read an article that our waste is going to China”.

In two southern groups there was much more knowledge about recycling; although mixed

views about its importance. Some participants obviously received a regular recycling

collection service whilst others did not. Some of those living in flats and council

accommodation seemed to be slightly less aware of or satisfied with arrangements,

although where people did mention a central collection from flats they felt it worked well.

There was also some discussion about access to recycling bags – some people had them

whilst others did not. One participant informed the group that they are available at Olive

Morris House – and also that if you phone the council they will deliver one to your door.

There was a sense from one group that resources could be better used by educating

people about the importance of recycling and encouraging them to use existing facilities

A further group felt, as a consensus view, that a new recycling scheme was important.

“Well, it costs a lot – but how much are we spending on landfill sites?”

“If we’ve got rubbish lying around we’ll get more diseases and we might bring back

Black Death”.

Other specific ideas to promote recycling included:

• could we have a campaign to give points for recycling?

• household waste only accounts for less than 10% of the waste produced – what about

industry? What will Lambeth businesses have to do? It would be better to make it

economically unviable to be non-environmental rather than adopt a ‘snoop and punish’

approach as they currently do.

Youth provision

Youth provision was the last service area considered. Information about this area was

given to participants as follows:


OPM page 49

The aim of this investment is to expand and improve services to all young people…

1. Working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet made up of

selected young people representing local areas…


£50k £125k £150k

2. Increasing the provision of facilities for young people across the borough.…


£700k £900k £1,200k

3. Providing better access to effective support for young people who are

…vulnerable…


£150k £250k £350k

Vote results

This discussion area was a top priority for several groups. Increasing youth service

provision was by far the most popular option.

Priority

(%)

2. Increasing the provision of facilities for young people across the borough… 76

3. Providing better access to effective support for young people who are … vulnerable...

20

1. Working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet… 0

Detailed discussion

This was a top priority for several groups, linked to crime and social deprivation in

Lambeth. One of the younger participants noted:

“I’ve lived here all my life, it’s pretty crap. You got the crack heads but a lot of people

are just poor and need money. Young people need money if they’re going to do

something with their lives”

There was a strong feeling that Lambeth is a very young borough and that young people

lack support in a lot of ways. They need more things to do.


OPM page 50

1. Working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet…

There was not much enthusiasm for this from many groups – there was confusion as to

how the cabinet’s role would be different to the youth council’s, and what difference the

cabinet would make as opposed to consultation workshops and meetings like the ones the

participants themselves were involved in. They thought it should only get A or B (low

spends) if anything.

“Review it to make sure they’re not squandering the money”

There was clear cynicism and scepticism from some groups. People felt it looked to be

bureaucratic and expensive and they wondered who would be sitting on it, how many

(more of a concern was how few) and how they would become a member of it. They also

felt that it might not create much interest amongst young people “at large”.

One older resident said “no one took any notice of them (us) when I was at school so why

should things be any different now?”

Other participants just did not see the point. They felt that it would only benefit certain

types of young people or not have a discernable positive impact

Two groups were more positive about this – a southern group where people had had

experience of the criminal justice system and a group with relatively middle class

participants. It was seen to be a good idea to empower young people to make something

of their lives and motivate them (with certain caveats);

“I agree with C but with real people not officers”

“It does not cost much more than B so we might as well spend more”

“We need to at least make them see that they have a choice in life”

“There is great disparity across the borough as to the extent to which this (motivation)

takes place”

2. Increasing provision of facilities for young people across the borough…

This was the most popular option from many groups. Younger participants were generally

vocal in suggesting which facilities would be well received, including music (seen as a

unifier of young people) and sport with the Olympics coming up;

“There needs to be more youth facilities, otherwise you get a lot of crime, with

boredom comes crime”

“It is about giving everyone something to do”

“Something like a community radio station at a decent community centre. Lots of kids

here are seriously into their music”

“This would definitely get [option] C”


OPM page 51

Another group much preferred this option as it involved more direct spending and covered

a broad range of activities. They felt that comprehensive youth provision would be a good

preventative policy e.g. cut down on ASB.

One resident thought the Met Police summer scheme was very positive and there should

be more schemes like this; possibly with the council working in partnership and therefore

saving money.

However another group, that felt the aspiration to ‘make Lambeth’s Youth Provision one of

the best in the United Kingdom’ was admirable and worthy, felt there were lots of

unanswered questions around whether young people would have to pay for the facilities,

what areas and ages it would cover, how they would be monitored and so on.

“It should be free for all the kids – should also be free for 18-21 year olds”

One participant did express doubt over whether this type of provision would really have an

impact on the types of young people it was hoping to help i.e. those on the fringes of

criminal activity and ASB. Others felt provision can be in danger of being “hijacked” by a

certain type of client:

“All the youth clubs get turned into dens – (the council) spent money on a pool table

but (people) end up smoking weed”

“It don’t become a place for all young people – it doesn’t as there are too many bad

boys”.

This group felt it was important to support and provide services to young people up to the

age of 21, and also look at employment, diversion from crime, volunteering and training,

basic skills etc in a holistic way.

Another said that young people “don’t know what they want”.

3. Providing better access to effective support for young people who are …

vulnerable or involved with the criminal justice system…

This was considered more contentious than item 2 above by one group, largely because

‘effective support’ to those ‘involved with the criminal justice system’ could be seen as

rewarding those who have got in trouble with special treatment;

“You can’t make it too nice for them. They shouldn’t have done it”.

There was also a sense among a couple of groups that if services under item 2 above

were right, there would be little need to prioritise option 3. (please clarify)

However, the younger members of the group felt vulnerable young people can’t turn their

lives around without financial help. They suggested grants to help young people to set up

their own businesses. The older members of the group strongly disagreed and felt this

would be a financial incentive to behave badly.


OPM page 52

There was general consensus that help with training and peer support from people who

have got themselves ‘out of trouble’ would be a good idea for this group.

Some other participants felt it sat more comfortably with children’s social services than

youth provision, and should be incorporated into these budgets or by working together.

This was a popular subject with one group. One group member had experience with the

criminal justice system. He had been on probation and was put into prison 10 days before

Christmas. His initial reaction to this option was quite clear:

“I think the criminal justice system is a load of bollocks”.

Over the course of the discussion though opinion changed, this group member had

already said that he felt his probation officer did not understand him in an earlier

discussion and thought that talking to someone like himself, who had experience in crime

might have made more of a difference. As such trained volunteers from the local estates

who had experience were seen as very important;

“I think (using volunteers and) training them is vital”

It was also seen as important to provide activities for young people to keep them from

becoming involved in crime as well as training opportunities

“Give us things to do – send us on activities and stuff”

“Some kids need help because they can’t read and write”

Emphasis was also placed on making sure young people did not feel judged and were not

branded for life, as such the group felt keeping young people out of the Criminal Justice

System was the best route as it would keep them from having a criminal record and

having problems in finding work in later life.

“Everybody makes mistakes – you get branded for life”

“They don’t think there’s a future for you – you’ve already been judged”

“(They) make the children feel they got no chance so I might as well just give up”

Closing views

Second vote on priority service areas

Following these detailed discussions, people were asked to vote again on priority service

areas, repeating the question asked in the morning.

Looking at the combined votes, around three quarters of participants chose either

children’s services or youth provision in their top three (shown in bold below); a significant


OPM page 53

change from the morning’s votes. It is likely that the ability to reflect on others’ views and

come to collective judgement on issues over a period of time resulted in this change in

view over the day (particularly looking at children’s social services); along with the point,

noted at several occasions earlier in this section, that people feel that investment in young

people will ‘pay off’ later in life.

GRAPHS HERE STILL TO FINALISE

10%

8%

10%

20%

20%

31%

4%

8%

31%

20%

10%

27%

12%

18%

45%

18%

2%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

NR


Adults’ social services

Community safety and

crime reduction

Youth provision

Children’s social

services

% of respondents (n=49)

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

We also repeated the question about council tax. People were more likely in the

afternoon vote to opt for a smaller council tax rise, but there was relatively little change:


OPM page 54

Spend on this priority

As youth provision was given the highest ‘first priority’ vote, we asked which spending

options people would choose for this area from options A, B and C. Over half – 51% –

said that they would recommend spending the largest amount available – option C

(£1,200,000) with 27% choosing option B (£900,000) and 16% option A (£700,000).

‘Budget game’ – making it all add up

At the end of the workshops, people were asked to try and make the budget balance by

choosing 8 services they would prioritise, with a budget of £2,000,000. Again people

worked in small groups, with each group choosing the items they felt were most important,

sticking as closely as they could to the budget.

OPM have worked out the average spend from that nominated by participants on all

budget items and compared this spend with the median option (B) suggested by Lambeth

for specific services. Where participants’ suggested spend matched Lambeth’s spending

option more closely, we can assume that these service items are particular priorities for

residents. These particular priority options were as given below:

43%

15%

20%

22%

43%

24%

13%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

No increase

3% increase

4% increase

5% increase

% of respondents

Morning Afternoon

Base: All deliberative workshop participants (49). Rebased to exclude non responses

(-2%)

(-7%)

(+9%)

(0%)

Net change AM

to PM


OPM page 55

Average spend suggested

by participants (£000)

Spend option B suggested

by Lambeth (£000)

Careline service 75 100

Recruiting social workers 66 75

Street Watch 56 100

Provision of youth facilities

across the borough

919 900

It is interesting that the two items originally chosen as priorities:

Average spend suggested by

participants (£000)

Spend option B suggested

by Lambeth (£000)

Support for domestic

violence victims

81 400

Recycling 121 500

have not been nominated by the groups overall for increased spending at the level that

the council has suggested. From our sense of the discussion throughout the day, we feel

that people thought that both these areas were important, but felt that the large spend

associated with any of the options was too much to take from their overall £2,000,000.


OPM page 56

Stakeholder discussion – voluntary, community and business

A meeting was held with representatives from the voluntary, community and business

sectors in late October. Lambeth Council invited people from its contact database; 18

people attended (with representation from three local area groups, five voluntary

organisations/charities, two businesses, three faith groups, three tenant/resident

representatives and two individuals).

An introduction from Lambeth Council (the Chief Executive and Lead Member for Finance

and Resources) was followed by a presentation from OPM on some of the key choices for

the council and decisions to be taken. Small group discussion then allowed participants to

look at budget issues in greater depth.

Initial views

Participants were first asked their views on the level of council tax for the coming year and

for more general reactions and questions. There was no clear consensus from

participants on the option to be chosen, although people tended to suggest any increase

should be modest (3% or 4%) and result in tangible and evident benefits for residents.

There seemed to be a concern among participants that above-inflation rises in living costs

were having a more stark effect on residents with more static incomes; a tenant

representative commented that “year-on-year I watch my residents becoming the new

poor”. However, other people were more keen to opt for a rise if this meant service

improvement; “I’m all for the increase. It’ll allow the council to introduce something new”.

Participants also raised more general issues about the council and its spending, including

issues about population increases in the borough, monitoring of spending and efficiency

(e.g. monitoring external contractors; “no-one looks at the quality of what is delivered –

only the process of delivery”), prioritisation of resources and allocation to the ‘wrong’

areas (specifically not enough money for youth services and crime prevention, leisure for

older people and supporting the vulnerable) and insufficient investment in front line staff

(recruitment, training) resulting in poor customer service standards in some areas.

Comments were also made about the importance of consultation, involvement and

communication. More detail about these areas is given in the next section.


Participants were then asked to think about their priorities for council spending from the

five service areas forming the basis of the consultation. From a paper-based vote, there

was not a great deal of difference in emphasis between four of the five service areas.

However, people rated children’s services as slightly more important, with youth provision

and community safety felt to be important too by many, and adults’ services not far

behind. Between two and four individuals gave each of these services as their top

priorities. Streets and highways were not felt to be as important overall by voluntary and

community representatives, with nobody nominating this as most important.


OPM page 57

In detailed discussions about the priority areas, many people emphasised that all the

service areas were important and people found it difficult to choose and prioritise.

“They are all equally vital”

However, many felt that the issue was not just where does money get spent, but how

wisely is it spent – investing in improving customer relations among staff who deal with the

public was considered crucial, spending on the “front line”, and ensuring continued

efficiency savings:

“All of the areas are emotive issues, and so we want to increase all of them, but can’t

because it will cost too much”

“All areas need money spent on them, but they’ve got to spend it well”

“A lot of money seems to go to officer level, not service provision”

People also felt that it was possible for savings to be delivered through more strategic and

“joined up working”; arguing that the council should invest in linking service areas together

e.g. using the skills of the older population to work with young people, and focusing on

investing money now to save in the future, through spend on young people’s services, for

example:

“Spend on linking adults and young people”

“Invest in developing communities for the future”

“We should invest in areas that can improve Lambeth’s position in the future”

Some people felt that legal requirements may play a large role in determining where

money is spent – e.g. meeting the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.

Community safety was considered the key priority by one small group during the initial

discussion, largely due to recent high profile serious crime incidents. Fear of crime and

ASB was seen to potentially affect all groups (children, young people, the elderly etc).

Warden schemes were perceived as helpful in terms of increasing a visible ‘police’

presence in the area, but of limited value in tacking serious crime such as drug dealing

and trafficking. Tackling the culture underlying serious crime in a holistic way (e.g. by

deterring young people from involvement in gangs) was considered preferable to

displacing the problem.

“There have been two murders in Kennington just now. It’s mainly being driven by the

drug dealing and gangs”

“There’s a big crime and community safety issue”

“The Warden schemes do a lot of good, bringing greater visibility, but they can’t

eliminate the drug problem”

“They closed the crack houses and they moved on to the streets.”


OPM page 58

Ensuring there is sufficient support for adults with mental health problems was also seen

as a priority for the borough. Some felt there were a disproportionately large number of

people with multiple needs (e.g. mental health issues and homelessness) in Lambeth.

“Maintaining mental and physical health of older people is very important”

Later on in the session, some were concerned that a commitment to closer working

between health and adult social services was missing from the service investment

options.

More broadly (on Adults’ and Community Services) it was felt money would be best spent

on services that enabled vulnerable adults to maintain their independence and be

empowered to make independent choices about their lives.

Two members were concerned about the lack of recreational facilities for the elderly,

comparing Lambeth’s provision with that of Hammersmith, who are ‘excellent’. This

comment precipitated general agreement that Lambeth should help out older people to

prevent them becoming dependent on council services, echoing the comment above

about looking to the future. One member noted that there are events for the elderly e.g.

Celebrating Age, but that these need to be advertised much more effectively.

There was a significant amount of discussion about young people. One person was

concerned that the capacity of the voluntary sector is not utilised enough to provide for

young people. Others felt that young people do not want to use dedicated facilities and

that these facilities can be open to abuse. Also, there was comment that parents’

concerns regarding the future of their teenage children is fuelled by strong competition for

preferred secondary school places in the borough.

Many agreed children’s social services were a priority for Lambeth:

“Many children are out of the family home, with high numbers in care. Without a rise in

the salary of social workers there’s always a danger of a high turnover of people,

which is highly unsettling”

Although it was agreed that streets and highways were less of a priority than the other

service areas (which were seen to impact on people more directly):

“Too much is being spent on streets and highways’ (specifically with regard to road

safety measures such as sleeping policemen)”

Some said that maintenance of the external environment is crucial if people are to have

pride in their area and live as a cohesive community. One had heard of the ‘broken

window project’ in the US where a campaign to fix all the broken windows in a

neighbourhood helped reduce the crime rate dramatically. It was felt that this “broken

window effect” was being played out in Lambeth;


OPM page 59

“If you look at the parking and the street furniture it’s a complete mess. Don’t get rid of

the street lamps for goodness sake”

Finally in this general discussion, participants made comments about the council’s

communication and involvement processes. There was a concern about communicating

with residents through leaflets and letters. It was felt that many in the borough did not read

and write, certainly in specific target groups for services, and therefore cannot become

engaged through this medium.

There were some positive comments expressed about the budget consultation process,

including a feeling that

“It’s good that the council is finally listening to people”

It was felt that it was important to differentiate between different groups when consulting

and involving people. For example, priorities will differ between wards across the borough

– although in some respects people felt this was reflected in the role of ‘area committees’

who help determine priorities for their local area. In the same way, voluntary and

community representatives, such as the participants at this meeting, are likely to prioritise

the area in which they work, so they said it was important to talk to the general public as

well.

There was general agreement that it is important to involve the people who have

knowledge of issues in engagement and decision-making, as these are the ones who can

suggest the most effective solutions to the problems Lambeth residents face.


Members of the group were then asked to take each budget area in turn, and choose the

level of funding they would allocate to each of three suggested items within that budget

area.


People found it hard to discriminate between these three items, but overall would prioritise

a benefits campaign and the Careline service in spending over improving accessibility and

quality of information:

1. …Benefits campaign…. More likely to choose the middle spending option - £225,000

2. Maintaining the Careline service... Choice split between middle and highest spending options (£100,000 and £150,000)

3. Improving the accessibility and quality of information...

Choice split between lowest and middle spending options (£50,000 and £75,000)


OPM page 60

There was a sense here that, while these spend items were all important, the budget

limitations meant that money should be prioritised for other areas. People said that

therefore, here, they had limited their ‘spend’ to maximise effect of their budget in other

areas.

There was a lot of support for service item 1; ensuring benefits uptake. However, a

minority disagreed and felt that if less was spent on communication campaigns then more

could be spent on the services themselves (which were felt to be chronically short of

money).

“It’s very difficult for them to determine what they’re entitled to. Lots of vulnerable

groups, especially older people don’t get the benefits they’re entitled to. The knock on

effects are that they can't pay their council tax or rent, and that reduces the pool of

funds available to the council”

“Make sure the campaign is targeted, ask us what’s effective”

This was seen to be strongly linked with service item 3; improving accessibility and quality

of information. Staff training to ensure accurate information provision was considered

critical, as was information to help vulnerable adults gain employment. People felt that

working with organisations such as CAB will be important to ensure a joined up approach.

“Often it’s because the people running the services themselves don’t know the rules,

they’ve got to make sure the information they give people is accurate”

“Getting people back to work is really important for this group”

Several felt they’d need more information on the role of Careline to make a judgement on

its usefulness, although in scoring it was given the most “votes” for the highest spend

option.

In general across this service area, one member asked if it would be appropriate to use

more voluntary groups in provision. Another emphasised the importance of looking at

mental health issues, and a third mentioned the recreational facilities of pensioners once

again.


Support for adoption and recruiting of more social workers was seen as more of a priority

for spending than recruiting foster carers overall, although a wide range of views was

displayed on this issue too:


OPM page 61


More likely to choose the highest spending option - £1,025,000

2. Recruiting more foster carers... Split between all spending options of £125,000 to £325,000

3. Recruiting more social workers…

Split between middle and highest spending options and £75,000 to £100,000

Participants generally felt this area was very important to prioritise. The reasons given for

this were that young people are the future of the borough, and that investing now will reap

rewards for Lambeth in the future.

“Definitely an area where I believe more money should be spent”

“It will create a better sustainable service for young people, encourage better pay,

incentives for permanent positions and produce a sense of good relationship with the

service users”

“Better service and staff means young people will have better provision and guidance”

In particular, one member noted the need for better scrutiny for adoptions and fostering to

protect young people, and highlighted the positive effect that investment in this area can

have on the future workforce, bringing benefits to Lambeth’s economy.

Looking at the specific items within this service area, it appeared that many respondents

grudgingly voted for the highest spending option in item 1, because they did not believe

there was an option not to meet service levels deemed insufficient by social care

professionals;

“Surely councillors have a duty to meet legal requirements”

Beyond these comments, however, many respondents had positive views of the scheme,

saying that priority should be given to supporting children at their most vulnerable;

“A child’s care in early years is vital in their future development”

Some felt that if the council ‘scrimped’ on item 1 [providing financial support for adopted

children previously in care] then they would pay the price in terms of increased anti social

behaviour later down the line.

“Half of the prisons are full of ex-children in care, it ends up costing a lot”

There was some disagreement over item 2 (increasing pay of foster carers). A minority

believed ‘commercialising’ foster care could attract the wrong sort of people to the role.

Others agreed that the children’s interests should be paramount, but challenged this by

saying if poor remuneration was leading to high turnover of staff then the children will be

suffering from a lack of continuity. Stability for vulnerable children was considered

paramount to their wellbeing.


OPM page 62

“They should do it for the love of children, the money should be irrelevant”

Although the role of social workers was considered critical, several thought the problem

was not numbers but calibre of staff.

“When you look at recruiting more social workers there’s a bigger humanitarian issue

around the quality of the people involved”

“Half of them are short-term agency staff, they won’t invest in the community – do they

want to work here? Will they cause a deficit because they are so expensive?”

There was some discussion around who the term ‘vulnerable children’ applied to. Some

felt there should be some option for a ‘family support unit’ for children who care for their

parents with long-term health conditions. Others agreed and wanted to know what

preventative support measures were in place to stop children going in to care in the first

place;

“What about those families on benefits who need extra support – what role can

something like Sure Start play in all of this?”

Item 3 met with mixed responses, with some members suggesting it would be an

investment in the future, with the scores allocated to the item reflecting this, but others

concerned that just increasing the budget would not necessarily tempt people away from

agency working.

Community safety and crime reduction

The item concerning anti social behaviour was the most popular in this service area,

followed by support to victims of domestic violence:

1. Creating a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour...

Split between middle and highest spending options of £225,000 to £275,000

2. Improving the quality and level of support available to victims of domestic violence…

Split between all spending options of £200,000 to £525,000

3. Ensuring the …clearance of hazardous waste from sex and drugs use.

More likely to choose the middle spending option - £75,000

People were supportive of item 1, with comments such as;

“This will make Lambeth a safer place for everyone”

“Option C (the highest spend) is ideal”


OPM page 63

However, there were caveats and concerns about it too. A number of members

questioned the effectiveness of ASBOs, and one member suggested that the borough

should tackle the root causes of this behaviour;

“What has been the effect of ASB orders in Lambeth?”

“Community activities to occupy people’s time are very important”

One participant wanted Lambeth to scrutinise the current system for delivering ASBOs.

She said that it appears as though the most vocal sections of the community are

successful in applying orders, whereas the areas that really need them don’t have enough

of a voice. Residents do not really know how much of a problem ASB is at the moment. In

terms of reporting ASB, language barriers must be addressed, as must the problems of

transient homing – people aren’t in a local area long enough to do anything about ASB.

Alongside this, several members expressed a desire that ASBOs be used to ”deal with

drug dealers”

Item 2 was felt as being important, but the relatively high amounts in question relative to

other areas meant that people were more equivocal about opting for the higher spending

levels than for item 1.

Item 3 had very little consensus among respondents, with diverse comments;

“Increase to a seven day week would improve (things)”

“There is already a good level of service so (this is) not (the) highest priority”

“Only a five day-a-week service needed”

Many felt that it was better to tackle the cause of the problem (e.g. drug use) rather than

just the ‘clear-up’ this could be achieved by ensuring the council social services and the

local health authorities are working together better.

In more general terms, some group members felt that ”community safety needs to be looked at in great detail”. Some felt that more serious crime could only tackled by police and that central government had to create a more joined up strategy for tackling ASB nation wide. Another participant felt that the council is stretched where policing is needed, but money could be spent on being able to report crime by email rather than attending the station. She also suggested that Victim Support need more funding to look after their victims.


Of all the streets and highways proposals, Street Watch would be prioritised but the

amounts that participants wanted to spend on these areas were low overall:

1. Improving the current street patrolling Split between lowest and highest spending


OPM page 64

service by piloting ‘Street Watch’… options of £50,000 to £150,000


More likely to choose the lowest spending option - £200,000


More likely to choose the lowest spending option - £250,000

There was a fairly strong consensus that this should not be a budget priority for Lambeth,

and so participants did not focus greatly on this area.

Item 1 – Street Watch - was met with relative disinterest, with respondents suggesting that

it might be just window-dressing, and that the council should instead;

“…just get on with current provision”

However, on a positive note, one participant commented that community safety and crime

reduction need to go hand in hand with improvements to the streets and other public

areas;

“If you want people to have pride in their community it needs to be improved. It gets

people involved if they see their area looking better”

Item 2 was viewed in a similar light, with comments that the current spending level was

sufficient, but that the money should be spent more wisely;

“Already a good level of provision”

“Better run service rather than more money”

“Just make sure the job is done right the first time”

One respondent queried the focus on retail areas only.

Respondents were also wary of item 3, because of a concern that the council ensures that

the current provision is successful first before taking further action;

“Need to ensure council gets the trial right before it expands”


OPM page 65

Youth provision

There was enthusiasm among the group for item 1 here – a Youth Cabinet – relative to

the other two items, although the others were still seen as important:

1. Working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet…

Split between middle and highest spending options of £125,000 to £150,000

2. Increasing the provision of facilities for young people across the borough…

Split between lowest and highest spending options of £700,000 to £1,200,000

3. Providing better access to effective support for young people who are…vulnerable…

More likely to choose the highest spending option - £350,000 although many people did

not vote at all

A number of members suggested the highest spending option for item 1 because it is

more comprehensive, and because it involves young people in decision-making,

suggesting that;

“[It] releases the power of youth to make their own decisions”

“We have to do all we can to develop our youth”

There was also a sense that the scheme would be good at promoting positive role models

and youth leaders. However, there was some disagreement here, because it was

suggested that youth participation schemes involve only articulate young people. These

aren’t the ones who are the real problem, it was felt, and so the scheme would not

effectively address vulnerable members of the community.

Item 2 was met with general approval by respondents, both because of the impact

investment here would have on reducing the demands on other budgets (such as social

services), and because this is

“…activity that broadens young people’s horizons. Engaging in activity will enable

young people”

Similarly, there was a suggestion that item 3 is also very important, echoing the general

feeling that Lambeth needs to invest in the future;

“We need to support vulnerable young people because they will be the ones who

might be a burden in the future”


OPM page 66

Stakeholder discussion – Youth Council

OPM were present at a session of the Lambeth Youth Council meeting in mid November

2006. Following a general warm up session about members’ reactions to living in

Lambeth, people at the meeting were asked to consider information and plans about the

council’s budget for 2007-2008, looking at priority areas from the five service areas of

adults’ and children’s social services, community safety, youth services and streets and

highways, and then specifically focusing on community safety and youth provision, as

these were the areas that had been identified in the consultation to that point as being

priorities for Lambeth residents.

Initial views – living in Lambeth – good bad and lacking

People were first asked to discuss among themselves what was good, bad and lacking

about living in Lambeth.

Young people praised facilities and support for youth, the culture and diversity of the area

and facilities/amenities in general:

“Loads more volunteer projects available for young people “

“Lots of black youth getting involved in youth projects”

“Lots of different cultures”

“Central location – good for transportation”

“Commons and parks”

“More money is being given to Lambeth”

Bad points centred on crime and community safety, particularly concerning young people

as perpetrators and victims and relationships with the police, concerns about Lambeth

Council and their relationship with young people and lack of facilities and support for

particular service areas and groups in the borough:

“Too many people dying, or getting stabbed or shot”

“Harassment by the boys in blue”

“Black on black crime”

“Lack of communication from councillors because they don’t communicate with the

Youth Council”

“Consultation with young people”

“Council staff are incompetent”

“Communicating actually what’s happening”

“Lack of leisure facilities and access to sporting opportunities”

“Lack of jobs”


OPM page 67

“16-19 education is free. After 19 you have to pay. This restricts access. You don’t

always know what you want to study when you leave school”

“Not enough schools”

“Conditions of estates”

“Too many young pregnancies”

Reflecting these views, people thought that support and development for young people

were lacking, along with specific services:

“Lacking facilities for specific age groups”

“Provisions for young people”

“Round the clock support”

“Teachers and leaders of understanding”

“Real role models”

“Publicity about agencies and events to help young people”

“Recognition for young people”

“Respect”

“Education spaces”

“Good public space”

“Childcare”

“Jobs”


Youth Council members then worked in small groups to discuss their priority service areas

from the five choices below. People looked through and discussed the service areas and

assessed through discussion how important they felt they were. Community safety/crime

reduction and youth provision were seen as the most important overall, and closely linked

(“people need to feel safe where they live; safety and crime come hand in hand with

youth”), with streets and highways being given a low priority (“not that important, the way

the streets look (does) not help the community as such”). Adults’ social services were

thought to be relatively less important than children’s.

Detailed budget comments

Participants were then asked to talk about youth services and community safety in more

detail. People felt that the approaches to community safety seemed quite reactive; there

needed to be more positive preventative measures in place. In particular, people did not

like the emphasis on anti-social behaviour. They did not feel that it works; “spending

£175k on ASB? How are you going to prevent it; too much attention being spent on the

importance of ASBOs but it has been noted that ASBOs are not effective”. They felt there


OPM page 68

was a need for peer support, role models and mentors in tackling the causes of anti social

behaviour. One person talked about a scheme they had heard about in Brent where

young people could shadow the work of police in Brent – they felt this would help build a

good relationship between them.

On youth services, one person said that if there was a youth cabinet it should mirror the

structure of the council cabinet. The facilities that are currently being provided for young

people generally are not being used by the type of people they need to attract i.e. youth

on the verge of crime. They felt that young people need to be educated about the benefits

of using the facilities. People felt there might be a need for a “friendly youth one stop

shop…all the services in one place”.

One idea that they felt was missing from the policy proposal was capitalising on the

Olympics; “the Olympics is a real opportunity to give young people a real goal. Why is

Lambeth not getting involved in these opportunities?”

Closing comments

One person felt that Lambeth need to concentrate on adult services; “or the youth will just

be messed up”; the thought here is that offering better youth provision may be a useful

distraction for many young people, but the real difficulties they face are in their home

environment. If their parents are given the support they need this could improve their

home environment – this might take the form of providing job search support, and

providing access to better housing.

To round up, people were asked about their top priorities for Lambeth’s spending in the

coming year. Comments concerned the following:

• integrating the Youth Opportunity Fund with the Youth Council,

• the importance of role modelling and mentoring; “someone who has been through

what I have been through”; they felt that this would help people to open up and really

talk about what troubles them. One person felt that ex-offenders could be employed

as mentors; “this would kill two birds with one stone”; i.e. provide the ex-offender with

a future, and help steer young people away from crime

• accessing ‘ hard to reach’ young people; “the people who these proposals are really

affecting” and feeding back decisions on the budget process to people; “say it raw,

don’t use fancy language…just start to deliver”

• feedback; “let us feel like what we’ve said has been taken on-board”


OPM page 69

Business interviews

Sample profile

As shown in the table below, of the 40 businesses who participated, four in ten (43%)

were retail businesses. The other half included business and professional services (23%);

leisure and hospitality (18%); motor trades and construction (10%); public and personnel

(3%) and other (5%).

All the businesses were relatively small, with all except one having less than 25

employees.

Sample Profile

Number of respondents

N

Sample

profile %

All respondents 40 100

Business type

Retail 17 43

Business and professional 9 23

Public and personnel 1 3

Leisure and hospitality 7 18

Motor trades and construction 4 10

Other 2 5

Number of employees

1-2 3 8

3-5 21 53

6-10 12 30

11-24 3 8

25+ 1 3

Questions: B2, Base: 40

Initial views – Lambeth’s budget

At the beginning of each interview it was emphasised that the questions to be asked were

not about the business rates that respondents pay but about the council tax that residents

pay and therefore the effect this has on services in the borough generally.

The survey began by asking respondents to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a

set of statements regarding the current quality of Lambeth’s financial management and

reporting.

As outlined below, businesses we talked with held a variety of opinion with large

proportions (30% and over) of respondents saying that they neither agreed nor disagreed

with the statements listed or that they did not know whether they agreed or disagreed.


OPM page 70

Nevertheless, three in ten participants agree that Lambeth provides better value for

money than one year ago (30%); that Lambeth Council has the right level of council tax

relative to other councils (38%); and that Lambeth Council provides good value for money

(35%). A quarter of respondents agree that Lambeth Council provides enough information

to residents about its financial performance and management (25%) and around two in

ten that Lambeth Council shows good financial management (18%).

Lambeth’s finances

Lambeth Council provides good value for money for the council tax

that residents pay

Lambeth council provides better value for money compared to a year

ago

Lambeth council shows good financial management

Lambeth council provides enough information to residents about its

financial performance and management

Lambeth council has the right level of

council tax - relative to other councils

Disagree

33%

33%

30%

Agree

Net agree /

disagree

36%

31%25%

18%

26%

38%18%

3%

6%

-15%

-4%

20%

Questions: Q1A-E, Base: 40

‘The size of the cake’: future council tax levels

Those surveyed were then given a list of options relating to possible changes to the

amount of council tax in the next year. These increases were presented along with

descriptions of related increases or decreases in service levels. Respondents were asked

to specify which option they would prefer.

As illustrated in the table below there was, again, a lack of agreement about which option

would be preferred. Over half (55%) of respondents were in favour of a raise of some kind


OPM page 71

although fifteen percent of those surveyed proposed a rise lower than the rate of inflation

which would still require cuts in services.

Just under a fifth (18%) of businesses interviewed would prefer no council tax rise with

significant cuts in services, with around a quarter (28%) saying they did not know.

Next year’s council tax

Don't know, 28%

No council tax

increase with

significant cuts,

18%

A rise in council

tax above the

level of inflation,

13%

A rise in council

tax in line with

inflation, 28%

Selected cuts and

a lower council tax

increase, 15%

Questions: Q2, Base: 40

Interestingly when presented with the actual figures relating to the options outlined above,

the number of respondents who opted for no increase almost trebled increasing from 18%

to 53%.


OPM page 72

Next year’s council tax

Don't Know, 3%

No increase, 53%

Three per cent

increase, 25%

Four per cent

increase, 13%

Five per cent

increase, 8%

Questions: Q3, Base:40

‘Relative sizes of the pieces of cake’: priority service areas

People we talked with were then given an outline of the five different service areas that

the council is considering spending more money on next year. Respondents were asked

to indicate where in their opinion spending should be prioritised and asked to choose

which service area they felt should be the first, second and third most important for

Lambeth’s spending next year.

As illustrated in this chart, overall respondents indicated that ‘community safety and crime

reduction’ was the most important service area with the vast majority (85%) choosing this

area as one of the top three and a third (33%) choosing it as the most important priority.

Six in ten (60%) respondents said that children’s social services should be one of the top

three priorities, with a third (33%) choosing it as the top priority area. Overall, a broadly

similar proportion (63%) said that youth provision should be one of the top three priorities

however only fifteen per cent said that this area was the top priority.


OPM page 73

Spending priorities

10%

10%

33%

15%

33%

13%

15%

13%

23%

38%

15%

25%

20%

15%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Youth provision


reduction

% of respondents


Questions: Q4A,Q4B,Q4C, Base: 40

Respondents were also asked to choose which area would be their least important

spending priority. Four in ten (40%) said ‘streets and highways’ would be their least

important spending area and just over this (45%) said adult social services.


OPM page 74

‘What each slice is made from’: Focus on specific service proposals

Finally, businesses who were interviewed were presented with three specific service

proposals under each of the five service areas discussed, regardless of the service areas

they had prioritised. Each of those surveyed were asked to say which of three specific

proposals, under each service area, they would choose as a priority.

In adult social services, over two-thirds (68%) of respondents said that if they had to

choose ‘maintaining the Careline service…’ would be their top priority compared with the

other proposals in this service area.

As shown in the table below, just less than a quarter (23%) would choose ‘a campaign to

ensure that Lambeth residents are receiving all the benefits they are entitled to…’ as their

top priority. Only 8% would choose ‘improving the accessibility and quality of information

…’

Specific service proposals in adult social services

%

Maintaining the Careline service… 68

…Benefits campaign… 23

Improving accessibility and quality of information… 8

None of these / Don’t know 3

Question: Q8, Base: 40

As noted above children’s social services was one of the respondents’ priority services

areas. When asked about specific proposals under children’s social services (below), half

of (50%) respondents prioritised ‘financial support for adopted children…’; more than two

in ten (23%) would prioritise the ‘recruitment of more social workers…’; with two in ten

(20%) prioritising the ‘recruitment of more foster carers…’ if they had to choose.


OPM page 75

Specific service proposals in children’s social services

%

Financial support for adopted children…

50

Recruitment of more social workers…

23

Recruitment of more foster carers…

20



When presented with specific service proposals under youth provision, as shown here,

over half (53%) of respondents said they would choose to ‘increase the availability

of…activities for young people…’ as a priority compared to the other proposals in this

service area. A quarter (25%) would prioritise ‘giving young people the opportunity to

participate in decisions that affect them’ and a smaller proportion again (15%) would

choose ‘providing better access to effective support for young people who

are…vulnerable…’.

Specific service proposals in youth provision

%

Increase the availability of … activities for young

people …

53

Give young people the opportunity to participate… 25

Provide … support for young people who are

…vulnerable…

15



Again, as outlined above, the majority of survey participants said that community safety

and crime reduction was a key priority. When asked which of three specific service

proposals they would prioritise if they had to choose, nearly three fifths (58%) said their

priority would be ‘the creation of a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour in the

borough…’. Two in ten (20%) would prioritise ‘improving the quality and level of support

available to victims of domestic violence…’ and 18% per cent would choose ‘ensuring the

continuation of the … clearance of hazardous waste from sex and drugs use.’

Specific service proposals in community safety and crime reduction

%

The creation of a dedicated team to reduce anti-social

behaviour in the borough

58

Improve the quality and level of support available to

victims of domestic violence …

20


OPM page 76

Ensuring the continuation of … clearance of

hazardous waste from sex and drugs use.

18



Finally, when presented with specific service proposals under streets and highways, if

they had to choose, over four in ten (45%) of respondents stated that they would prioritise

‘…piloting the "street watch" initiative..’. Three in ten (30%) respondents chose ‘an

increase in the frequency of street cleansing…’ and two in ten (20%) would prioritise

‘running a pilot of door to door recycling collections …’.

Specific service proposals in street and highways

%

…piloting the ‘street watch’ initiative… 45

An increase in the frequency of street cleansing 30

Running a pilot of door to door recycling collections

from flats…

20




OPM page 77

5. Focus groups – young people

Two focus groups were convened with young people, one in mid November and the

second in early December. Twenty four people were involved in these sessions. People

who attended were between 13 and 15 years of age. The structure of the discussions

was similar to the Youth Council session. Readers of this section should bear in mind that

suggestions and comments from young people are likely to reflect the location of the

meetings.


Participants were asked to think about living in Lambeth; the good and bad points, and

what was missing from the area. Young people praised facilities and amenities,

particularly shops, transport and the community feel to living in the area, with people

thinking it was a good place to meet and socialise;

“It’s easy to make friends here”

Looking at specifics, a good proportion of people used youth facilities fairly regularly;

these were thought to be a positive thing about living in Lambeth, although most agreed

there should be more of them. Green spaces were seen as a big asset for the borough

(e.g. Clapham Common) although it was noted the quality of facilities on offer at parks

across the borough varied. A minority had noticed more road signs to help pedestrians

and help prevent accidents.

As might have been expected in a session of this type, and as we have found in other

similar work, people were more likely to highlight the bad things about living in Lambeth.

These included the following issues:

• crime, fear of crime and intimidation;

• lack of community cohesion (including evidence of discrimination against particular

groups, and homeless and drug problems exacerbating existing community problems),

• changing nature of the area,

• a lack of activities, leisure and health facilities such as hospitals;

• environmental concerns in streets and social housing (especially flats and estates);

pollution, noise, traffic, graffiti etc.

Fears around crime included mentions of gun crime and bullying, and concern that young

people, especially young black men, were victimised by the police. Some people felt that

the police were better at harassing them than protecting them and felt that there should be

fewer police because of this (although others strongly disagreed with this):

“There are too many police - you feel intimidated – they’re always on your case”


OPM page 78

“Just because of the colour of my skin and because I wear a hood or whatever”

“They stop and search you for no reason. It’s like you’ve done something when you

haven’t”

“You can’t get rid of police – who’s gonna help you if you get burgled”

“Less crime because it gives Lambeth a bad reputation”

Others mentioned anti social behaviour and intimidation on the streets of the borough,

which some saw as a “by product” of drug abuse and street homelessness:

“I just walk away but they ask you for drugs or ask you for money”

“Less drunks, less psychopaths”

A vocal minority thought there were too many gay people in Lambeth and that some of the

local gay clubs such as the Kasbah should be shut down. Despite being challenged on

this they maintained this was a bad thing about the area.

Participants felt that activities and facilities for young people were lacking, along with

protection for citizens and crime prevention, respect for young people from elders and

authority and regular and reliable bus transport (considered important for young people to

travel around independently).

Youth facilities were thought to be a priority across the borough and not just in particular

places:

“You have to travel around the borough if you want to do different things (e.g. use a

football cage”)

“More local adventure grounds, more sports equipment, more activities for us to do, a

football cage in Clapham Manor estate, a youth club, swimming pool & Odeon on SE1

or SE11, more better shops, cleaner, Lido.”

“More green land to play football, more play grounds”

“Clapham Common should have a graffiti wall too”


Asked which of the five service areas they would identify as a priority, participants were

more likely to assign a high priority to youth services and children’s social services.

Reflecting earlier concerns and comments, youth facilities were seen to be particularly

important for this age group as:

• it affects ‘us’

• the perception that ‘there’s nothing to do’ (although a minority challenged this)


OPM page 79

“Yeah youth because there’s nothing to do”

There was a sense among a significant number of people that children’s social services

should be a top priority as they are one of the most vulnerable groups in society and if

people get a ‘good start in life’ problems are less likely to happen later on:

“The little kids are the most important …you don’t want them to end up a crack head or

nothing”

“Because they are most vulnerable… more than like people our age”

“Some parents are abusive”

Community safety and crime were also areas of concern, thinking in particular about:

• people (especially young people) carrying weapons such as knives and guns more

often than in the past

• higher incidents of muggings (of which young people are often the victims)

Again there was the perception among some that boys or young men are more likely to be

involved in and affected by crime than girls – similarly they’re more likely to get picked on

by the police as ‘trouble makers’. It was thought the police should do more to protect

young people rather than target them:

“’Cos of all of the guns and knives and stuff, thinking it’s the style and everything”

“Quite a lot of people our age get mugged – it’s worse for boys”

“I got mugged on the way home from school. I know people who’ve been beaten up”

As mentioned above, relations between young people and the police were not considered

good – leading for some in the group to call for fewer police on the streets.

People recognised a link between youth services and community safety (for example that

some young people were perpetrators of crime linked to the lack of activities for young

people, and others were victims).

A minority thought adults and community services were important if they would improve

the quality of life of elderly people (though generally this wasn’t a priority):

“Like with old people the carers don’t treat them right – they get cold food and stuff”

Although some called for cleaner streets as part of the mapping exercise, streets and

highway services were not considered a top priority. Some also thought graffiti was a

good thing if it was done well, so cleaning this up should not be a priority activity. Some

thought putting lots of money into clearing waste up would act as a disincentive for being

clean and tidy in the first place.


OPM page 80


Participants were asked what they thought of specific spending proposals that Lambeth

had for the two areas of youth services and community safety (chosen as these had been

priorities for the young people themselves and in earlier consultation). The group talked a

lot about youth provision, identifying some general principles for services including:

• better all round provision

• more ‘wrap-around’ services after school, at weekends and holidays,

• more subsidised trips,

• provision for all young people (not just the disadvantaged or those in particular areas);

• separate provision for different age groups,

• better advertising/awareness of existing activities,

• places to ‘hang out’,

• more sports and music, catering to all young people’s interests,

• extend leisure activities traditionally exclusive to adults, e.g. such as gyms and night

clubs

• better service within existing facilities open to young people

Specific comments and suggestions included:

“Make the basketball courts nicer. Supervision. Drink machine on basketball courts”

“Football pitch. Trips. Activities for us to do. Swimming pool. ICT rooms”

“Ping Pong. Lido. Football pitch”

“We want an outside swimming pool and heated inside pool”

“More youth clubs ‘cos there somewhere to go after school”

“A youth club – every Friday 6pm-9pm, Clapham. Activities and fun – snooker,

football, cooking, dance, football, gym, go karting, swimming, paintballing, ice skating”

“have like street and breakdance club…music class”

“more skate parks.”

“At Brixton Recreation they need to be kinder – they’re rude”

However, given the comment about disadvantaged children above there was still

agreement in the group that vulnerable children should be supported. Even though the

young people felt that youth provision was extremely important, they felt that the option to

provide better access to effective support for young people who are either vulnerable or

involved with the criminal justice system should be a priority; “this is the best idea – these

kids are caught in a circle and need to break out”


OPM page 81

On community safety, several points were raised, some focused on particular issues in

the council’s spending proposals and some of a more general nature. In particular, they

felt that ASB was a contentious issue – that a team to tackle anti social behaviour (ASB)

may instead provoke it, and that it is hard to pinpoint what is ASB and what is just young

people ‘hanging around’, not doing anything wrong. The need for positive role models for

young people was also mentioned – like black doctors and lawyers.

Postcards to the leader of the council

The young people in one group were asked to write a post-card to the leader of Lambeth

Council, giving key recommendations for how Lambeth can be made a better place to live.

They completed this exercise either in pairs or as individuals. Nearly all the

recommendations focus on more or improved leisure and sports facilities for young people

(some with a view to occupying young people and reducing crime). A handful of

community safety measures were also recommended, such as more police and better

street lighting.

Dear Steve, in the interest of myself and other teenagers, we would like a new leisure

centre to be constructed. Consisting of a basketball court and several squash courts.

Also more police men / women to be employed to reduce the crime in the area.

Dear Steve, I would like there to be more lighting, so when it’s dark you can see, and

some sort of club to keep people our age occupied.

Dear Steve, I would like more street / break dance clubs and football clubs because it

will keep kids off the streets

To Steve, I’m asking for a local youth club in Clapham to entertain the youths.

Steve, we think Lambeth should have a Lido in Clapham Common and a under 16s

gym. Also we should have more shops

Dear Steve, please can we have a football cage in Clapham, yours sincerely David &

Louie

Dear Steve, A Lido in Clapham or a shopping centre in the area

Steve, I think along with quite a lot of other people, that the basketball courts (on

Clapham Common) should be made nicer, with better families with supervision of

some sort be it CCTV or police, so that it doesn’t become a mugging hot spot. But the

supervision shouldn’t be really obvious and in your face.

To Steve, I am writing to you to say what I recommend what to spend the money on.

We think that we should spend the money on the improvement of youth clubs,

activities and equipment

We think that you should spend the money on places for young kids to hang out and

on something to help stop crime. From Sam and Charlie

Dear Steve, we would like to know whether you could put more football cages and

parks

Yeah, can we have a football pitch. Thanks

To Steve, I’m asking for a youth centre


OPM page 82

More football pitches!!


OPM page 83

Black and minority ethnic (BME) residents

Three sessions were held with specific BME groups identified by Lambeth Council; one

with Portuguese residents, and two with Somali people (one session with men, one with

women). The participants were recruited through community groups and contacts and

were hosted by the groups themselves. The schedule for discussions was similar to that

for the young people’s groups, with a little more flexibility to allow people to raise issues

particular to their communities.

Portuguese residents

This group was hosted by a local community centre in Streatham for Portuguese

residents. Although attendance was relatively low, people who attended were very

engaged in discussions and gave their views openly and freely. As people attending were

linked to the community centre, it should be noted that they were likely to be involved in

supporting and advising residents of Portuguese origin.


Again people were asked to say what they felt about living in Lambeth. Talking about the

good things, participants recognised that the area welcomed and accepted a wide range

of people – and that people were open and welcoming:

“Lambeth is more accepting of difference, even more so than Wandsworth, it is easier

to come here from a different culture and be accepted”

Lambeth was also felt to be a vibrant and challenging place to live - and that you can

“make a lot of yourself” if you get it right. The considerable size of the Portuguese

community in the area was also noted as a positive thing.

Bad things about the area included participants’ perceptions of corruption in the council –

including a case of £3 million being stolen from housing service:

“We know about that scandal but how many others have gone on that we don’t know”

The housing service was also thought by some to be mismanaged, with a criticism of big

families moving out of houses and single people or couples moving in, meaning there was

less accommodation for families. It was said that many of the Portuguese community are

in rented housing.

The area’s drug policy was also criticised – the policy of cannabis ‘decriminalisation’ was

seen as being similar to the Native American use of alcohol – used to sedate otherwise

unruly people. There was also felt to be too much visible ‘street’ drug dealing in the area.

Considering what was lacking in the area, participants mentioned data and information on

the Portuguese community – with a sense that there is too little attention paid to the


OPM page 84

community and little information is held centrally about the size of the community, the

language abilities and the needs. However, it was mentioned that there is a new study

coming out by a sociologist and Stockwell Strategic Partnership that will help to give the

council a better idea of these issues:

“We are a quite invisible community in terms of what is known”

Leading on from this, it was felt that language support across all public services is lacking.

People said that Portuguese people are not employed in public services so little formal

translation1 is possible within them. Many Portuguese residents rely on informal

translation from their children or friends even after living in the UK for a long time.

However, people also said that there was little engagement around these issues from the

community or services themselves - despite the fact that the community is aware of these

problems little is done to formally change them.

Libraries were criticised as being unwelcoming – some felt they needed to be “more like

the McDonalds”; with bright lights to draw people in, relevant displays, more seating, “turn

them into cultural centres where people can learn”.

A lack of green spaces was also mentioned and criticised,.


Participants were asked which services they used and felt were important to them, their

families and the wider community.

Participants said that many Portuguese people are reliant on housing and translation

services. People felt that the housing department is “an oppressive place”, the

atmosphere is not relaxed and customers felt separated from the council through the use

of screens. People felt that customer service could be improved at front of house offices

like this. It was also felt that staff could be recruited who better reflected the diversity of

Lambeth as a whole.

However, there was a sense that housing and other services have been improving over

the last year.

Recycling was mentioned as a service which has improved but it needs to get better,

especially in the business sector.

Education was criticised – local investment was seen as lacking, and adult education was

seen to be ill targeted and inflexible. People wanted more support from Lambeth Council

(rather than other, remoter institutions like the learning and skills councils) in accessing

adult education services such as languages, basic skills and getting into work. There was

1 People mentioned translation several times in this discussion and those involving Somali people;

even though services are provided to residents, people we talked to did not necessarily know this

or think they were sufficient or appropriately targeted


OPM page 85

a sense that education currently is delivered too formally – and that it was better to phrase

it as “discussion classes” or “fun classes” rather than ESOL. There was also a sense as

to why Portuguese residents do not raise these issues as concerns:

“Many Portuguese people don’t want to complain because they are on benefits and

don’t want to rock the boat – they are worried they will cut off from benefits if they do”

Thinking about how the council and other services communicated with them, people felt

that the consultation process around budgets that they were involved in was a positive

one, although they noted that as the culture in their country of origin was not necessarily

one of involvement and consultation, they were relatively unfamiliar with the concept.

Comments on specific service areas

Having got a sense of priority services for the group, people were then asked about their

views on the service areas which were being consulted upon. On community safety and

crime reduction, people gave the following general reactions:

• Lambeth is not less safe than other parts of London

• there’s generally a low level of police presence and visibility

• crime levels seem to have gone down over the last year

• crime on main roads is not bad, but the side streets are where more crime happens

• CCTV and lights on the streets would help, although the police can’t be everywhere so

they aren’t much of a deterrent

• kids wear hoods and the CCTV cameras can’t see them because they are high up –

need to have better images.

Comments on Lambeth’s service suggestions

Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) Teams

Participants thought that this issue should be tackled holistically – that, for example, the

police and council should have meetings with those that cause ASB not just police them –

although it was recognised that it is difficult to approach them to talk. It was rated as the

most important area to place a priority on from the three in this grouping.

Support to those suffering domestic violence

Domestic violence was described as a big issue in the Portuguese community, it is related

to high levels of drinking. The problem is that any support of this kind would also need

language support as people who are in this situation often can’t speak good English.

Other cultures and communities face this problem – they would need the language

support too.


OPM page 86

The approach would need to be flexible and open – outreach would work best to raise

awareness that the help was available. People also felt that the cycle needs to be broken

– to do this treat the alcohol addiction not the domestic violence – this is just a symptom.

Hazardous waste service

This was thought to be less important than the other two service suggestions - the service

already exists and participants felt the community is happy with it. It should continue but

there should not be a focus on expanding it.

For adult and community services, again the lack of translation and

outreach/engagement available were highlighted. People had a negative perspective in

general of these services for this reason.


Benefit campaign

Again people felt that translation was needed for any awareness raising campaign. Any

phone calls, reading materials, group meetings etc. would not be appropriate without

translation.

Careline

It was recognised that older people are at risk in Lambeth, but the group was not clear

that this was a problem specific to, or greater for, the Portuguese community.

Information campaign

Leaflets and information were thought to be in need of translation for all services, not just

social services. It was felt to be vital to get people to pay attention to them though, they

need to be targeted, handed out to people through outreach – “people won’t go out and

seek the leaflets, you have to find them”. It was felt that Lambeth Council should also

reinforce any message on a leaflet with a spoken message. This was thought to be the

most important service area for the community

For youth provision, participants felt that there were more programmes and initiatives for

young people than before and this has improved things in terms of community safety, but

that provision was still inadequate.


Activities for young people

There was a strong positive response for this – “Lambeth is not a good place for youths

just now”.

Youth cabinet

People felt that this was a secondary step – that the council needs to get people off the

streets first and into activities, then perhaps they can get involved in this afterwards.

Focusing on young people at risk of entering the criminal justice system


OPM page 87

Again this was seen as supplementary to providing activities for young people – people

also felt that there needs to be a focus on re-educating the parents, “they are causing the

problems..”

Thinking about streets and highways, people felt that residents should take more

responsibility for their own land as well as the council having a role:

“Front gardens especially are a disgrace – in shared houses, who takes

responsibility?”


Streetwatch

People felt it will be difficult to motivate people to do this – it seems like an impossible task

to some to begin to tidy up Lambeth

Recycling

People felt that recycling activity is working already, that people are getting involved.

Businesses are where that extra push is required.

It was felt that recycling and Streetwatch could be combined – that residents could

encourage each other to recycle more.

Focus on retail areas

The retail streetscape was felt to be OK in Stockwell so not a focus for this group

For children’s services – fostering and adoption were felt to be not such an issue in the

Portuguese community. The group was very surprised to find out how much a foster

family gets paid. Participants felt that they would prioritise spending more money on

social workers.

Closing remarks

When asked to name key improvements to focus on in the future, people mentioned the

following:

• training and lifelong learning – including Portuguese focused, flexible ESOL

• cleaning up of front gardens and streets in front of shared houses

• tackling corruption (within the council) and pursuing transparency and accountability

• activities for young people to “soak up their energy” and keep them out of trouble –

coupled with parenting classes for parents of badly behaved teenagers

“Things are improving but they can still get a lot better”


OPM page 88

Somali men

A group of Somali men was drawn together with the help of a community group.


Participants felt that services specifically for Somalis were lacking in the borough:

• no language or translation provision (especially healthcare, social services and

housing – all important for Somalis)

• no representation in the workforce of the public sector

• no understanding of cultural issues relevant to Somalis

• Somalis on the whole have little integration with the wider community

New arrivals find it particularly hard when they have no English at all. Participants said

that other countries were colonised by the British so they don’t face the same language

barriers as Somalis.

People also said that Somali people as a group are “hidden” as there is no census data

about them. Whenever boxes are offered to tick there is always one for ‘Black African’ but

that obscures the language difficulties mentioned above. “(We are) grouped in an

unsuitable ‘box”’. People therefore felt that monitoring numbers of the Somali population

was not done effectively (for example in the Census), and that there were more Somalis in

Lambeth than was thought.

People also criticised the fact that Somali qualifications are not recognised in the UK.

Residents need more information on how to gain professional recognition; there are

trained professionals left out of work because of this “trap”. Without recognised

qualifications people can’t get experience, without experience they can’t get a job and so

on.

On the positive side, people felt that it was good that Lambeth is multi-cultural and there is

a good Somali community for support.


Again participants were asked their general experiences of using services in Lambeth.

Services most often used by participants included housing services and education

services to learn English. Again it was said that services pay lip service only to the needs

of Somalis; they do not provide translation and they do not understand what the

community needs. Service providers need to use a more systematic approach to dealing

with different communities and cultures; too often the service received is not good

enough.


OPM page 89

Thinking specifically about housing, it was noted that people can only qualify for housing

support if ill or with a family. The majority of the Somali community that need this support

are young single men, who cannot get access to accommodation. People understand that

this is not an anti-Somali issue, but rather the across the board policy; however it does

make it difficult to get started in life.

It was recognised that English language skills were improving. People who were born in

the UK or who moved when young now speak it well. People said that Somali society in

the UK is evolving and now more people than before can speak English. Writing and

reading English is also becoming more common.

Thinking about these two aspects, it was felt that Lambeth Council and other services

could help the Somali community in specific areas:

• The need to get Somali people into jobs within the community (provide and highlight

positive role models for the youth to aspire towards; jobs in Lambeth Council need to

be targeted toward those in the Somali community, such as social workers, health

workers, housing officers)

• Somali people need to be better informed about the services they can receive (oral

tradition is strong in the Somali community, radio is best, written information can often

be badly translated and not used. Use of complex terminology may confuse – if people

talk to each other they can explain more clearly; let the people inform each other)

Comments on specific service areas

People were then asked about the specific service areas consulted upon as part of the

budget work.

On community safety and crime reduction, people made more general comments

rather than focusing on the specific suggestions, but felt that safety in the Somali

community was achieved through the family as much as from outside intervention; crime

happens in certain places at certain times and the community just avoids these places. It

was felt to be important =, though, to focus on crime prevention and young people;

“Somali youth do get involved in crime as there is little else for them to do”.

Regarding youth provision; participants commented that underachievement at school is

prevalent in the Somali community – with only 12% of schoolchildren achieving

appropriate standards at key stage 4. Also the drop out rate from school is very high.

Reasons given for such poor outcomes for young people included:

• overcrowded housing

• poverty

• little to do so people hang on the streets

• drug culture

• gang culture and peer pressure


OPM page 90

• young people feeling targeted as perpetrators of anti social behaviour

• no role models

• no Somali teachers

• lack of integration within wider community

In addition, looking at the link between young people and crime, people said that gun

culture was worsening, with a knock on effect on those young Somalis in custody -

although Somalis are the minority community in the UK, they are in the majority in

Feltham Youth Offending Institute.

To improve these outcomes people said that achievement needs to be prioritised in

schools, and that providing role models such as Somali teachers and youth workers would

help in this. Also, a specific community centre which would allow groups of all ages to mix

together would be beneficial – with sport facilities and funding from the local authority.

Thinking about children’s social services, it was thought to be hard for Somalis to

understand the UK way of thinking around services and vice versa. Issues tend to be

solved within the family; there is a widespread distrust of children’s services; youths that

are taken into care end up in places that are not safe for Somalis. Participants said that

the community does not feel that the children’s social services are working ‘with’ them, but

rather against them; support is not tailored for Somali children.

People we talked to felt that to address this issue, Social Services should not try and

‘solve’ the problem in isolation through moving the child, but rather they should look to the

wider family to intervene. If they do want to move the child they should move it to another

Somali family – preferably, said the group, to a relative’s house such as an uncle. Moving

outside the Somali community should be a last resort; close family stretches very wide for

the Somalis.

Also, the service to Somalis could be improved by explaining more clearly how people can

challenge the decisions of services, and for services to listen more to the wider family and

involve them in solving any problems; possibly by using religious and community leaders

to broker solutions.

In terms of the specific services suggested, it was felt that Somali families could be more

involved in fostering and adoption but they already do a lot informally. People are not as

keen to be involved formally, but rather to take a more informal role in caring for others’

children for short periods.

Thinking about adult and community services, people felt that a scheme to increase

awareness of benefits was a good idea. This would need to rely on the oral tradition

though – for example, the council could use Somali community radio. Information needs to

be in the Somali language as well.

Some key principles were stated by the group in providing social services (which it was

felt could be applied to other statutory services provided in the Borough):


OPM page 91

• rather than spending money improving the services, spend the money improving

access to the services; the lack of information on how and when to access them is the

problem

• need to understand the differences in need between the Somali community and

others and within the community; Somali elders generally live in families of two or

three generations so they are not isolated like UK families; health problems differ for

Somalis though

• reducing unemployment is the key service required here rather then providing

access to benefits or training. There is no point in offering further training to Somali

community, people are trained, speak English, have Somali experience but cannot get

jobs because they have no UK experience. There is a perceived need to get Lambeth

Council to subsidise and arrange work placements within the council or in other

employers. There is also a need to offer more voluntary experience opportunities

targeted to the Somali community, and to recognise Somali and Italian2 qualifications

• targeting activity is important – Lambeth Council should have a dedicated team with

Somali members on it, which will produce role models for youth, employment for the

community, reduce crime, increase quality of life for Somalis.

On streets and highways, the streets of Lambeth were generally thought to be clean and

tidy, and so this issue was less of a problem than the others. However, it was commented

that recycling is not part of the prevalent culture in the Somali community. To raise

awareness, again, people suggested the need to focus on spoken communication such as

community radio and workshops on recycling.

Closing remarks

Participants said that three key improvements to focus on are:

• improve education outcomes for Somali youth

• provide leisure activities for the entire community through a multi purpose centre

• get qualified Somalis into jobs so they can get UK experience

2 Given the historic links between Somalia and Italy


OPM page 92

Somali women

This discussion was held with the assistance of a Vauxhall-based community support

group, based in a school.


Participants were asked their views on living in Lambeth generally; what was good, bad

and lacking in the area. In terms of bad things, the group mostly focussed on their

housing situations. Many women with families were in very cramped conditions with three

children and only two bedrooms, or in one case two sisters each with three children living

in one two bed roomed flat. There were also concerns about repairs and the time it takes

to get a response. These were often linked to length of time on waiting lists for new

housing.

Some people felt that a family centre, like a Sure Start facility, was lacking for families and

communities like them in Lambeth.

However, a smaller group of participants was more positive about Lambeth generally,

saying the area was good, housing was adequate and education was of a high standard,

especially for infant and primary ages. Health provision and hospitals were also thought

to be OK.

All participants agreed that parks and green spaces were pleasant. This linked to positive

feedback about Lambeth’s consultation and engagement around changes and new

developments - one member explained how a park near her was going to be built on to

make a new development but they were consulted by Lambeth and this did not happen –

“they listen to us”


Group members then discussed individual service areas and talked about which council

proposals they would prefer to see put in practice.

On community safety and crime reduction, when asked whether they felt safe in the

area, the group had a mixed response. Some felt that the presence of police community

support officers (PCSOs), who often spoke to groups of teenagers they felt threatened by,

helped make them feel safe living in Lambeth. However the fact that there were no longer

security guards on estates made them feel very unsafe and many did not go out after dark

at all.

One member explained how since a recent attack near her home she had felt very unsafe.

She said she has lived in Lambeth for over ten years and used to feel safe but now the

streets are quite empty during the day, particularly since someone was stabbed at

9.30am.


OPM page 93

There was also seen to be a need to focus on and protect particular groups in the

community from abuse and threats:

“As Muslims we are seen as terrorists, we are “passed over” when we see the scarf –

we are not supported”

Some group members said that there were a lot of drug dealers around. They were also

scared of the drunks in the street and drug users who sat outside in groups. These

people agreed that more CCTV cameras and more streetlights would make a huge

difference in making them feel safe. However, others in the group felt very safe and had

no real drug problems where they live.

Looking at the specific spending proposals, creating an anti-social behaviour team was

thought to be needed most, given people’s concerns expressed above.

There was also support for the idea of clearing up hazardous waste, as the group were

concerned about their children picking up the hazardous waste items. One group member

said she had not seen these items as she lives at the junction of two main roads. The

others were concerned about them, and thought that as well as in open spaces, condoms

and needles should also be cleaned up in the lifts on estates.

Looking at improving the quality of support available to victims of domestic violence, the

group valued this suggestion least as they said that domestic violence is rare within their

community and is dealt with by the community when it does occur.

Thinking about adult and community services, most of the focus group members did not

use social services for support as they supported each other within the community. Social

services as whole were not perceived as a particularly good support mechanism for them.

The group talked about social services as a whole and linked it to the support available to

asylum seekers; formal, and not fit for purpose in many ways. There was concern in the

group about perceived intrusion from social services and not being able to get support

where it was needed.

Of the three specific policy proposals, starting a benefits campaign got the most support

as the Somali community support each other in terms of providing care but would like to

know what benefits they are entitled to. One group member said “many older people in

the community are illiterate” (in English at least) “and if the information is in Somali they

might access it”

Regarding the Careline service, most of the group did not have interest in this idea for the

reasons outline above but one group member said that she thought this should be

supported for some of the older people on her estate who had less community support.


OPM page 94

Improving the accessibility and quality of information available was the least favoured

option.

Next the group considered youth provision. One group member was aware of the

services on offer in Camden where there was a youth scheme providing sports and ICT

skills for young people and thought that may work well in Lambeth. The group thought

that new youth services should be offered in old council buildings to save on costs. It was

recognised that providing these kinds of services had a knock on effect in keeping young

people off the streets: “if boys get into football it keeps them busy”. One member said she

had discovered that 20 years ago there had been a youth club in the local area but that

was now gone, with no facilities to replace it. She also said that youth clubs are not

always safe or productive for all young people, and that they had to be to be effective.

The group thought that sports facilities and ICT were priorities but that a place for young

people to hang out and meet other people from the same culture would be very useful.

Self defence classes for young people and children were also suggested.

Thinking about the suggestions for improving youth services, the group agreed that all of

the ideas could have good uses. The youth cabinet was seen as valuable as the group

could see that young people now may have different priorities from when they were

young; “we don’t know what the youth of today want – we can guess but…”

The provision of better youth facilities was also valued very highly and there was some

support for supporting those involved with the criminal justice system as this may stop

them from reoffending. The majority of the support was for the provision of better facilities

and activities.

Finally, considering children’s services, as with adult services the group felt that they and

their communities were able to look after themselves in this area. There was however a

call for more free childcare to allow mothers to work and develop skills for work. The

group agreed that a lot of mothers want to work but the tax credit system did not help

them as they have to pay from their wages for childcare which acts as a deterrent.

When asked to comment on the three specific proposals of support for adoption, fostering

and recruiting more social workers, again there was little interest. However one group

member said that she had applied to be a foster carer but could not due to her housing

issues; there not being enough room in her home. This raised the concern that there

were not enough Muslim foster carers and that more should be done to encourage that by

providing adequate housing for the purpose as people felt Muslim children should be

brought up within their own culture. There was also some support for giving money

towards adopted children as it was considered that they get left behind and forgotten once

they are adopted but may need more support.


OPM page 95

Closing remarks

Asked to give recommendations to the leader of Lambeth Council for future action around

what they had been discussing, the following suggestions were made:

“Provide CCTV cameras and street lights”

“On anti social behaviour - more supervision of people at risk of being pulled into the

criminal justice system”

“Sports facilities for kids”

“Training for young people in the style of New Deal to get skills”

“More training options for mothers – literacy classes”

“Community centres for everyone with sessions for mothers and children that allow all

members of the community to mix and have female only gyms”

“Swimming facilities (for women)”

“(Need a) community office to go with problems - no community offices (at the

moment) in Vauxhall”

“Want what we say to be backed up by actions. Promise and fulfil that promise”

“Clean up the area including the lifts (in communal blocks)”


OPM page 96

6. Appendix

Consultation materials to come in separate document

Lambeth’s budget choices · 2014. 12. 18. · Lambeth’s budget choices OPM page 1 1....

Documents

Transcript of Lambeth’s budget choices · 2014. 12. 18. · Lambeth’s budget choices OPM page 1 1....