huntingdonshire district council “2011 budget input consultation” using simalto modelling...

Huntingdonshire DistrictHuntingdonshire District Council Council

“2011 Budget Input Consultation” Using SIMALTO Modelling

Research For Today Ltd

August 2010

ObjectivesObjectivesHuntingdon District Council wanted to know resident priorities about the allocation of council tax between various services in 2011. The council was facing having to make significant savings on some of its discretionary services over the next few years.

Which of current service levels/benefits could be reduced and cause least ‘displeasure’ among residents?

Would residents be willing to pay more council tax, above inflation if this was possible, to minimise cuts in services?

Interviews ConductedInterviews Conducted

Interviewed

Urban 103

Rural 147

Sex Male 51% Female 49%

Age 18 - 40 34% 41 - 59 33% 60+ 33%

Ethnicity White 97% Other 3%

250 face-to-face interviews were conducted in all wards, proportional to their populations

Interviews Interviews cont.cont.

The questionnaire was also put on the internet.

Response was :- 391 Residents 143 Staff34 Business persons/Stakeholders Unless otherwise stated figures in this presentation are

for the in-home resident sample.

What services were shown?What services were shown?1. Voluntary grants2. Local transport3. Healthy activities4. Leisure centres5. Country parks6. Play areas7. Anti-social behaviour8. Licensing9. CCTV10. Investigating fraud11. Planning services12. Customer services

13. Magazine14. Council website15. Homes quality16. Disabled homes17. Homelessness18. Affordable homes19. Town centre grants20. Business grants21. Street cleaning22. Grounds maintenance23. Climate, environment

1 Grants to Community Groups Only 1000 housebound/

disabled residents able to get advice. Less than half of charities and voluntary

groups supported

About 9,000 people able to

get advice. Fewer charities and voluntary

groups helped.

About 12,000 people able to get advice. Less money for charities and voluntary groups. No Shopmobility

or volunteer cars

The Council provides grants for advice services, such as

the CAB and for charities and voluntary groups for schemes

like Shopmobility and volunteer cars (16,000

people)

2 Local Transport Schemes

Stop supporting all local transport

schemes (no new cycleways, bus shelters, etc.)

Reduce the schemes supported and stop grants to community

bus schemes

Reduce the range and number of schemes

supported (no new safety schemes)

Provide cycleways, safe routes to schools, bus

shelters and community transport groups (Dial-

A-Ride)

3 Improving Health Stop health-related exercise classes; exercise-referral

appointments; health walks halved. No activities for young people. Stop “Hunts for Good Food”, Health Eating Schools

Programme

200 fewer classes; 250 fewer doctor’s referral appointments pa; 100 fewer Health Walks. 60% reduction in activities for

young people. Stop all disability-sport sessions. No support for

clubs and coaches

Exercise classes (650); doctor’s referrals (765); Health Walks (465); activities for young people; holiday schemes; after-school clubs; street

sports. Support for clubs and coaches. Health eating scheme

4 Leisure Centres Close 3 swimming pools (the remaining services will continue to be provided, e.g. Gym, sports hall, etc.)

Reduce opening hours and facilities, e.g. Creches,

sauna/ steam

5 leisure centres, providing a wide range of sports and leisure

activities

5 Countryside Parks Hinchingbrooke Country Park and Paxton Pits maintained to minimal

standards, other sites maintenance of footpaths only. No events/ educational programmes and volunteer opportunities for

special needs groups

Close 4 sites (smaller ones), maintain remainder to minimum

standard, and provide no events/ educational programmes or volunteer opportunities. No

maintenance of Ouse Valley Way

15 Countryside Parks including Hinchingbrooke Country Park, Ouse Valley Way and Paxton Pits. Volunteer and training opportunities, educational programmes, and events

6 Play Areas Close all existing Council maintained areas unless Town and Parish Councils

or other groups can take them over

Reduce inspections and litter picking to once per

week. No new play areas

Play areas maintained by the Council are inspected twice per

week and litter picked

Costed SIMALTO GridCosted SIMALTO Grid

0 1 2 4

0 2 3 6

0

0

0

0

1 2

6

8

10 12

3

2



groups supported



groups helped.


or volunteer cars




people)





bus schemes





A-Ride)



Programme



clubs and coaches





sauna/ steam


activities














0 1 2 4

0 2 3 6

0

0

0

0

1 2

6

8

10 12

3

2

UnacceptableUnacceptable

Each resident asked to ‘spend’ 4 lots of points totalling 80.

One point = approx. £50,000

Current service = 120 points

Left hand side of grid = approx. £6m saving to council.



groups supported



groups helped.


or volunteer cars




people)





bus schemes





A-Ride)



Programme



clubs and coaches





sauna/ steam


activities














0 1 2 4

0 2 3 6

0

0

0

0

1 2

6

8

10 12

3

2

Cost Constrained (20) First PrioritiesCost Constrained (20) First Priorities



groups supported



groups helped.


or volunteer cars




people)





bus schemes





A-Ride)



Programme



clubs and coaches





sauna/ steam


activities














0 1 2 4

0 2 3 6

0

0

0

0

1 2

6

8

10 12

3

2

Cost Constrained (20) Second PrioritiesCost Constrained (20) Second Priorities

Satisfaction with Satisfaction with PersonalPersonal Choice Scenarios Choice Scenarios

Very

UnhappySlightly

UnhappyUncertain

Quite Pleased

Very Pleased

Extremely Pleased

Base 65% 27% 6% 1% 0% 0%

+20 Points 20% 34% 23% 21% 1% 0%

+40 Points 4% 19% 30% 42% 6% 0%

+60 Points 1% 10% 15% 53% 21% 0%

+80 Points 0% 3% 9% 47% 38% 3%

Current 2% 6% 17% 53% 21% 2%

Few unhappy at their 3rd priorities of 60 points, a £3m saving.Few unhappy at their 3rd priorities of 60 points, a £3m saving.Only 8% unhappy with the current service – one of the lowest Only 8% unhappy with the current service – one of the lowest ‘dissatisfaction’ rates ever recorded on 130 studies over 7 years.‘dissatisfaction’ rates ever recorded on 130 studies over 7 years.

“Service Benefits/Tax Level” Trade Off Choice

Black circles PLUS red arrows 1

PLUS black arrows, do you think this is a good use of a further £1m of council budgetequivalent to an extra £20/year council tax

2

PLUS green arrows, do you think this is a good use of a further £1m of council budgetequivalent to an extra £40/year council tax

3

PLUS blue arrows, do you think this is a good use of a further £1m of council budgetequivalent to an extra £60/year council tax

4

Scenarios Chosen When Informed of Council Tax ImpactScenarios Chosen When Informed of Council Tax Impact

Scenario: +20 Points +40 Points +60 Points +80 Points

Budget Equivalent

-£5m -£4m -£3m -£2m

Tax Equivalent, ignoring inflation

Base £20 premium£40

premium£60

premium

Total 30% 27% 25% 18%

Under 40 27% 25% 26% 21%

40 - 60 26% 26% 26% 22%

Over 60 36% 28% 24% 12%

70% willing to pay at least £20 more tax to avoid largest cuts.70% willing to pay at least £20 more tax to avoid largest cuts.Elderly least keen on paying extra tax for less savings.Elderly least keen on paying extra tax for less savings.



Budget Equivalent

-£5m -£4m -£3m -£2m

Total 30% 27% 25% 18%

Urban 30% 24% 31% 15%

Rural 29% 29% 21% 21%

Only minor area differences.Only minor area differences.



Budget Equivalent

-£5m -£4m -£3m -£2m

In-home residents 30% 27% 25% 18%

Web residents 28% 25% 20% 27%

Web staff 17% 28% 27% 28%

Web ‘business, stakeholders’ 26% 26% 18% 29%

Web staff more keen to avoid largest service cuts.Web staff more keen to avoid largest service cuts.

Example Summary DataExample Summary Data

No investigation

0

100 investigations

2

As now,

over 300 investigations

4

Priority 80 10% 8% 82%

Priority 60 20% 10% 70%

Priority 40 35% 11% 54%

Priority 20 59% 11% 30%

Unacceptable 54% 10% 0%

Attribute 7) Nuisance investigation

Dissatisfaction with Alternative Dissatisfaction with Alternative “Consensus” Budgets“Consensus” Budgets

15

26

45

6171

£5m less £4m less £3m less £2m less £1m less

Budget changeBudget change

%

Most Preferred Individual Most Preferred Individual ImprovementsImprovements

Service AttributeService Attribute ChangeChange IndexIndex Margin-Margin-al Costal Cost

(7) Nuisance investigation None 100 67 2

(2) Local transport Stop support Reduce 63 2

(3) Health activities Stop support much less 60 1

(2) Local transport Reduce support no new 60 1

(6) Play areas Close Reduce support 60 2

(7) Nuisance investigation 100 As now, over 300 57 2

(20) Business support Stop support Reduce 56 2

% Choice Prediction Between Consensus Optimum Budgets% Choice Prediction Between Consensus Optimum Budgets

Budget Change

£5m£5m

LessLess

£4m£4m

LessLess

£3m£3m

LessLess

£2m£2m

LessLess

£1m£1m

LessLess

Extra tax equivalent NoneNone £20 £20

moremore£40 £40

moremore£60 £60

moremore£80 £80

moremore

TotalTotal 29 21 20 17 13

Under 40Under 40 30 15 22 19 13

40-6040-60 27 22 20 18 13

61 +61 + 28 28 19 13 12

Urban 30 20 21 16 13

Rural 29 23 20 17 12

71% predicted to pay at least £20 extra tax avoid largest 71% predicted to pay at least £20 extra tax avoid largest service cuts scenario.service cuts scenario.Little difference between samples.Little difference between samples.

% Choice Prediction Between Consensus Optimum Budgets% Choice Prediction Between Consensus Optimum Budgets

Budget Change

£5m£5m

LessLess

£4m£4m

LessLess

£3m£3m

LessLess

£2m£2m

LessLess

£1m£1m

LessLess

In-homeIn-home 29 21 20 17 13Web residents 35 15 16 15 19

Web staff 36 14 13 16 21Web ‘business, stakeholders’ 28 17 18 17 20

Little difference between samples.Little difference between samples.

Should local-specific services be the responsibility of the Should local-specific services be the responsibility of the ‘local council’ or Hunts DC?‘local council’ or Hunts DC?

Scenario: Local council Hunts DC

Total in-home 62% 38%

Under 40 64% 36%

40 – 60 59% 41%

Over 60 63% 37%

Urban 59% 41%

Rural 64% 36%

Web residents 61% 39%

Web staff 71% 29%

Web ‘business, stakeholders’ 71% 29%

In principle, should users of services pay for their usage or In principle, should users of services pay for their usage or should Hunts DC pay for them?should Hunts DC pay for them?

Scenario: User pays Hunts DC

Total in-home 40% 60%

Under 40 31% 69%

40 – 60 35% 65%

Over 60 53% 47%

Urban 35% 65%

Rural 42% 58%

Web residents 48% 52%

Web staff 62% 38%

Web ‘business, stakeholders’ 65% 35%

Summary 1 - InformationSummary 1 - InformationTo maintain the current levels of these services, council tax would need to increase by more than Central Government guidelines

Only 8% of residents were dissatisfied with the current service they received from Huntingdonshire Council.

(One of the lowest dissatisfaction measures recorded in over 130 similar consultations for other councils)

Summary 2 – Payment for servicesSummary 2 – Payment for services70% of respondents were willing to pay £20 or more per year extra tax to minimise the potential cuts the council could introduce.

Faced with the choice of 5 optimally deduced budget service allocations, 71% were predicted to chose the four of these that incurred at least a £20 increase in council tax and avoided the largest service cuts scenario.

Summary 3 – Service Reductions Summary 3 – Service Reductions Causing Least Displeasure.Causing Least Displeasure.Saving up to £2m.Saving up to £2m.

Council magazine – Stop, electronic onlyCouncil website – 75% fewer pagesPlanning services – ‘Bare minimum’Council access – Reduce opening hours Affordable homes grants – Reduce by 17Grounds maintenance – cut 8 times / yearClimate change – reduce environment schemesCCTV – Record onlyTown centres – Halve grantsCountryside parks – Close 4 small ones

Summary 4 – Further Service Summary 4 – Further Service Reductions Causing Least Displeasure.Reductions Causing Least Displeasure.

Saving up to £3m.Saving up to £3m. Voluntary grants – Only 9000 get adviceLeisure centres – reduce hoursPlay areas – reduce inspectionsLicensing – Minimum service Homelessness – 400 get adviceSaving up to £4mSaving up to £4mLocal transport – No new safety schemesCountryside parks – Minimum standardsCCTV – CeaseFraud investigation – ReduceCouncil access – Close 4 service centresHomes quality – Stop help to ownersAffordable homes – 34 fewerBusiness support – Reduce

Summary 5 – Services which should Summary 5 – Services which should notnot be reduced if at all possiblebe reduced if at all possible

Healthy activity support

Anti-social behaviour, nuisance prevention

Home grants for disabled persons

Street cleaning

huntingdonshire district council “2011 budget input consultation” using simalto modelling...

Documents

advice services

voluntary groups

voluntary grants

local transport schemes

fewer health walks

community bus schemes

community groups

number of schemes