1 / 27

Huntingdonshire District Council

Huntingdonshire District Council. “2011 Budget Input Consultation” Using SIMALTO Modelling. Research For Today Ltd August 2010. Objectives.

qamra
Download Presentation

Huntingdonshire District Council

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Huntingdonshire District Council “2011 Budget Input Consultation” Using SIMALTO Modelling Research For Today Ltd August 2010

  2. Objectives Huntingdon 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?

  3. Interviews Conducted 250 face-to-face interviews were conducted in all wards, proportional to their populations

  4. Interviews cont. The questionnaire was also put on the internet. Response was :- 391 Residents 143 Staff 34 Business persons/Stakeholders Unless otherwise stated figures in this presentation are for the in-home resident sample.

  5. Voluntary grants Local transport Healthy activities Leisure centres Country parks Play areas Anti-social behaviour Licensing CCTV Investigating fraud Planning services Customer services Magazine Council website Homes quality Disabled homes Homelessness Affordable homes Town centre grants Business grants Street cleaning Grounds maintenance Climate, environment What services were shown?

  6. Costed SIMALTO Grid 0 1 2 4 0 2 3 6 0 1 2 0 10 12 0 3 8 0 2 6

  7. Unacceptable 0 1 2 4 0 2 3 6 0 1 2 0 10 12 0 3 8 0 2 6

  8. 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.

  9. Cost Constrained (20) First Priorities 0 1 2 4 0 2 3 6 0 1 2 0 10 12 0 3 8 0 2 6

  10. Cost Constrained (20) Second Priorities 0 1 2 4 0 2 3 6 0 1 2 0 10 12 0 3 8 0 2 6

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

  12. “Service Benefits/Tax Level” Trade Off Choice

  13. Scenarios Chosen When Informed of Council Tax Impact 70% willing to pay at least £20 more tax to avoid largest cuts. Elderly least keen on paying extra tax for less savings.

  14. Scenarios Chosen When Informed of Council Tax Impact Only minor area differences.

  15. Scenarios Chosen When Informed of Council Tax Impact Web staff more keen to avoid largest service cuts.

  16. Example Summary Data Attribute 7) Nuisance investigation

  17. Dissatisfaction with Alternative “Consensus” Budgets % Budget change

  18. Most Preferred Individual Improvements

  19. % Choice Prediction Between Consensus Optimum Budgets 71% predicted to pay at least £20 extra tax avoid largest service cuts scenario. Little difference between samples.

  20. % Choice Prediction Between Consensus Optimum Budgets Little difference between samples.

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

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

  23. Summary 1 - Information To 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)

  24. Summary 2 – Payment for services 70% 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.

  25. Summary 3 – Service Reductions Causing Least Displeasure.Saving up to £2m. Council magazine – Stop, electronic only Council website – 75% fewer pages Planning services – ‘Bare minimum’ Council access – Reduce opening hours Affordable homes grants – Reduce by 17 Grounds maintenance – cut 8 times / year Climate change – reduce environment schemes CCTV – Record only Town centres – Halve grants Countryside parks – Close 4 small ones

  26. Summary 4 – Further Service Reductions Causing Least Displeasure. Saving up to £3m. Voluntary grants – Only 9000 get advice Leisure centres – reduce hours Play areas – reduce inspections Licensing – Minimum service Homelessness – 400 get advice Saving up to £4m Local transport – No new safety schemes Countryside parks – Minimum standards CCTV – Cease Fraud investigation – Reduce Council access – Close 4 service centres Homes quality – Stop help to owners Affordable homes – 34 fewer Business support – Reduce

  27. Summary 5 – Services which should not be reduced if at all possible Healthy activity support Anti-social behaviour, nuisance prevention Home grants for disabled persons Street cleaning

More Related