Oxford Citizens’ Jury Report
November 2008
Executive Summary
The Citizens Jury was called in order to discuss the budget allocations for Oxford City Council (OCC) in 2009/10. Social Research Associates (SRA) recruited the jury from participants of the Citizens’ Panel and the 10 members met for a full day’s session on the 8th November 2008.
Participants were given details of the OCC budget from the past year. Following an initial discussion, break-out groups were formed in order to consider individual service areas.
The prime objective was for the jury to identify service priorities and in contrast potential savings and cuts in the light of forthcoming budgetary constraints.
Below are the key cost savings identified by the jury:
Providing Services Externally
- The community and health functions currently provided by OCC would be better provided by other agencies.
- Advice and treatment for substance misuse would be better provided by other agencies.
- Street Wardens and CSO’s should have their functions combined, but the Police should have primary responsibility.
Rationalising Service Delivery
- The current OCC focus on rationalisation was applauded and should be continued to take in further cost savings and multi-skilling amongst staff.
- Area committee meetings should be conducted less often with more on the agenda to encourage attendance.
- Local one-stop shops should be relocated to the centre of Oxford to save costs on under-utilised local offices. These services could easily be accessed by residents’ due to the concessionary fares scheme.
Increased Charging for Services
- Leisure centres should encourage more use, charge more and diversify. If centres have to close then the public use of University facilities should be encouraged.
- OCC should seek to reduce the amount given to private landlords for homeless accommodation through introducing a ceiling rent. In the longer term OCC should attempt to gain external funds for more social housing.
- Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) licensing should cost more to landlords to cover the services used by tenants.
Contents
1.1 The Aims
1.2 The Jury
1.3 The Process
2.0 General Discussion of Priorities and Budget
2:1 Results
3.0 List of Key Priorities for Budget Reduction Supported by the Jury
3.1 Improve the Local Environment and Quality of Life
3.2 Stronger and Inclusive Communities
3.3 Transforming OCC by improving value for money and service performance
3.4 Reduce Crime and Antisocial Behaviour
3.5 More Housing, Better Housing for All
3.6 Tackle Climate Change
3.7 Other Ideas for Budget Reduction Suggested by the Jury
4.0 Service Priorities
5.0 Summary of Cost Savings
APPENDIX A- Citizens’ Jury Schedule
APPENDIX B- Departmental Budget Sheets
APPENDIX C- Group Allocations
Oxford City Council: Citizens Jury
1.1 The Aims
The citizens’ jury was called in order to discuss the budget allocations for Oxford City Council (OCC) in 2009/10.
The prime objective was for the jury to consider service priorities and, in contrast, potential savings and cuts in the light of forthcoming budgetary constraints.
1.2 The Jury
Social Research Associates (SRA) recruited the jury from participants of the Citizens Panel. Although such a group can not be truly representative, nevertheless the jury included members varied age groups and residents of different areas of the City. The 10 members met for a full day’s session on the 8th November 2008.
1.3 The Process
The schedule for the day is shown in appendix A.
Following introductions, the jury were given an introduction to the Council’s work and a brief explanation of the current budget allocation. More detailed information was available to facilitators and jurors for assistance in their decision making during the day.
There was then a general discussion about the OCC’s current spending, budgetary constraints and service provision including the division of responsibilities between OCC and Oxfordshire County Council.
In the following break out sessions, three sub groups looked at each priority in turn and categorised according to whether they considered each service area to be a high, medium or low priority for OCC. Discussions also included views about potential savings from the budget, either by reducing services or cost savings. Each group recorded their selections and comments on the sheets shown in appendix B.
In the final session the results of the breakout groups were presented to the entire jury and discussed. The Leader of OCC, Councillor Bob Price, listened to the comments and recommendations and thanked the jury assuring them that their views would be considered in detail.
2.0 General Discussion of Priorities and Budget
After the jury had heard the budgetary information, there was an opportunity to ask OCC officers questions about current allocations, or raise any other issues relating to the budget.
The discussion began with the topic of tourism in the city. Generally it was seen as a ‘double-edged sword’, as it causes costs to the city as well as bringing money in. The jury was generally in favour of increasing revenue from tourists as there was a feeling that ‘Oxford is going to get tourists whatever happens’.
Most jurors felt the range of shops was poor in the centre and there were ‘too many chains’, but some areas, such as East Oxford, were getting better and had more individual shops. There was concern that these businesses could be forced out by rising rates and rents, and other costs. An example of small business recycling was given whereby the shopkeepers had to pay to recycle, so just took their recycling home. It was felt that OCC should support small business and promote the independent shops in Oxford.
With regard to housing there was a feeling that the allocations procedures are extremely bureaucratic and inflexible - for example one tenant wanted to move from a second floor flat to a ground floor one due to mobility issues, but wasn’t considered due to another priority applicant for the same property. It was suggested that both could have got a suitable property if they could have simply switched flats. This would have reduced costs through cutting the time that both properties were left empty, as well as saving time spent on administrative procedures.
There was also criticism of the temporary nature of accommodation for homeless families. A teacher noted that some of her pupils were adversely affected by frequent accommodation moves.
The jury were glad to see the OCC focus on energy efficiency in-house. It was noted that this can be achieved through cost savings, for example switching things off or doing less printing, and that these savings could be linked to OCC jobs.
There was discussion of the proposed food waste scheme and some jurors suggested that this was costly and unnecessary. It was noted that waste collection was not being efficiently run (for example the collectors leaving a mess in the street) and some jurors felt this service could be outsourced.
The split between county and city services was felt to be an area in which both Councils could make savings through closer integration, sharing facilities and reducing duplication.
During a general discussion about leisure services it emerged that the group were unaware that the Council had kept the Peers leisure centre open. This led some jurors to suggest that OCC could be better at informing the public about leisure services to ensure that centres are better used.
In terms of communication, it was felt that there was currently too much of a focus on web-based material which excluded some citizens.
There was concern about the amount which concessionary fares were costing OCC via the central government scheme. Several jurors were entitled to concessionary fares, but felt almost embarrassed about it. Most of the jury felt that the concessionary fares should be based on the ability to pay rather than provided free for all. However, the jury accepted that there was little OCC could do about this beyond petitioning Central government to ensure the cost of the scheme was covered.
Finally there was interest in the division of roles between the police, CSOs (Community Support Officers) and street wardens and whether co-ordination could be improved.
2:1 Results
Following the group break-out sessions the jury reconvened to report their priorities and areas for cost reductions. Below are the average ratings for each service area (1= high priority, 2 = medium 3= low). Red bars indicate the majority of the jury rated this service area as a low priority.
3.0 List of Key Priorities for Budget Reduction Supported by the Jury
Although there was not complete agreement on all priorities for budget reduction there was consensus about a range of services which were either rated low priority or were thought to be capable of cost savings. The full numerical results for the jury are shown in Appendix C.
Reductions or cost savings were agreed by the majority in five priority areas. Instances where there was significant disagreement by a minority are also indicated. Average ratings across the three groups are shown – a rating of higher than two indicates that at least one group considered elements of the service to have a low priority. However, there were also areas where the jury felt that the service should remain a high priority, but OCC could charge more (e.g. occupational and residential health and safety).
3.1 Improve the Local Environment and Quality of Life
There was no support for reduction in the Improve the Local Environment and Quality of Life OCC priority.
3.2 Stronger and More Inclusive Communities
There was support shown for reductions in the areas of concessionary fares, community centres, housing benefit administration, leisure centres and community health.
Community and Health
The rationale for budget reduction in this area was that other bodies should take responsibility for health; in particular the NHS, schools and the voluntary sector. In addition it was felt that the health schemes run by OCC such as health promotion, the healthy living fund and area specific health advice was uncoordinated and that even where such services were retained, could be rationalised.
Leisure Centres
Several points were made about the operation of leisure services as groups noted the large subsidy that leisure attracts. It was felt by the majority that OCC could encourage more use of existing facilities – and thus more revenue, or alternatively obtain private investment. There were ideas for more varied and intensive use of existing facilities such as using venues for conferences and offering new activities such as ballroom dancing.
It was noted that leisure centres (particularly gyms) in the private sector are likely to have better facilities and therefore OCC would be unable to compete in terms of quality. However the jury did feel that there could be higher charges for leisure centres, although differential charging would be preferable to ensure that those on lower incomes could still have access.
In addition it was noted that the universities’ leisure facilities (which in many cases were open to local residents) were insufficiently publicised and could provide additional opportunities and/or replace OCC run facilities without extra cost.
Housing Benefit Administration
The cost of administering housing benefit was felt to be higher that necessary. It was suggested that benefit administration and fraud investigation in general could be outsourced. OCC would not be able to keep any money recouped through benefit investigation, but the costs of administration could be reduced.
Community Centres
A general theme that emerged from much of the discussion was that the Council could save money by rationalising their use of buildings and it was felt that that the functions of community centres in areas where they are currently underused could be carried out at other buildings in the locality.
Concessionary Fares
There was general agreement in the group that the Council should not have to subsidise universal concessionary fares for people who may or may not need them, but there was acceptance that this is largely in the hands of central government.
3.3 Transforming OCC by improving value for money and service performance
Two of the three groups felt there was scope for reductions in the area of democratic services, with the third group rating this as a medium priority. There was also support for cuts in the areas of income collection and trading, and strategy.
Democratic services- Area Committees
There was widespread agreement that whilst the idea of area committees was a good one; in practice they were often poorly attended and lacking motivation. It was therefore recommended that the number of meetings should be reduced. With fewer meetings agendas could be wider and appeal to more people. It was hoped that this would both reduce costs and encourage larger attendances. Also meetings should be better advertised and run at different times to the current 5pm to allow parents and working people to attend.
Other Democratic Services
Although it was accepted that most of the Corporate and democratic core services were mandatory, the amount that the Council spends in this area was questioned.
It was also proposed that local one stop shops could be moved to one central point of contact. It was felt that the current local based facilities were underused and unnecessary for most people. In addition it was felt this would not lead to disadvantage since many people had free travel to the city centre via the concessionary fare scheme.
Support Services
The panel welcomed the ongoing rationalisation and reduction of management levels within OCC. There was support for this to continue especially to move towards more multi skilled working and less ring fencing.
Strategy- Use of Consultants and Outsourcing
It was felt that OCC should reduce their use of external consultants or only use them if they offered better value. Another idea was to encourage local businesses especially smaller companies to bid for work – this could be more cost effective but was currently deterred by bureaucratic procedures.
Other suggestions were to investigate the potential cost savings from further outsourcing of OCC services – for example waste collection was suggested.
Strategy- Job Evaluation
Several members of the jury felt job evaluation was expensive considering the number of employees at OCC. This would be an area where many of the jury would support cuts.
3.4 Reduce Crime and Antisocial Behaviour
The jury supported budget reductions in the area of tackling substance misuse and CCTV. There was also support for a reduction in spending on benefit investigation
Substance Misuse
The majority of the group did not feel that tackling substance misuse should be a priority for the Council, as other agencies would be better placed to handle this. This was seen as part of the general responsibility of other agencies such as the NHS or police.
Street Wardens and CSOs
Although the importance of crime reduction was agreed it was also felt that there was duplication and more scope for rationalisation of the work of wardens, CSOs, neighbourhood watch groups and even parking attendants. There was praise by some members of the jury for the work of wardens based on personal experience but there was also a view that the police should have primary responsibility.
3.5 More Housing, Better Housing for All
Community housing was felt to be an area that could be rationalised in order to save OOC paying money into the private sector. Equally, whilst the function of occupational health and safety was supported by the jury, it was felt that OCC could charge more for these services.
Community Housing
It was felt there was a need to clamp down on private sector landlords taking advantage of homeless legislation to provide overpriced temporary accommodation. Ideally it was suggested that more permanent social housing would provide stability and affordable accommodation, although it was noted that this was unlikely to happen quickly. It was therefore suggested that the Council set a limit on rents beyond which they wouldn’t pay.
However, it was recognised there was a scarcity of accommodation in Oxford and that OCC had a statutory duty to re-house the homeless. Likewise it was felt that the housing function in general was important. Nevertheless there was some scope for savings in this area such as control on private rents as above, and on a longer term basis by the Council obtaining funds for additional social housing since in the end more stability for people in housing need would have a positive effect on other budgets.
Occupational, Residential Health and Safety
The enforcement of standards for multi occupancy housing (HMO) was a priority but it was also felt that extending inspections to two storey housing and charging more in general for inspections was a good idea. Thus the registration fee for landlords could be increased to help fund the extra services that some HMO’s use.