1 Prepared by Lake Market Research and Kent County Council Kent County Council Budget Consultation Final Report This report complies with ISO:20252 standards.

1 Prepared by Lake Market Research and Kent County Council Kent County Council Budget Consultation Final Report This report complies with ISO:20252 standards and other relevant forms of conduct 1

22 Contents Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Research Background………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Response to Online Budgeting Tool – Representative sample of Kent residents.………………………………7 Budgeting tool – an explanation………………………………………………………………………………………………………13 Budgeting Tool – demographic differences………………………………………………………………………………………17 Response to Online Budgeting Tool – Kent.gov completion……………………………..…..……………………......26 Voting Results From Resident Deliberative Sessions………………………………………………………………………..39 Summary of Resident Deliberative Sessions ……………………………………………………………………………………45 Residents - Council Tax…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….55 Residents views on areas of expenditure………………………………………………………………………………………….63 Staff Voting Questions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..78 Summary of Staff Deliberative Session ……………………………………………………………………………….……………84 Staff - Council Tax …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….92 Staff views on areas of expenditure …………………………………………………………………………………………………98 Summary Comparison of Staff & Residents Views …………………………………………………………………………… 103 Summary Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………107 Resident & Staff Conclusions & Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………..108 Resident & Staff Suggestions for Reducing Costs / Increasing Revenue………………………………………........109

3 Executive Summary 3  Residents and staff recognised the need to make savings in response to the financial climate.  To obtain greater understanding of the need to make cuts KCC need to improve communication about the financial challenge and promote how KCC spends public money both now and in the future. Improved communication should lead to improved engagement.  Ideally, KCC should explicitly say which services will be protected as a result of 1.99% increase, as residents expressed strong desire to know where the money is spent. However, it is recognised that current funding arrangements do not make this possible.  Much support existed for increasing Council Tax up to 2% and a minority would pay more. There was no evidence that a referendum would be successful.  In the quantitative budget tool exercise, the top 5 areas ranked as the most important:  100 miles of road gritted in bad weather over the course of the winter  2 ½ weeks of residential care for 1 older person whose needs are judged substantial or critical  69 hours of home care for an older person whose needs are judged moderate or substantial  2 weeks of foster care for a child who cannot live safely at home, provided by a KCC registered foster carer  1 week of foster care for one child who cannot live safely at home  Those involved in the research welcomed the opportunity and placed a high value on consultation before decisions are made. Where possible future decisions should reflect what people have said and this should be publicised.  Lots of good ideas about where savings can be made and income generated. These all fit within the main themes of prioritising spend to the most vulnerable, raising income, helping people and communities to do more for themselves and transforming services to deliver same/better outcomes at lower costs within existing strategies.  In the qualitative residents sessions, the proportion of people that would pay more council tax was 14% at the start of the session, rising to 74% at the end of the session, with 83% of people being willing to pay council tax over a 1.5% increase.  When asking residents which approaches they would choose to deliver savings, many chose a variety of approaches rather than one in particular suggesting that the solution will be a combination of different approaches, with transformations and efficiency savings being the most selected.

4 Key Points for KCC Consideration 4  KCC need to promote their activities, the need for saving and their efforts to do so. KCC cannot assume that the general public are aware – they need to be told.  People responded strongly with views about where savings and improvements can be made where it was reflective of their own circumstances. This possibly makes information targeting easier.  Residents wanted a communication unit so people know what KCC provides and that way people will know who is accountable for certain things”  There was a level of concern across many of the groups (across ages) about the lack of youth services and also a corresponding increase in anti social behaviour – many felt that the lack of provision of activities for youths certainly adds to the ongoing issue of anti social behaviour. Both staff and residents felt KCC needed to do more in the area of Youth Services.  People seemed amenable to paying more council tax - Questions for a future survey could test if people are willing to pay extra, the how much exactly would people pay?  One of the key challenges is for KCC to promote the amount spent on all of the aspects of spend for the council. Not through putting it on the website, but perhaps in an information campaign to raise awareness – the question remains though – what real difference will being aware of the amount of spend do? This is an area to perhaps test further in future surveys.  KCC could look at making families pay for school transport if they have voluntarily left the area where their child goes to school.  KCC need to be aware that users of Libraries see these as a lifeline – more work needs to be done to identify savings and investigate areas where savings can be made – example staff felt that the opening hours could be improved and made more efficient.  Staff believed strongly that they would identify real areas of savings for KCC (and there were many examples provided). Perhaps KCC could look at utilising ways to collecting and collating these ideas to identify real savings that staff have come up with themselves – such as shared administration pools and alternative opening hours for libraries.

5 Research Background Kent County Council consults with residents annually on its Budget arrangements in order to gain an insight into informed public opinion on the direction of travel for the next 2-3 years. The campaign for this year’s Budget Consultation aimed to raise public awareness on how the Council is facing the challenge of sustained cuts by undertaking a whole-council transformation. The Consultation consisted of: 3 half day deliberative sessions with Kent residents A half day deliberative session with Kent County Council staff An online budgeting tool completed by a representative sample of Kent residents An online budgeting tool featured on the Kent.gov website 3 Budget Challenge ‘quick questions’ featured on the Kent.gov website Other events organised by KCC Areas highlighted in Red were carried out by KCC and areas highlighted in Blue were carried out by Lake Market Research.

3 half day deliberative sessions with Kent residents - Provide an overview of opinion and test the softer issues - Residents were recruited at random and the majority were unaware of the budget challenge KCC were facing at the beginning of the deliberative sessions - By the end of the sessions, most had an understanding for the ‘tough decisions’ faced and the need to make significant savings - Suggestions put forward at the end of the session and the second voting exercise reflects this increased awareness An online budgeting tool completed by a representative sample of Kent residents - Residents were recruited at random and were not provided with any context with regard to savings and the budget challenge KCC are facing - Completed the budget tool and supporting questions online with no context provided by KCC or Lake Market Research -Residents gave feedback based on their own circumstances and knowledge. Feedback represents a true, unbiased view of perceptions An online budgeting tool on the Kent.gov website - Residents completing were exposed to significant contextual information with regard to savings and the budget challenge, as the online link was featured surrounding this information - The Kent.gov sample is likely to contain Kent County Council staff completions (who have an informed view of the challenge) - These factors have had an influence on the awareness of the need to make savings and residents propensity to agree Council Tax being increased A note on comparing Consultation components Each component of the Consultation was conducted with varying objectives in mind. Comparisons in terms of statistics and open feedback should consider the following:

7 Response to online budgeting tool 7 - Representative sample of Kent residents

8 Residents’ landline numbers were selected via random digit sampling and residents were invited to take part by our telephone interviewing team through:  Completion of the online budgeting tool  Attendance at a face to face deliberative session Focusing on the online budgeting tool specifically:  Recruitment was conducted in line with 2011 Census statistics in terms of gender, age and social class to ensure a representative sample completed the tool.  Residents were sent an email containing a link to the budgeting tool to complete.  514 Kent residents in total completed the tool.  Minimal weights have been applied in terms of age and gender to ensure exact representation with Census 2011 statistics. Residents were asked 8 supplementary questions surrounding the budget tool to gauge overall opinions on savings. Methodology – Telephone recruited sample of Kent residents 8

9 A response profile representative of the Kent population aged 16 and over….. % GENDER Male49% Female51% Prefer not to answer0% 0 AGE Aged 16-3428% Aged 35-5434% Aged 55-6415% Aged 65+22% Prefer not to answer0% ETHNICITY White95% BME3% Prefer not to answer2% DISABLED AS SET OUT IN EQUALITY ACT 2010 Yes8% No91% Prefer not to answer1% % AREA Ashford10% Canterbury9% Dartford7% Dover8% Gravesham8% Maidstone13% Sevenoaks7% Shepway4% Swale7% Thanet5% Tonbridge & Malling11% Tunbridge Wells13% Working (full / part time / self employed)62% Not working (student / unemployed / looking after home / permanently sick / carer) 12% Retired26% 9

10 Base: All answering (unweighted – 514) How aware or not are you that local councils are having to make major budget savings that will impact on current services? TOTAL AWARE74% TOTAL NOT AWARE26% Thinking about the savings KCC has made over the last 4 years, what impact have they had on you and your household? TOTAL POSITIVE7% TOTAL NEGATIVE47% Three quarters are aware of the need to make major budget savings. Just under half consider previous savings to have had a negative impact on their household. 10

11 Base: All answering (unweighted – 514) TOTAL AWARE74% TOTAL NOT AWARE26% AGE GENDER 16-34:58% 35-44: 75% 45-54: 78% 55-64: 79% 65+:89% Male:78% Female: 70% % AWARE Significantly HIGHER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Significantly LOWER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level How aware or not are you that local councils are having to make major budget savings that will impact on current services? Awareness of the need to make major budget savings increases with age, with a significantly lower proportion of 16-34 year olds aware. 11

12 Base: All answering (unweighted – 514) AGE GENDER 16-34:41% 35-44: 45% 45-54: 57% 55-64: 48% 65+:47% Male:46% Female: 48% % NEGATIVE Significantly HIGHER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Disabled:66% Not disabled: 45% Thinking about the savings KCC has made over the last 4 years, what impact have they had on you and your household? TOTAL POSITIVE7% TOTAL NEGATIVE47% A significantly higher proportion of residents aged 45-54 and residents with a disability have felt the impact of previous savings made. 12

13 22 Kent County Council services ‘worth £1,000 in council spending’ were devised by Kent County Council to construct the tool Residents were shown a brief preamble detailing the budget challenge facing Kent County Council and an explanation of the exercise they were about to complete. Residents were each shown 17 screens containing a pre- programmed list of 4 sequences so all 22 services were tested against each other. On each screen, residents were asked to select the service that was most and least important to them. (1) 2 ½ weeks of residential care for one older person whose needs are judged substantial or critical and who cannot meet the full costs themselves (2) 69 hours of home care for an older person whose needs are judged moderate or substantial and who cannot meet the full costs themselves (3) 4 days of residential care for one adult with learning disabilities whose needs cannot be met by family or other carers (4) 4 weeks of Learning Disability Direct Payments to someone with learning disabilities to enable them to live more independently (5) 100 hours of support and assistance for vulnerable people not assessed as needing formal care packages to help promote their independent living (6) 2 weeks of foster care for a child who cannot live safely at home, provided by a KCC registered foster carer (7) 1 week of foster care for one child who cannot live safely at home and whose needs are greater than those that can be met by a KCC registered foster carer. (8) 1 week’s support for 150 children in children’s centres (9) 62 attendances by a young person at their local youth centre or interactions with a youth worker in their local community (10) 1 child with Special Educational Needs transported by taxi to and from school for 9 weeks (11) 4 children given free transport on buses or trains to and from their nearest secondary school for one term, where the school is more than three miles from their home (12) 2 days of specialist advisor support for a school identified as failing by Ofsted (13) 100 miles of road gritted in bad weather over the course of the winter (14) 30 average sized potholes in the road repaired (15) 22 faulty street lights investigated and repaired (16) Keeps a household waste recycling centre open for a day (17) 10 tonnes of waste disposed of, enough to support 17 average Kent Households for a year (18) 1 week of social worker time for the assessment of vulnerable adults or children (19) 430 separate library visits, enough for 16 regular library users over the course of a year (20) 3 annual bus passes for young people aged 11 - 15 to access educational or recreational activities via free bus travel across Kent Monday to Friday (21) Approximately 500 fare paying journeys on subsidised bus routes which are considered "socially necessary but uneconomic routes" (22) Responding to 280 email or telephone calls to the KCC Contact Centre Budgeting tool – A brief explanation

14 We would like your views on what services the Council should do its best to maintain. You will now see a series of screens that list key services detailing what £1,000 of council spending buys. On each screen, we would like you to select which of the services are most and least important to you, considering also what the costs are to deliver these. You will see each service appear 3 or 4 times to enable comparisons to be made. Budgeting tool – A visual guide The budgeting tool is an antidote to standard ‘rating’ or ‘importance’ scales. Respondents find these scales very easy but they do tend to deliver results which indicate that everything is "quite important”. Thereby making any data collected with regard to budget challenges or savings not especially actionable. The budgeting tool on the other hand forces respondents to make choices between options, while still delivering rankings showing the relative importance of the items being rated. It is simple to understand and as respondents make choices rather than expressing strength of preference using some numeric scale, there is no opportunity for scale use bias.

15 Overall Appeal GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 100 miles of road gritted in bad weather over the course of the winter 8.59% ADULT SOCIAL CARE 2 ½ weeks of residential care for one older person whose needs are judged substantial or critical and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 8.40% ADULT SOCIAL CARE 69 hours of home care for an older person whose needs are judged moderate or substantial and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 8.18% SPECIALIST CHILDREN’S 2 weeks of foster care for a child who cannot live safely at home, provided by a KCC registered foster carer 7.66% SPECIALIST CHILDREN’S 1 week of foster care for one child who cannot live safely at home and whose needs are greater than those that can be met by a KCC registered foster carer 7.19% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 30 average sized potholes in the road repaired 6.61% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 10 tonnes of waste disposed of, enough to support 17 average Kent Households 5.75% ADULT SOCIAL CARE 4 days of residential care for one adult with learning disabilities whose needs cannot be met by family or other carers 5.42% EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE1 week’s support for 150 children in children’s centres 5.32% SOCIAL CARE1 week of social worker time for the assessment of vulnerable adults or children 5.23% ADULT SOCIAL CARE 100 hours of support and assistance for vulnerable people not assessed as needing formal care packages to help promote their independent living 5.06% SERVICES TESTED UNDER ‘SOCIAL CARE’ Roads and social care dominate the services considered ‘most important’. 15

16 Overall Appeal ADULT SOCIAL CARE 4 weeks of Learning Disability Direct Payments to someone with learning disabilities to enable them to live more independently 3.96% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 22 faulty street lights investigated and repaired 3.62% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT Keeps a household waste recycling centre open for a day 2.72% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT Approximately 500 fare paying journeys on subsidised bus routes which are considered "socially necessary but uneconomic routes" 2.58% EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE2 days of specialist advisor support for a school identified as failing by Ofsted 2.72% EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE 4 children given free transport on buses or trains to and from their nearest secondary school for one term, where the school is more than three miles from their home 2.13% EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE1 child with Special Educational Needs transported by taxi to and from school for 9 weeks 2.06% EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE 62 attendances by a young person at their local youth centre or interactions with a youth worker in their local community 1.95% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 3 annual bus passes for young people aged 11 - 15 to access educational or recreational activities via free bus travel across Kent Monday to Friday 1.74% CORPORATEResponding to 280 email or telephone calls to the KCC Contact Centre 1.55% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 430 separate library visits, enough for 16 regular library users over the course of a year 1.53% SERVICES TESTED UNDER ‘EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE’ In comparison, the majority of the ‘education & young people’ transport services are considered least important, together with libraries & the Contact Centre. 16

17 Aged 44 & underAged 45 - 54Aged 55+ TOP 5 SERVICES ACROSS ALL DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS 100 miles of road gritted in bad weather over the course of the winter 8.53%8.92%8.51% 2 ½ weeks of residential care for one older person whose needs are judged substantial or critical and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 7.9%8.0%9.3% 69 hours of home care for an older person whose needs are judged moderate or substantial and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 7.35%7.84%9.33% 2 weeks of foster care for a child who cannot live safely at home, provided by a KCC registered foster carer 8.11%7.69%7.11% 1 week of foster care for one child who cannot live safely at home and whose needs are greater than those that can be met by a KCC registered foster carer 7.68%7.00%6.70% OTHER AGE GROUP SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES 30 average sized potholes in the road repaired 6.05%7.32%6.96% 10 tonnes of waste disposed of, enough to support 17 average Kent Households 5.26%6.19%6.12% 1 week’s support for 150 children in children’s centres 6.13%5.03%4.47% 4 days of residential care for one adult with learning disabilities whose needs cannot be met by family or other carers 5.16%5.11%5.87% Approximately 500 fare paying journeys on subsidised bus routes which are considered “socially necessary but uneconomic routes” 1.84%3.08%3.24% 2 days of specialist advisor support for a school identified as failing by Ofsted 3.72%2.28%1.74% 4 children given free transport on buses on trains to and from their nearest secondary school for one term, where the school is more than three miles from their home 2.58%1.87%1.71% Whilst there is significant consistency across the age groups sampled, preferences vary in degree according to the most ‘relevant’ services. 17 Significantly HIGHER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Significantly LOWER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Base: All answering (Aged 44 & under – 151, aged 45-54 – 126, aged 55+ - 229)

18 Residents with a disability Residents who do not have a disability TOP 5 SERVICES ACROSS ALL DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS 100 miles of road gritted in bad weather over the course of the winter 8.54%8.57% 2 ½ weeks of residential care for one older person whose needs are judged substantial or critical and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 9.4%8.3% 69 hours of home care for an older person whose needs are judged moderate or substantial and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 8.92%8.10% 2 weeks of foster care for a child who cannot live safely at home, provided by a KCC registered foster carer 7.61%7.67% 1 week of foster care for one child who cannot live safely at home and whose needs are greater than those that can be met by a KCC registered foster carer 7.22%7.19% OTHER SUBGROUP SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES 4 days of residential care for one adult with learning disabilities whose needs cannot be met by family or other carers 6.54%5.31% 4 weeks of Learning Disability Direct Payments to someone with learning disabilities to enable them to live more independently 5.03%3.89% 10 tonnes of waste disposed of, enough to support 17 average Kent Households 4.43%5.82% As perhaps expected, preferences for the care services are more prominent amongst residents with a disability. 18 Significantly HIGHER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Significantly LOWER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Base: All answering (Residents with a disability – 51, Residents who do not have a disability - 453)

19 Budgeting tool – supplementary questions summary In response to the six statements posed after the budgeting tool:  Just over a third believe Council Tax should be increased to maintain existing services.  Agreement with a Council Tax increase is highest amongst residents aged 65+. Half of 16-34 year old residents disagree that it should be increased to maintain services.  Over half believe charges should be introduced to currently free/ subsidised services.  Half believe that KCC should reduce or stop delivering some services to protect other services.  The vast majority agree that KCC need to encourage residents to take some responsibility in delivering services.  The vast majority believe KCC should help people to help themselves more and prioritise future spending to those in most need.  There is a stark difference in opinion between those aware and unaware of the need for major budget savings; highlighting the need to educate those currently unaware. 19 Please note that the representative sample of residents were not provided with any prior context with regard to the need to make savings or the budget challenge that KCC are facing. Residents gave feedback based on their own circumstances and knowledge and feedback represents a true, unbiased view of perceptions.

20 AGREEDISAGREE 35%44% 57%23% 51%27% Increase Council Tax to maintain existing services Introduce charges for some services which are currently free/subsidised Reduce or stop delivering some services to protect other services Bearing in mind that council budgets have been significantly reduced over recent years, please state for each of the following how strongly you agree or disagree that KCC should…? Base: All answering (unweighted – 514) A significantly higher proportion of residents aware of the major budget savings required by local councils agree that Council Tax should be increased and services which are currently free/subsidised should be charged for. Just over a third believe Council Tax should be increased to maintain existing services. Over half believe charges should be introduced to currently free/ subsidised services. 20

21 AGREEDISAGREE 72%9% 88%4% 78%8% Encourage local people & communities to deliver certain services Help people to help themselves more so they have less reliance on publicly funded services Prioritise spending to protect services for the most vulnerable & those without Base: All answering (unweighted – 514) A significantly higher proportion of residents aware of the major budget savings required by local councils agree to helping people to help themselves more so they have less reliance on publicly funded services. The majority agree that KCC need to encourage residents to take some responsibility in delivering services and prioritise future spending to those in most need. Bearing in mind that council budgets have been significantly reduced over recent years, please state for each of the following how strongly you agree or disagree that KCC should..? 21

22 Significantly HIGHER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Significantly LOWER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Base: All answering (unweighted – 514) Bearing in mind that council budgets have been significantly reduced over recent years, please state how strongly you agree or disagree that KCC should…..? Increase Council Tax to maintain existing services Consistent with deliberative session feedback, agreement with a Council Tax increase is lowest amongst residents aged 16-34 year old (likely connected to limited experiences of the services compared to older age groups). AGREEDISAGREE 24%51% 31%49% 41%47% 35%46% 48%30% 22

23 Increase Council Tax to maintain existing services Introduce charges for some services which are currently free/subsidised Reduce or stop delivering some services to protect other services Significantly HIGHER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Significantly LOWER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Encourage local people & communities to deliver certain services Help people to help themselves more so they have less reliance on publicly funded services Prioritise spending to protect services for the most vulnerable & those without Base: All answering (unweighted – 514) % AGREE Bearing in mind that council budgets have been significantly reduced over recent years, please state for each of the following how strongly you agree or disagree that KCC should..? A significantly higher proportion of male residents believe Council Tax should be increased and KCC should reduce or stop delivering some services to protect others. 23

24 Increase Council Tax to maintain existing services Introduce charges for some services which are currently free/subsidised Reduce or stop delivering some services to protect other services Significantly HIGHER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Significantly LOWER than rest of sample at 95% confidence level Encourage local people & communities to deliver certain services Help people to help themselves more so they have less reliance on publicly funded services Prioritise spending to protect services for the most vulnerable & those without Base: All answering (unweighted – 514) % AGREE Bearing in mind that council budgets have been significantly reduced over recent years, please state for each of the following how strongly you agree or disagree that KCC should..? Perhaps unsurprisingly, a significantly higher proportion of disabled residents believe KCC should prioritise those in most need and are less agreeable to a Tax increase. 24

25 Increase Council Tax to maintain existing services Introduce charges for some services which are currently free/subsidised Reduce or stop delivering some services to protect other services Significantly HIGHER than rest of sample Significantly LOWER than rest of sample Encourage local people & communities to deliver certain services Help people to help themselves more so they have less reliance on publicly funded services Prioritise spending to protect services for the most vulnerable & those without Base: All answering (unweighted – 514) % AGREE Bearing in mind that council budgets have been significantly reduced over recent years, please state for each of the following how strongly you agree or disagree that KCC should..? There is a stark difference in opinion between those aware and unaware of the need for major budget savings; highlighting the need to educate those currently unaware. 25 Consistent with deliberative session feedback, increased awareness of the ‘budget challenge’ leads to a higher propensity to look into and suggest savings options

26 Response to online budgeting tool 26 - Kent.gov website completions

27 From 9 th October to 28 th November, a Budget Consultation section was featured on the Kent.gov website:  A link to the budgeting tool was featured on the Kent.gov website in the context of the ‘Budget Challenge’ faced and the detail of proposed budget savings to be made.  853 residents completed the budgeting tool via the Kent.gov website in total.  Cautionary notes:  Multiple completions are possible  It is likely that a number of Kent County Council staff completed the tool; the exact number is unknown.  This is not to devalue the results but merely to put them in context.  Press launch at beginning of Consultation  Banner on homepage on kent.gov.uk  Information published on KCC intranet  Information published via KCC Twitter  Promotion via district councils (Thanet, Maidstone, Tonbridge and Malling)  KCC Community Engagement team Facebook page and Twitter  Emails sent to voluntary and community sector organisations via the Community Engagement team  Print advertising in the Dartford and Swanley Newshopper, Kent on Sunday  Online advertising in the KM (Kent Online), Kent On Sunday, and the Dartford and Swanley Newshopper  Facebook adverts Methodology – Kent.gov website completions 27

28 There is a marked difference in the age profile of the Kent.gov response sample compared to representative sample of residents recruited. Representative sample of Kent residents Kent.gov completions GENDER Male49%44% Female51% Prefer not to answer0%5% 0 AGE Aged 16-3428%17% Aged 35-5434%45% Aged 55-6415%22% Aged 65+22%11% Prefer not to answer0%6% ETHNICITY White95%89% BME3%4% Prefer not to answer2%9% DISABLED AS SET OUT IN EQUALITY ACT 2010 Yes8%9% No91%84% Prefer not to answer1%7% Marked differences in age, likely reflects the proportion of KCC staff taking part (In future consultations we would recommend distinguishing between resident and staff participation 28

29 Base: Representative sample of Kent residents (514), Kent.gov completions (514) How aware or not are you that local councils are having to make major budget savings that will impact on current services? AWARE NOT AWARE 74%26% 96%4% Representative sample of Kent residents Kent.gov completions In addition, contextualising the budgeting tool within the details of the current Budget Challenge has led to a much higher awareness of the savings required. Significantly HIGHER than representative sample at 95% confidence level 29

30 Base: Representative sample of Kent residents (514), Kent.gov completions (514) Thinking about the savings KCC has made over the last 4 years, what impact have they had on you and your household? POSITIVENEGATIVE 7%47% 4%56% Representative sample of Kent residents Kent.gov completions Broadly consistent perceptions of the impact of savings observed so far across both sample groups; highlighting that both sample group are not skewed to a particular demographic group. 30

31 Overall Appeal ADULT SOCIAL CARE 2 ½ weeks of residential care for one older person whose needs are judged substantial or critical and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 8.50% ADULT SOCIAL CARE 69 hours of home care for an older person whose needs are judged moderate or substantial and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 8.08% SPECIALIST CHILDREN’S 2 weeks of foster care for a child who cannot live safely at home, provided by a KCC registered foster carer 7.83% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 100 miles of road gritted in bad weather over the course of the winter 7.53% SPECIALIST CHILDREN’S 1 week of foster care for one child who cannot live safely at home and whose needs are greater than those that can be met by a KCC registered foster carer 6.80% SOCIAL CARE1 week of social worker time for the assessment of vulnerable adults or children 6.32% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 30 average sized potholes in the road repaired 6.07% ADULT SOCIAL CARE 4 days of residential care for one adult with learning disabilities whose needs cannot be met by family or other carers 6.01% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 10 tonnes of waste disposed of, enough to support 17 average Kent Households 5.62% ADULT SOCIAL CARE 100 hours of support and assistance for vulnerable people not assessed as needing formal care packages to help promote their independent living 5.32% ADULT SOCIAL CARE 4 weeks of Learning Disability Direct Payments to someone with learning disabilities to enable them to live more independently 4.63% ITEMS TESTED UNDER ‘SOCIAL CARE’ In terms of the budgeting tool, results are broadly consistent with the representative resident sample with roads and social care dominating in importance. 31

32 Overall Appeal EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE1 week’s support for 150 children in children’s centres 4.16% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 22 faulty street lights investigated and repaired 3.26% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT Keeps a household waste recycling centre open for a day 2.80% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT Approximately 500 fare paying journeys on subsidised bus routes which are considered "socially necessary but uneconomic routes" 2.78% EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE 62 attendances by a young person at their local youth centre or interactions with a youth worker in their local community 2.55% EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE2 days of specialist advisor support for a school identified as failing by Ofsted 2.36% EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE1 child with Special Educational Needs transported by taxi to and from school for 9 weeks 2.27% CORPORATEResponding to 280 email or telephone calls to the KCC Contact Centre 2.02% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 430 separate library visits, enough for 16 regular library users over the course of a year 1.94% EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE 4 children given free transport on buses or trains to and from their nearest secondary school for one term, where the school is more than three miles from their home 1.78% GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 3 annual bus passes for young people aged 11 - 15 to access educational or recreational activities via free bus travel across Kent Monday to Friday 1.32% ITEMS TESTED UNDER ‘EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE’ The areas considered least important are also broadly consistent across the two samples - ‘education & young people’ transport services, together with libraries. 32

33 REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE KENT.GOV GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 100 miles of road gritted in bad weather over the course of the winter 14 ADULT SOCIAL CARE 2 ½ weeks of residential care for one older person whose needs are judged substantial or critical and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 21 ADULT SOCIAL CARE 69 hours of home care for an older person whose needs are judged moderate or substantial and who cannot meet the full costs themselves 32 SPECIALIST CHILDREN’S 2 weeks of foster care for a child who cannot live safely at home, provided by a KCC registered foster carer 43 SPECIALIST CHILDREN’S 1 week of foster care for one child who cannot live safely at home and whose needs are greater than those that can be met by a KCC registered foster carer 55 GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 30 average sized potholes in the road repaired 67 GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 10 tonnes of waste disposed of, enough to support 17 average Kent Households 79 ADULT SOCIAL CARE 4 days of residential care for one adult with learning disabilities whose needs cannot be met by family or other carers 88 EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE1 week’s support for 150 children in children’s centres 912 SOCIAL CARE 1 week of social worker time for the assessment of vulnerable adults or children 106 ADULT SOCIAL CARE 100 hours of support and assistance for vulnerable people not assessed as needing formal care packages to help promote their independent living 1110 ITEMS TESTED UNDER ‘SOCIAL CARE’ An overall ranking summary emphasises the consistency between the two sample groups - key service priorities are broadly consistent. 33

34 REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE KENT.GOV ADULT SOCIAL CARE 4 weeks of Learning Disability Direct Payments to someone with learning disabilities to enable them to live more independently 1211 GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 22 faulty street lights investigated and repaired 13 GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT Keeps a household waste recycling centre open for a day 14 GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT Approximately 500 fare paying journeys on subsidised bus routes which are considered "socially necessary but uneconomic routes" 15 EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE2 days of specialist advisor support for a school identified as failing by Ofsted 1617 EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE 4 children given free transport on buses or trains to and from their nearest secondary school for one term, where the school is more than three miles from their home 1721 EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE 1 child with Special Educational Needs transported by taxi to and from school for 9 weeks 18 EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE 62 attendances by a young person at their local youth centre or interactions with a youth worker in their local community 1916 GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 3 annual bus passes for young people aged 11 - 15 to access educational or recreational activities via free bus travel across Kent Monday to Friday 2022 CORPORATEResponding to 280 email or telephone calls to the KCC Contact Centre 2119 GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT 430 separate library visits, enough for 16 regular library users over the course of a year 2220 ITEMS TESTED UNDER ‘EDUCATION & YOUNG PEOPLE’ An overall ranking summary emphasises the consistency between the two sample groups - those comparatively least important are broadly consistent. 34

35 Kent.gov sample Representative sample 59%35% 72%57% 60%51% 71%72% 84%88% 82%78% Increase Council Tax to maintain existing services Introduce charges for some services which are currently free/subsidised Reduce or stop delivering some services to protect other services Encourage local people & communities to deliver certain services Help people to help themselves more so they have less reliance on publicly funded services Prioritise spending to protect services for the most vulnerable & those without There is broad agreement on the direction of KCC amongst both sample groups. However, a significantly higher proportion of the Kent.gov sample agreed to increasing Council Tax and introducing charges. Bearing in mind that council budgets have been significantly reduced over recent years, please state for each of the following how strongly you agree or disagree that KCC should…? Significantly HIGHER than representative sample at 95% confidence level Base: Representative sample of Kent residents (514), Kent.gov completions (514) 35

36 Budgeting tool – sample groups summary  The online budgeting tool was completed by a representative sample of Kent residents as well as a sample of residents who completed the survey via the Kent.gov website.  A consistent response to the budget priorities was received amongst both sample groups; highlighting the accuracy of these results.  However, it should be noted that:  The Kent.gov sample is likely to contain Kent County Council staff completions  Residents completing the survey were exposed to significant contextual information with regard to the need for savings to be made and the budget challenge  We believe that these two factors have had an influence on the awareness of the need to make savings as well as response to a proposed Council Tax increase & charge introduction  We therefore recommend the use of the representative sample results for projecting the view of Kent residents as a whole  This is not to devalue the results from the Kent.gov website but merely to put them in context. 36

37 Resident Deliberative Sessions 37

38 As mentioned previously, residents’ landline numbers were selected at random and residents were invited to take part in the Consultation by our telephone interviewing team through:  Completion of the online budgeting tool  Attendance at a deliberative session Recruitment of the resident sessions  All who expressed an interest in attending a deliberative session were given a follow up call with the dates and times selected for the sessions and invited to take part  Residents were recruited according to gender and age profiles to ensure a good spread of residents attended each session Location of the resident sessions  Three venues were chosen to hold the deliberative sessions – 1 in Mid Kent (Maidstone), 1 in West Kent (Tonbridge) and 1 in East Kent (Canterbury)  Venues were selected on the basis of geographical spread, parking facilities, public transport access and value for money Methodology & Profile – Resident deliberative sessions 38 MAIDSTONECANTERBURYTONBRIDGE TOTAL ATTENDING 292628 0 GENDER Male15 14 Female141114 0 AGE Aged 16-34969 Aged 35-5411108 Aged 55+91011 SOCIAL GRADE ABC1191320 C2DE8137 Refused201 Those attending the resident deliberative sessions were from a mixed demographic profile to ensure a good spread of residents attended each session: Residents attended from across Kent: Ashford – 7; Canterbury – 7; Dartford – 3; Dover – 8; Gravesham – 6; Maidstone – 7; Shepway – 5; Swale – 4; Thanet – 4; Tonbridge & Malling – 14; Tunbridge Wells – 12; Sevenoaks – 6

39 Voting Results From Resident Deliberative Sessions 39

40 Perceptions of service usage, quality and value increase once residents are informed of the services provided by KCC. How often do you or a member of your household use a Kent County Council service? What do you think about the quality of Kent County Council’s services? To what extent do you agree that Kent County Council provides value for money for the services it provides? 40

41 At the end of the sessions, a significant majority would be prepared to pay more Council Tax (83% over 1.5%). With regard to Council Tax which of the following would you most like to see? How much extra Council Tax would you be prepared to pay in order to protect some of the Council’s services? 41

42 Broad consistency in the services held most important to residents, with social care ranking highest. The County Council has to make substantial spending reductions over the next 3 years, which ONE of the following service areas should the Council protect the MOST from these reductions? Beginning of deliberative sessionEnd of deliberative session 42

43 There is more support for Libraries at the end of the sessions and less support for public transport and support for schools services (consistent with deliberative session open feedback). The County Council has to make substantial spending reductions over the next 3 years, which ONE of the following service areas should the Council protect the LEAST from these reductions? Beginning of deliberative sessionEnd of deliberative session 43

44 Consistent with online survey findings, a combination of approaches is required to make savings with transformation and efficiency savings ranking highest. Now that you have had a chance to understand more about the Council’s budget, which of the following alternative approaches to delivering savings would you recommend the Council should adopt over the coming years? End of deliberative session 44 Consistent with deliberative session open feedback as the majority were looking for ways to deliver a service in a more efficient and different way where they felt possible

45 Summary of Resident Deliberative Sessions 45 It should be noted that the deliberative sessions are QUALITATIVE in their nature and this is not a summary of quantitative data where percentages can be applied. This was solely an exercise to gain attitudes and opinions of residents towards the budget and the priorities of KCC. Care should be taken to ensure that this is an overview of attitude and opinion and not a statistical overview of views of Kent residents.

46 Warm ups & views of KCC services Residents

47 The positives……………………. ”The people of Kent are the best thing about it!” ”Its great for accessibility to London and the Coast, Europe and Airports – everything is within easy reach!” ”It’s the coast and the beautiful countryside – we really are the ‘Garden of England’!” ”There are so many great places to visit, zoo’, historic houses, gardens and castles!” All residents were very positive about Kent as a place to live and most felt a strong sense of ownership of their area. Very few negatives about Kent were mentioned and these were primarily centred around traffic, freight on the roads and ‘Operation Stack’. Residents were asked what they thought the best three things about Kent were - the responses were fairly consistent and covered areas such as : Access major routesAccess to CountrysideAccessibility generally ClimateCalm feelHeritage Countryside Easy access to airports & ferryRural Proximity to London Fast train to LondonThe 11+ Easy to access hospitalsClose to parksEducation for people Close proximity to the seaThe pace of lifeThe beauty of the gardens Sense of community Feel safeWeather

48 Encouraging Feedback……The Consultation “This affects everyone in Kent, its so important that people get involved” “I think everyone in Kent should have Dave’s presentation…. Otherwise people just don’t know do you? They’d be really shocked if they saw the figures” ”I’ve really enjoyed this evening and being part of this…its great to be able to give feedback on such an important subject. I feel like my opinion has really counted” “You’ve got to consult with the public – you are imposing the changes, you need to ask us what we think” “Its all about having a wider social conscience, these are tough decisions to make” “Thank you for today and the opportunity to be involved. I’ve really enjoyed it and met some nice people – I think we’ve made some really good suggestions which were listened to” Feedback from residents regarding their involvement in the groups was wholly positive and many felt that all residents should try and be involved in some small element. They felt their views were listened to and that KCC were able to answer questions regarding transformations and funding. On the whole, residents were highly approving of the exercise overall.

49 What are the MOST IMPORTANT services that KCC provide? “I get so confused about WHO does what, KCC or my local Council ?” “Roads (condition) are by far the biggest issue but they are in such a state” There needs to be a communication unit so people know what KCC provides and that way people will know who is accountable for certain things” “Different boroughs have different recycling schemes – how can this be cost effective?” “People / residents really need to be encouraged to do so much more in their local area” Services Considered to be MOST important  Schools / education  Street lighting  Social services  Waste collections  Transport services  Hospitals and healthcare  Roads (condition mainly) / Highways  Free bus service  Youth Services Not used very often but valuable Care for the elderly Disabled parking badges Foster care Social Services Youth Services Libraries Residents were asked which services they considered to be the most import, including those services that they might not use very often. This question was interesting as it highlighted the lack of knowledge that the majority of the residents held regarding WHAT KCC actually did and the extent of the services it provides.

50 Many residents had noticed the effects of the savings over the last three and a half years and cited the following areas Some residents in the groups specifically mentioned care for the elderly (some had experienced this first hand, while others had experienced it through different means). They felt that the level, standard and commitment to care had reduced. “Carers haven’t been turning up and no-one seems to care” “The care service is so bad, we’ve had to sell our house and buy another and move my mum in with us and I am now her carer” Residents talked of issues surrounding the roads (and pavements), specifically the condition of them and the general impression that repairs were not carried out as often as they should and the amount of potholes and roads in poor condition across the county. Some talked of the poor standard of repairs (in that roads were patched) while others talked of the seemingly inefficient way of doing it with different gangs digging the hole, other gangs to fill it in and another gang to finish it off – they felt this must be highly inefficient and that a co-ordinated approach was needed. Streetlights were mentioned repeatedly regarding views that they are turned off more than in recent times. While some residents applauded this approach others felt that it was a significant health and safety issue. One resident from Dover discussed the increase in crime rates as a result of streetlights being off. Suggestions for change included turning off every one in three (which in practice is simply not possible), or changing them to solar powered or more efficient light bulbs. Refuse collections were also mentioned extensively and views generally were mixed regarding whether it was an improvement having them less often or not. Some felt that more recycling could be done and that Councils could collect more to ultimately reduce the need for as much waste to be collected. Residents talked about the issues of anti social behaviour and the need for some venues or activities for young people to attend. There were discussions from those that lived in more rural areas that the community wardens had been very good in keeping anti social behaviour from youths under control, but others felt that this had stopped now that their warden had gone. IMPACT OF THE SAVINGS MADE OVER LAST 3 1 / 2 YEARS POT HOLES & ROADS PAVEMENTS ELDERLY CARE STREETLIGHTS ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR SOCIAL CARE COMMUNITY WARDENS REFUSE COLLECTIONS

51 There were some interesting differences of opinion between ages in the resident groups and this was notable in their perceptions of unnecessary spending by KCC. Many of the middle aged and elderly age group were of the opinion that much of the unnecessary spend was organisational and they specifically focused on areas such as: Golden Handshakes and Redundancy payments; Poor administration generally; Poor control of funding; Inefficient management of contractors; Excessive staff costs More tangible aspects included the digging of roads (with residents feeling like it is a constant cycle); Leaf clearing / blowers being considered as a service that could be easily stopped’; Road patch repairs (this approach being considered as long term detrimental, too many patches in roads undermines the capability of roads - possibly meaning that it is quick and cheap to fix a pot hole, but too many could mean that the whole section of roads will need to be replaced much sooner than expected or planned for); Some landscaping / flower beds being considered as unnecessary and the lights on in the Maidstone Office all night were all cited as areas to look at by respondents across younger age groups. A number of younger respondents (primarily Males in the 16-24 age group) were of the opinion that many aspects of recycling were unnecessary and a waste of money. The rationale for this could be that these respondents were either living at home (and less inclined to be responsible for it) or in an environment where it has little priority (i.e. student or friend house share). Interestingly, some of the younger women in the groups tended to have a much greater conscience regarding the need for recycling. The resident groups suggested that non users of some services equalled a perception that these services were not necessary. In particular, the younger residents and some of those without children in the 16-34 age range, had a low opinion of the library services – feeling that these were unimportant and a waste of money. Conversely, residents with children and those that were middle aged and the elderly felt these services to be very important to them, both educationally and socially. Some mentioned that the local libraries were a lifeline to them. Non users of the gateways felt these to be unimportant, while users of them felt them to be very useful. PERCEPTIONS OF UNECESSARY SPEND BY KCC Organisational -Golden Handshakes -Redundancy payments -Poor administration -Poor control of funding -Inefficient management of contractors -Excessive staff costs Tangible -Digging of roads – constant cycle -Leaf clearing / blowers -Road patch repairs – long term detriment -Some landscaping / flower beds -Lights on in the Maidstone Office all night! Services -Libraries -Gateways – could be more efficient -Recycling

52 MAIN PRIORITIES FOR SPEND…Going Forward Benefit system review Means testing Highways Public Transport Libraries More youth support Children/youth club provision Childcare for working families More funding for social services Improving / maintaining disabled services Protecting the vulnerable Day services for disabled people (to provide independence) Care for the elderly More shops/lower business rates Assist regeneration of high streets Generating new business in Kent Generating more tourism Residents were asked what they considered to be the main priorities for spending going forward. A number of areas were mentioned and considered to be very important and were in the areas of social care for adults and children and services for the Vulnerable, Elderly and Disabled. Other specific areas were mentioned such as Highways, Transport and more support for youths as the perceptions is that these services have suffered in the past few years. Opinion generally is that there are more services needed for youths as some residents feel that anti social behaviour in some areas could be avoided with the provision of these services. Some residents felt that it was important to try and help to regenerate high streets and get more businesses into Kent and promote it also as a tourist location. There was a suggestion that business rates are waived for those taking over empty shops in high streets (or reduced) with a view to getting the best out of some of the failing high streets in the area.

53 Initial thoughts after KCC budget presentation “I had no idea what KCC did” “Isn’t a social conscience expensive” “School Transport….I’ve got a really big issue now seeing how much we spend on it when we probably don’t have to…that has annoyed me” “Why can’t KCC use their savings? There has been a recession! Very few of us have savings now, why are we funding their funding pot!” “We don’t want to spend more, we just want to be sure that it is being spent wisely” SURPRISECONCERNANNOYANCE “I am really surprised at the amount of money and the areas where its spent…..I had no idea” “I’m worried that cuts will be made but it won’t necessarily be in the RIGHT areas” Following the presentation by Dave Shipton, Head of Financial Strategy, Kent County Council, which outlined the KCC Budget and the financial challenge going forward, many residents felt a mix of emotions and reactions. Surprise, Annoyance and Concern were the most prevalent emotions with annoyance at the amount of spend in some areas where some residents felt that spend was unnecessary. There was surprise from residents who were genuinely surprised at the actual amount overall that KCC spent and the different areas that received funding. Concern was also a prevalent emotion as while some residents felt that they understood that savings needed to be made, but they had major concerns that the cuts and reductions would be made in what they considered to be the right areas.

54 Further thoughts after KCC budget presentation Overall, the majority of residents were surprised at the amount spent on social care, while others were surprised at the amount spent generally on some of the other areas. Education is perhaps the key to making the public more aware and more accepting of change. Residents were surprised at the level of Council Tax exemptions and were vocal regarding their views on these topics. Many were also surprised that 100% of Council Tax is not collected. There was a general view that Council Tax should be based on individuals’ income, not property size. Some residents admitted to the fact that the presentation highlighted their lack of knowledge regarding what KCC do and what the other Councils do. They found this very useful and felt that this should be more widely available. Many residents were surprised (some were horrified) at the number of bus journeys that KCC pay for and wanted to see how this breaks down between elderly and young people to see whether any savings can be made. Residents questioned why more staff reductions were planned at KCC and asked why wasn’t it all done at once? They felt generally that staff costs very high and could be reduced. Although some felt that it was easy to say ‘let’s cut staff’, when these are probably really needed in certain areas. Some residents recognised that moving forward KCC needed to move to try to help people to help themselves, therefore reducing spend overall in the long term. There was a view that more control was required by KCC particularly when they buy in services and that they needed to exercise better control over spending. Residents want to know how KCC compare in performance and spend to other County Councils – they felt this to be an important exercise and would like to see this publicised, providing that the data is current and wholly applicable.

55 Residents - Council Tax

56 Council Tax – should everyone pay the same? The general consensus from the residents appeared to be that all exemptions should be looked at…. Residents felt that second homes should pay the full amount Residents felt that Single occupancy should be means tested (this requires a change in legislation though) Younger respondents were fairly clueless regarding it as they didn’t pay - perhaps education is key Stringent checks need to occur to ensure that single person occupancy is actually single person occupancy! Some suggested that undergrads students had Council tax free and then postgrads paid a proportion of Council tax Residents felt that the elderly should be assessed for those on tight incomes – perhaps get discounts and for wealthy pensioners – they can afford to pay the full amount. Landlords of HMO’s / Room lets should pay as they are using even more services than the average household!! “My neighbour lives on his own, he earns probably 4 times what I do…..I live with my husband and we are on lowish incomes but we pay the full amount and he gets a discount! Needs to be means tested!” “People with second homes should pay full whack of Council tax – if you can afford a Ferrari, you should be able to afford to run it!” “Its Ok for people on benefits as long as it’s a sliding scale!” “Why should me and my wife pay the same for a family of 7 living in the same banded house?....that’s not fair” “I think the student discount is naughty….they generate so much waste. That loophole should be closed or the landlords should pay”

57 Council Tax………Who noticed the increase? General agreement existed among the residents that no-one had really noticed the 2% increase and no-one admitted to the increase making their life harder. Although some residents were on low incomes and struggled with some aspects of making ends meet, this was a cost that appears to be absorbed into the household and is fairly easily accepted, in the same way as rent or mortgage payments. Many stated that they noted the increase when the bill arrives and then don’t give it another thought. Many also felt it was a bill they could do nothing about. Younger residents of the county were fairly unaware of any raises as they either didn’t pay or this wasn’t considered particularly important. “Although you can shop around for gas and electric its not like you can shop around to get this cheaper!” “Its an on cost isn’t it? We can’t do anything about it – its like water – we have to pay it” “I expect it and accept it!” “I pay a lot, its £2,400 now and you think ‘Cor’. But then I really don’t mind, I like there being roads, the rubbish being collected, the kids being educated, the elderly being looked after…If they can sort their HR processes out to get rid of inefficient people, then I am happy to pay for whatever.”

58 Increasing Council Tax in line with inflation……. Generally the majority of respondents agreed with this principle with only a few exceptions. There were quite a number of residents that felt they were able to pay more and that the increase being proposed was actually higher. Some residents even suggested raising the amount to at least 5%. Nearly all residents had the view and did agree that raising Council tax was the easiest way to maintain current levels of funding. They felt that freezing Council tax or similar would just worsen the situation in the long run. “Haven’t got a problem with a 2% increase – don’t see it as having much choice, but you can’t shop around can you? You just have to budget your household expenditure to accommodate this” “I’m happy to as long as we are told WHERE the money is going. i.e. We are going to increase the Council tax and the proceeds are going to go on this and this and this! We are happy as long as we know what the money is going on” “The increase is ok, we just want to make sure that it needs to be spent well” “If I get a letter saying that we are going to increase Council tax and its going to pay for all these things… then I’d be happier about paying for an increase” “If every resident should have Dave’s presentation then as a resident it would be reasonable to expect that the rate of Council tax is going to be increased”

59 Views on the idea of a referendum Considering the cost of a referendum, most felt this to be a ‘ridiculous’ idea and felt strongly about the waste of money. They wondered with all the exemptions that people would be voting who didn’t even pay Council tax in the first place. Most agreed that a referendum would be pointless – a few residents suggested that the referendum might be a ‘NO’ and would then have to find even more money. The general consensus was that most of the public wouldn’t turn out to vote anyway. Views on a Council Tax Freeze There was general agreement amongst the majority of residents that there should not be a Council tax freeze. Residents felt that if the services need it, then Council tax should be increased. Residents appeared to recognise the need to increase Council Tax and not have a freeze and not ‘delay the inevitable’ problem of finding money. People did admit to feeling differently prior to Dave’s presentation, and many felt that this that ‘woke them up’ to the problem. “What a stupid idea and what a massive waste of money” “Pointless idea unless you are suggesting a massive percentage rise” “A freeze would just lead to more problems wouldn’t it?” “My main reason given for not wanting a Council Tax freeze was that the current budget situation has been partly caused by previous freezes…and look where it has got us…it has got us in a worse position for future years” “If they are set on doing a referendum – then they should do it for something like a 5% increase – make it worthwhile” “ I think the main reason given for not wanting a Council Tax freeze is that some services needed to be protected, like life-saving services should be saved”

60 Resident suggested areas to make savings Education of the need to make savings “Don’t they currently use Youtube presentations etc online to publicise services? They should do more of this and move digitally to save money” “They should put Dave’s presentation on line for everyone to look at ” Buildings & overheads of Council Buildings “They need to rationalise these and manage them better” “I always see the lights on in Council buildings all night – why are they on?” “There are loads of Council buildings that are empty – they should either be used or sold or lent to voluntary community groups for Youth clubs or something” “Concentrate on cost effective ways of educating people about managing & doing their own recycling” Review Outsourcing “Do we need to look at bringing in a direct labour force again rather than outsourcing everything? “Lets cap the money spent on contractors in some of the key areas like adult social services” Other areas “Streetlighting – we could save a fortune on those surely?” “I think we could save a fortune on school transport” “KCC need to look at and the welfare and benefit payments”

61 Areas to make savings Some respondents mentioned Libraries an area, but did realise that it depends on locations and also various residents’ access as to libraries regarding specifically where the cuts should be made. Some residents felt that the budget for libraries was so small that savings wouldn’t make too much difference. “Libraries offer a meeting place for the whole community” “For some of the libraries in remote areas – these places are a lifeline for some elderly and some vulnerable – closing them would have a terrible effect on these people” Social care -this was considered a very difficult area to look at dispassionately as this area was mentioned as the area residents felt that they would most like to protect, yet did recognise that some savings need to be made here as it accounts for so much of the budget. There was general agreement amongst all residents that they wouldn’t want to save on children’s social care. Residents suggested perhaps saving where possible on adult social care (spend less on care homes, more on people staying at home), although some of the middle/older age residents (who had more of a vested interest) were less inclined to look for savings here. “We should try and maybe look at keeping people in their homes more – spend less on residential care but more on domiciliary care – providing the care is there and people want to stay in their home” Residents felt that savings could be made in the area of the number of bus journeys that are paid for and this was raised by many residents who believed there are many empty buses being run. They felt that children were using them for only one stop, yet perhaps KCC are paying for longer journeys than this. They suggested perhaps better control and monitoring if possible to save on the huge number of bus journeys paid for. There were also a number of comments regarding the home-to-school transport and how savings can be made in these areas by means testing some of the recipients; assessing making savings in SEN areas via mini buses rather than taxis to increase numbers taken into school in the same method of transport. “Why are we paying for people to get to school when it was their parents decision to move away from their area where their kids first went to school…that cant be right?”

62 Areas to make savings KCC staff. Residents did recognise that all departments are useful so they would recommend a trimming within each department to save money. There was a general disagreement regarding buying in services; they feel consultants have very different priorities to KCC and are more mercenary, so residents questioned whether outsourcing was actually better value for money or was care, service and conscientiousness compromised. Residents felt that they should try and reduce the higher salaries, stop the golden handshakes and massive redundancy payments and look to reduce pensions. Overall with regard to KCC generally residents felt that there needed to be better management and better cost control. “A few residents suggested the possibility of working with adjacent Councils, such as Surrey and Sussex could lessons be learnt or joint ventures and savings made?” Residents felt that greater auditing of overspend or costly changes to contracted services needed to be undertaken to ensure that best practice is undertaken always. Residents suggested re-employing a direct labour force rather than constant outsourcing – they wondered if it would be cheaper – they suggested a detailed audit, looking at the softer factors such as the ‘extras’ that employees are likely to do without pay, while these are likely to be chargeable for contracted labour. Residents suggested the possibility of more voluntary work to replace some ‘paid-for’ services (e.g. social care, foster care, youth groups) or joint ventures between the Council and these groups. There was a few suggestions regarding moving services provided by phone to online provision where possible. Residents suggested perhaps investigating ways that KCC staff can work from home (lessens the need for KCC buildings) There was a suggestion to Stop Children’s Centre free provision – introduce small charges for use instead.

63 Residents views on areas of expenditure

64 AREAS OF SPEND - EXAMPLES Current spend £298m ADULT SOCIAL CARE: Reduce Spending Keep the same Increase Spending £155m Residential/nursing care –full time care placements in residential or nursing homes for around 6,000 older people or vulnerable adults (those with severe learning disabilities, mental health or physical disabilities). Placements for older people are restricted to those whose needs are deemed as substantial and critical and do not have the financial means to meet full cost of care i.e. have savings of less than £23k. Clients make a contribution towards care costs from pension and other benefits but must be left with a reasonable amount of income to cover personal expenses. Most care homes are provided by private/voluntary sector, generally fees are lower than those for self-funders £35m Direct payments to over 3,000 clients who have chosen to purchase their own care arrangements from a range of authorised providers via a charge card. Money on the charge card can only be spent on approved care services and equipment. £36mDomiciliary care (care worker visits for cooking washing etc) for over 6,000 clients (mainly older people) £38m Supported accommodation for over 1,000 vulnerable adults with learning or physical disabilities or mental health. Accommodation is provided for clients with full time care staff in attendance enabling them to live more independent lives than residential setting. Some supported accommodation is also provided to older people £18m Day care at a KCC or independent centre – which is an opportunity for more mobile to get together with others in a day care centre away from their home. Vast majority of spending relates to adults with learning disabilities Current spend £67m WASTE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING Reduce Spending Keep the same Increase Spending £6m Household waste recycling centres. Contracts for the running of 19 household waste recycling centres located in local communities. Sites are open for domestic waste to be deposited by householders (trade waste is prohibited) and are used for around 3.5m household visits. Charges apply to dispose of some waste products e.g. asbestos £7m Recycling collected waste. This pays for recycling and composting of over 336,000 tonnes of waste (around half the total collected) £8m Payments to waste collection authorities and contract management. KCC makes around £6.5m of payments to local district Councils to support recycling initiatives in order to reduce the amount of waste put to landfill. This includes joint working arrangements in east and mid Kent to separate recyclable and other waste from domestic collections. £31m Waste disposal for 339,000 tonnes of waste. This is either through landfill at commercial sites or via the waste to energy plant near Maidstone for all waste which cannot be reused, recycled or composted £10m Haulage and Transfer stations – contracts for the haulage of waste to/from 6 main transfer stations and running costs for those stations (5 private sector, 1 KCC) which process all the waste collected from households for either recycling or disposal Examples of the areas tested are seen below, each subgroup tested specific areas. Each area was tested more than once.

65 Explanation of Results Increase Spending Keep the same Reduce Spending The following is a summary of responses to the specific areas that were tested. Each areas was tested in detail 4 times. It should be noted that not every respondent chose to commit to a response so totals in each section vary as a result. Some chose to undertake the exercise in pairs, while others did not respond. Slight changes to the categories also occurred following the first resident groups where further categories were added. This should be treated as an indication only and not a statistical exercise. Table 1Table 2Table 3Table 4 Resident Group 1 Area 1 testedArea 2 testedArea 3 testedArea 1 tested Resident Group 2 Area 1 testedArea 2 testedArea 3 testedArea 2 tested Resident Group 3 Area 1 testedArea 2 testedArea 3 tested Each section has been broken down specifically for each area tested using the traffic light system explained and outlined in Appendix 1. Broad top line summaries of the majority of responses for Increase spending, keep the same and reduce spending are seen in the following summary slides.

66 QUICK VIEW SUMMARY - RESIDENTS Increase Spending Adult & Childrens Social Care £36m Domiciliary Care £35m Direct Payments to 3,000 clients Community & Environment £2m Environmental Management Waste Disposal & Recycling £7m Recycling Collected Waste £6m Household Waste Recycling Centres “Choice is really important in this area. Its important for people to try and get a better quality of life by choosing their own services” “Direct funding does seem to work but Direct Payments to Children of the client can be dodgy as they may not use it for the care of their parents” “Increase spending to try and prevent things happening so that other areas can reduce in what they spend” “Its so important to safeguard the environment for the future, if we don’t, who will? “We need to look at stopping things like flooding and keep the coast under control – all of these things here; like climate change and flood management are very important to protect” “Perhaps really regular users of the tip should pay? You get so many free visits and then after that you have to pay?” “I think we need to try and make much more money from our waste – that’s a priority surely?”

67 QUICK VIEW SUMMARY - RESIDENTS Increase Spending – Key Points  Generally residents wanted to try and maintain people in their own home as much as possible, therefore reducing the spend (eventually) on care homes and increasing spend on domiciliary care.  This was also underpinned by the opinion from residents that people needing care could be made more responsible for sourcing it, via having direct payments to finance care for them. Some residents did stress the importance of this being managed properly to ensure that less responsible families were not taking the money meant for care and spending it elsewhere. Adult & Childrens Social Care £36m Domiciliary Care £35m Direct Payments to 3,000 clients Community & Environment £2m Environmental Management  Many residents felt s strong sense of commitment to this area and felt that spending needed to be increased and this was in a general sense of protecting and safeguarding the environment for the future. They did not mention specifics but embraced fully the variety of aspects that came under this heading and felt they were all important aspects and needed to be increased for the future population. Waste Disposal & Recycling £7m Recycling Collected Waste £6m Household Waste Recycling Centres  Residents felt very strongly that spending on these aspects of waste and recycling was important but should go hand in hand with looking to increase revenue from the waste of the county. (Hence the increased spend capability).  They felt that more revenue could be gained from the amount of recycling that occurs by re- negotiating contracts and increasing education of homeowners and looking at ways to incentivise people to recycle more.  Waste recycling centres they felt were important and that more revenue could be provided to make them more efficient and in turn perhaps money making.

68 Keep the same QUICK VIEW SUMMARY - RESIDENTS Adult Social Care £36m Assessment Services Childrens Social Care £12m Residential Care £47m Assessment Services 26m Preventative Services £33m Foster Care Payments £8m Adoption Community & Environment £13m Libraries £2m Coroners £3m Trading Standards £5m Customer Contact /Public Access Waste Disposal & Recycling £10m Haulage & Transfer £5m Landfill Tax £8m Payments to waste collection authorities Highways, Planning & Regeneration £14m Highway Maintenance £3m Highway Drainage £3m Adverse Weather £3 Tree Maintenance & Soft verges £2m Traffic Management £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvement Home to School Public Transport £8m Rural & Off Peak Services £18m SEN Transport £1m Transport Planning & Operations Adoption/foster care. “I think they should bring something in for parents of today, who are not managing, to manage. Lets send adults to learn. Those that are starting a family on the social, and if they don’t go, they should not get the benefit money…They need to learn how to be a parent and not make it someone else’s problem when they can’t cope” We should keep lots of funding the same I think, but families of those needing care could help out more, hence saving more money in the pot. Also, I think spending money on preventative measures is going to help the spending on some of the main high spend areas”  Residents with the opinion that funding should stay the same had very few comments to make regarding their opinion- unlike those choosing reduce or increase spending.

69 Reduce Spending QUICK VIEW SUMMARY - RESIDENTS Adult Social Care £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre £155m Residential / Nursing care Childrens Social Care £33m Foster Care Payments Waste Disposal & Recycling £10m Haulage & Transfer £31m Waste Disposal £8m Payments to waste collection authorities £2m Recycling Collected Waste Community & Environment £2m Arts Strategic Leadership £2m Public Rights of Way £3m Community Wardens £13m Libraries “Can money not be diverted from residential to domiciliary – this could be a big saving? “Day care is a lower priority –can this not be provided in other ways rather than using a centre? “Can we not ty and bring down the cost of independent foster care?” “Do people foster just for the money? Can we reduce the ‘reward?” “I think we need to generate income from the Arts…we should suspend funding at this time of cuts” “Why cant young offenders or those on community service clear the public rights of way?” “Libraries could be put into other existing buildings (supermarkets, community centres). If you’re going to maintain libraries then you’re going to have to pay (to use them” “Community Wardens are an important service in the absence of police, especially in rural areas. Without it, a lot of vulnerable people will have no- one coming, can the police not part fund this service to reduce outlay?” “If we improve peoples education then we can surely reduce the amount of waste overall?” “We should reduce spending in these areas to force us to increase revenue from our rubbish, like better contracts and working with other counties and having economies of scale?”

70 Reduce Spending QUICK VIEW SUMMARY - RESIDENTS Highways, Planning & Regeneration £7 m Streetlight Energy £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvements £4m Streetlight Maintenance Home to School Public Transport £17m Older Persons Bus Pass £13m Home to School Transport £9m Young Persons Travel Pass £18m SEN Transport “Why cant we means test this and ask for some parental contributions?” “Should we perhaps increase the age of qualification for this as a significant proportion of ‘retirement age’ people are still working ”Why aren’t the children going to the nearest school? If it’s the parents choice to move away from it or choose a school further away – then the parents should pay not the Council!” “Can we make economies of scale with the SEN transport, mini buses rather than taxis?” “Why can’t the Council give more responsibility to residents by having grit bins on corners so they can grit their own areas?” “I believe that local residents could really help with reporting faulty streetlights – the Council can make it really easy!” “Pot holes and repairs – I don’t think the system is very efficient or effective….”

71 QUICK VIEW SUMMARY - RESIDENTS Reduce Spending – Key Points  Residents felt that some areas of spending could be reduced to enable increase in other areas.  Residents also questioned the spend on day care and wondered whether there were any alternatives available that were more cost effective.  Foster care was proposed as an area to reduce spending as residents felt that this was done via agencies and various fees were paid rather than directly employed foster carers through the council – with no ‘mark up or additional costs’. They also questioned the amount payable for fosterers and whether this acts as a financial incentive and questioned the necessity. Adult Social Care £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre £155m Residential / Nursing care Childrens Social Care £33m Foster Care Payments Waste Disposal & Recycling £10m Haulage & Transfer £31m Waste Disposal £8m Payments to waste collection authorities £2m Recycling Collected Waste Community & Environment £2m Arts Strategic Leadership £2m Public Rights of Way £3m Community Wardens £13m Libraries Highways, Planning & Regeneration £7 m Streetlight Energy £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvements £4m Streetlight Maintenance Home to School Public Transport £17m Older Persons Bus Pass £13m Home to School Transport £9m Young Persons Travel Pass £18m SEN Transport  Residents felt that the Arts Strategic Leadership should be funded by itself through charges.  Public rights of way could be managed by ex offenders or through arrangements with landowners.  Libraries were considered to be able to reduce spending but only by recommendations to increase charges to account for the reduction.  Residents felt strongly that the police should part fund community wardens.  In the area of Waste Disposal and Recycling for example some residents felt that Haulage and Transfer, Landfill tax and payments to waste collection authorities should be kept the same (as they saw these as fairly inflexible), while other elements such as waste disposal generally could be reduced via stronger negotiation in contracts and education of the public to reduce waste. There was also a lot of overlap with residents feeling that spending on the areas of waste should Ideally be reduced, KCC should also look to be making more money out of these elements if possible.  Generally residents felt that KCC should spend less on school transport with parents taking a greater responsibility, particularly where they have chosen to go to a school further from their home.  Younger persons Travel Pass should perhaps be funded to a greater extent by parents.  SEN transport was considered to be expensive and many felt that economies of scale could occur.  Residents believed streetlight energy and maintenance could be reduced through using different bulbs, switching off in selected areas (following safety assessments). They felt that the public could be more pro-active in helping to report issues - perhaps also saving revenue.  Road safety and highway improvements – road safety was considered to be an area where spending could be reduced.

72 Positive Suggestions from Residents. “Couldn’t the community wardens get partial funding from the police? They really help with problems with youths and operate in the really deprived areas too – this must save the police some time and money?” “Highway maintenance needs to be managed better and savings made across utilities. They should work with the utilities and get better control over repairs” “How can we get more money to help and promote Youth Services? Can the Council partner with a big brand? To help promote it? Get more funding that way?” “Increased awareness is key to making reductions in the amount of waste. Its better education!!! Perhaps we need to look at peer pressure and penalisation and rewards to help” “Why can’t we look at educating parents so that much of the preventative issues don’t happen or don’t get that bad?” ““Could there not be a nominal charge for weights and measures or similar from Trading Standards? Is there a way they can generate income?”

73 EDUCATION IS KEY TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR ANY REDUCTIONS.  This was an overriding conclusion from this research exercise. This was not just education about the need for cuts but also a raft of other interlinked areas, such as the need for education regarding recycling and waste and how this can instrumental to saving money.  Residents suggested that they would be significantly more amenable to Council tax increases if they were TOLD what their money was being spent on. USERS OF LIBRARIES FELT THEY WERE INCREDIBLY VALUABLE.  Those that used libraries were very protectionist regarding them, but did feel there was potential to charge for some services or increase costs. Those not using libraries considered to be an area that could have funding cut.  However the elderly, some vulnerable and those that used the library regularly felt that this was a lifeline for them and valued the service highly. RESIDENTS FEEL PARENTS SHOULD SUBSIDISE SCHOOL TRANSPORT IF THEY HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM SCHOOL.  There was much talk about catchment areas for schools and admissions policies, suggesting that these need to be seriously reviewed – one suggestion was that rather than parents moving after getting children into school of choice and then having free transport to school, they need to go to their nearest school instead. THOSE APPROACHING OLDER AGE WERE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT FUNDING FOR ELDERLY.  Many residents that were approaching their 60’s promoted elderly services in social care and this is because many were and felt that they would be using these services at some point in the near future. RESIDENTS ON LOW INCOMES FRUSTRATED AT BENEFITS CLAIMAINTS UNABLE TO LOOK AFTER CHILDREN.  Residents were generally annoyed about having to pay for those on benefits that GET support from the system (primarily residents in the 25-35 and the 35-55 age groups). They struggled to get by and not be a draw on the state. They talked of means testing and penalisation if these people kept having children that were constantly taken into care. RESIDENTS FEEL THAT KCC SHOULD LOOK TO PROVIDE MORE YOUTH SERVICES.  Many people (primarily those 16-45) did have genuine concerns about the lack of youth services in their areas, and this was noticeable in some of the rural areas and also in some of the more deprived areas. They felt many youth services had been cut and this was an area were more could be done. Residents Comments………….

74 Residents Comments…………. More Partnering – Private Sector. “They need to assess digital capabilities to help with the elderly social care element – why not try and partner with a provider like Axa to create best practice and keep people in their homes in better care – all leading to greater preventative measures. Axa have loads of community initiatives, they’d love to get involved” Investigate Sponsorships. “Why not look to getting sponsorship for libraries? Waterstones? Or even Starbucks? Why not look to have coffee franchises that feed people into the library and allow them to stay and use the facilities with a coffee?” Assess Success of Outsourcing. “The outsourcing of care element - is it too big to manage? – we need more checks to ensure quality and care is given. We need to ask the people receiving care whether they are getting what they need and we need to ask about the quality too. Otherwise KCC is paying for services that are poor quality or just not happening at all” Consider Using Volunteer Organisations to replace services lost. “I think there is scope for a group of people that work for KCC to work with the community and where you are losing people from front line services – you might have people that want to volunteer. So is there scope for people to get more involved and to know more about where we can help”. “Could there be a representative from KCC that approaches some of the volunteer organisations and says to them “look we can’t provide these services any more is there anything you could do to help?” “There needs to be a strategic overview of the voluntary sector in Kent to see what services and facilities are out there and work with these people and the Council to see whether any streamlining can be done and joint initiatives that might save some frontline services” Quid Pro Quo. Arrangements. “It’s looking at common negotiation – for example- KCC could give a charitable organisation free premises to run something they run – if they then provide a level of services for KCC – common goals and negotiation. SMART business sense needs to happen” “Empty community halls could have play groups run in them – generating income and making these buildings work. Rationalising buildings”

75 LIBRARIES Libraries was the one service where a significant dichotomy of views were evident. In the voting, it was considered to be the service that should be protected the least and this was by 60% of residents in the first vote, then dropping to 41% of residents at the end of the sessions. Despite this, many regular users of libraries feel that this is an incredibly important service and wanted to try and find solutions that would help the libraries remain in the community. “What about voluntary contributions? If you are borrowing a book = can you spare any change to help keep your local library?” “What about combining things like post offices in Libraries or coffee shops?...Have a coffee…read a book!” “Can we not make them Charitable Trusts?” REDUCE SPENDING BUT INCREASE REVENUE It was interesting to note that many areas selected by residents as areas to ‘reduce spending’ were those that they felt could generate some income to help part subsidise themselves – some of these were increasing charges and introducing charges for libraries and library services, others were for the Arts such as nominal admission charges at the Turner Gallery in Margate. Solar streetlights were suggested as a way to reduce costs (although they recognised that KCC would have to spend to save. Residents also suggested that young offenders and those on community service could help to clear the public rights of way. “Why can’t we do things like make a voluntary charge for places like the Turner Gallery?” “Cant we look towards getting sponsorship or grants for some of these Art initiatives?” “ Lets make some of these EX-offenders work!” Residents Recommendations for Funding

76 Staff Deliberative Session

77 Profile - Staff Deliberative Session  On the 19 th November 2014 the staff focus group was held at KCC Head Office, Maidstone. The duration was 9.15am – 1pm.  37 Staff Members attended the groups.  Staff were invited and selected via a structured sample to ensure participation was broadly representative of staff across KCC.  A broad representation of staff came to the groups from areas such as:  Social Care  Highways  Enablement  IT  Libraries  Education  The attendees were split into mixed groups across directorate into 4 sub groups.  It was interesting (but unsurprising) to note that those within social care (adult and children) were highly protective of the levels of funding for their areas, driven by genuine concerns regarding the welfare of clients (in the short and long term). However, it was very interesting to note that these individuals were very willing to try and identify areas where they felt savings could be made and suggested more practical discussions such as this to possibly achieve this.

78 Staff Voting Questions

79 Perceptions of service usage, quality and value increase at the end of the session. Usage perceptions are lower than residents; value for money perceptions are higher. How often do you or a member of your household use a Kent County Council service? What do you think about the quality of Kent County Council’s services? To what extent do you agree that Kent County Council provides value for money for the services it provides?

80 At the end of the session, a significant majority would be prepared to pay more Council Tax (71% over 1.5%). This proportion is very similar to that of residents (74%). With regard to Council Tax which of the following would you most like to see? How much extra Council Tax would you be prepared to pay in order to protect some of the Council’s services?

81 Broad consistency amongst staff and residents in the services held most important, with social care ranking highest. The County Council has to make substantial spending reductions over the next 3 years, which ONE of the following service areas should the Council protect the MOST from these reductions? Beginning of deliberative sessionEnd of deliberative session Residents Staff

82 There is more support for Libraries at the end of the sessions amongst staff and resident groups. The County Council has to make substantial spending reductions over the next 3 years, which ONE of the following service areas should the Council protect the LEAST from these reductions? Beginning of deliberative sessionEnd of deliberative session Residents Staff

83 Both residents and staff agree a combination of approaches is required to make savings. Fewer staff indicated efficiency savings, with some likely to have felt the impact of these already. Now that you have had a chance to understand more about the Council’s budget, which of the following alternative approaches to delivering savings would you recommend the Council should adopt over the coming years? End of deliberative session Residents Staff

84 Summary of Staff Deliberative Sessions

85 Warm ups & views of KCC Staff

86 Staff were asked what TWO things they thought KCC did really well Provide Training Invest in staff Develop staff Support staff Provide flexible working hours Adapt to change Work as a team Support each other Good benefits Good pensions Good work life balance Keep customers updated Keep public informed Provide services to the public Provide a variety of services to the public Nearly all staff were very encouraging about KCC as a place to work. They were highly complimentary regarding the amount that is invested in training and developing staff. Overall, Staff were fairly consistent in their responses to the two things that they felt the local authority did really well. There was a widespread agreement that KCC provided good levels of staff benefits such as pensions, support and development and the ability to be flexible in working lives. There was also agreement of KCC providing good levels of service to the public and upholding their reputation well. “I think we do well delivering services to Kent citizens with limited resources”

87 If staff had to make savings……………………………. SAVE MONEY - Less waste office moves etc. - Replacing IT machines –sometimes not necessary!! - Some interpreter costs PROCUREMENT - Generally considered to need improvement - Some staff felt that decisions were made by those not wholly familiar with subjects - KCC employers requirements need improving - Better management of escalating costs needed - Increased auditing of overspend needed LIBRARIES -Increase charges - Charge for online access -Increase revenue –provide training (like Rapid English?) -Rationalise smaller libraries OUTSOURCING - Payroll - Bring fostering back in house CONSULTANTS -Contact Point- waste of money -Newton Europe – why not ask staff? -- Could use staff as consultants to save money TRAINING -Very good – but seems expensive? -Could savings be made on Venues and refreshments provided? Staff were set a task; Everyone was to pretend that they were the Leader of KCC….or at least solely in charge of balancing the books and generating income. They are faced with the challenge of making nearly £240 million in savings. Which ONE area would they focus on?

88 Staff Suggestions - making savings Staff were asked to select areas they would highlight where savings could be made. LESS WASTE IN THE OFFICE ENVIRONMENT This was concerned with numerous office moves and furniture thrown away every time and new furniture purchased. Considered a waste of money. Staff felt there was little long term strategic planning for offices and moves. Also mentioned extensively was IT equipment being replaced when there were spares in cupboards. They suggested more auditing of equipment and the conditions. Some staff also mentioned interpreter costs as being incredibly high and questioned whether it would be cheaper to bring some in house on retainers, than pay fees for this service. “We used to be really effective in re-using unwanted stuff….we could help charities and youth groups….we manage waste why cant we manage our own waste properly?” “We’ve got brand new laptops and 8 year old Blackberrys that are useless – where’s the sense in that and a cupboard full of last years lap tops” ISSUES AROUND PROCUREMENT The issue of procurement was mentioned extensively throughout the staff groups. Generally KCC was considered a poor client. Staff felt outsourcing providers did not provide a good service and often held KCC ‘over a barrel’. Many staff felt the decisions regarding the terms, contracts and scopes of works were made by those too high up and not familiar with subjects. There was almost universal agreement that the employers requirements that KCC created for outsourcing firms was poor and did not allow for recompense. “Its all very well outsourcing, but you need an intelligent client to manage this process and write the requirements, otherwise its pointless and full of trouble” “They’re not using the in house expertise….its expensive to use consultants…often they tell the Council things we could have told them if they asked us in the first place” OUTSOURCING Staff mentioned outsourcing of specifics areas such as payroll and were confused surrounding the need to do this. Some staff also suggested that fostering be brought back ‘in house’, as they felt this approach was more cost effective than doing it via agencies. More money could be saved by losing the agency element. “I feel like the wheel is reinvented every few years and it doesn't need to be…as invariably the system that was used in the first place is reintroduced”

89 MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF TRAINING, BUT ASSESS COST EFFECTIVENESS OF VENUES OR ALTERNATIVES.  Training was considered to be excellent and plentiful in the Council. Staff generally felt that the quality of the training was very good- but wondered whether it could be condensed into shorter periods (less time away from work) and also whether savings can be made on the venues and the food as many cited big lunches that they felt were nice, but unnecessary.  Some also wondered about whether Webinars was an option to explore in the future: (perhaps in the Darent Room for example instead of ‘out of office’). This is cost effective on a number of levels for some areas. STAFF INVOLVEMENT TO IDENTIFY REAL SAVINGS  Many staff were irritated by the introduction of consultants into the business ostensibly there to ‘look at what people and processes are doing and how money can be saved’.(Newton Europe).  Staff felt irritated because they felt this was unnecessary spend on something they could actively be tasked with and help to directly contribute to savings.  Staff believed strongly that every member of staff should be asked how they could save money in their department and this should be inclusive of ALL levels of staff, as staff out in the field or in frontline services felt they had the most to say but were asked the least. “All of the different areas connected with the Council sit in their own silo’s….how can we combine all of these things to make savings and improve service. Staff need to be more aware of what the other people do and what their departments do…Perhaps there should be ‘staff placements’ to raise awareness and understanding across departments and assist with communication” There are lots of things done and massive changes made without a decent business case being made for it” “Everyone should have a technology assessment for their role – what is practical and what’s not?” That will save a huge amount of money….Its not just a lap top needed – its looking at things like tablets – could forms be computerised and put on lap tops to save time?... Be KCC Leader – tasked with making savings

90 Staff Suggestions - making savings RE-ASSSES OPENING TIMES OF LIBRARIES TO MAXIMISE VISITOR LEVELS AND STAFFING.  It was highly encouraging to see that Library staff felt that they could save significant money in their area given the opportunity. Hey were keen to ‘have their say’. One suggestion was that opening hours be changed. Examples being that for some libraries on late openings have no visitors and yet have to have at least 2 members of staff. This was considered a waste of wages, heating and lighting.  Staff suggested a footfall survey over a period of time, rather than a typical ‘intent to use’ survey as has been done in the. past. They felt that as the majority of customers are on web alerts also so could e mail out revised opening hours. RE-ASSESS PERFORMANCE AND VFM OF OUTSOURCED SOCIAL CARE PROVISION  As mentioned with outsourcing generally on a previous slide, many staff involved in the social or child social care environment had genuine concerns regarding the quality of care long term.  Staff had real concerns regarding the agencies being used and their unreliability, but felt that KCC were being’ held over a barrel’ as they had no-where else to go.  Staff (particularly those out in the field) felt this was essential to be heard before the situation worsened significantly and cuts were made in crucial areas. “I’m really worried about my future here…there’s lots of people making decisions about my role and they haven’t the faintest idea what we do – they’ve not come out with me for a day and shadowed me – so how can they know how essential or not essential I am?” “We have recommended case load but its never at the recommended caseload. Then we can’t be doing assessments on time, so you cant get in there see what’s truly going on, so its takes longer to get to court and get those children out, so the longer term impact on those kids is more damaging and it costs in the long run. All because the case loads are too high” “They don’t talk to us. We have a consultation paper where we can voice our opinion in but that is set questions/answers. If you talk to people that do the job, a team can find ways of really bringing costs down. There is so much info that is probably really daunting for the people at the top, so they just bring in a consultancy or say ‘strongly agree’ yes lets go for it. Sorry but its not good enough” “They could use people that are already here. Consult with us on the ground about where the cuts could be. When they are thinking about making cuts, they do lots of consultations and restructures, they use all the people at the top who obviously get paid a lot of money, whereas people on the ground can maybe see better where cuts could be made where they think it could work”

91 Staff Views On Budget Presentation “I don’t feel that included in the budget cut decisions…we all have loads of suggestions that could help…” “The increase (Council Tax) will happen anyway” “I think many changes would amount to political suicide so many changes will be dismissed ” Majority of staff felt that……….. There had to be an increase There was a strong need to save money Good to see exactly where the money goes Surprised at number of bus journeys New Children's and Families Acts will have implications Bus passes for pensioners – means test Council tax over 12 months Re-banding needs to be done to increase payments Issues surrounding single persons discounts and reductions in Council tax for students Feeling involved…… Staff were quite sceptical regarding significant change as they felt they were always politically motivated and largely a very distilled version of what should occur. Staff felt that senior management paid lip service to issues and a sense of fait accompli existed – decisions already made regardless of the outcomes. There was a sense of frustration about the current situation, those in lower levels of management felt less empowered and others (who had been with KCC longer) tended to feel more empowered. Those out in the field felt quite removed from decision making, while they also felt they had some of the most relevant points to make. “Its good to have a say – I don’t feel we’ll always be listened to ” Staff were shown the presentation on the KCC budget and the financial challenge by Dave Shipton (the same as used for residents).

92 Staff - Council Tax

93 Council Tax General consensus that Council Tax contributions needed reviewing SINGLE PEOPLE Views that this should be means tested for high earners STUDENT ACCOMMODATION Landlords should contribute, particularly those in HMO’s SECOND HOMES Should pay full the amount ARMED FORCES Some believe they should pay an amount GENERALLY Many felt this needed to be means tested to make it fairer. The majority of staff agreed that there needed to be an increase in Council tax and for most the idea of 2% was fairly well received and considered acceptable. Also in line with the residents research there was a few who would happily pay a greater percentage with some mentioning up to 5%. Most staff agreed that a Council tax increase generally needed to be in line with inflation Most agreed that the referendum would not be very successful and also was a ‘pointless waste of money’. Staff felt that it would be pointless for another freeze to happen – the problem of finding finance then becomes cumulative. With respect to views on Council Tax, staff views were very similar indeed to the views of the residents.

94 KCC Under The Spotlight - 4 Key Questions 1. DO YOU THINK KCC BUY IN ENOUGH SERVICES OR SHOULD THEY BUY IN MORE OR LESS?  Key findings from this questions was not that KCC bought in too many services, staff felt it was more a case of assessing and monitoring what they do buy in to see whether this is the best approach.  Some staff felt strongly that that the council should use their own expertise and stop buying in expertise from elsewhere. Staff often feel overlooked and some are frustrated that they could be selling their services. “We should buy in less and look towards what we have got!” “We’ve got too many agency staff……We should look at fixed term contracts instead” “Need to think about whether there are any savings really? Might happen in the first year but then costs are increased, charges are made and the quality can go down” “We should use our own expertise in the council – ‘why don’t we go out and sell ourselves instead of buying stuff in? - We need to change the perception of KCC to the outside – ‘we’ve got a business manager in payroll that goes out and brings work and revenue in and she is absolutely brilliant”  Staff in adult social care felt that there should be options as the cuts have meant that they have had to buy in less services. “With the current cuts to domiciliary care packages, I think there should be a few more options. It is difficult now to find a suitable care package for a client. I think complaints are going to be much higher now. There are only 4-5 agencies we can use or go to“  Conversely, some staff felt bringing in less services was easier to manage. “ The flipside is that it was really difficult to manage and work with that many providers. It meant we had out of date contracts, and we were not managing standards properly etc. By reducing the number, we now have fewer providers that we deal with on a regular basis, ensure effective contracts and better standards. The overall aim is to improve standards of care. We know it will take time to settling in …”

95 KCC Under The Spotlight - 4 Key Questions 2. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER KCC WASTES MONEY UNNECESSARILY? Key findings from this questions were broadly in line with the previous slide, and there is much concern about levels of wasted money on contractors and outsourcing. “Contractors doing maintenance – huge money wasted on them” “Contracts don’t allow for flexible working compared to direct labour” “Council buildings that stand empty, there are lots of properties that stand empty in prime locations, you pay security companies to patrol them” “Lots of furniture is wasted from moving offices, nothing is taken with us and it just gets binned/taken to the skip, its not sold or given to charity” “Contracts don’t talk to the right people – some contracts haven’t been reviewed since 2005. We are finally negotiating terms of our contracts to try and save money”

96 KCC Under The Spotlight - 4 Key Questions 3. WHAT IMPACT HAVE YOU NOTICED IN KCC FROM THE SAVINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE OVER THE LAST 3½ YEARS?  Staff mentioned their numbers being reduced, and as a result their workloads being increased. Staff talked of morale generally and the perception of more pressure to perform. They felt there had been an increase in the number of staff going off sick with stress.  Some staff cited increased negative feedback from clients/residents where aspects like social care provision had suffered and that in some areas that there were less resources generally. They felt there was less access to services for those who needed it (this was reflected in some of the residents comments also, with regard to the impact of the savings made over the last 3 years.). “In some areas bringing in front line services cut has improved communication in a few areas” “Nowadays Finance is letting people know who is in debt more so communication is much better now” “Not good feedback from residents regarding the changes – there’s more pressure on families who aren’t happy with the changes” “I get worried about my job, I’m out in the community, so its hard for people to gauge my ‘performance’, so I am really unlikely to get any sort of pay rise” “I am worried too…..I would much rather be told I have a certain amount (in time) of job security over getting a pay rise, then I wouldn’t worry about it so much” “KCC have brought in new ways of working to try and ease this – working from home, 9 day fortnights – we recognise that these are good initiatives and some of us do this” “Staff wages – I do question whether its cheaper to have more part time staff compared to full time staff “

97 KCC Under The Spotlight - 4 Questions 4. DO YOU HAVE ANY ‘GLARING’ AREAS WHERE YOU THINK SAVINGS CAN BE MADE? OR WHERE THE COUNCIL COULD GENERATE INCOME? Staff had lots of suggestions regarding generating income and this ranged from, but time was limited for this question;  Reducing spend on training venues,  Assess KCC systems and databases – make them talk to each other!!  Reducing office moves – re-using furniture  Technology and IT Audit – why buy when it is still working  Look at reducing paperwork / time through using IT (i.e. firms to complete on I Pad linked to office),  Look at making some library services chargeable  Look at incorporating some aspects into libraries (coffee shops) to help increase revenue  Obtaining corporate sponsorship for some aspects – youth / elderly care  Pass on redundant but still working IT equipment to schools or local youth groups  Look to make some services for the public on line  Introduce incentives / reward schemes for cost savings proposals suggested by staff “We got a new computer system that was supposed to reduce duplication, but hasn’t at all… And when it doesn’t, it affects your moral” “Systems integration - to save time, stress and an awful lot of money” “Tighten processes – e.g. TDM (Transactional database in Adult Social Care) - never gives a true picture of what the shortage is” “Everyone is worried about their job and the threat of redundancy. Many find it a waste of money to have to reapply for their role and have changes made when things only return to how they used to be after a period of time”

98 Staff views on areas of expenditure

99 Explanation of Results Increase Spending Keep the same Reduce Spending The following is a summary of responses to the specific areas that were tested. Each areas was tested once with a further area introduced (Area 4 – other frontline services) for staff only due to it’s complexity. It should be noted that not every respondent chose to commit to a response so totals in each section vary as a result. Some chose to undertake the exercise in pairs, while others did not respond. Slight changes to the categories also occurred following the first resident groups where further categories were added. This should be treated as an indication only and not a statistical exercise. Table 1Table 2Table 3Table 4 Staff Group 1 Area 1 testedArea 2 testedArea 3 testedArea 4 tested Each section has been broken down specifically for each area tested using the traffic light system explained and outlined in Appendix 1. Following this section, responses are also summarised into top line overall totals using the majority of responses in each section and then comparisons are made, where staff and residents held the same views. Broad top line summaries of the majority of responses for Increase spending, keep the same and reduce spending are seen in the following summary slides.

100 QUICK VIEW SUMMARY - STAFF Increase Spending Adult & Childrens Social Care £155m Residential / Nursing care £6m Leaving Care Services Highways, Planning & Regeneration £7m Streetlight Energy “Aren’t care demands and spending going to go up with the care Act coming in?” “We should spend more to save more in the future by reducing the care they will need in adult life” “We should look to move to solar powered streetlights and be selling it back…we need to spend to save!” “Why aren’t we using LED bulbs in our streetlights?” Staff priorities for increasing spending differed from residents, with staff focusing on residential care (in their view to account for the ageing population) and children’s leaving care services. This was compared to domiciliary care and direct payments chosen by residents as a priority for increasing spend. Staff also chose to increase spending on streetlight energy – but this was driven by a ‘spend to save’ mentality regarding solar street lighting.

101 Keep the same QUICK VIEW SUMMARY - STAFF Adult Social Care £35m Direct Payments to 3,000 clients £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre £38m Supported accommodation £6m Community Support Services £36m Assessment Services Childrens Social Care £8m Adoption Home to School Public Transport £8m Rural & Off Peak Services Community & Environment £2m Coroners £3m Trading Standards £13m Libraries £2m Environmental Management Highways, Planning & Regeneration £2m Recycling Collected Waste £14m Highway Maintenance £4m Streetlight Maintenance £3 Tree Maintenance & Soft verges £3m Adverse Weather £3m Highway Drainage £1m Transport Planning & Operations £2m Traffic Management £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvements Other Frontline Services £5m Education Support Services £1m Planning & Development £2m Education Assessment “The assessment services chunk is high….but then there is a serious amount of people that need assessment – can efficiencies be made. “we should keep it the same, but can’t we collect a higher contribution from clients? There are some out there that have serious amounts of money and are not contributing to their costs of care” Rural & Off Peak Services -“Could the parish Council help out with any of the rural and off peak costs?? “Lets look at ways to generate income from our rubbish?” “Ask for community help and where it crosses the landowners – make them responsible. We could make a small contribution to landowners for doing it” Waste Disposal & Recycling £6m Household Waste Recycling  Staff were similar in some ways to Residents, where the opinion was that funding should stay the same had very few comments to make regarding their opinion, unlike those choosing reduce or increase spending.

102 Reduce Spending QUICK VIEW SUMMARY - STAFF Childrens Social Care £8m Legal Costs Waste Disposal & Recycling £31m Waste disposal for 339,000 tonnes of waste £10m Haulage & Transfer stations £5m Landfill Tax £8m Payments to waste collection authorities Community & Environment £3m Community Wardens £2m Arts Strategic Leadership £5m Customer Contact /Public Access “Legal costs are too high – far too much time ‘waiting in court’ – need to be more efficient” “The Arts Thing - this should be a zero cost Why not self generating?” “Could the libraries house any of these services? Could the gateways go in the libraries? Can we promote different methods of contact? “Re-negotiate contracts and try and reduce costs?” “ We need to reduce costs in this area, but we can counter this with trying to make more money from our waste cant we? “We need to raise awareness of the cost to US of recycling and perhaps look at incentives or penalties for those who don’t” Home to School Public Transport £13m Home to School Transport £17m Older Persons Bus Pass £18m S E N Transport £9m Young Persons Travel Pass “Can’t we look at economies of scale and sharing of transport for SEN’s or a minibus arrangement – i.e to save the cost of one taxi per child?” “Why not delay it until 67 or 70??” Not everyone uses it; it shouldn’t be automatic – they should have to apply” “Why not means test the older bus pass?”  Staff were similar in some ways to Residents with respect to reducing spending in certain areas. Staff differed specially in areas where it was expected that they would have a higher knowledge of the area. i.e. legal costs, customer contact.

103 Summary Comparison of Staff & Residents Views

104 INCREASED SPENDING CHOICES STAFF VIEWSRESIDENTS VIEWS Adult & Childrens Social Care £155m Residential / Nursing care £6m Leaving Care Services Highways, Planning & Regeneration £7m Streetlight Energy Adult & Childrens Social Care £36m Domiciliary Care £35m Direct Payments to 3,000 clients Community & Environment £2m Environmental Management Waste Disposal & Recycling £2m Recycling Collected Waste £6m Household Waste Recycling Centres  Resident and staff views on areas for increased spending shows differences in the perceptions of priorities. Residents were focused on keeping older people in their home, while staff had the opinion that more should be invested in Residential and Nursing care. This is possibly because staff have a much higher awareness of care requirements in this area and the predictions of the number of elderly needing care in the future – this fact was raised by a number of staff in the group.  Residents believed that environmental management needed increased spending and this was to safeguard Kent for the future. Residents also believed that increased spending should occur in the recycling centres (as the amount of rubbish is only going to increase) and spend on recycling collection – but this spend was tempered with wanting to make more money out of the County’s waste.  Staff focused on Streetlights as an area to increase cost, and this had nothing to do with switching them off – it was directly related to staff feeling that money needed to be spent on converting streetlights to solar power so the £7m spend on energy can be significantly reduced.

105 STAFF VIEWS RESIDENTS VIEWS KEEP THE SAME SPENDING CHOICES Childrens Social Care £12m Residential Care £47m Assessment Services 26m Preventative Services £33m Foster Care Payments Home to School Public Transport £18m SEN Transport Community & Environment £5m Customer Contact /Public Access Waste Disposal & Recycling £10m Haulage & Transfer £5m Landfill Tax £8m Payments to waste collection authorities Adult Social Care £35m Direct Payments £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre £38m Supported accommodation £6m Community Support Services Highways, Planning & Regeneration £4m Streetlight Maintenance Waste Disposal & Recycling £6m Household Waste Recycling Centres £2m Recycling Collected Waste Other Frontline Services £5m Education Support Services £1m Planning & Development £2m Education Assessment Adult Social Care £36m Assessment Services Childrens Social Care £8m Adoption Home to School Public Transport £8m Rural & Off Peak Services £1m Transport Planning & Operations Highways, Planning & Regeneration £14m Highway Maintenance £3m Highway Drainage £3m Adverse Weather £3 Tree Maintenance & Soft verges £2m Traffic Management £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvement Community & Environment £13m Libraries £2m Coroners £2m Environmental management £3m Trading Standards JOINT VIEWS

106 Childrens Social Care £8m Legal Costs Community & Environment £5m Customer Contact /Public Access Waste Disposal & Recycling £5m Landfill Tax Adult Social Care £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre £155m Residential / Nursing care Childrens Social Care £33m Foster Care Payments Community & Environment £2m Public Rights of Way £13m Libraries Highways, Planning & Regeneration £7 m Streetlight Energy £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvements £4m Streetlight Maintenance Waste Disposal & Recycling £2m Recycling Collected Waste STAFF VIEWS RESIDENTS VIEWS REDUCE SPENDING - SPENDING CHOICES Community & Environment £3m Community Wardens £2m Arts Strategic Leadership Home to School Public Transport £17m Older Persons Bus Pass £13m Home to School Transport £9m Young Persons Travel Pass £18m SEN Transport Waste Disposal & Recycling £10m Haulage & Transfer £31m Waste Disposal £8m Payments to waste collection authorities JOINT VIEWS

107 Summary Conclusions  Residents and staff recognised the need to make savings in response to the financial climate and KCC have some tough decisions to make.  Staff were very willing to be involved in identifying savings that can be made whilst maintaining services –KCC may want to take advantage of this.  KCC need to improve communication about the financial challenge and promote how KCC spends public money both now and in the future. Improved communication should lead to improved engagement.  Those involved in the in depth research welcomed the opportunity and placed a high value on consultation before decisions are made. Where possible future decisions should reflect what people have said and this should be publicised  Much support existed for increasing Council Tax up to 2% and a minority would pay more. There was no evidence that a referendum would be successful.  KCC should explicitly say which services will be protected as a result of 1.99% increase, residents expressed strong desire to know where the money is spent.  Lots of good ideas about where savings can be made and income generated emerged. These all fit within the main themes of prioritising spend to the most vulnerable, raising income, helping people and communities to do more for themselves and transforming services to deliver same/better outcomes at lower costs within existing strategies.  Views from Residents and Staff differed in some areas with respect to increasing or decreasing funding – this is not unexpected as many staff were significantly more aware of many elements of the budget (or the reasons why key areas could not be cut) and this is the likely explanation of the key differences.

108 Without education, residents (& some staff) are largely unaware of the extent of the services provided by KCC and the need overall to make savings. EDUCATION is a priority for KCC – for both Residents and Staff. Perhaps a wide ‘did you know?’ campaign or similar. Information provision, being involved and feeling involved is key. Many residents (& some staff) admitted to being happy to pay more Council tax as long as they were told WHERE it going be going. Provide further breakdowns ‘in plain English’ with peoples Council Tax bills. State factors such as ‘this year we aim to spend an extra £2m on fostering or Child Preventative Services Look to learn from other Council Practices – how are they doing it? Are they doing it better than us? What and how are they doing? Assess ‘good practice’ of other Councils and identify where improvements can be made. Look at opportunities to Partner with Surrey/Sussex Council – perhaps £ to be saved. Look to partner/ obtain sponsorship from private sector. AXA for example are testing new technologies to help keep elderly people in their home. Look to obtain partnering or sponsorship for funding youth groups from a youth brand. Improve on being ‘KCC the Client’ in relationships with outsourcing firms. Review contracts in place for efficiency and VFM Review need / better served looking at short term contracts managed in house? Review employers requirements for procurement and contracts Ensure those on the ground are involved in the schedule of works and requirements Resident & Staff Recommendations

109 Many staff and resident had views that ranged from the larger elements of council activity through to less significant savings. Some of these are outlined below as examples. WASTE - Standardise recycling ACROSS Kent – Expectation is that huge savings will be made in the waste area by re-negotiating county wide contracts. REVIEW – outsourced contracts across council focusing on VFM and Service level provision. LIBRARIES -Review Libraries being made a charitable trust. Alternatively make many library services chargeable. Update Libraries, more IT/DVD’s capability, Coffee franchises, short training courses etc. Perhaps merge Gateways with Libraries – expand facilities. VOLUNTARY SECTOR - Actively look to work with Voluntary services who might replace some services cut….share premises/create joint partnerships for the benefit of the community. Other Suggestions. Use offenders for ‘street work’ /community service for working in roads, parks, clearing PROW. Introduce nominal charging for Trading standards Weights and Measures service or similar. Charge non- residents of Kent to use the household waste site. Charge a higher rate for registrars (a ‘Kent Premium’) to marry couples not from Kent who want to get married here. Offer ‘Darent Room’ as a conference or training facility or wedding venue & assess other Council buildings for this potential. Perhaps rationalise SEN transport, use mini bus services instead of individual taxi services. Look to move many services on-line – perhaps offer ‘web assistant live chats’ for those struggling with online on pop up screens. Staff also felt that many of their services could generate income and make a profit. Resident & Staff Suggestions for Reducing Costs / Increasing Revenue

Appendix 1 Residents Responses to Area Breakdowns 110

111 Explanation of Results – Residents and Staff. Increase Spending Keep the same Reduce Spending Each section has been broken down specifically for each area tested using the traffic light system explained and outlined in the following pages. It should be noted that not every respondent chose to commit to a response so totals in each section vary as a result. Some chose to undertake the exercise in pairs, while others did not respond. Slight changes to the categories also occurred following the first resident groups where further categories were added. This should be treated as an indication only and not a statistical exercise. Collective responses from the testing of the areas are collated and reported using this system. Those areas where the majority of respondents chose increase spending are coloured Red and equally those areas that scored the highest for reduce spending are coloured in Green and are at the bottom of page.

112 £298m Adult Social Care – Detailed Breakdown Reduce Spending Increase Spending £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre (12) “Families of those needing care could help out more, hence saving more money” “Direct funding does seem to work but Direct Payments to Children of the client can be dodgy as they may not use it for the care of their parents” “Choice is really important in this area. Its important for people to try and get a better quality of life by choosing their own services” £36m Domiciliary Care (12) £35m Direct Payments to 3,000 clients (7) £155m Residential / Nursing care (5) £155m Residential / Nursing care (11) £35m Direct Payments to 3,000 clients (8) £36m Domiciliary Care (4) £36m Domiciliary Care (7) £38m Supported Accommodation (3) £38m Supported Accommodation (2) £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre (9) £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre (2) £6m Community Support Services (3) £6m Community Support Services (2) £6m Community Support Services (3) £36m Assessment Services (13) £36m Assessment Services (4) £155m Residential / Nursing care (7) £35m Direct Payments to 3,000 clients (7) £38m Supported Accommodation (2) £36m Assessment Services (6) “Can money not be diverted from residential to domiciliary – this could be a big saving”

113 £153m Children’s Social Care & Support – Detailed Breakdown Reduce Spending Increase Spending “I think spending money on preventative measures is going to help the spending on some of the main high spend areas” “Increase spending to try and prevent things happening so that other areas can reduce in what they spend” “I think they should bring something in for parents of today, who are not managing, to manage. Lets send adults to learn. Those that are starting a family on the social, and if they don’t go, they should not get the benefit money…They need to learn how to be a parent and not make it someone else’s problem when they can’t cope” £8m Adoption (13) £6m Leaving Care Services (6) £33m Foster Care Payments (2) £33m Foster Care Payments (13) £33m Foster Care Payments (9) £12m Residential Care (3) £12m Residential Care (13) £12m Residential Care (7) £8m Adoption (4) £6m Leaving Care Services (2) £26m Preventative Services (2) £26m Preventative Services (14) £26m Preventative Services (2) £13m Childrens Centres (1) £13m Children’s Centres (2) £13m Children’s Centres (5) £8m Legal Costs (2) £8m Legal Costs (6) £47m Assessment Services (4) £47m Assessment Services (6) £47m Assessment Services (13) £8m Adoption (6)

114 £66m Home to School Public Transport – Detailed Breakdown £9m Young Persons Travel Pass (21) £18m S E N Transport (10) £13m Home to School Transport (15) £17m Older Persons Bus Pass (19) ”Why aren’t the children going to the nearest school? If it’s the parents choice to move away from it or choose a school further away – then the parents should pay not the Council! “Should we perhaps increase the age of qualification for this as a significant proportion of ‘retirement age’ people are still working” Reduce Spending Increase Spending “Could some of the rural services be replaced with a mini bus? Would that be cheaper?” “Why cant we means test this and ask for some parental contributions?” £8m Rural & Off Peak Services (29) £13m Home to School Transport (3) £13m Home to School Transport (9) £18m S E N Transport (14) £18m S E N Transport (4) £17m Older Persons Bus Pass (7) £17m Older Persons Bus Pass (2) £9m Young Persons Travel Pass (7) £8m Rural & Off Peak Services (7) £1m Transport Planning & Operations (6) £1m Transport Planning & Operations (15)

115 Reduce Spending Increase Spending £38m Highways, Planning & Regeneration – Detailed Breakdown £7m Streetlight Energy (16) £3m Adverse Weather (3) £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvements (14) “Why can’t the Council give more responsibility to residents by having grit bins on corners so they can grit their own areas?” £2m Traffic Management (14) £3 Tree Maintenance & Soft verges (11) “I believe that local residents could really help with reporting faulty streetlights – the Council can make it really easy!” £4m Streetlight Maintenance (8) £3m Highway Drainage (3) £14m Highway Maintenance (2) £3m Adverse Weather (22) £3m Adverse Weather (3) £14m Highway Maintenance (16) £14m Highway Maintenance (10) £3m Highway Drainage (16) £3m Highway Drainage (1) £4m Streetlight Maintenance (12) £3 Tree Maintenance & Soft verges (9) £2m Traffic Management (2) £2m Traffic Management (5) £7m Streetlight Energy (2) £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvements (2) £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvements (14) “Pot holes and repairs – I don’t think the system is very efficient or effective….

116 Reduce Spending Increase Spending £67m Waste Disposal & Recycling – Detailed Breakdown £10m Haulage & Transfer (10) £5m Landfill Tax (12) £31m Waste Disposal (17) £8m Payments to waste collection authorities (3) “Why not have a ‘money making corner’ at the recycling centre? Where you can buy bits of furniture left and stuff that’s in good condition. They do this in Sussex – we should look at what other Councils are doing” “If we improve peoples education then we can surely reduce the amount of waste overall?” £6m Household Waste Recycling Centres (23) £7m Recycling Collected Waste (12) ““I think we need to try and make much more money from our waste – that’s a priority surely?” ““Perhaps really regular users of the tip should pay? You get so many free visits and then after that you have to pay?” £6m Household Waste Recycling Centres (1) £6m Household Waste Recycling Centres (3) £7m Recycling Collected Waste (7) £7m Recycling Collected Waste (8) £8m Payments to waste collection authorities (9) £31m Waste Disposal (1) £31m Waste Disposal (9) £10m Haulage & Transfer (2) £10m Haulage & Transfer (9) £5m Landfill Tax (9)

117 Reduce Spending Increase Spending £32m Community & Environment – Detailed Breakdown £5m Customer Contact /Public Access (6) £2m Public Rights of Way (12) £3m Community Wardens (16) £2m Arts Strategic Leadership (15) “Community Wardens are an important service in the absence of police, especially in rural areas. Without it, a lot of vulnerable people will have no-one coming” “Why cant young offenders or those on community service clear the public rights of way?” “Libraries could be put into other existing buildings (supermarkets, community centres). If you’re going to maintain libraries then you’re going to have to pay (to use them” £2m Coroners (19) £3m Trading Standards (14) £13m Libraries (14) £13m Libraries (13) £2m Environmental Management (15) £2m Environmental Management (4) £2m Coroners (2) £2m Public Rights of Way (5) £2m Public Rights of Way (10) £3m Community Wardens (4) £3m Community Wardens (7) £2m Arts Strategic Leadership (11) £2m Arts Strategic Leadership (1) £5m Customer Contact /Public Access (21) £2m Environmental Management (2) £3m Trading Standards (6) £3m Trading Standards (1) “I think we need to generate income from the Arts…we should suspend funding at this time of cuts”

Appendix 2 Staff Responses to Area Breakdowns 118

119 £298m Adult Social Care – Detailed Breakdown Reduce Spending Increase Spending £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre (1) “Can’t we collect a higher contribution from clients? There are some out there that have serious amounts of money and are not contributing to their costs of care” “The assessment services chunk is high….but then there is a serious amount of people that need assessment – can efficiencies be made? “Aren’t care demands and spending going to go up with the care Act coming in?” £36m Domiciliary Care (3) £35m Direct Payments to 3,000 clients (6) £155m Residential / Nursing care (5) £155m Residential / Nursing care (2) £155m Residential / Nursing care (2) £35m Direct Payments to 3,000 clients (3) £36m Domiciliary Care (4) £36m Domiciliary Care (2) £38m Supported Accommodation (6) £38m Supported Accommodation (2) £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre 5) £18m Day Care at a KCC Centre (1) £6m Community Support Services (5) £6m Community Support Services (3) £6m Community Support Services (1) £36m Assessment Services (5) £36m Assessment Services (3)

120 £153m Children’s Social Care & Support – Detailed Breakdown Reduce Spending Increase Spending “Post adoption has been rubbish in the past and we have had children coming following an adoption breakdown. The impact on, and level of difficulties that child has, compounded by the adoption breakdown, costs a lot of money. Post adoption needs to be better in order to prevent those breakdowns” “Children’s Services – we need to spend more in the long run by reducing the adult care it they’ll need in their adult life” “Legal costs are too high – far too much time ‘waiting in court’ – need to be more efficient” £8m Adoption (6) £6m Leaving Care Services (4) £33m Foster Care Payments (2) £33m Foster Care Payments (4) £33m Foster Care Payments (2) £12m Residential Care (2) £12m Residential Care (4) £12m Residential Care (2) £8m Adoption (2) £6m Leaving Care Services (4) £26m Preventative Services (2) £26m Preventative Services (4) £26m Preventative Services (2) £13m Childrens Centres (2) £13m Children’s Centres (4) £13m Children’s Centres (2) £8m Legal Costs (5) £8m Legal Costs (1) £8m Legal Costs (2) £47m Assessment Services (2) £47m Assessment Services (3)

121 £66m Home to School Public Transport – Detailed Breakdown £9m Young Persons Travel Pass (7) £18m SEN Transport (8) £13m Home to School Transport (8) £17m Older Persons Bus Pass (8) “ Why cant the parents contribute towards this?” “Why not delay it until 67 or 70??” Not everyone uses it; it shouldn’t be automatic – they should have to apply” “Why not means test the older bus pass?” £1m Transport Planning & Operations (6) Reduce Spending Increase Spending “Cant we look at economies of scale and sharing of transport for SEN’s or a minibus arrangement – i.e to save the cost of one taxi per child?” “Could the parish Council help out with any of the rural and off peak costs??” £8m Rural & Off Peak Services (6) £1m Transport Planning & Operations (2) £9m Young Persons Travel Pass (1) £8m Rural & Off Peak Services (2)

122 £38m Highways, Planning & Regeneration – Detailed Breakdown £7m Streetlight Energy (8) £3m Adverse Weather (7) £2m Road Safety & Highway Improvements (8) “This is crucial to prevent flooding in the rural areas, cutting off some people completely” “Why aren’t we using LED bulbs in our streetlights?” £2m Traffic Management (8) £3 Tree Maintenance & Soft verges (8) “We should look to move to solar powered streetlights and be selling it back…we need to spend to save!” £4m Streetlight Maintenance (6) £3m Highway Drainage (6) £14m Highway Maintenance (5) £14m Highway Maintenance (3) Reduce Spending Increase Spending £3m Highway Drainage (1) £3m Adverse Weather (1) £3m Highway Drainage (1) £4m Streetlight Maintenance (1)

123 £67m Waste Disposal & Recycling – Detailed Breakdown £10m Haulage & Transfer stations (9) £5m Landfill Tax (9) £31m Waste Disposal (9) £8m Payments to waste collection authorities (9) “Re-negotiate contracts and try and reduce costs?” “Lets look at ways to generate income from our rubbish?” “We need to raise awareness of the cost to US of recycling and perhaps look at incentives or penalties for those who don’t” £6m Household Waste Recycling Centres (8) £7m Recycling Collected Waste (7) ““Lets charge non Kent Residents £5 to use the tip” ““Why not a small charge to use the tip?” Reduce Spending Increase Spending £6m Household Waste Recycling Centres (1) £7m Recycling Collected Waste (2)

124 £32m Community & Environment – Detailed Breakdown £5m Customer Contact /Public Access (9) £2m Public Rights of Way (5) £3m Community Wardens (9) £2m Arts Strategic Leadership (9) “Could the libraries house any of these services? Could the gateways go in the libraries? Can we promote different methods of contact? “The Arts Thing - this should be a zero cost Why not self generating?” “Ask for community help and where it crosses the landowners – make them responsible. We could make a small contribution to landowners for doing it” £2m Coroners (7) £3m Trading Standards (9) “““We need to be more efficient and safeguard the environment for the future” “Closing out of the way libraries and replacing with a mobile library would save money” £13m Libraries (2) £13m Libraries (1) £13m Libraries (6) £2m Public Rights of Way (4) £2m Environmental Management (4) £2m Environmental Management (5) £2m Coroners (2) Reduce Spending Increase Spending

125 £70m Other frontline services – Detailed Breakdown £2m Early years & Childcare (4) “This helps kids who are having a tough time at school” (Education Support Services) “I don’t think it needs to be that much….Regeneration is important but does it need that much money spent on it?” (Regeneration) £2m Education Assessment (7) £14m Social Support (5) ““I paid for mine to go to pre-school, why cant everyone else?” ““I think early intervention is the key to not being reliant on the system later in life” Reduce Spending Increase Spending £14m Social Support (4) £2m Supporting People (2) £2m Supporting People (7) £2m Early years & Childcare (4) £2m Early years & Childcare (1) £5m Education Support Services (2) £5m Education Support Services (6) £2m Education Assessment (1) £9m School Improvement (4) £9m School Improvement (5) £1m Planning & Development (1) £1m Planning & Development (8) £4m Regeneration (5) £4m Regeneration (3) £5m Education Support Services (1)

1 Prepared by Lake Market Research and Kent County Council Kent County Council Budget Consultation Final Report This report complies with ISO:20252 standards.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 Prepared by Lake Market Research and Kent County Council Kent County Council Budget Consultation Final Report This report complies with ISO:20252 standards."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

1 Prepared by Lake Market Research and Kent County Council Kent County Council Budget Consultation Final Report This report complies with ISO:20252 standards.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 Prepared by Lake Market Research and Kent County Council Kent County Council Budget Consultation Final Report This report complies with ISO:20252 standards."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback