252B Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8XG tel: 020 7239 7800 fax: 020 7837 5800 email: [email protected]web: http://www.opm.co.uk/default.htm Lambeth’s budget choices Involving residents and stakeholders in the council’s budget setting process Report for Lambeth Council January 2007 Document2 – right click to update
109
Embed
Lambeth’s budget choices · 2014. 12. 18. · Lambeth’s budget choices OPM page 1 1. Introduction OPM ® (Office for Public Management) was asked by the London Borough of Lambeth
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
252B Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8XG tel: 020 7239 7800 fax: 020 7837 5800 email: [email protected] web: http://www.opm.co.uk/default.htm
Lambeth’s budget choices
Involving residents and stakeholders in the council’s budget setting process
Report for Lambeth Council
January 2007
Docum
ent2
– r
igh
t cli
ck t
o u
pd
ate
Lambeth’s budget choices
To request a large-text version of this document, phone 020 7239 0877
OPM is a registered trademark of the Office for Public Management Ltd. ILM accredited
Forty-nine people were involved in a debate about the council’s budget during two half-
day workshops in late October and early November. A range of techniques were used in
the workshops including plenary discussions, small group work, individual paper-based
questionnaires and electronic voting, to allow participants to work in ways they felt
comfortable. We returned to some key “benchmark” questions asked at the beginning of
the workshop at the end of the day, to ascertain whether views had changed and
developed and how.
Around 40 people were recruited by on street interview to attend each workshop, and
offered £40 as an incentive. People were recruited to match the population profile of the
borough. At the first workshop (northern residents), 20 people took part, with 29 attending
the second session (southern residents). In OPM’s experience this is a low turnout,
compared with other London boroughs where we have done similar work. This may be
because the incentive level was relatively low compared with some other market and
social research exercises, that the salience of the subject matter was not sufficient to
persuade larger numbers of people to attend, or that people simply had other things to do
on a Saturday morning. Follow up phone calls to people who had said they would attend
suggested a combination of these reasons.
However, as the recruits to these sessions still reflected the borough’s population profile,
we can say that, had the whole of Lambeth been involved in a similar exercise, the
“headline” results would have been broadly similar.
Initial views
An initial presentation about Lambeth’s finances and budget process gave people
information on which to base their deliberations for the day. The presentation focused
particularly on the questions into which people were to give their input – the size of the
budget cake, the relative size of slices and what was in each piece. Basic comparative
information about budgets was also given, along with some headlines about the types of
services they were going to think about.
Workshop participants were then involved in early general discussions, about their
thoughts and reactions, first in plenary and then small groups. In plenary, people raised
issues that gave a good sense of people’s key thoughts and feelings, which continued to
be raised throughout the workshops.
They raised concerns about the following issues:
• levels of council tax in general and the budgeting process overall (including whether
their involvement was genuine and whether the council would listen to their views);
• the council’s efficiency and accountability.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 27
Participants also asked specific questions, and raised concerns, about how housing and
education budgets were decided, the importance of these services, and why they were not
involved in this process.
A participant asked why housing could not be considered; there was a sense that there
was a shortage of affordable housing in the borough, and high levels of homelessness
(particularly from the Northern group). The Council response was that the housing
account was separately administered for these purposes but these concerns would be
taken into account
Another resident said that housing was “the most important issue” and wanted to know
why when someone is released from prison they are classified as “vulnerable and get
housed”; possibly meaning that others in need do not get an opportunity to have social
housing. Another resident said that the authorities “had a responsibility” [to house ex-
offenders] as “they put you inside so have to house you when they put you back into
society”.
There was also concern at recent closure of schools in the area (the council response was
that money from closed schools should all go directly back into education, and not be
redirected into other areas as the funding is ring fenced).
Another area of concern was around service provision for young people, community
safety and support for particular population groups, including children and older people.
The following bullets and quotes give a flavour of the types of issues discussed:
• how the council classifies / categorises ‘vulnerable’, and how they know when
someone falls into this category. (Northern group) (Council response that elderly
single people, people with learning disabilities, young people and children at risk or in
need of extra support were some of those classified as vulnerable.)
• questions raised about support for children and younger people, and older people.
(OPM/council response that these areas would be covered in later discussions in more
detail)
• question around how much money was going to be allocated for community
safety/crime reduction
• concern that some crime reduction measures were overly punitive and did not tackle
“root causes”; “ASBOs are ruining people’s lives”!
Priority service areas
These themes, set out from the start of the workshops tended to be consistently raised
through the process. When split into small groups to start discussion in detail about
council services, concentrating particularly on reactions to the presentation and
discussion, some of the issues above were raised in greater detail. A selection of the
quotes and views from this initial discussion are given below.
There was anger and concern from some that council tax comprised an ever increasing
proportion of their income, but resignation over this from others;
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 28
“I agree that inflation must mean higher council tax but it does not necessarily mean
any pay rises so we are paying more as a proportion of our salaries”
People discussed whether Lambeth was a good guardian of taxpayers’ money; there was
some debate about this;
“Lambeth has a reputation as being very inefficient with its funds”
“There is a lot of myth and exaggeration around inefficiencies (of Lambeth Council)”
“Lambeth needs independent regulation – outside help to bring efficiencies. I would be
happy to pay more council tax for this to happen”
“External help just brings cuts – there is no efficiencies to be made: this is the way
things are”
There was also a sense that other organisations could and should be working for local
people in providing services:
“We should be giving money to smaller community groups rather than large
organisations”
There was also comment and discussion again over the closure of schools and state of
repair of council housing, and some disquiet that these issues could not be brought to the
table in terms of discussions over budget priorities in quite the same way as other areas.
There was also comment in this initial session and throughout the workshop about
savings that could be made by organisations and service areas working effectively in
partnership and communicating better between themselves.
Debate also circled around the purpose of the day, one resident said “we need more
consultation, Lambeth say they are for the people so they need to find out what the people
think”. Some others were more sceptical, saying “what is the point in all this – consultation
has no effect”.
Some discussion also took place regarding services provided by Lambeth and the quality
of these vis a vis other councils and whether there was difference by area;
“I have just moved here from Wandsworth and the street cleaning is excellent here
compared to there”
“You just get your street cleaned because you live in a posh area”
“There are great recycling facilities, but where does it all go?”
This discussion served to prepare people for the first quantitative voting session of the
day. After an explanation of how the voting equipment was used and a warm up question,
people were asked to choose which service areas, of the five under consideration, they
would prioritise when making decisions about the budget. They used a fact sheet
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 29
provided for them in advance of the day with a paragraph of description about each
service under consideration. The question we asked is given below.
Which of the following service areas do you think should be the council’s top three spending priorities for 2007/8?YOU CAN VOTE 3 TIMES, STARTING WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT
A. Adults’ social services
B. Children’s social services
C. Community safety and crime reduction
D. Streets and highways
E. Youth provision
The question was repeated at the end of the day’s discussions to ascertain how views had
changed.
Reflecting the first discussion of the day and the themes within it, almost four in ten people
(37%) nominated youth provision as their top priority, following by community safety and
crime reduction, chosen by one in five (22%). Adult social services were a close third
place.
4%
4%
22%
20%
12%
37%
20%
14%
12%
20%
18%
14%
8%
14%
27%
22%
18%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
NR
Streets and highways
Community safety and crime
reduction
Adults’ social services
Children’s social services
Youth provision
% of respondents
First Priority Second Priority Third Priority
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 30
Taking the second and third placed scores into account, people still prioritised youth
services above others, but social services for children and adults were seen as important
in some way by around half of participants, with four in ten choosing community safety.
Street and highway services were not prioritised to anything like the same extent.
People were also asked to think about council tax levels and nominate which rise, if any,
would be acceptable to them. The question we asked is shown below.
Overall, how much do you think the council tax level should change if at all in 2007/08?
A. 3% increase (approx £25 per household
per year – £2.5m towards maintaining services)
B. 4% increase (approx £34 per household
per year - £2.5m maintaining services, £0.8 investment)
C. 5% increase (approx £42 per household
per year – £2.5 maintaining, £4.2m additional for services, £1.7 investment in services)
D. I do not think it should be increased – leading to a significant
reduction in services
Again this question was repeated at the end of the day.
The lighter bars show that the majority (57%) chose a rise of any kind over no rise at all,
with over a fifth (22%) opting for a 5% increase, 20% saying 4% and 15% opting for a 3%
rise, although a notable proportion - over four in ten people (43%) - said they were not in
favour of any rise at all.
The darker bars show the change in voting patterns when the question was asked again
in the afternoon – with people slightly more likely to opt for a lower rise. We talk more
about this later in this chapter.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 31
43%
15%
20%
22%
43%
24%
13%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No increase
3% increase
4% increase
5% increase
% of respondents
Morning Afternoon
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 32
Detailed budget choices
Participants were then taken through exercises in small groups which encouraged them to
talk and make budgeting decisions about particular service areas. Again, people were
provided with detailed fact sheets which gave information about the service areas and
options for growth within these. After these discussions, people voted on their priorities
for spending.
Some groups worked at different paces in discussion due to language and literacy needs
or simply needing more time to come to judgement about issues.
There was a tendency among many participants to discuss wider issues than those on the
table for consideration – which OPM experiences in much of this type of consultation
work. In addition, some people did change their minds during discussion, after listening to
presentation, reflection from others and weighing up their own views. Other people’s
views remained more constant through discussions.
We have reflected these issues in our reporting where they are relevant and they add to
readers’ understanding of the discussions undergone.
Adults’ and community services
In thinking about adults’ and community services, people were given an overall description
of the service area, followed by information on specific service items, and choices to make
as to budget priorities. Abbreviated descriptions are given as follows (full factsheets
including descriptions of the various spending options are given in the appendices):
This service ensures that Lambeth’s vulnerable residents receive support they
need….
Item 1. …Benefits campaign…
Option A Option B Option C
£125k £225k £275k
Item 2. Maintaining the Careline service ….
Option A Option B Option C
£50K £100K £150K
Item 3. Improving the accessibility and quality of information…
Option A Option B Option C
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 33
£50k £75k £100k
Vote results
Thinking first about adults’ and community services, people felt this was a difficult and
emotive issue to make choices about: “heartbreaking”. However, when asked to choose
between the three specific service items – a benefits campaign for vulnerable adults,
maintaining the Careline service and an information campaign – discussions in small
groups revealed more support overall for the Careline service. This was closely followed
by the benefits campaign, although both areas were felt to be key. Information was
thought to be less important overall.
People voted using their fact sheets in the small groups and these sheets were used by
participants to help them vote electronically after discussion. It is important to note that
this e-voting task asked people to choose between options, which they had not been
forced to do in small group discussion. Therefore, the results of the final votes may not
reflect the tenor of discussion in all cases. The votes for each option are given below, in
order of importance to people:
First priority electronic vote
(%)
2. Maintaining the Careline service…. 43
1. …Benefits campaign…. 33
3. Improving the accessibility and quality of
information…
14
More detailed information is given about each of the service area discussions below:
Detailed discussion
In general, people found it difficult to decide between options as they felt all were
important.
Many groups agreed that the council has a duty to look after the most vulnerable people in
the community – people felt Lambeth had many who would be classed as vulnerable - and
that in general all the proposals under this service area were important. It was also felt
that they would become increasingly important with an ageing population.
Some people in discussion in a further group made the distinction between providing
services for people who made themselves “vulnerable” (e.g. through drink and drugs), and
people who had become “vulnerable” through something other than a lifestyle choice (e.g.
domestic violence, older people):
“(Older people) have done their bit for society”.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 34
1. …Benefits campaign….
This service area was felt to be important by many, but would only work if it was targeted
effectively. Some felt that national government TV campaigns might be more effective
than anything that local government could do; others felt a face to face approach through
existing service delivery might be effective, though.
It was agreed by another group that ‘genuinely’ vulnerable adults (how many were there in
the borough?) should be “made more aware of their rights” – some had heard of people
having poor experience with services such as CAB and housing services: being given
wrong information and not receiving the help they needed quick enough; “they said he
couldn’t get a place for 14 days and that’s not right, it’s all about how they classify people”.
But a few participants expressed concern that some vulnerable individuals would need
additional support in spending additional benefits wisely – i.e. people with drug and
alcohol problems are “vulnerable” but would giving them access to more money without
support be beneficial for them? Others were concerned that the publicity might encourage
benefit fraud.
“There should be more investigation into who is really ‘vulnerable’. You’ve got to sort
out the fakers from those who are proper ill and don’t get benefits, that’s why I’d say
[option] A (the smallest spend)”
Rather than advertising, they felt that “vulnerable adults” inevitably come into contact with
a service at some point. They saw it as the job of the service provider they had contact
with to highlight what other services and benefits someone should be entitled to – they felt
that a GP surgery would be somewhere this could happen.
When one group started to review the proposals in detail it was felt that any option that did
not include some kind of outreach to the vulnerable was unhelpful as much subsequent
activity hinged on this. Similarly another group agreed that Option C (the largest spend)
was the best as it was decided it was pointless having benefits there if people couldn’t
claim them.
There was discussion in one group over whether money could be saved if people got
support from their parents and families. However one resident said he would not spend
any money on any of those options. He said that:
“There is not enough care for pensioners – money should be spent on OAPs not on
immigrants. OAPs deserve the money – we need to look after our own”
This provoked a debate amongst the rest of the group who decided that pensioners did
deserve more support but so did everyone else and that not everyone has a family to help
them work out what benefits they are entitled to so more money needs to be spent. The
debate did make some of the group consider options A and B more, although in the end
they still chose C.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 35
2. Maintaining the Careline service…
There was consensus amongst many groups that Careline was an important proposal in
this service area. The point in the previous section about outreach to and support for the
vulnerable was important here.
“They (disabled people) need some kind of reassurance”
“Could save someone’s life”.
One group underlined the need to operate on evenings and weekends as that is when
vulnerable people need the most support.
Members of groups were keen to understand the details of how Careline operates – what
kind of support did it actually offer, who was entitled to use the service, what hours it
operated etc.
A couple of participants commented on the fact that they had elderly and vulnerable
relatives who live in the borough yet they were unaware of the Careline service. They
discussed incidents that had occurred (for example their gran falling and lying for hours
until they were discovered by a visiting relative) in which Careline could have been useful.
They were interested in how they could access more information about the service.
One resident had had direct experience of contacting Lambeth’s domestic violence
services and she felt that they were not very good (e.g. poor provision for people who
don’t speak English) so choosing Option C (most expensive) when it was underperforming
was not good value in her view. She wanted to see Option A done well instead of Option
C done badly.
Some thought this was important because the groups mentioned were considered
“genuinely vulnerable”. Elderly people in particular were highlighted as a group who would
need extra support, especially as some felt the standard of care offered to this group has
declined recently in the borough:
“Since the sheltered accommodation was privatised it’s got worse, they used to have
wardens but they’re not around so much now”
The issue was raised that it would have to be provided equally to each of these very
different groups, the problems faced by disabled people differ greatly from those faced by
victims of domestic violence.
However, a significant amount of people found it initially difficult to make a judgement on
the service without knowing whether it was something people would actually use:
“Do people use it? If it’s a broadly used service then it’s worth keeping”
The general consensus in one group was for Option B as it was felt to be the most
realistic and the money wasn’t available to always choose Option C across the board.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 36
Although many in another group would have liked to have seen more support for the
elderly, overall, this service area was considered less important than services for children
and youth provision:
“You wouldn’t want to shave money off the clearly vulnerable but I suppose I would
say the youth stuff is more important – you see them hanging around in half term,
nothing for them to do”.
3. Improving the accessibility and quality of information…
One group felt that this option depended upon how effective the measures would actually
be. They were sceptical of the effectiveness of leaflets. It was agreed that more
innovative ways of targeting people with different needs were needed. One resident said
that information was widely available in Somali, Spanish and Japanese but that she
couldn’t find information in Urdu. She said there should always be information available in
the correct languages, which was again about effective targeting. Many participants said
that word-of-mouth was a good way of spreading information and should be utilised more
(eg. via police, key workers, social workers or shop keepers, volunteers etc). Web and
email could be used but only in appropriate and specific circumstances. Voluntary
organisations might also be a good conduit.
Equity in accessing information was considered important by the group. A minority felt
general information improvement was preferable to improving information on benefits
only:
“You want to guarantee good accessibility to all”
Some were worried about homeless people with mental health problems – they were seen
as a threat to the wider community, and people felt they should be helped but in a way
that was sensitive to the wider population:
“You see a lot of them in the street. The problem is they’ll have a half way house for
them but they’ll put it right next to a school. It’s not fair on the children, it’s ridiculous”
Participants in a further group were quite surprised that the council was not providing this
kind of information as part of their day to day responsibilities. They were also sceptical
about whether it would actually cost the amount of money stated in the different options –
they thought the costs sounded expensive for what was being proposed.
No consensus was reached on an option by many groups, but it was agreed that
monitoring and targeting of information should be factored in to both items 1 and 2
anyway, not just in to Option C.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 37
Children’s social services
The information that people were given about this service area in fact sheets is given
below:
Children’s social services helps vulnerable children in our community, ensuring
that they live in a secure and caring environment...
1. Providing financial support for adopted children…
Option A Option B Option C
£675k £850k £1,025k
2. Recruiting more foster carers…
Option A Option B Option C
£125k £200k £325k
3. Recruiting more social workers….
Option A Option B Option C
£50k £75k £100k
Vote results
Again, participants found it hard to make decisions about children’s social services.
However, although strong views were expressed around all service areas, when it came
to choosing from the three options, recruiting more social workers was a clear priority
choice. They recognised that this may be a ‘spend to save’ option and that money
allocated here could quickly provide benefits for the future for young people – again an
important theme running through the deliberation.
It was interesting that there was some negativity on the fostering and adoption options as
a significant number of people felt that carers should not be ‘in it for the money’.
Again e-vote results are given below, followed by detailed proceedings from discussions.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 38
Priority (%)
3. Recruiting more social workers… 63
1. Providing financial support for adopted children… 16
2. Recruiting more foster carers… 14
Detailed discussion
Many people felt that this was a very important area generally; “we are failing a lot of kids,
we need to look after children’s welfare”.
There was a sense from other participants that this was an area where it would be difficult
for ordinary citizens to ‘see the benefit’, unlike with community safety or streets and
highways. However, it was still considered one of the more important areas.
“Unless you use the service yourself you’re not going to see the benefits of this one,
but it’s still important”
Another group generally felt that it was an important service area. However it was evident
that one woman in the group had experience of children’s social services and she was
very negative about the service; “they just want to take your children from you – all I
needed was somewhere to stay not for them to take my children – I can look after my own
children”.
Again, there were a number of comments about the difficulty of choosing between
different services; “how can you possibly choose between them?”
1. Providing financial support for adopted children…
This service was ‘very important’ to some groups, especially one group where there were
a good proportion of ABC1 social grade participants. They felt that attitudes to the rest of
your life are developed at a young age and it is important to give as many children as
good a childhood as possible. Removing the barrier of financial burden would be a good
incentive for people to get involved in adopting. The scheme would also pay for some
level of social work support which was felt to be important.
However, there was general consensus in this group that while adoption was an emotive
subject there were more pressing issues in Lambeth. There was also some concern that
the money would leave Lambeth if a Lambeth child was placed outside the borough.
One participant from another group felt that it was very difficult to choose if the
professionals state that Option B gives too little support (i.e. she felt that they were obliged
to choose Option C).
This was a popular service option in another group – it was agreed that children in care
(or recently in care) were deserving of support to help them have stable, happy lives;
“for children in care it’s so important to get the right staff and facilities. They’re very
vulnerable, they can be left to fend for themselves”.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 39
Financial help for this group was seen as fair and justifiable given that some support
measures such as counselling can be expensive.
However, others felt that children in care and not being fostered may need the money
spending on them instead.
There was cynicism from individuals in some groups, and some groups as a whole, about
people receiving money for adopting or fostering children. One resident said that “if you
take the decision to adopt a child, you should pay for it”
Another resident questioned why adopted children have to go to a nuclear family and not
to a single-parent family and said that the meaning of family had changed (and implied
that this should be reflected in the regulations for adopting). There were also questions
around age restrictions for people wanting to adopt and a general feeling that the current
regulations were not flexible enough.
One group who displayed no general consensus on an option felt that Options A and B
were not sufficient support but Option C was too expensive.
2. Recruiting more foster carers…
One group wanted to know why there was such a disparity between Wandsworth and
Lambeth. This same group thought that if savings were made by choosing Option C (i.e.
spend to save), then these savings needed careful monitoring by the council. There were
also questions as to why fostering payments were not subject to national tariffs.
There was more suspicion around this service option – some participants asked quite
particular questions about whether it was £267 was before or after tax, and whether this
was per child or an average for foster families of different sizes. This seemed to be related
to the fear that foster carers might be being greedy and whether this would be the best
way to spend the money to benefit the children.
Related to this, there was some cynicism about foster carers and their motivations for
fostering. Some participants said that they should not receive any money.
However, a further minority felt this option was important to ensuring continuity of foster
carers. There was also recognition that more black foster carers were needed and
perhaps better payments would encourage them to come forward.
Some felt that payment should be related to the age of the child.
3. Recruiting more social workers…
Many residents felt that there was a ‘spend to save’ possibility by choosing Option C. One
resident said that “children needed to be able to rely on someone they see regularly –
permanent staff with a permanent overview [as opposed to agency staff] because these
children are the future”. This was backed up by participants in another group as they felt
more permanent support was important for continuity of care and stability for young
people.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 40
The need for social workers in the borough was not questioned as it was felt there were
many children with challenging lives in Lambeth. High turnover of staff was also thought to
be highly detrimental to children, possibly cancelling out the benefit of social worker
support.
“I would imagine that there’s a heavy case load here, but if you look at this none of
them are permanent and that means no continuity of care”
“If they’re paid more then they’re less likely to move around, the kids are more likely to
get the counselling they need in place”.
Sheer numbers of social workers was not seen as the only issue: “there should be more
training to help children in care and for social workers. Recruit more, yes, but make sure
they’ve got more training and experience”. This view was echoed by a number of people.
There was general consensus from many on Option C, the most expensive option.
Community safety and crime reduction
Key information given to participants is shown below:
Crime is a key concern of Lambeth residents…
1. Creating a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour …
Option A Option B Option C
£175k £225k £275k
2. Improving the quality and level of support available to victims of domestic
violence…
Option A Option B Option C
£200K £400K £525K
3. Ensuring the continuation of … clearance of hazardous waste from sex and
drugs use.
Option A Option B Option C
£50k £75k £100k
Vote results
Reflecting the earlier votes and discussion, generally community safety and crime
reduction was rated a priority area.
There was a less clear priority here on services to victims of domestic violence. It was
seen as a complex subject and one where many participants were unable to speak with
authority, but some participants expressed very strong views.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 41
Some clearly supported the option to reduce antisocial behaviour (ASB) whereas others
opposed this. The rapid response service for the clearance of hazardous waste from sex
and drugs was given an equal score overall.
Vote data is given below followed by detail on discussion.
Priority
(%)
2. Improving the quality and level of support available to victims of domestic
violence…
39
1. Creating a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour… 27
3. Ensuring the continuation of … the clearance of hazardous waste from sex
and drugs use.
27
Detailed discussion
Reflecting the earlier votes and discussion, generally this was a priority area, though
some participants had broader concerns relating to serious crime that were not addressed
by the investment options.
“I find it quite intimidating on the streets, especially if you were elderly. You hear about
the guns and the knives – it’s frightening”
“You see them, the muggers, on the street”
Similarly, some comments related to the police’s relationship with the community, visibility
and the wider determinants of crime rather than just the options put forward for
consideration:
“The police need to have respect, especially for young people”
“You’ve got to think about why they’re robbing. If the crime is bad then maybe it’s
because they’re not getting enough benefits. You need money”.
However, some people did think that the perception of levels of crime in some areas was
worse than the reality (from a Southern group).
Another group felt that the emphasis should be on the cause not the effect i.e. policy
should be preventative not reactive, and that many of the youth and children’s social
services options were linked to crime reduction in the short and long term.
A long discussion took place in one group about how nice the police cars are in Lambeth.
Some respondents felt that money was wasted on buying high spec cars unnecessarily
but others felt this was necessary for the police work that Lambeth undertake.
Throughout this section the issue of respective responsibility was brought up – what the
police and council can and should be doing separately and together; and also what should
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 42
be funded by Lambeth and the Government. It was felt the government needed to make
this a priority, not necessarily just Lambeth.
1. Creating a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour…
There was some discussion in one group about what a “dedicated team” meant:
“Does this mean they read a lot more or that they know from doing it?”
and what they would focus on e.g. drug dealing, nuisance neighbours. “Is littering ASB?”
People around the table were in agreement that the ‘perceived’ level of ASB is very high –
young people are out on the streets a lot and this intimidates people.
One group mentioned that there is already a well known drug and alcohol team who work
with the borough. They work very well with those who drink in public in particular and have
had a great impact. This helps to combat the feeling by many residents that young people
are the problem rather than working together with them to work out how to solve the
problem of ASB.
However, another group had had previous issues with the police and the criminal justice
system and felt that imposing more authority around this issue would not work. The group
felt teams of people who had been involved in crime and “come out the other side” -
positive role models - may be listened to more that any kind of authority figures. One of
the group had previous experience of a probation officer and felt that the probation officer
did not understand or support him adequately as the probation officer did not understand
where he was coming from. He found that younger people did listen to him though and
that he might be able to have more of a positive impact:
“They might listen to people like us”.
A hard line on anti social behaviour, including ultimately prison or probation, were not
seen as good responses;
“The more we send kids to jail the more they’re going to get worse”.
If the dedicated team were to be role models rather than those who had not experienced
crime directly, the group were in favour of either option C or B with an even split between
the two.
One participant wanted to know if there was somewhere that they could report anti-social
behaviour to. Others were aware of a local “shop-front” that served this function (the
facilitator suggested this was possibly a Safer Neighbourhood Team office).
People discussed various incidences of extreme behaviour that they had witnessed and
there was some agreement that there was a need to get to the root of the problem (and
that ASBOs were not the way to do this as by this point it was too late).
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 43
There was a divide in opinion between the younger and older members of one group on
this issue. The older members of the group prioritised it, on the condition such an initiative
had been proved successful elsewhere.
“Does this anti-social behaviour team thing work? Has it been tried out in other
places?”
However the younger members of the group were more suspicious of anti-ASB initiatives
and emphasising that:
• anti-ASB often meant anti-young people, and that young people need to be shown
respect if they are not to become even more disengaged from mainstream society
• “you need to explore why young people are committing crime and not just hand out
ASBOs”
• if the dedicated team were to work it would need to build bridges and work with young
people rather than against them.
“Don’t just give the ASBOs out – they don’t wipe out crime. The youths need to
change in themselves but only by working with people the youths can relate to. Need
people on the right wave-length. It looks like control more than support”
This was reflected in another discussion where most of the group were not particularly
keen on ASBOs. The group wanted more police, community support officers and CCTV;
“ASBOs just give people street cred”.
In the same way, one group rejected all options and said that they would put the money
towards other facilities such as parenting advice, leisure facilities, etc. Another felt this
should be a police, not a local authority job.
A further group felt that ASB meant tackling young people’s criminal behaviour alone and
that this should be a focus across all crime, not just what was seen as “low level”.
2. Improving the quality and level of support available to victims of domestic
violence...
Men and women had more markedly different views on this issue than on most other
issues under discussion. Also, many people recognised this issue as contentious and
complex and found it difficult to come to a firm conclusion. For example, one male
resident didn’t feel he could comment on this issue as it was out of his realm of
experience.
In one group discussion, one of the participants asked who had heard of the Gaia
Domestic Violence Centre or had any experience of it – no one had heard of it. Some
discussion followed about the need to raise awareness of a service like this. There was
also some discussion about who had access to the service, how it was funded at the
moment and how people were referred.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 44
One female participant who had had experience of the service said in another group
discussion that the contracts in safe houses should be for more than 6 months as the
women have nowhere to go when they come to the end of their stay at the project and
that supported hostels should be provided for Asian women as they needed “a particular
type of support”.
She also asked “why are we not educating in schools about domestic violence? These
options are end of the line measures”. She wanted the budget to be focused on more
preventative measures.
Some female participants felt this was a priority area for investment: “there should be
more money for domestic violence, there’s not enough accommodation, the shelters are
full”.
However, a further participant said that if the victim returns to the abusive relationship they
should have to “pay all the money back” that they received in support and would therefore
choose Option A.
Some people in another group felt the focus should be wider than just domestic violence
e.g. street violence as well, and that working with the police here should be a focus.
One group felt that central government funding for this area should be higher rather than
coming through locally raised tax.
3. Ensuring the continuation of … the clearance of hazardous waste from sex and
drugs use
There was a low level of awareness about the council’s telephone number from some
(“I’ve never heard a phone number advertised; Is it the same as the other waste
number?”)
One southern group felt that if people make a complaint about it to the council it is dealt
with anyway so there probably is not a need for a specialist team. However, a northern
resident’s experience was different - the council hadn’t cleared away used condoms from
outside her house despite asking them to several times. She said that problems in this
area were like others in the realm of community safety and crime prevention in her view,
that “CCTV in one area just pushes the problem over the road”. Another resident in the
same group living at Loughborough Junction said that there had been used needles in a
local park that hadn’t been cleared straight away.
It was agreed hazardous waste is both unpleasant and potentially very dangerous;
“Condoms and needles – no one wants to see it”
“You don’t want to take your five year old out to find the needles from the crackheads”.
However another group felt this was too limited an initiative when thinking more widely
about community safety. A further participant said that he thought the community should
take some responsibility for this. He said that by using a little common sense it was
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 45
probably much quicker, safer and efficient just to clear up this type of waste yourself,
despite the fact it was dangerous material.
This provoked significant debate in another group about wider issues. Some members of
the group thought that drug users should not be given needles in the first place as that
would prevent them being left in the street later.
“They give you clean needles – 5 a week! Where are you going to sling the needles –
you don’t care”.
Others were highly concerned that children or other vulnerable people might play with the
needles when outside which puts them at risk. One participant told of when she was
manic at one point and had picked up a lot of needles which had been discarded; she was
not aware of what she was doing.
Most of the residents felt the money needed to be spent on preventing people form using
drugs in the first place rather than on cleaning up the waste but that in the mean time
children needed protecting.
Streets and highways
Information was given as follows:
Increased investment in ‘streets and highways’ …
1. Improving the current street patrolling service by piloting ‘Street Watch’…
Option A Option B Option C
£50k £100k £150k
2. Increasing the frequency of street cleansing in retail areas.
Option A Option B Option C
£200k £300k £400k
3. Investing in a strategy to increase recycling…
Option A Option B Option C
£250k £500k £750k
Vote results
Thinking next about streets and highways, the decision on a top priority was split here,
with equal numbers favouring the Street Watch scheme and extending recycling.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 46
Priority (%)
1. Improving the current street patrolling service by piloting ‘Street Watch’… 33
3. Investing in a strategy to increase recycling… 33
2. Increasing the frequency of street cleansing in retail areas 16
Detailed discussion
A few groups felt that this was an unimportant policy area – they did not want to spend
time discussing it in any detail, or felt there were more important areas for the council to
focus spending on.
However, a minority of groups (mainly from the Southern workshop) felt it was a big issue;
that the environment they lived in was important to them and that street cleaning,
recycling and rubbish disposal was vital for that.
There was some division between people from different areas of Lambeth as to how good
the council is at maintaining cleanliness. Some areas were felt to be excellent (Streatham
and Gypsy Hill) but some participants felt their areas lacked attention.
1. Improving the current street patrolling service by piloting ‘Street Watch’…
One resident said that in general things had “got a lot better” and had noticed a clean-up
truck up to twice a day on the streets, and so further action did not necessarily need to be
prioritised.
Others felt that in some cases this would be a duplication of effort. There are already good
street wardens patrolling and participants were generally well aware of these people and
their powers.
Some people felt that those dropping litter were unpredictable and that it was not safe to
intervene if you saw people littering the environment or dumping rubbish.
However, there was a different view from some – that this scheme was felt to be a good
way of involving people with their own environment and it was hoped that it would educate
people not to litter rather than just paying to clear it up. This would treat the cause rather
than the outcome. Parallels were drawn with the ‘Keep Britain Tidy’ campaign – highly
visible and effective. People also said that there was dumped rubbish that didn’t get
cleared away and so suggested that more needed to be spent in this area; “Option A is
absurd”!
There was some confusion about how this scheme would work. Some people felt that it
was like asking neighbours to snoop on each other;
“If you get called a grasser you are in Shit Street”
“Encouraging people to take photos of each and other and spy. It will be like reporting
on hosepipe bans”
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 47
whilst others felt that it was a nice idea to get the community involved in looking after their
environment;
“We could report things like pot holes and fly tipping”
Still others felt that the patrolling system was not working and would not work on some
estates;
“If they are just cleaning up that’s fine – if they are uniformed that’s gonna get them
aggravation”
Some members of the group felt that it was best to keep the area clear and clean as it
showed respect for the area in which you lived but others felt this would not really address
the underlying issues. Others felt that Lambeth could build on what already happened in
reality in some estates and areas;
“Get a proper graffiti wall and do nice graffiti on the graffiti wall”.
2. Increasing the frequency of street cleansing in retail areas
People from the South of the borough tended to be more positive about cleanliness than
in the North.
“They are not that dirty”
“They clean up quite well after themselves”
again, of retail areas, Gypsy Hill and Streatham Hill were felt to be good examples, Brixton
was felt to be a poor example.
One group from the North discussed whether retail outlets such as McDonalds should
have to pay anything for the litter that they create and were in favour of having bins
divided into two (like Westminster and Camden) for recycling on the streets. The group
wanted to see the council work with business and devise a “more intelligent approach” to
street cleansing. There was a lot of support for “bags for life” and for more recycling
efforts.
The feeling from others was that there was scope for street cleaning to be improved, but
that it was a ‘thankless task’;
“The streets are dirty but they clean it and it’s no better”
“They need to check the street cleaners are doing their jobs”.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 48
3. Investing in a strategy to increase recycling…
There were very mixed views in one group. One resident said that there weren’t enough
recycling collections and despite phoning up for recycling bags several times, he had still
not received them. This was seen as a question of administering the current situation
efficiently rather than necessarily extending the scheme.
Another group felt this option was important – but that as part of this recycling must be
dealt with responsibly; “I read an article that our waste is going to China”.
In two southern groups there was much more knowledge about recycling; although mixed
views about its importance. Some participants obviously received a regular recycling
collection service whilst others did not. Some of those living in flats and council
accommodation seemed to be slightly less aware of or satisfied with arrangements,
although where people did mention a central collection from flats they felt it worked well.
There was also some discussion about access to recycling bags – some people had them
whilst others did not. One participant informed the group that they are available at Olive
Morris House – and also that if you phone the council they will deliver one to your door.
There was a sense from one group that resources could be better used by educating
people about the importance of recycling and encouraging them to use existing facilities
A further group felt, as a consensus view, that a new recycling scheme was important.
“Well, it costs a lot – but how much are we spending on landfill sites?”
“If we’ve got rubbish lying around we’ll get more diseases and we might bring back
Black Death”.
Other specific ideas to promote recycling included:
• could we have a campaign to give points for recycling?
• household waste only accounts for less than 10% of the waste produced – what about
industry? What will Lambeth businesses have to do? It would be better to make it
economically unviable to be non-environmental rather than adopt a ‘snoop and punish’
approach as they currently do.
Youth provision
Youth provision was the last service area considered. Information about this area was
given to participants as follows:
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 49
The aim of this investment is to expand and improve services to all young people…
1. Working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet made up of
selected young people representing local areas…
Option A Option B Option C
£50k £125k £150k
2. Increasing the provision of facilities for young people across the borough.…
Option A Option B Option C
£700k £900k £1,200k
3. Providing better access to effective support for young people who are
…vulnerable…
Option A Option B Option C
£150k £250k £350k
Vote results
This discussion area was a top priority for several groups. Increasing youth service
provision was by far the most popular option.
Priority
(%)
2. Increasing the provision of facilities for young people across the borough… 76
3. Providing better access to effective support for young people who are … vulnerable...
20
1. Working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet… 0
Detailed discussion
This was a top priority for several groups, linked to crime and social deprivation in
Lambeth. One of the younger participants noted:
“I’ve lived here all my life, it’s pretty crap. You got the crack heads but a lot of people
are just poor and need money. Young people need money if they’re going to do
something with their lives”
There was a strong feeling that Lambeth is a very young borough and that young people
lack support in a lot of ways. They need more things to do.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 50
1. Working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet…
There was not much enthusiasm for this from many groups – there was confusion as to
how the cabinet’s role would be different to the youth council’s, and what difference the
cabinet would make as opposed to consultation workshops and meetings like the ones the
participants themselves were involved in. They thought it should only get A or B (low
spends) if anything.
“Review it to make sure they’re not squandering the money”
There was clear cynicism and scepticism from some groups. People felt it looked to be
bureaucratic and expensive and they wondered who would be sitting on it, how many
(more of a concern was how few) and how they would become a member of it. They also
felt that it might not create much interest amongst young people “at large”.
One older resident said “no one took any notice of them (us) when I was at school so why
should things be any different now?”
Other participants just did not see the point. They felt that it would only benefit certain
types of young people or not have a discernable positive impact
Two groups were more positive about this – a southern group where people had had
experience of the criminal justice system and a group with relatively middle class
participants. It was seen to be a good idea to empower young people to make something
of their lives and motivate them (with certain caveats);
“I agree with C but with real people not officers”
“It does not cost much more than B so we might as well spend more”
“We need to at least make them see that they have a choice in life”
“There is great disparity across the borough as to the extent to which this (motivation)
takes place”
2. Increasing provision of facilities for young people across the borough…
This was the most popular option from many groups. Younger participants were generally
vocal in suggesting which facilities would be well received, including music (seen as a
unifier of young people) and sport with the Olympics coming up;
“There needs to be more youth facilities, otherwise you get a lot of crime, with
boredom comes crime”
“It is about giving everyone something to do”
“Something like a community radio station at a decent community centre. Lots of kids
here are seriously into their music”
“This would definitely get [option] C”
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 51
Another group much preferred this option as it involved more direct spending and covered
a broad range of activities. They felt that comprehensive youth provision would be a good
preventative policy e.g. cut down on ASB.
One resident thought the Met Police summer scheme was very positive and there should
be more schemes like this; possibly with the council working in partnership and therefore
saving money.
However another group, that felt the aspiration to ‘make Lambeth’s Youth Provision one of
the best in the United Kingdom’ was admirable and worthy, felt there were lots of
unanswered questions around whether young people would have to pay for the facilities,
what areas and ages it would cover, how they would be monitored and so on.
“It should be free for all the kids – should also be free for 18-21 year olds”
One participant did express doubt over whether this type of provision would really have an
impact on the types of young people it was hoping to help i.e. those on the fringes of
criminal activity and ASB. Others felt provision can be in danger of being “hijacked” by a
certain type of client:
“All the youth clubs get turned into dens – (the council) spent money on a pool table
but (people) end up smoking weed”
“It don’t become a place for all young people – it doesn’t as there are too many bad
boys”.
This group felt it was important to support and provide services to young people up to the
age of 21, and also look at employment, diversion from crime, volunteering and training,
basic skills etc in a holistic way.
Another said that young people “don’t know what they want”.
3. Providing better access to effective support for young people who are …
vulnerable or involved with the criminal justice system…
This was considered more contentious than item 2 above by one group, largely because
‘effective support’ to those ‘involved with the criminal justice system’ could be seen as
rewarding those who have got in trouble with special treatment;
“You can’t make it too nice for them. They shouldn’t have done it”.
There was also a sense among a couple of groups that if services under item 2 above
were right, there would be little need to prioritise option 3. (please clarify)
However, the younger members of the group felt vulnerable young people can’t turn their
lives around without financial help. They suggested grants to help young people to set up
their own businesses. The older members of the group strongly disagreed and felt this
would be a financial incentive to behave badly.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 52
There was general consensus that help with training and peer support from people who
have got themselves ‘out of trouble’ would be a good idea for this group.
Some other participants felt it sat more comfortably with children’s social services than
youth provision, and should be incorporated into these budgets or by working together.
This was a popular subject with one group. One group member had experience with the
criminal justice system. He had been on probation and was put into prison 10 days before
Christmas. His initial reaction to this option was quite clear:
“I think the criminal justice system is a load of bollocks”.
Over the course of the discussion though opinion changed, this group member had
already said that he felt his probation officer did not understand him in an earlier
discussion and thought that talking to someone like himself, who had experience in crime
might have made more of a difference. As such trained volunteers from the local estates
who had experience were seen as very important;
“I think (using volunteers and) training them is vital”
It was also seen as important to provide activities for young people to keep them from
becoming involved in crime as well as training opportunities
“Give us things to do – send us on activities and stuff”
“Some kids need help because they can’t read and write”
Emphasis was also placed on making sure young people did not feel judged and were not
branded for life, as such the group felt keeping young people out of the Criminal Justice
System was the best route as it would keep them from having a criminal record and
having problems in finding work in later life.
“Everybody makes mistakes – you get branded for life”
“They don’t think there’s a future for you – you’ve already been judged”
“(They) make the children feel they got no chance so I might as well just give up”
Closing views
Second vote on priority service areas
Following these detailed discussions, people were asked to vote again on priority service
areas, repeating the question asked in the morning.
Looking at the combined votes, around three quarters of participants chose either
children’s services or youth provision in their top three (shown in bold below); a significant
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 53
change from the morning’s votes. It is likely that the ability to reflect on others’ views and
come to collective judgement on issues over a period of time resulted in this change in
view over the day (particularly looking at children’s social services); along with the point,
noted at several occasions earlier in this section, that people feel that investment in young
people will ‘pay off’ later in life.
GRAPHS HERE STILL TO FINALISE
10%
8%
10%
20%
20%
31%
4%
8%
31%
20%
10%
27%
12%
18%
45%
18%
2%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
NR
Streets and highways
Adults’ social services
Community safety and
crime reduction
Youth provision
Children’s social
services
% of respondents (n=49)
First Priority Second Priority Third Priority
We also repeated the question about council tax. People were more likely in the
afternoon vote to opt for a smaller council tax rise, but there was relatively little change:
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 54
Spend on this priority
As youth provision was given the highest ‘first priority’ vote, we asked which spending
options people would choose for this area from options A, B and C. Over half – 51% –
said that they would recommend spending the largest amount available – option C
(£1,200,000) with 27% choosing option B (£900,000) and 16% option A (£700,000).
‘Budget game’ – making it all add up
At the end of the workshops, people were asked to try and make the budget balance by
choosing 8 services they would prioritise, with a budget of £2,000,000. Again people
worked in small groups, with each group choosing the items they felt were most important,
sticking as closely as they could to the budget.
OPM have worked out the average spend from that nominated by participants on all
budget items and compared this spend with the median option (B) suggested by Lambeth
for specific services. Where participants’ suggested spend matched Lambeth’s spending
option more closely, we can assume that these service items are particular priorities for
residents. These particular priority options were as given below:
43%
15%
20%
22%
43%
24%
13%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No increase
3% increase
4% increase
5% increase
% of respondents
Morning Afternoon
Base: All deliberative workshop participants (49). Rebased to exclude non responses
(-2%)
(-7%)
(+9%)
(0%)
Net change AM
to PM
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 55
Average spend suggested
by participants (£000)
Spend option B suggested
by Lambeth (£000)
Careline service 75 100
Recruiting social workers 66 75
Street Watch 56 100
Provision of youth facilities
across the borough
919 900
It is interesting that the two items originally chosen as priorities:
Average spend suggested by
participants (£000)
Spend option B suggested
by Lambeth (£000)
Support for domestic
violence victims
81 400
Recycling 121 500
have not been nominated by the groups overall for increased spending at the level that
the council has suggested. From our sense of the discussion throughout the day, we feel
that people thought that both these areas were important, but felt that the large spend
associated with any of the options was too much to take from their overall £2,000,000.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 56
Stakeholder discussion – voluntary, community and business
A meeting was held with representatives from the voluntary, community and business
sectors in late October. Lambeth Council invited people from its contact database; 18
people attended (with representation from three local area groups, five voluntary
organisations/charities, two businesses, three faith groups, three tenant/resident
representatives and two individuals).
An introduction from Lambeth Council (the Chief Executive and Lead Member for Finance
and Resources) was followed by a presentation from OPM on some of the key choices for
the council and decisions to be taken. Small group discussion then allowed participants to
look at budget issues in greater depth.
Initial views
Participants were first asked their views on the level of council tax for the coming year and
for more general reactions and questions. There was no clear consensus from
participants on the option to be chosen, although people tended to suggest any increase
should be modest (3% or 4%) and result in tangible and evident benefits for residents.
There seemed to be a concern among participants that above-inflation rises in living costs
were having a more stark effect on residents with more static incomes; a tenant
representative commented that “year-on-year I watch my residents becoming the new
poor”. However, other people were more keen to opt for a rise if this meant service
improvement; “I’m all for the increase. It’ll allow the council to introduce something new”.
Participants also raised more general issues about the council and its spending, including
issues about population increases in the borough, monitoring of spending and efficiency
(e.g. monitoring external contractors; “no-one looks at the quality of what is delivered –
only the process of delivery”), prioritisation of resources and allocation to the ‘wrong’
areas (specifically not enough money for youth services and crime prevention, leisure for
older people and supporting the vulnerable) and insufficient investment in front line staff
(recruitment, training) resulting in poor customer service standards in some areas.
Comments were also made about the importance of consultation, involvement and
communication. More detail about these areas is given in the next section.
Priority service areas
Participants were then asked to think about their priorities for council spending from the
five service areas forming the basis of the consultation. From a paper-based vote, there
was not a great deal of difference in emphasis between four of the five service areas.
However, people rated children’s services as slightly more important, with youth provision
and community safety felt to be important too by many, and adults’ services not far
behind. Between two and four individuals gave each of these services as their top
priorities. Streets and highways were not felt to be as important overall by voluntary and
community representatives, with nobody nominating this as most important.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 57
In detailed discussions about the priority areas, many people emphasised that all the
service areas were important and people found it difficult to choose and prioritise.
“They are all equally vital”
However, many felt that the issue was not just where does money get spent, but how
wisely is it spent – investing in improving customer relations among staff who deal with the
public was considered crucial, spending on the “front line”, and ensuring continued
efficiency savings:
“All of the areas are emotive issues, and so we want to increase all of them, but can’t
because it will cost too much”
“All areas need money spent on them, but they’ve got to spend it well”
“A lot of money seems to go to officer level, not service provision”
People also felt that it was possible for savings to be delivered through more strategic and
“joined up working”; arguing that the council should invest in linking service areas together
e.g. using the skills of the older population to work with young people, and focusing on
investing money now to save in the future, through spend on young people’s services, for
example:
“Spend on linking adults and young people”
“Invest in developing communities for the future”
“We should invest in areas that can improve Lambeth’s position in the future”
Some people felt that legal requirements may play a large role in determining where
money is spent – e.g. meeting the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Community safety was considered the key priority by one small group during the initial
discussion, largely due to recent high profile serious crime incidents. Fear of crime and
ASB was seen to potentially affect all groups (children, young people, the elderly etc).
Warden schemes were perceived as helpful in terms of increasing a visible ‘police’
presence in the area, but of limited value in tacking serious crime such as drug dealing
and trafficking. Tackling the culture underlying serious crime in a holistic way (e.g. by
deterring young people from involvement in gangs) was considered preferable to
displacing the problem.
“There have been two murders in Kennington just now. It’s mainly being driven by the
drug dealing and gangs”
“There’s a big crime and community safety issue”
“The Warden schemes do a lot of good, bringing greater visibility, but they can’t
eliminate the drug problem”
“They closed the crack houses and they moved on to the streets.”
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 58
Ensuring there is sufficient support for adults with mental health problems was also seen
as a priority for the borough. Some felt there were a disproportionately large number of
people with multiple needs (e.g. mental health issues and homelessness) in Lambeth.
“Maintaining mental and physical health of older people is very important”
Later on in the session, some were concerned that a commitment to closer working
between health and adult social services was missing from the service investment
options.
More broadly (on Adults’ and Community Services) it was felt money would be best spent
on services that enabled vulnerable adults to maintain their independence and be
empowered to make independent choices about their lives.
Two members were concerned about the lack of recreational facilities for the elderly,
comparing Lambeth’s provision with that of Hammersmith, who are ‘excellent’. This
comment precipitated general agreement that Lambeth should help out older people to
prevent them becoming dependent on council services, echoing the comment above
about looking to the future. One member noted that there are events for the elderly e.g.
Celebrating Age, but that these need to be advertised much more effectively.
There was a significant amount of discussion about young people. One person was
concerned that the capacity of the voluntary sector is not utilised enough to provide for
young people. Others felt that young people do not want to use dedicated facilities and
that these facilities can be open to abuse. Also, there was comment that parents’
concerns regarding the future of their teenage children is fuelled by strong competition for
preferred secondary school places in the borough.
Many agreed children’s social services were a priority for Lambeth:
“Many children are out of the family home, with high numbers in care. Without a rise in
the salary of social workers there’s always a danger of a high turnover of people,
which is highly unsettling”
Although it was agreed that streets and highways were less of a priority than the other
service areas (which were seen to impact on people more directly):
“Too much is being spent on streets and highways’ (specifically with regard to road
safety measures such as sleeping policemen)”
Some said that maintenance of the external environment is crucial if people are to have
pride in their area and live as a cohesive community. One had heard of the ‘broken
window project’ in the US where a campaign to fix all the broken windows in a
neighbourhood helped reduce the crime rate dramatically. It was felt that this “broken
window effect” was being played out in Lambeth;
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 59
“If you look at the parking and the street furniture it’s a complete mess. Don’t get rid of
the street lamps for goodness sake”
Finally in this general discussion, participants made comments about the council’s
communication and involvement processes. There was a concern about communicating
with residents through leaflets and letters. It was felt that many in the borough did not read
and write, certainly in specific target groups for services, and therefore cannot become
engaged through this medium.
There were some positive comments expressed about the budget consultation process,
including a feeling that
“It’s good that the council is finally listening to people”
It was felt that it was important to differentiate between different groups when consulting
and involving people. For example, priorities will differ between wards across the borough
– although in some respects people felt this was reflected in the role of ‘area committees’
who help determine priorities for their local area. In the same way, voluntary and
community representatives, such as the participants at this meeting, are likely to prioritise
the area in which they work, so they said it was important to talk to the general public as
well.
There was general agreement that it is important to involve the people who have
knowledge of issues in engagement and decision-making, as these are the ones who can
suggest the most effective solutions to the problems Lambeth residents face.
Detailed budget choices
Members of the group were then asked to take each budget area in turn, and choose the
level of funding they would allocate to each of three suggested items within that budget
area.
Adults’ and community services
People found it hard to discriminate between these three items, but overall would prioritise
a benefits campaign and the Careline service in spending over improving accessibility and
quality of information:
1. …Benefits campaign…. More likely to choose the middle spending option - £225,000
2. Maintaining the Careline service... Choice split between middle and highest spending options (£100,000 and £150,000)
3. Improving the accessibility and quality of information...
Choice split between lowest and middle spending options (£50,000 and £75,000)
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 60
There was a sense here that, while these spend items were all important, the budget
limitations meant that money should be prioritised for other areas. People said that
therefore, here, they had limited their ‘spend’ to maximise effect of their budget in other
areas.
There was a lot of support for service item 1; ensuring benefits uptake. However, a
minority disagreed and felt that if less was spent on communication campaigns then more
could be spent on the services themselves (which were felt to be chronically short of
money).
“It’s very difficult for them to determine what they’re entitled to. Lots of vulnerable
groups, especially older people don’t get the benefits they’re entitled to. The knock on
effects are that they can't pay their council tax or rent, and that reduces the pool of
funds available to the council”
“Make sure the campaign is targeted, ask us what’s effective”
This was seen to be strongly linked with service item 3; improving accessibility and quality
of information. Staff training to ensure accurate information provision was considered
critical, as was information to help vulnerable adults gain employment. People felt that
working with organisations such as CAB will be important to ensure a joined up approach.
“Often it’s because the people running the services themselves don’t know the rules,
they’ve got to make sure the information they give people is accurate”
“Getting people back to work is really important for this group”
Several felt they’d need more information on the role of Careline to make a judgement on
its usefulness, although in scoring it was given the most “votes” for the highest spend
option.
In general across this service area, one member asked if it would be appropriate to use
more voluntary groups in provision. Another emphasised the importance of looking at
mental health issues, and a third mentioned the recreational facilities of pensioners once
again.
Children’s social services
Support for adoption and recruiting of more social workers was seen as more of a priority
for spending than recruiting foster carers overall, although a wide range of views was
displayed on this issue too:
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 61
1. Providing financial support for adopted children…
More likely to choose the highest spending option - £1,025,000
2. Recruiting more foster carers... Split between all spending options of £125,000 to £325,000
3. Recruiting more social workers…
Split between middle and highest spending options and £75,000 to £100,000
Participants generally felt this area was very important to prioritise. The reasons given for
this were that young people are the future of the borough, and that investing now will reap
rewards for Lambeth in the future.
“Definitely an area where I believe more money should be spent”
“It will create a better sustainable service for young people, encourage better pay,
incentives for permanent positions and produce a sense of good relationship with the
service users”
“Better service and staff means young people will have better provision and guidance”
In particular, one member noted the need for better scrutiny for adoptions and fostering to
protect young people, and highlighted the positive effect that investment in this area can
have on the future workforce, bringing benefits to Lambeth’s economy.
Looking at the specific items within this service area, it appeared that many respondents
grudgingly voted for the highest spending option in item 1, because they did not believe
there was an option not to meet service levels deemed insufficient by social care
professionals;
“Surely councillors have a duty to meet legal requirements”
Beyond these comments, however, many respondents had positive views of the scheme,
saying that priority should be given to supporting children at their most vulnerable;
“A child’s care in early years is vital in their future development”
Some felt that if the council ‘scrimped’ on item 1 [providing financial support for adopted
children previously in care] then they would pay the price in terms of increased anti social
behaviour later down the line.
“Half of the prisons are full of ex-children in care, it ends up costing a lot”
There was some disagreement over item 2 (increasing pay of foster carers). A minority
believed ‘commercialising’ foster care could attract the wrong sort of people to the role.
Others agreed that the children’s interests should be paramount, but challenged this by
saying if poor remuneration was leading to high turnover of staff then the children will be
suffering from a lack of continuity. Stability for vulnerable children was considered
paramount to their wellbeing.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 62
“They should do it for the love of children, the money should be irrelevant”
Although the role of social workers was considered critical, several thought the problem
was not numbers but calibre of staff.
“When you look at recruiting more social workers there’s a bigger humanitarian issue
around the quality of the people involved”
“Half of them are short-term agency staff, they won’t invest in the community – do they
want to work here? Will they cause a deficit because they are so expensive?”
There was some discussion around who the term ‘vulnerable children’ applied to. Some
felt there should be some option for a ‘family support unit’ for children who care for their
parents with long-term health conditions. Others agreed and wanted to know what
preventative support measures were in place to stop children going in to care in the first
place;
“What about those families on benefits who need extra support – what role can
something like Sure Start play in all of this?”
Item 3 met with mixed responses, with some members suggesting it would be an
investment in the future, with the scores allocated to the item reflecting this, but others
concerned that just increasing the budget would not necessarily tempt people away from
agency working.
Community safety and crime reduction
The item concerning anti social behaviour was the most popular in this service area,
followed by support to victims of domestic violence:
1. Creating a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour...
Split between middle and highest spending options of £225,000 to £275,000
2. Improving the quality and level of support available to victims of domestic violence…
Split between all spending options of £200,000 to £525,000
3. Ensuring the …clearance of hazardous waste from sex and drugs use.
More likely to choose the middle spending option - £75,000
People were supportive of item 1, with comments such as;
“This will make Lambeth a safer place for everyone”
“Option C (the highest spend) is ideal”
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 63
However, there were caveats and concerns about it too. A number of members
questioned the effectiveness of ASBOs, and one member suggested that the borough
should tackle the root causes of this behaviour;
“What has been the effect of ASB orders in Lambeth?”
“Community activities to occupy people’s time are very important”
One participant wanted Lambeth to scrutinise the current system for delivering ASBOs.
She said that it appears as though the most vocal sections of the community are
successful in applying orders, whereas the areas that really need them don’t have enough
of a voice. Residents do not really know how much of a problem ASB is at the moment. In
terms of reporting ASB, language barriers must be addressed, as must the problems of
transient homing – people aren’t in a local area long enough to do anything about ASB.
Alongside this, several members expressed a desire that ASBOs be used to ”deal with
drug dealers”
Item 2 was felt as being important, but the relatively high amounts in question relative to
other areas meant that people were more equivocal about opting for the higher spending
levels than for item 1.
Item 3 had very little consensus among respondents, with diverse comments;
“Increase to a seven day week would improve (things)”
“There is already a good level of service so (this is) not (the) highest priority”
“Only a five day-a-week service needed”
Many felt that it was better to tackle the cause of the problem (e.g. drug use) rather than
just the ‘clear-up’ this could be achieved by ensuring the council social services and the
local health authorities are working together better.
In more general terms, some group members felt that ”community safety needs to be looked at in great detail”. Some felt that more serious crime could only tackled by police and that central government had to create a more joined up strategy for tackling ASB nation wide. Another participant felt that the council is stretched where policing is needed, but money could be spent on being able to report crime by email rather than attending the station. She also suggested that Victim Support need more funding to look after their victims.
Streets and highways
Of all the streets and highways proposals, Street Watch would be prioritised but the
amounts that participants wanted to spend on these areas were low overall:
1. Improving the current street patrolling Split between lowest and highest spending
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 64
service by piloting ‘Street Watch’… options of £50,000 to £150,000
2. Increasing the frequency of street cleansing in retail areas
More likely to choose the lowest spending option - £200,000
3. Investing in a strategy to increase recycling…
More likely to choose the lowest spending option - £250,000
There was a fairly strong consensus that this should not be a budget priority for Lambeth,
and so participants did not focus greatly on this area.
Item 1 – Street Watch - was met with relative disinterest, with respondents suggesting that
it might be just window-dressing, and that the council should instead;
“…just get on with current provision”
However, on a positive note, one participant commented that community safety and crime
reduction need to go hand in hand with improvements to the streets and other public
areas;
“If you want people to have pride in their community it needs to be improved. It gets
people involved if they see their area looking better”
Item 2 was viewed in a similar light, with comments that the current spending level was
sufficient, but that the money should be spent more wisely;
“Already a good level of provision”
“Better run service rather than more money”
“Just make sure the job is done right the first time”
One respondent queried the focus on retail areas only.
Respondents were also wary of item 3, because of a concern that the council ensures that
the current provision is successful first before taking further action;
“Need to ensure council gets the trial right before it expands”
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 65
Youth provision
There was enthusiasm among the group for item 1 here – a Youth Cabinet – relative to
the other two items, although the others were still seen as important:
1. Working with the Lambeth Youth Council to create a youth cabinet…
Split between middle and highest spending options of £125,000 to £150,000
2. Increasing the provision of facilities for young people across the borough…
Split between lowest and highest spending options of £700,000 to £1,200,000
3. Providing better access to effective support for young people who are…vulnerable…
More likely to choose the highest spending option - £350,000 although many people did
not vote at all
A number of members suggested the highest spending option for item 1 because it is
more comprehensive, and because it involves young people in decision-making,
suggesting that;
“[It] releases the power of youth to make their own decisions”
“We have to do all we can to develop our youth”
There was also a sense that the scheme would be good at promoting positive role models
and youth leaders. However, there was some disagreement here, because it was
suggested that youth participation schemes involve only articulate young people. These
aren’t the ones who are the real problem, it was felt, and so the scheme would not
effectively address vulnerable members of the community.
Item 2 was met with general approval by respondents, both because of the impact
investment here would have on reducing the demands on other budgets (such as social
services), and because this is
“…activity that broadens young people’s horizons. Engaging in activity will enable
young people”
Similarly, there was a suggestion that item 3 is also very important, echoing the general
feeling that Lambeth needs to invest in the future;
“We need to support vulnerable young people because they will be the ones who
might be a burden in the future”
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 66
Stakeholder discussion – Youth Council
OPM were present at a session of the Lambeth Youth Council meeting in mid November
2006. Following a general warm up session about members’ reactions to living in
Lambeth, people at the meeting were asked to consider information and plans about the
council’s budget for 2007-2008, looking at priority areas from the five service areas of
adults’ and children’s social services, community safety, youth services and streets and
highways, and then specifically focusing on community safety and youth provision, as
these were the areas that had been identified in the consultation to that point as being
priorities for Lambeth residents.
Initial views – living in Lambeth – good bad and lacking
People were first asked to discuss among themselves what was good, bad and lacking
about living in Lambeth.
Young people praised facilities and support for youth, the culture and diversity of the area
and facilities/amenities in general:
“Loads more volunteer projects available for young people “
“Lots of black youth getting involved in youth projects”
“Lots of different cultures”
“Central location – good for transportation”
“Commons and parks”
“More money is being given to Lambeth”
Bad points centred on crime and community safety, particularly concerning young people
as perpetrators and victims and relationships with the police, concerns about Lambeth
Council and their relationship with young people and lack of facilities and support for
particular service areas and groups in the borough:
“Too many people dying, or getting stabbed or shot”
“Harassment by the boys in blue”
“Black on black crime”
“Lack of communication from councillors because they don’t communicate with the
Youth Council”
“Consultation with young people”
“Council staff are incompetent”
“Communicating actually what’s happening”
“Lack of leisure facilities and access to sporting opportunities”
“Lack of jobs”
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 67
“16-19 education is free. After 19 you have to pay. This restricts access. You don’t
always know what you want to study when you leave school”
“Not enough schools”
“Conditions of estates”
“Too many young pregnancies”
Reflecting these views, people thought that support and development for young people
were lacking, along with specific services:
“Lacking facilities for specific age groups”
“Provisions for young people”
“Round the clock support”
“Teachers and leaders of understanding”
“Real role models”
“Publicity about agencies and events to help young people”
“Recognition for young people”
“Respect”
“Education spaces”
“Good public space”
“Childcare”
“Jobs”
Priority service areas
Youth Council members then worked in small groups to discuss their priority service areas
from the five choices below. People looked through and discussed the service areas and
assessed through discussion how important they felt they were. Community safety/crime
reduction and youth provision were seen as the most important overall, and closely linked
(“people need to feel safe where they live; safety and crime come hand in hand with
youth”), with streets and highways being given a low priority (“not that important, the way
the streets look (does) not help the community as such”). Adults’ social services were
thought to be relatively less important than children’s.
Detailed budget comments
Participants were then asked to talk about youth services and community safety in more
detail. People felt that the approaches to community safety seemed quite reactive; there
needed to be more positive preventative measures in place. In particular, people did not
like the emphasis on anti-social behaviour. They did not feel that it works; “spending
£175k on ASB? How are you going to prevent it; too much attention being spent on the
importance of ASBOs but it has been noted that ASBOs are not effective”. They felt there
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 68
was a need for peer support, role models and mentors in tackling the causes of anti social
behaviour. One person talked about a scheme they had heard about in Brent where
young people could shadow the work of police in Brent – they felt this would help build a
good relationship between them.
On youth services, one person said that if there was a youth cabinet it should mirror the
structure of the council cabinet. The facilities that are currently being provided for young
people generally are not being used by the type of people they need to attract i.e. youth
on the verge of crime. They felt that young people need to be educated about the benefits
of using the facilities. People felt there might be a need for a “friendly youth one stop
shop…all the services in one place”.
One idea that they felt was missing from the policy proposal was capitalising on the
Olympics; “the Olympics is a real opportunity to give young people a real goal. Why is
Lambeth not getting involved in these opportunities?”
Closing comments
One person felt that Lambeth need to concentrate on adult services; “or the youth will just
be messed up”; the thought here is that offering better youth provision may be a useful
distraction for many young people, but the real difficulties they face are in their home
environment. If their parents are given the support they need this could improve their
home environment – this might take the form of providing job search support, and
providing access to better housing.
To round up, people were asked about their top priorities for Lambeth’s spending in the
coming year. Comments concerned the following:
• integrating the Youth Opportunity Fund with the Youth Council,
• the importance of role modelling and mentoring; “someone who has been through
what I have been through”; they felt that this would help people to open up and really
talk about what troubles them. One person felt that ex-offenders could be employed
as mentors; “this would kill two birds with one stone”; i.e. provide the ex-offender with
a future, and help steer young people away from crime
• accessing ‘ hard to reach’ young people; “the people who these proposals are really
affecting” and feeding back decisions on the budget process to people; “say it raw,
don’t use fancy language…just start to deliver”
• feedback; “let us feel like what we’ve said has been taken on-board”
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 69
Business interviews
Sample profile
As shown in the table below, of the 40 businesses who participated, four in ten (43%)
were retail businesses. The other half included business and professional services (23%);
leisure and hospitality (18%); motor trades and construction (10%); public and personnel
(3%) and other (5%).
All the businesses were relatively small, with all except one having less than 25
employees.
Sample Profile
Number of respondents
N
Sample
profile %
All respondents 40 100
Business type
Retail 17 43
Business and professional 9 23
Public and personnel 1 3
Leisure and hospitality 7 18
Motor trades and construction 4 10
Other 2 5
Number of employees
1-2 3 8
3-5 21 53
6-10 12 30
11-24 3 8
25+ 1 3
Questions: B2, Base: 40
Initial views – Lambeth’s budget
At the beginning of each interview it was emphasised that the questions to be asked were
not about the business rates that respondents pay but about the council tax that residents
pay and therefore the effect this has on services in the borough generally.
The survey began by asking respondents to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a
set of statements regarding the current quality of Lambeth’s financial management and
reporting.
As outlined below, businesses we talked with held a variety of opinion with large
proportions (30% and over) of respondents saying that they neither agreed nor disagreed
with the statements listed or that they did not know whether they agreed or disagreed.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 70
Nevertheless, three in ten participants agree that Lambeth provides better value for
money than one year ago (30%); that Lambeth Council has the right level of council tax
relative to other councils (38%); and that Lambeth Council provides good value for money
(35%). A quarter of respondents agree that Lambeth Council provides enough information
to residents about its financial performance and management (25%) and around two in
ten that Lambeth Council shows good financial management (18%).
Lambeth’s finances
Lambeth Council provides good value for money for the council tax
that residents pay
Lambeth council provides better value for money compared to a year
ago
Lambeth council shows good financial management
Lambeth council provides enough information to residents about its
financial performance and management
Lambeth council has the right level of
council tax - relative to other councils
Disagree
33%
33%
30%
Agree
Net agree /
disagree
36%
31%25%
18%
26%
38%18%
3%
6%
-15%
-4%
20%
Questions: Q1A-E, Base: 40
‘The size of the cake’: future council tax levels
Those surveyed were then given a list of options relating to possible changes to the
amount of council tax in the next year. These increases were presented along with
descriptions of related increases or decreases in service levels. Respondents were asked
to specify which option they would prefer.
As illustrated in the table below there was, again, a lack of agreement about which option
would be preferred. Over half (55%) of respondents were in favour of a raise of some kind
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 71
although fifteen percent of those surveyed proposed a rise lower than the rate of inflation
which would still require cuts in services.
Just under a fifth (18%) of businesses interviewed would prefer no council tax rise with
significant cuts in services, with around a quarter (28%) saying they did not know.
Next year’s council tax
Don't know, 28%
No council tax
increase with
significant cuts,
18%
A rise in council
tax above the
level of inflation,
13%
A rise in council
tax in line with
inflation, 28%
Selected cuts and
a lower council tax
increase, 15%
Questions: Q2, Base: 40
Interestingly when presented with the actual figures relating to the options outlined above,
the number of respondents who opted for no increase almost trebled increasing from 18%
to 53%.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 72
Next year’s council tax
Don't Know, 3%
No increase, 53%
Three per cent
increase, 25%
Four per cent
increase, 13%
Five per cent
increase, 8%
Questions: Q3, Base:40
‘Relative sizes of the pieces of cake’: priority service areas
People we talked with were then given an outline of the five different service areas that
the council is considering spending more money on next year. Respondents were asked
to indicate where in their opinion spending should be prioritised and asked to choose
which service area they felt should be the first, second and third most important for
Lambeth’s spending next year.
As illustrated in this chart, overall respondents indicated that ‘community safety and crime
reduction’ was the most important service area with the vast majority (85%) choosing this
area as one of the top three and a third (33%) choosing it as the most important priority.
Six in ten (60%) respondents said that children’s social services should be one of the top
three priorities, with a third (33%) choosing it as the top priority area. Overall, a broadly
similar proportion (63%) said that youth provision should be one of the top three priorities
however only fifteen per cent said that this area was the top priority.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 73
Spending priorities
10%
10%
33%
15%
33%
13%
15%
13%
23%
38%
15%
25%
20%
15%
25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Adults social services
Streets and highways
Children's social services
Youth provision
Community safety and crime
reduction
% of respondents
First priority Second priority Third priority
Questions: Q4A,Q4B,Q4C, Base: 40
Respondents were also asked to choose which area would be their least important
spending priority. Four in ten (40%) said ‘streets and highways’ would be their least
important spending area and just over this (45%) said adult social services.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 74
‘What each slice is made from’: Focus on specific service proposals
Finally, businesses who were interviewed were presented with three specific service
proposals under each of the five service areas discussed, regardless of the service areas
they had prioritised. Each of those surveyed were asked to say which of three specific
proposals, under each service area, they would choose as a priority.
In adult social services, over two-thirds (68%) of respondents said that if they had to
choose ‘maintaining the Careline service…’ would be their top priority compared with the
other proposals in this service area.
As shown in the table below, just less than a quarter (23%) would choose ‘a campaign to
ensure that Lambeth residents are receiving all the benefits they are entitled to…’ as their
top priority. Only 8% would choose ‘improving the accessibility and quality of information
…’
Specific service proposals in adult social services
%
Maintaining the Careline service… 68
…Benefits campaign… 23
Improving accessibility and quality of information… 8
None of these / Don’t know 3
Question: Q8, Base: 40
As noted above children’s social services was one of the respondents’ priority services
areas. When asked about specific proposals under children’s social services (below), half
of (50%) respondents prioritised ‘financial support for adopted children…’; more than two
in ten (23%) would prioritise the ‘recruitment of more social workers…’; with two in ten
(20%) prioritising the ‘recruitment of more foster carers…’ if they had to choose.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 75
Specific service proposals in children’s social services
%
Financial support for adopted children…
50
Recruitment of more social workers…
23
Recruitment of more foster carers…
20
None of these / Don’t know 8
Question: Q9, Base: 40
When presented with specific service proposals under youth provision, as shown here,
over half (53%) of respondents said they would choose to ‘increase the availability
of…activities for young people…’ as a priority compared to the other proposals in this
service area. A quarter (25%) would prioritise ‘giving young people the opportunity to
participate in decisions that affect them’ and a smaller proportion again (15%) would
choose ‘providing better access to effective support for young people who
are…vulnerable…’.
Specific service proposals in youth provision
%
Increase the availability of … activities for young
people …
53
Give young people the opportunity to participate… 25
Provide … support for young people who are
…vulnerable…
15
None of these / Don’t know 8
Question: Q10, Base: 40
Again, as outlined above, the majority of survey participants said that community safety
and crime reduction was a key priority. When asked which of three specific service
proposals they would prioritise if they had to choose, nearly three fifths (58%) said their
priority would be ‘the creation of a dedicated team to reduce anti-social behaviour in the
borough…’. Two in ten (20%) would prioritise ‘improving the quality and level of support
available to victims of domestic violence…’ and 18% per cent would choose ‘ensuring the
continuation of the … clearance of hazardous waste from sex and drugs use.’
Specific service proposals in community safety and crime reduction
%
The creation of a dedicated team to reduce anti-social
behaviour in the borough
58
Improve the quality and level of support available to
victims of domestic violence …
20
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 76
Ensuring the continuation of … clearance of
hazardous waste from sex and drugs use.
18
None of these / Don’t know 5
Question: Q11, Base: 40
Finally, when presented with specific service proposals under streets and highways, if
they had to choose, over four in ten (45%) of respondents stated that they would prioritise
‘…piloting the "street watch" initiative..’. Three in ten (30%) respondents chose ‘an
increase in the frequency of street cleansing…’ and two in ten (20%) would prioritise
‘running a pilot of door to door recycling collections …’.
Specific service proposals in street and highways
%
…piloting the ‘street watch’ initiative… 45
An increase in the frequency of street cleansing 30
Running a pilot of door to door recycling collections
from flats…
20
None of these / Don’t know 5
Question: Q12, Base: 40
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 77
5. Focus groups – young people
Two focus groups were convened with young people, one in mid November and the
second in early December. Twenty four people were involved in these sessions. People
who attended were between 13 and 15 years of age. The structure of the discussions
was similar to the Youth Council session. Readers of this section should bear in mind that
suggestions and comments from young people are likely to reflect the location of the
meetings.
Initial views – living in Lambeth – good bad and lacking
Participants were asked to think about living in Lambeth; the good and bad points, and
what was missing from the area. Young people praised facilities and amenities,
particularly shops, transport and the community feel to living in the area, with people
thinking it was a good place to meet and socialise;
“It’s easy to make friends here”
Looking at specifics, a good proportion of people used youth facilities fairly regularly;
these were thought to be a positive thing about living in Lambeth, although most agreed
there should be more of them. Green spaces were seen as a big asset for the borough
(e.g. Clapham Common) although it was noted the quality of facilities on offer at parks
across the borough varied. A minority had noticed more road signs to help pedestrians
and help prevent accidents.
As might have been expected in a session of this type, and as we have found in other
similar work, people were more likely to highlight the bad things about living in Lambeth.
These included the following issues:
• crime, fear of crime and intimidation;
• lack of community cohesion (including evidence of discrimination against particular
groups, and homeless and drug problems exacerbating existing community problems),
• changing nature of the area,
• a lack of activities, leisure and health facilities such as hospitals;
• environmental concerns in streets and social housing (especially flats and estates);
pollution, noise, traffic, graffiti etc.
Fears around crime included mentions of gun crime and bullying, and concern that young
people, especially young black men, were victimised by the police. Some people felt that
the police were better at harassing them than protecting them and felt that there should be
fewer police because of this (although others strongly disagreed with this):
“There are too many police - you feel intimidated – they’re always on your case”
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 78
“Just because of the colour of my skin and because I wear a hood or whatever”
“They stop and search you for no reason. It’s like you’ve done something when you
haven’t”
“You can’t get rid of police – who’s gonna help you if you get burgled”
“Less crime because it gives Lambeth a bad reputation”
Others mentioned anti social behaviour and intimidation on the streets of the borough,
which some saw as a “by product” of drug abuse and street homelessness:
“I just walk away but they ask you for drugs or ask you for money”
“Less drunks, less psychopaths”
A vocal minority thought there were too many gay people in Lambeth and that some of the
local gay clubs such as the Kasbah should be shut down. Despite being challenged on
this they maintained this was a bad thing about the area.
Participants felt that activities and facilities for young people were lacking, along with
protection for citizens and crime prevention, respect for young people from elders and
authority and regular and reliable bus transport (considered important for young people to
travel around independently).
Youth facilities were thought to be a priority across the borough and not just in particular
places:
“You have to travel around the borough if you want to do different things (e.g. use a
football cage”)
“More local adventure grounds, more sports equipment, more activities for us to do, a
football cage in Clapham Manor estate, a youth club, swimming pool & Odeon on SE1
or SE11, more better shops, cleaner, Lido.”
“More green land to play football, more play grounds”
“Clapham Common should have a graffiti wall too”
Priority service areas
Asked which of the five service areas they would identify as a priority, participants were
more likely to assign a high priority to youth services and children’s social services.
Reflecting earlier concerns and comments, youth facilities were seen to be particularly
important for this age group as:
• it affects ‘us’
• the perception that ‘there’s nothing to do’ (although a minority challenged this)
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 79
“Yeah youth because there’s nothing to do”
There was a sense among a significant number of people that children’s social services
should be a top priority as they are one of the most vulnerable groups in society and if
people get a ‘good start in life’ problems are less likely to happen later on:
“The little kids are the most important …you don’t want them to end up a crack head or
nothing”
“Because they are most vulnerable… more than like people our age”
“Some parents are abusive”
Community safety and crime were also areas of concern, thinking in particular about:
• people (especially young people) carrying weapons such as knives and guns more
often than in the past
• higher incidents of muggings (of which young people are often the victims)
Again there was the perception among some that boys or young men are more likely to be
involved in and affected by crime than girls – similarly they’re more likely to get picked on
by the police as ‘trouble makers’. It was thought the police should do more to protect
young people rather than target them:
“’Cos of all of the guns and knives and stuff, thinking it’s the style and everything”
“Quite a lot of people our age get mugged – it’s worse for boys”
“I got mugged on the way home from school. I know people who’ve been beaten up”
As mentioned above, relations between young people and the police were not considered
good – leading for some in the group to call for fewer police on the streets.
People recognised a link between youth services and community safety (for example that
some young people were perpetrators of crime linked to the lack of activities for young
people, and others were victims).
A minority thought adults and community services were important if they would improve
the quality of life of elderly people (though generally this wasn’t a priority):
“Like with old people the carers don’t treat them right – they get cold food and stuff”
Although some called for cleaner streets as part of the mapping exercise, streets and
highway services were not considered a top priority. Some also thought graffiti was a
good thing if it was done well, so cleaning this up should not be a priority activity. Some
thought putting lots of money into clearing waste up would act as a disincentive for being
clean and tidy in the first place.
Lambeth’s budget choices
OPM page 80
Detailed budget choices
Participants were asked what they thought of specific spending proposals that Lambeth
had for the two areas of youth services and community safety (chosen as these had been
priorities for the young people themselves and in earlier consultation). The group talked a
lot about youth provision, identifying some general principles for services including:
• better all round provision
• more ‘wrap-around’ services after school, at weekends and holidays,
• more subsidised trips,
• provision for all young people (not just the disadvantaged or those in particular areas);
• separate provision for different age groups,
• better advertising/awareness of existing activities,
• places to ‘hang out’,
• more sports and music, catering to all young people’s interests,
• extend leisure activities traditionally exclusive to adults, e.g. such as gyms and night
clubs
• better service within existing facilities open to young people
Specific comments and suggestions included:
“Make the basketball courts nicer. Supervision. Drink machine on basketball courts”
“Football pitch. Trips. Activities for us to do. Swimming pool. ICT rooms”
“Ping Pong. Lido. Football pitch”
“We want an outside swimming pool and heated inside pool”
“More youth clubs ‘cos there somewhere to go after school”
“A youth club – every Friday 6pm-9pm, Clapham. Activities and fun – snooker,