4 th June 2007 Tom Smith and Stefan Noble

1. Appendix 3Needs Measurement to Support London Councils’ Funding ProgrammeOxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) 4th June 2007 Tom Smith and Stefan Noble

2. Background • £28M grants budget to support London voluntary sector • Currently based on commissioning process • Proposed move to prioritise commissioning process based on evidence of need • OCSI commissioned to develop model for identifying level of relative needs for Boroughs (Mar 06) • Health warnings: • Identifying needs not an exact science – always a trade-off between (real world) priorities • With any (re)allocation there will always be winners and losers • Methodology and indicators developed provide a robust measure of need for allocating resources under funding priorities

3. The process

4. Final methodology • Proposed allocations based on relative levels of need • Provide target for commissioning • Help ensure that overall benefit to the boroughs matches needs • “Need” based on Borough “share” of London-wide population indicators • Population indicators matched to service priorities (Leaders Group decisions) • Report highlights indicators under each service priority • An example might be instructive …

5. Final methodology - example • Children & Young People theme has service:“Improve educational attainment of disadvantaged children and young people” = £580,000 funding • Key indicators = “LEA pupils not receiving 5+ A*-C GCSEs” and “LEA pupils eligible for Free School Meals“ • Relative needs based on no. of these pupils resident in each Borough, as proportion of all such pupils in London • Target service allocations for each Borough are based on relative needs

6. Issues from consultation - ACA • Highlighted as major concern by many respondents • But, model is based on Borough residents not service location • Users of Inner London services may come from Outer London • In this case, these residents should also benefit from the ACA • Cannot simply apply the ACA to proposed target allocations at Borough level • Should consider including ACA at ‘Benefit to Borough’ calculation stage • Service funding would be downweighted by the ACA to identify benefit to Borough residents

7. Consultation issues / responses • Model is based on Borough residents not service location • Recommend an initial probationary period (damping) • Population size used, rather than population rates • Don’t include direct deprivation measures (but model correlates well with IMD 2004)

8. Who gets what? • Proposed target allocations range from £1,278,000 for Newham, to £46,500 for City of London

9. Proposed target allocations • Blue = largest allocations; yellow = smallest allocations

10. Borough allocation targets per head

11. Proposed target allocations per head • Blue = largest allocations; yellow = smallest allocations

12. Allocations show clear (and sensible) deprivation and population patterns • A trade-off between (disadvantaged and at -risk) population size and deprivation levels • Boroughs with large (disadvantaged) populations receive larger proposed target allocations than Boroughs with small populations • Boroughs with the highest levels of deprivation receive the highest proposed target allocation per head • Boroughs with the lowest levels of deprivation receive the lowest proposed target allocations per head

13. How do allocations vary with the IMD?

14. How do allocations vary with deprivation and population ?

15. Summing up • Evidence on need provides a “target” for commissioning • Identifies those Boroughs with large at-risk groups • Annual evaluation needed to highlight (mis)match between needs and benefit to the Boroughs • The model does not incorporate “delivery” issues: • Not included ACA, but should be considered during Benefit to Borough calculation stage • Not assessed policy of funding only the “top” Boroughs