RMBC admitting its cuts may increase homelessness!

From the papers to be discussed at the Borough's Townships next week:

The Council currently commissions a range of services for homeless people, or those at

risk of becoming homeless, through Voluntary Sector grants.

- 33 -

The proposal is to save £300k as phased reduction over 2 years. Grants would be

reduced by 25% in 2013-14 and 75% in 2012-15.

A review of the services provided will be carried out in 2013-14. Any reduction in 2012-

15 will be subject to the outcome of this review.



General Impact

The services offer opportunities and activities to support the Council in promoting healthy

lifestyles, prevent harm caused by drugs and alcohol, assist with the transition from

unemployment to jobs and to prevent people from becoming homeless.

Impact on Service Users

The reduction in funding in 2013-14 may have a detrimental effect upon the range of

services and activities that can be provided and may impact on their ability to enable

people at risk of homelessness to sustain independence and to achieve improved

lifestyles.

The proposal may result in greater numbers of people accessing critical and statutory

services and people sleeping rough in the Borough.

Rochdale Council forked out £100,000 for a free concert whilst imposing these cuts - no conscience and no sense of priority.

Well it brought lots of people into the town centre for a day or two - there you go, how to revive the town centre Rochdale Council/TCM style, spend £100,000 a weekend!

I'll speculate if it they had to choose between a relative living on the streets and a free concert they would quickly change their tune.

No money to help the homeless yet money available for opening the river. I do not know if I fully agree with the opening of the river yet, but still find it rather odd they have no money but can find money to discuss projects like this. Seem able to find money from somewhere when it suits the politicians. Funny when they can find money when they want to.

How many times do you need to be told that the vast majority, if not all the money for opening up the river will come from other sources? The opening up of the river ,should have no negative financial effects on budgets.

Also if it works out well, the opening up of the river could help the town bring in more people into the town centre, spending money.

It is a bad policy to reduce money on spending on homelessness. This is because it will end up costing more than it saves, in monetary terms as well as causing so much human pain .

Whatever.

A very rude reply to someone correcting you, Teamplayer.

Chill-Out came about because decisions had been taken to make cuts and changes to homelessness provision which were having a very negative effect and (it was believed) were putting lives at risk. HeywoodPP and others tried endlessly to raise their concerns but their voices had been ignored.

'The Chill-Out' was a way to get RMBC to listen. It worked. RMBC listened and made some positive changes. The homelessness changes that were made as a result were not perfect but they were an improvement on what was in place before.

Since then circumstances have changed greatly. The Government imposed cuts and changes to the way housing benefits are calculated and paid is going to have a huge impact locally and homelessness will increase. RMBC and others will need to ensure that they have strong, flexible and caring policies in place to cope effectively with these massive changes whilst at the same time funding from central Government is being viciously slashed to the bone.

This has brought about the need for a full review of homelessness policies within the Borough, covering those who are homeless as well as those who are vulnerably housed and at risk of homelessness. Chill-Out has been offered a chair at the table and an opportunity to voice concerns as well as have an impact on the way the new policies are drawn up.

The way Local Government is funded means that there is often very strict criteria in place governing how any monies are spent. This means that if RMBC receives monies to open the river it must be spent on exactly that or go back to whence it came. It is not always possible to rob Peter to pay Paul. With the limitations in place Chill-Out can only do its best to ensure that whatever budget is available is allocated in the best way possible to serve the needs of those on the sticky end of these cuts and that any services are properly thought through and delivered with care to the highest standard possible. To this end Pete and I have agreed to take part on behalf of Chill-Out. Fingers crossed we can help make a difference for the benefit of some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Very well said Spartacus. Good to see you and Pete will be at the table.

It's truly awful that authorities like Rochdale who have the biggest problems are having the biggest cuts.

J wrote:A very rude reply to someone correcting you, Teamplayer.

I get used to it, "J".

The reply below from Spartacus explains in the final paragraph why the opening up of the bridge will not effect the overall budget. But some will still say that opening up the bridge is going to lead to homelessness and other cuts.

Might I simply suggest that the review should address one simple question: the report says that the cuts of £300k 'may' have a detrimental effect on the most vulnerable; let the review see whether that 'may' is likely or not. If it is likely that the cuts of £300k WILL result in more people sleeping rough and the axing of the kind of services mentioned, then councillors should NOT vote in favour of those cuts but find the savings elsewhere.

The cuts made so far have had a detrimental effect on the vulnerable. I can tell you that the number of rough sleepers in Heywood has gone up given that there is no effective 'Rough Sleeper Service' left; the number of needy families we help has gone up. We are trying to do something about it and work with RMBC to provide whatever provision we can. However I feel like the Hebrews in Egypt at the beginning of the Book of Exodus - by adding cut to cut, RMBC is like the Pharoah first of all asking us to build a new way of providing, but then taking away the bricks and then taking away even the straw to make the bricks.

You can't run a Borough-wide homelessness service on Hail, Marys, RMBC! I think there should be a moratorium on cuts to care for the needy until after a review. At the moment they are proposing more cuts regardless.

I agree with what you say, Cllr Duxbury.

But at the end of the day RMBC are proposing tO cut services by £300 000. That is their proposal and it will be their decision. It would help if we knew what alternatives were considered? Is there, for example, a painting languishing in a basement that could be sold? Given that we have no Mayor in Heywood, why not sell the Heywood Mayoress' chain?

I am against the selling of our heritage BUT when a report from RMBC asks members to support cuts that it admits may well increase in more rough sleepers, then what are the alternatives?

I do believe that their are RMBC voices that see the council and voluntary sector working together for the vulnerable. The danger is that at this rate there will be no council provision left and it will all be left to the voluntary sector which, without council support, will be unable to cope!

Well yourself and Sparks tried your best and no one can ask anymore of you. Just be proud of yourselves on what you have tried to do but it is the cutbacks and an heartless Tory/Lib coalition that seems to beat everyone at the moment and getting worse. Until we get a government with a lot more heart and caring everyone is going to keep losing.

It is obvious the Toffs in charge do not care.

Heywoodpp wrote:Might I simply suggest that the review should address one simple question: the report says that the cuts of £300k 'may' have a detrimental effect on the most vulnerable; let the review see whether that 'may' is likely or not. If it is likely that the cuts of £300k WILL result in more people sleeping rough and the axing of the kind of services mentioned, then councillors should NOT vote in favour of those cuts but find the savings elsewhere.

I do not disagree with you, HeywoodPP. I have not doubt whatsoever that cuts of £300k will be felt and will effect the provision provided for the homeless and those at risk and agree that if at all possible the money should be found elsewhere.

However, the practicalities are that RMBC have had their income cut by the Government and must cut their cloth to fit. Like yourself, I would much rather see well-dressed departments being given a boiler suit rather than a shroud being run up for the more vulnerable members of our communities. Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of the income RMBC receives is "ring fenced" and it is not possible to move it from one area to another. That being the case RMBC has to deal with the fact there is only X amount of money in the pot which can be spent in this area and Z amount required to provide what they are providing now. If they have not got the money they simply cannot spend it. It is the same dilemma being faced by the millions of us in the UK who are struggling to make ends meet .

I'm not defending it or saying it's right just trying to say it as it is. The Government and global economy is playing the tune we are all being forced to dance to -- with exception of the stinking rich.

Heywoodpp wrote:The cuts made so far have had a detrimental effect on the vulnerable. I can tell you that the number of rough sleepers in Heywood has gone up given that there is no effective 'Rough Sleeper Service' left; the number of needy families we help has gone up. We are trying to do something about it and work with RMBC to provide whatever provision we can. However I feel like the Hebrews in Egypt at the beginning of the Book of Exodus - by adding cut to cut, RMBC is like the Pharoah first of all asking us to build a new way of providing, but then taking away the bricks and then taking away even the straw to make the bricks.

You can't run a Borough-wide homelessness service on Hail, Marys, RMBC! I think there should be a moratorium on cuts to care for the needy until after a review. At the moment they are proposing more cuts regardless.

Again, I do not disagree. I would love to see the needy placed at the top of the list where they rightly should be. However, as per my previous comment, it is not as though RMBC have the money in their pockets and can hold on to it until after a review. They simply do not have the money. If someone out there knows otherwise please do point in the direction where it can be found.

RMBC have recognised (as most people will) the dire measures they are being forced to take will have consequences. I wish there were some rabbits to be pulled out of the hat. I suppose I can keep on wishing but sadly at this moment I am not too optimistic.

Like Councillor Duxbury I am speaking here as an individual rather than as a member of Chill-Out.

Sparks, surely you are not uncritically swallowing the RMBC line that so much is ring fenced that they can't find £300 000 to avoid these cuts? Yes much of their income is ring fenced but surely not all of it? Surely not even half of it?

What's needed, surely, is both to find ways of plugging the gaps that are emerging in services AND vigorously to oppose the cuts both in funding from central government and in the way local government chooses to apportion those cuts?

Heywoodpp wrote:Sparks, surely you are not uncritically swallowing the RMBC line that so much is ring fenced that they can't find £300 000 to avoid these cuts? Yes much of their income is ring fenced but surely not all of it? Surely not even half of it?

Not at all, I thought you might have known me better than that from your involvement with Chill-Out.

I'm just stating that I recognise it is not so easy to move monies around.

Spartacus wrote:

I'm just stating that I recognise it is not so easy to move monies around.

Spartacus:

It's not that easy, but Virement is no stranger to "local" funding and ways of operating budgets.

The omnipresent DELEGATED POWERS exists for Executive-level RMBC officers and, while some may consider prior usage might have been for subjective personal interests, (what a rumour mill this town has!) I very much doubt that criticism would result from such spend on the most vulnerable.

Ring Fences 'speak' sounds a bit like council Alley Gates ... very much subject to local circs, evidenced social needs and duties of care.