Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ...
Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ... Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ...
9.4.3 Current/future costsCurrent/future costsThe spend over the three years of the programme is profiled as follows:REVENUE2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total costsApp Propos Appr Prop App Prop Appr PropalVaribud£’000budg£’00bud£’00budg£’00£’00Costs 1,6ExternalfundingChargingincomeTOTAL-653-16062,1 2,0- -1,5 4,2 4,2 -2054- - 0- -1,0 0 -20 -20Table 10 -953 0 -95 0Budget carry forwardThe proposed budget carry forward, based on indicative costs and project funding totals is:£1.048m under-spend in 2012/13 and 2012/14 to offset an over-spend of £1.028m in 2014/15.9.4.4 Savings, value for moneySavings, value for moneyDemonstrate how the proposal achieves savings and how these will be realised.options considered and how the route chosen achieves best value for money.Show otherThe interventions will be focused on a cohort who cost the council significant sums in relation toLooked After Children’s care costs, anti-social behaviour enforcement and eviction. Thehypothesis is that the interventions will impact on these outcomes as well as the CLG ones.The cohort will be tracked for impact on these wider benefits.Page 301
Identify any risks and opportunities arising from the proposal and how these will be mitigated andexploited. Consider any optimism bias within the proposals and how customerbehaviour/demand may be impacted.The PBR risks are mitigated by the budget only including the attachment fees which are moresecure. The benefits of the programme will be agreed and tracked from the outset so that ifelements are successful they can be extended or conversely decommissioned where theyare not.9.4.5 Other technical and commercial decisionsOther technical & commercial considerationsAre there any tax and accounting implications relating to this recommendation? If so, pleaseexplain.NoneAre there any complexities around the commercial structuring of the project, e.g. loans, leases,asset ownership etc. Are there any unusual aspects, e.g. foreign currency payments? If so,please explain.NoneFor larger value items seek advice from your Business Partner on calculating cash flow, pay backperiods and net present value of the proposals.Not applicable10. CONSULTATION10.1 Ward Members have not been consulted as the proposals are not ward specific at thisstage. A comprehensive group of interested tri – borough statutory and providerorganisations have been consulted. There has also been engagement with the twolocal neighbourhood community budget areas in White City and Queen’s Park.Local Governmant Act 1972Background papers used in the preparation of this reportCabinet member decision report, July 2012, Troubled Families - developing andimplementing a Tri-borough approachEvaluation of staff and parents’ experiences of the Westminster City Council ‘Work FocussedServices in Children’s Centres’ Pilot, completed in September and October 2010Local Authority Child Poverty Innovation Pilots Evaluation: Final Synthesis Report, GHKConsulting/DfE, 2011Page 302
- Page 256 and 257: Page 251Disabled Children’sTeamFo
- Page 258 and 259: Page 253and AlcoholService (CDAS)CN
- Page 260 and 261: Page 255borough. However, wedo moni
- Page 262 and 263: able to provide greater evidence in
- Page 264 and 265: 21%Organisational Profile of applic
- Page 266 and 267: Review of participation data and qu
- Page 268 and 269: New and Discontinued CPP 2005-20128
- Page 270 and 271: • There continues to be high numb
- Page 272 and 273: 4.66 Removals from CP PlansDe-regis
- Page 274 and 275: Page 269• Rate of re plans (re re
- Page 276 and 277: 4.69 Categories of CP PlansQuarterE
- Page 278 and 279: 6%8%5%36%0 - 34 - 67 - 1213 - 1828%
- Page 280 and 281: Page 275.CPP Ethnic groups 2005 - 2
- Page 282 and 283: R e fe rrals R ate per 10,000 popul
- Page 284 and 285: No. of children 1st time registered
- Page 286 and 287: 4.91Child PopulationCurrently there
- Page 288 and 289: Across the borough the proportion o
- Page 290 and 291: 5. How does the LSCB Monitor Activi
- Page 292 and 293: • offer support services• alloc
- Page 294 and 295: Page 289Housing3-borough Child Deat
- Page 296 and 297: continue to be refined and develope
- Page 298 and 299: Agenda Item 12Tri-borough Executive
- Page 300 and 301: 4 BACKGROUND, INCLUDING POLICY CONT
- Page 302 and 303: 6.3 TriageAll troubled families who
- Page 304 and 305: The learning from this may be utili
- Page 308 and 309: Making decisions about working in o
- Page 310 and 311: RefRisk description"If.., then.."be
- Page 312 and 313: No. Issue Mitigation RAG impact onp
- Page 314 and 315: APPENDIX 2: Definition of a Trouble
- Page 316 and 317: HammersmithFulhamKensingtonChelsea&
- Page 318 and 319: 1. BACKGROUND, INCLUDING POLICY CON
- Page 320 and 321: 3.4 Although the provision is sligh
- Page 322 and 323: Agenda Item 15London Borough of Ham
- Page 324 and 325: 2. THE APPOINTMENT OF CBRE AND THEI
- Page 326 and 327: ationalisation or additional invest
- Page 328 and 329: 13. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS13.1 It is
- Page 330 and 331: CBRE | LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMIT
- Page 332 and 333: APPENDIX 2 - Strategic Review of Sh
- Page 334 and 335: appropriate for residents’ needs.
- Page 336 and 337: 6.2.2 Recommendation 2: HRD and ASC
- Page 338 and 339: 6.7.1.3 Option 3: Provide accommoda
- Page 340 and 341: APPENDIX 3 - STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SH
- Page 342 and 343: It be noted by Cabinet that Phase 1
- Page 344 and 345: Agenda Item 16London Borough of Ham
- Page 346 and 347: 1. SUMMARY1.1 Cabinet approved a re
- Page 348 and 349: prevention methodology that meets l
- Page 350 and 351: applicants from outside the borough
- Page 352 and 353: priority being given to community c
- Page 354 and 355: already suitably housed within thei
9.4.3 Current/future costsCurrent/future costsThe spend over the three years of the programme is profiled as follows:REVENUE<strong>2012</strong>/13 2013/14 2014/<strong>15</strong> Total costsApp Propos Appr Prop App Prop Appr PropalVaribud£’000budg£’00bud£’00budg£’00£’00Costs 1,6ExternalfundingChargingincomeTOTAL-653-16062,1 2,0- -1,5 4,2 4,2 -2054- - 0- -1,0 0 -20 -20Table <strong>10</strong> -953 0 -95 0Budget carry forwardThe proposed budget carry forward, based on indicative costs and project funding totals is:£1.048m under-spend in <strong>2012</strong>/13 and <strong>2012</strong>/14 to offset an over-spend of £1.028m in 2014/<strong>15</strong>.9.4.4 Savings, value for moneySavings, value for moneyDemonstrate how the proposal achieves savings and how these will be realised.options considered and how the route chosen achieves best value for money.Show otherThe interventions will be focused on a cohort who cost the council significant sums in relation toLooked After Children’s care costs, anti-social behaviour enforcement and eviction. Thehypothesis is that the interventions will impact on these outcomes as well as the CLG ones.The cohort will be tracked for impact on these wider benefits.Page 301
Change language