Post by Richard Wilkinson on Feb 6, 2010 10:50:19 GMT
Is there any scope to challenge these at all? In the example of one of the areas we have an office I can categorically say that the data on current usage is incorrect. I know this because we are the only provider!
Also the level of cuts are substantial and they seem to be going for whichever is lower between the indicative spend model compared with the current usage. In one of our areas thay have effectively taken £70k out of Welfare benefits alone. Its like recoupment all over again- only this time its not based on underperformance!
Waiting for our impending procurement plan I cast a not scientific eye over some other areas. While true some areas have sadley suffered cuts the picture seems to be more complex with either status quo, (Down Down Deeper and Down) or increases aswell.
In our procuremet area plan this is definatelly not the case with an increase in the required debt contract, a status quo award in welfare benefits that reflects historical over perfermance, and a cut in houing.
In many of them it appears that there will little scope or any extra matters as they state these contracts will be kept within budget.
I would love to know what the Indicative Spend Budet Model is. It all sounds rather Orwellian.
Post by Colin Henderson on Feb 8, 2010 9:45:48 GMT
Cumbria's first plan gave 4800 SWL starts. The current plan gives 3250.
Speaks for itself; a lot of unmet need and quite a few redundant LSC workers up here from October.
The LSC will try to finesse these figures but this is a clear cut in funding across the board by the government directly affecting the most vulnerable in society. If it was health or education it would be all over the papers. It won't be but we have to do what we can to publicise this. Bach has clearly failed to "protect civil legal aid" as he promised.
I have just done some calculations, No apologies if the maths is not 100% In Greater Manchester Area (Not Including Manchester city) Overall Matters are down by 9.75% on previous period used in the procurement plan. Debt is down 5.9% Housing Down over 20% Welfare Benefits 6% This is not equally spread with 10 increases in subjects, and 16 reductions in the procurement plan to previous usage. Some of the reductions are a few matters but one an eye watering 32% in housing. What the picture in other areas?i
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Feb 8, 2010 22:59:11 GMT
Good contributions form everoyne. In the case of our procurement area the sept 08- Aug 09 figures arent correct on Welfare benefits. Not only that but the annual allocation has had increases since then. It looks like a 10% cut but its not 31.6%. I know my figures are accurate as we are the only provider in the PA on WB. That means 415 less people will get advice next year compared to this in that subject area alone.