FINANCIAL SUMMARY. Total spend on DFG and HRA adaptations by district councils within the county has been of the order of an average of £6.2m per year in recent years. In addition, HCC funds minor works: £378k was budgeted for these in 2014/15. In the same year, District Council staffing costs totalled an estimated £624k, with HCC’s Housing Occupational Therapy service delivered via Serco costing £804k. A number of national developments created an opportunity to review the delivery of DFG within the county area and consider how to integrate provision of help with home adaptations across housing, health and social care system. Table 2 – 6 below provide a summary of the current cost and funding position, and proposed ongoing cost of the Shared Home Improvement Agency Service. Table 2: Existing Cost & Funding - District Average Annual Cost of Home Improvement Services Table 2 reflects the following Gross and net costs of running the Home Improvement service, and details how this is financed in each authority. Table 2: District Average Annual Cost of DFG and Home Improvement Related Spend The table below summarises the average annual cost of DFG and Home Improvement related services in all Hertfordshire district authorities. BBC DBC EHC HBC NHDC SADC SBC TRDC WBC WHBC Districts total £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Running Costs 111 66 113 82 50 70 80 94 111 123 900 Disabled Facilities Spend 450 602 384 435 605 701 350 418 386 442 4,773 Gross cost of service 561 668 497 517 655 771 930 512 497 565 6,173 Net cost of service 561 634 497 517 605 771 930 512 497 565 6,088 Funded by Grant ( 314) ( 366) ( 293) ( 295) ( 360) ( 291) ( 305) ( 250) ( 279) ( 316) ( 3,070) Revenue resources ( 56) ( 32) ( 113) ( 82) ( 12) ( 70) ( 80) 0 ( 36) ( 123) ( 604) Other capital financing (usually capital receipts) ( 191) ( 236) ( 90) ( 140) ( 232) ( 409) ( 45) ( 262) ( 183) ( 126) ( 1,914) Total financing ( 561) ( 634) ( 497) ( 517) ( 605) ( 771) ( 930) ( 512) ( 497) ( 565) ( 6,088) Notes Baseline figures have been investigated thoroughly since the outline business case and updated where appropriate; the most significant changes are that running costs have been amended from £539k to an increased figure of £900k. This is following the verification of district information, and the inclusion in running costs of system costs, overheads, and travel costs, where previously only staffing costs were known. There is differing treatment among districts regarding whether staffing costs are charged to revenue or capital. Registered housing providers also fund some adaptations, in some cases in full but more commonly by contributing a percentage towards the cost of works; these figures are not generally included in table 2. Three Rivers and St Albans did not respond to the request for updated and verified information, therefore, the original information received has been used. Client contributions have been excluded as there was inconsistent interpretation and treatment of these among districts essentially rendering them non-comparable.
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: Partnership Agreement
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. Total spend on DFG and HRA adaptations by district councils within the county has been of the order of an average of £6.2m per year in recent years. In addition, HCC funds minor works: £378k was budgeted for these in 2014/15. In the same year, District Council staffing costs totalled an estimated £624k, with HCC’s Housing Occupational Therapy service delivered via Serco costing £804k. A number of national developments created an opportunity to review the delivery of DFG within the county area and consider how to integrate provision of help with home adaptations across housing, health and social care system. Table 2 – 6 below provide a summary of the current cost and funding position, and proposed ongoing cost of the Shared Home Improvement Agency Service. Table 2: Existing Cost & Funding - District Average Annual Cost of Home Improvement Services Table 2 reflects the following • Gross and net costs of running the Home Improvement service, and details how this is financed in each authority. Table 2: District Average Annual Cost of DFG and Home Improvement Related Spend The table below summarises the average annual cost of DFG and Home Improvement related services in all Hertfordshire district authorities. BBC DBC EHC HBC NHDC SADC SBC TRDC WBC WHBC Districts total £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Running Costs 111 66 113 82 50 70 80 94 111 123 900 Disabled Facilities Spend 450 602 384 435 605 701 350 418 386 442 4,773 Gross cost of service 561 668 497 517 655 771 930 512 497 565 6,173 Net cost of service 561 634 497 517 605 771 930 512 497 565 6,088 Funded by Grant ( 314) ( 366) ( 293) ( 295) ( 360) ( 291) ( 305) ( 250) ( 279) ( 316) ( 3,070) Revenue resources ( 56) ( 32) ( 113) ( 82) ( 12) ( 70) ( 80) 0 ( 36) ( 123) ( 604) Other capital financing (usually capital receipts) ( 191) ( 236) ( 90) ( 140) ( 232) ( 409) ( 45) ( 262) ( 183) ( 126) ( 1,914) Total financing ( 561) ( 634) ( 497) ( 517) ( 605) ( 771) ( 930) ( 512) ( 497) ( 565) ( 6,088) Notes • Baseline figures have been investigated thoroughly since the outline business case and updated where appropriate; the most significant changes are that running costs have been amended from £539k to an increased figure of £900k. This is following the verification of district information, and the inclusion in running costs of system costs, overheads, and travel costs, where previously only staffing costs were known. • There is differing treatment among districts regarding whether staffing costs are charged to revenue or capital. • Registered housing providers also fund some adaptations, in some cases in full but more commonly by contributing a percentage towards the cost of works; these figures are not generally included in table 2. • Three Rivers and St Albans did not respond to the request for updated and verified information, therefore, the original information received has been used. • Client contributions have been excluded as there was inconsistent interpretation and treatment of these among districts essentially rendering them non-comparable. Table 3: Total HIA Related Expenditure Table 3 reflects the following • HCC’s total adaptations expenditure (2015/16 figures) alongside the countywide OT resource. This is added to the district total (from above – see table 2) • This gives a Hertfordshire wide total for all HIA related expenditure, and details how this is financed. HCC Districts Total Hertfordshire Total £000s £000s £000s Running Costs 800 900 1,700 Disabled Facilities 559 4,773 5,332 HRA adaptations 0 500 500 Gross cost of service 1,359 6,173 7,532 Agency fee income 0 ( 85) ( 85) Net cost of service 1,359 6,088 7,447 Funded by Grant 0 ( 3,070) ( 3,070) Revenue resources ( 1,359) ( 604) ( 1,963) HRA resources (revenue and capital) 0 ( 500) ( 500) Other capital financing (usually capital receipts) 0 ( 1,914) ( 1,914) Total financing ( 1,359) ( 6,088) ( 7,447) Table 4: Proposed Ongoing cost of the Shared Home Improvement Agency Service Table 4 reflects the following: • The model allows the costs of the shared service to be flexed according to the level of resource needed to run activities with different numbers of participating councils. • Costs of adaptations are forecast in the model to continue as in current operations. • Forecast running costs exceed the running costs noted in Table 2 above; solutions to this are shown in Table 5 below. • The Shared Home Improvement Agency function has been costed at a level which will deliver sufficient capacity to work to develop specialisms and build new service offerings. • OT’s will continue to provide a service to all districts whether they are in or out of the shared service model. This will be fully funded by HCC. Five authority model £000s HIA Service staffing 519 OT Service 671 HIA Service costs and overheads 51 Total running costs 1,241 Table 5 and 6: Revenue and Capital Impact per Authority Table 5.1: YEAR ONE: Five Authorities (Four Districts plus HCC) - Revenue Impact BBC EHC NHDC WBC TOTAL £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Running costs of shared service 102 87 137 87 413 Capitalisable costs ( 53) ( 45) ( 71) ( 45) ( 213) Net revenue cost of service 49 42 66 42 199 Current revenue budget for DFG 56 113 12 123 305 Residual costs in district i.e. non-cashable savings 55 48 31 111 244 Extra revenue budget required for shared service 00 ( 00) 00 00 000 Fee income at 15% of DFG spend (6 month operation) ( 34) ( 29) ( 45) ( 29) ( 137) Extra revenue budget required if charge fee income 14 ( 52) 39 0 2 Pooling of income to ensure revenue neutral approach for each authority - - - - 2 • The revenue running costs for each authority have been apportioned based on current levels of DFG spend. • Salaries are part-year only as the service will gradually build up staff until go live in September. Fee income has therefore only been estimated for 6 months of operation. • HCC fully funds the OT service and pays a proportionate amount towards the Head of Service salary costs. HCC has not been included in the table as it does not take a share of fee income. • Residual costs in each authority have been identified; these are non-cashable savings if the district moved to the shared service model such as IT system costs, overhead recharges – which would still need to be met from other budgets. • The revenue cost of the shared service has been compared to each district’s current revenue budget for DFG taking into account residual costs. Districts would be expected to contribute a maximum revenue amount of their current revenue budget for DFG less residual costs to the shared service in the first year. • Due to the caveat given by districts that the shared service would only be a feasible option if costs were maintained at current levels, the option of using fee income has also been included. For the shared service to break even in Year One, fee income of 15% would need to be charged, as shown above. . • This assumes a pooling of fee income in order to generate a revenue neutral position for each district, as agreed at the Hertfordshire Chief Financial Officers’ meeting in December. • The expectation is that fee income received may negate the need to ask districts for their revenue contribution, and a decision would be taken towards the end of the financial year based on performance of the shared service. • The aim is that the shared service will be able to carry out significantly more adaptations than currently, and therefore, the table reflects the worst case scenario, which still enables the shared service to break even, without having to ask for revenue contributions.
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: Partnership Agreement
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. Total spend on DFG and HRA adaptations by district councils within the county has been of the order of an average of £6.2m per year in recent years. In addition, HCC funds minor works: £378k was budgeted for these in 2014/15. In the same year, District Council staffing costs totalled an estimated £624k, with HCC’s Housing Occupational Therapy service delivered via Serco costing £804k. A number of national developments created an opportunity to review the delivery of DFG within the county area and consider how to integrate provision of help with home adaptations across housing, health and social care system. Table 2 – 6 below provide a summary of the current cost and funding position, and proposed ongoing cost of the Shared Home Improvement Agency Service. Table 2: Existing Cost & Funding - District Average Annual Cost of Home Improvement Services Table 2 reflects the following Gross and net costs of running the Home Improvement service, and details how this is financed in each authority. Table 2: District Average Annual Cost of DFG and Home Improvement Related Spend The table below summarises the average annual cost of DFG and Home Improvement related services in all Hertfordshire district authorities. BBC DBC EHC HBC NHDC SADC SBC TRDC WBC WHBC Districts total £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Running Costs 111 66 113 82 50 70 80 94 111 123 900 Disabled Facilities Spend 450 602 384 435 605 701 350 418 386 442 4,773 Gross cost of service 561 668 497 517 655 771 930 512 497 565 6,173 Net cost of service 561 634 497 517 605 771 930 512 497 565 6,088 Funded by Grant ( 314) ( 366) ( 293) ( 295) ( 360) ( 291) ( 305) ( 250) ( 279) ( 316) ( 3,070) Revenue resources ( 56) ( 32) ( 113) ( 82) ( 12) ( 70) ( 80) 0 ( 36) ( 123) ( 604) Other capital financing (usually capital receipts) ( 191) ( 236) ( 90) ( 140) ( 232) ( 409) ( 45) ( 262) ( 183) ( 126) ( 1,914) Total financing ( 561) ( 634) ( 497) ( 517) ( 605) ( 771) ( 930) ( 512) ( 497) ( 565) ( 6,088) Notes Baseline figures have been investigated thoroughly since the outline business case and updated where appropriate; the most significant changes are that running costs have been amended from £539k to an increased figure of £900k. This is following the verification of district information, and the inclusion in running costs of system costs, overheads, and travel costs, where previously only staffing costs were known. There is differing treatment among districts regarding whether staffing costs are charged to revenue or capital. Registered housing providers also fund some adaptations, in some cases in full but more commonly by contributing a percentage towards the cost of works; these figures are not generally included in table 2. Three Rivers and St Albans did not respond to the request for updated and verified information, therefore, the original information received has been used. Client contributions have been excluded as there was inconsistent interpretation and treatment of these among districts essentially rendering them non-comparable. Table 3: Total HIA Related Expenditure Table 3 reflects the following HCC’s total adaptations expenditure (2015/16 figures) alongside the countywide OT resource. This is added to the district total (from above – see table 2) This gives a Hertfordshire wide total for all HIA related expenditure, and details how this is financed. HCC Districts Total Hertfordshire Total £000s £000s £000s Running Costs 800 900 1,700 Disabled Facilities 559 4,773 5,332 HRA adaptations 0 500 500 Gross cost of service 1,359 6,173 7,532 Agency fee income 0 ( 85) ( 85) Net cost of service 1,359 6,088 7,447 Funded by Grant 0 ( 3,070) ( 3,070) Revenue resources ( 1,359) ( 604) ( 1,963) HRA resources (revenue and capital) 0 ( 500) ( 500) Other capital financing (usually capital receipts) 0 ( 1,914) ( 1,914) Total financing ( 1,359) ( 6,088) ( 7,447) Table 4: Proposed Ongoing cost of the Shared Home Improvement Agency Service Table 4 reflects the following: The model allows the costs of the shared service to be flexed according to the level of resource needed to run activities with different numbers of participating councils. Costs of adaptations are forecast in the model to continue as in current operations. Forecast running costs exceed the running costs noted in Table 2 above; solutions to this are shown in Table 5 below. The Shared Home Improvement Agency function has been costed at a level which will deliver sufficient capacity to work to develop specialisms and build new service offerings. OT’s will continue to provide a service to all districts whether they are in or out of the shared service model. This will be fully funded by HCC. Five authority model £000s HIA Service staffing 519 OT Service 671 HIA Service costs and overheads 51 Total running costs 1,241 Table 5 and 6: Revenue and Capital Impact per Authority Table 5.1: YEAR ONE: Five Authorities (Four Districts plus HCC) - Revenue Impact BBC EHC NHDC WBC TOTAL £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Running costs of shared service 102 87 137 87 413 Capitalisable costs ( 53) ( 45) ( 71) ( 45) ( 213) Net revenue cost of service 49 42 66 42 199 Current revenue budget for DFG 56 113 12 123 305 Residual costs in district i.e. non-cashable savings 55 48 31 111 244 Extra revenue budget required for shared service 00 ( 00) 00 00 000 Fee income at 15% of DFG spend (6 month operation) ( 34) ( 29) ( 45) ( 29) ( 137) Extra revenue budget required if charge fee income 14 ( 52) 39 0 2 Pooling of income to ensure revenue neutral approach for each authority - - - - 2 The revenue running costs for each authority have been apportioned based on current levels of DFG spend. Salaries are part-year only as the service will gradually build up staff until go live in September. Fee income has therefore only been estimated for 6 months of operation. HCC fully funds the OT service and pays a proportionate amount towards the Head of Service salary costs. HCC has not been included in the table as it does not take a share of fee income. Residual costs in each authority have been identified; these are non-cashable savings if the district moved to the shared service model such as IT system costs, overhead recharges – which would still need to be met from other budgets. The revenue cost of the shared service has been compared to each district’s current revenue budget for DFG taking into account residual costs. Districts would be expected to contribute a maximum revenue amount of their current revenue budget for DFG less residual costs to the shared service in the first year. Due to the caveat given by districts that the shared service would only be a feasible option if costs were maintained at current levels, the option of using fee income has also been included. For the shared service to break even in Year One, fee income of 15% would need to be charged, as shown above. . This assumes a pooling of fee income in order to generate a revenue neutral position for each district, as agreed at the Hertfordshire Chief Financial Officers’ meeting in December. The expectation is that fee income received may negate the need to ask districts for their revenue contribution, and a decision would be taken towards the end of the financial year based on performance of the shared service. The aim is that the shared service will be able to carry out significantly more adaptations than currently, and therefore, the table reflects the worst case scenario, which still enables the shared service to break even, without having to ask for revenue contributions.
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: Partnership Agreement
FINANCIAL SUMMARY. Total spend on DFG and HRA adaptations by district councils within the county has been of the order of an average of £6.2m per year in recent years. In addition, HCC funds minor works: £378k was budgeted for these in 2014/15. In the same year, District Council staffing costs totalled an estimated £624k, with HCC’s Housing Occupational Therapy service delivered via Serco costing £804k. A number of national developments created an opportunity to review the delivery of DFG within the county area and consider how to integrate provision of help with home adaptations across housing, health and social care system. Table 2 – 6 below provide a summary of the current cost and funding position, and proposed ongoing cost of the Shared Home Improvement Agency Service. Table 2: Existing Cost & Funding - District Average Annual Cost of Home Improvement Services Table 2 reflects the following • Gross and net costs of running the Home Improvement service, and details how this is financed in each authority. Table 2: District Average Annual Cost of DFG and Home Improvement Related Spend The table below summarises the average annual cost of DFG and Home Improvement related services in all Hertfordshire district authorities. BBC DBC EHC HBC NHDC SADC SBC TRDC WBC WHBC Districts total £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s £000s Running Costs 111 66 113 82 50 70 80 94 111 123 900 Disabled Facilities Spend 450 602 384 435 605 701 350 418 386 442 4,773 Gross cost of service 561 668 497 517 655 771 930 512 497 565 6,173 Net cost of service 561 634 497 517 605 771 930 512 497 565 6,088 Funded by Grant ( 314) ( 366) ( 293) ( 295) ( 360) ( 291) ( 305) ( 250) ( 279) ( 316) ( 3,070) Revenue resources ( 56) ( 32) ( 113) ( 82) ( 12) ( 70) ( 80) 0 ( 36) ( 123) ( 604) Other capital financing (usually capital receipts) ( 191) ( 236) ( 90) ( 140) ( 232) ( 409) ( 45) ( 262) ( 183) ( 126) ( 1,914) Total financing ( 561) ( 634) ( 497) ( 517) ( 605) ( 771) ( 930) ( 512) ( 497) ( 565) ( 6,088) Notes • Baseline figures have been investigated thoroughly since the outline business case and updated where appropriate; the most significant changes are that running costs have been amended from £539k to an increased figure of £900k. This is following the verification of district information, and the inclusion in running costs of system costs, overheads, and travel costs, where previously only staffing costs were known. • There is differing treatment among districts regarding whether staffing costs are charged to revenue or capital. • Registered housing providers also fund some adaptations, in some cases in full but more commonly by contributing a percentage towards the cost of works; these figures are not generally included in table 2. • Three Rivers and St Albans did not respond to the request for updated and verified information, therefore, the original information received has been used. • Client contributions have been excluded as there was inconsistent interpretation and treatment of these among districts essentially rendering them non-comparable.
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: Partnership Agreement
