Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

NATIONAL TREATMENT AGENCY FOR SUBSTANCE MISUSE by SillyWoodcock

VIEWS: 23 PAGES: 3

									                                                                            BD 3/2009/98

          BOARD MEETING ON 6 OCTOBER 2009
MERCHANT 1 & 2, LIVERPOOL MARRIOTT CITY CENTRE, 1 QUEEN
                SQUARE, LIVERPOOL L1 1RH


  UPDATE ON INDICATIVE YOUNG PEOPLE’S POOLED TREATMENT BUDGET (PTB)
                REALLOCATION FOR 2010/2011 AND 2011/2012


Background

1. Arising from Ministerial concerns of equitable access to treatment and the importance of
   ensuring value for money, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF),
   Department of Health (DH) and the NTA were tasked with identifying a new formula for
   allocating the young people’s pooled treatment budget. Previous allocations, based on
   historic spend on Young Peoples treatment, resulted in unjustifiable differences between
   local partnerships; budgets varied considerably with little correlation to the prevalence of
   young people’s drug or alcohol misuse or the need for treatment services. The most
   generously funded area receiving almost twenty times more per person treated than the
   less generously funded one (£239 compared to £4,306). Services in a number of areas
   have been subsidised by funds from the adult treatment budget or other funding sources.


The new formula

2. There are a number of risk factors associated with young people’s substance misuse that
   can be quantified, including poor parental supervision, housing problems, experience of
   the care system, truancy or exclusion from school. In particular, poverty and
   disadvantage are associated with young people’s substance misuse. Options for the
   allocation formula were therefore developed using data on these risk factors at local
   authority level.

3. The Child Wellbeing Index (CWI), commissioned by the Department for Communities and
   Local Government (CLG), was developed with a particular emphasis on data around
   children and young people. The CWI cuts across seven domains: material wellbeing;
   health; education; crime; housing; environment and children in need, and allows for a
   comprehensive assessment of child wellbeing at a local level. The new allocation for
   each partnership area has been established by multiplying the CWI with the area
   population to obtain a relevant index of area need. The index is then multiplied by the
   market forces factor (cost of living).

4. The formula has been developed by the Social Policy Research Unit (York University)
   and the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (Oxford University). Additional work has
   been undertaken by the NTA analysis team and York University, and NTA has received
   endorsement from CLG for its use in allocating young people’s PTB funding.

5. Based on indicative figures provided by the Department of Health, the total amount of
   funding for young people’s treatment is planned to increase from £24.7m in 2009/10, to
   £25.4m in 2010/11 and 2011/12.


BD3_2009_98 YP PTB Update.doc
Impact of the reallocation
6. The principle is to move towards full distribution of the young people’s pooled treatment
   budget funding using the CWI formula by 2011/12. A staged approach will be adopted for
   2010/11, with partnerships that stand to lose under the new formula having their losses
   restricted to only 25% of the full reduction that would have occurred had the CWI formula
   been applied in full. This is in order to mitigate against destabilising local treatment
   provision, and will allow time for local partnerships to have discussions during the latter
   half of 2009/10 and in 2010/11 about alternative sources of funding for young people’s
   specialist treatment.

7. In addition to cushioning the losses in 2010/11, those partnerships set to gain under the
   new formula have had their increases restricted in 2010/11 to 60% (Option 1) or 42%
   (Option 2) of the extra amount they would have received if CWI was applied in full.

8. Annex A presents a list of the 10 authorities experiencing the greatest gains and those
   experiencing the greatest reductions in budgets (under Option 1 and 2). A number of
   areas standing to gain from the allocation such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester,
   Bradford, Bristol and Leeds are large urban areas with established levels of need. In a
   number of cases, particularly Birmingham, there is a clear history of services being
   subsidised by adult treatment budgets.

9. The change in allocation framework and potential impact on partnerships has been trailed
   for some time. Notification of the new funding allocations will be made through a joint
   letter from the NTA and DCSF. Partnerships will be able to contact the appropriate NTA
   Deputy Regional Manager for support about managing the transition. NTA regional
   teams will also be meeting with each partnership as part of the treatment planning
   process and the existing review process which takes place every six months. DCSF and
   NTA have produced a joint media brief and the NTA press office will be the initial point of
   contact for media enquiries.




Rosanna O’Connor
Director of Delivery
October 2009




BD3_2009_98 YP PTB Update.doc                    2
ANNEX A – PROPOSED REALLOCATION AND IMPACT ON AUTHORITIES MOST
HEAVILY AFFECTED


Table 1: Proposed allocations (using CWI) for 2010/11 and 2011/12 for the 10 authorities
experiencing the greatest gains – including a cap for the first year and ranked by the
difference between existing and final budget (2011/12)

                09/10      2010/11          Difference % of         2011/12       Difference % of
                allocation Allocation       between    current      Allocation    between    current
                           based on         2010/11    allocation   based on      2011/12    allocation
                           £25.4m           and                     £25.4m        and
                                            current                 using         current
                                42% cap     allocation              revised       allocation
                                on gains                            CWI in full
Birmingham      £399,850        £645,082    £245,232         161%   £1,011,614    £611,764    253%
Liverpool       £266,790        £345,695     £78,905         130%   £467,543      £200,753    175%
Manchester      £389,464        £459,434     £69,970         118%   £571,818      £182,355    147%
Bradford        £257,956        £312,209     £54,253         121%   £398,101      £140,145    154%
Essex           £337,826        £390,848     £53,022         116%   £477,222      £139,396    141%
Lancashire      £412,623        £462,547     £49,923         112%   £546,551      £133,928    132%
Cornwall &
Isles of        £101,236        £149,871      £48,634        148% £223,183        £121,947    220%
Scilly
Leeds           £384,554        £432,353      £47,799        112% £512,485        £127,930    133%
West
                £133,188        £179,897      £46,709        135% £251,326        £118,138    189%
Sussex
Oxfordshire     £97,251         £142,236      £44,985        146% £210,149        £112,898    216%

Table 2: Proposed allocations (using CWI) for 2010/11 and 2011/12 for 10 authorities
experiencing greatest reductions – including a cushion for the first year and ranked by
difference between existing and final budget (2011/12)

                09/10      2010/11          Difference % of         2011/12       Difference % of
                allocation Allocation       between    current      Allocation    between    current
                           based on         2010/11    allocation   based on      2011/12    allocation
                           £25.4m           and                     £25.4m        and
                                            current                 and           current
                                25% cap     allocation              using         allocation
                                on losses                           CWI in
                                                                    full
Sunderland      £243,048        £216,154    -£26,894        89%     £139,311      -£103,737   57%
Staffordshire   £384,851        £356,917    -£27,934        93%     £280,856      -£103,995   73%
Islington       £302,602        £268,614    -£33,988        89%     £171,372      -£131,230   57%
Derbyshire      £378,363        £342,584    -£35,779        91%     £241,913      -£136,450   64%
Westminster     £292,425        £256,104    -£36,321        88%     £151,311      -£141,114   52%
Tower
                £449,300        £395,516    -£53,784        88%     £240,801      -£208,498   54%
Hamlets
Lambeth         £410,316        £355,599    -£54,717        87%     £196,874      -£213,442   48%
Newham          £450,265        £394,172    -£56,093        88%     £232,295      -£217,970   52%
Stoke-on-
                £383,244        £326,403    -£56,841        85%     £160,299      -£222,945   42%
Trent
Bolton          £437,610        £371,337    -£66,273        85%     £177,409      -£260,201   41%



BD3_2009_98 YP PTB Update.doc                           3

								
To top