Agenda item

The Executive Advisory Board (EAB) received an introductory presentation from the Strategy and Communications Manager concerning the mandate in respect of the funding of Guildford and Ash Citizens Advice (CAs) by the Council.  The mandate addressed the following areas:

·             Introduction

·             Strategy

·             Strategic options to deliver a solution

·             Considerations

·             Resources

·             Risks, assumptions and issues

·             Dependencies, constraints and opportunities

·             Internal stakeholders

·             Appendix 1 – Citizens Advice Bureaux Funding

The presentation highlighted that the Council was the principal funder of Guildford and Ash CAs and that neither organisation would be viable without substantial funding from the authority.  In 2021/22 the core grant support totalled £300,000 (£225,000 to Guildford and £75,000 to Ash).  Separately, the Council had a funding agreement with Ash CA of £63,000 per annum to provide a money advice service for homelessness prevention, which was funded through government grant and outside the scope of this mandate.

CA was a network of independent charities that provided free confidential information and advice to assist people with money, legal, consumer and other problems.  Primary issues included debt management, welfare benefits, housing, immigration and asylum, employment, consumer complaints and landlord-tenant disputes.  Services provided by CAs could help address issues such as social exclusion and child poverty, mental health, homelessness and housing conditions, older people and those with long term illnesses and disabilities accessing welfare benefits and care advice.

Guildford and Ash CAs provided support to 4-5,000 clients each year.  A significant proportion of those were referrals from the Council, many of whom were also its tenants.  Although the Council had no statutory obligation to fund CAs, which provided significant benefits to residents and contributed to the Council’s corporate priorities, demand for Council services would increase without the advice and support they provided.

Whilst all Surrey district and borough councils provided financial support to CAs, Guildford’s funding was significantly higher than elsewhere.  Although direct comparisons were not straightforward, e.g. some councils may provide free accommodation in addition to financial support, total funding of £250,000 would be more in line with that provided by other local authorities.

With the Council’s support, the CAs (including Waverley CA) were discussing closer joint working and mergers to reduce costs and pursue new service delivery options by adopting a more outreach-based approach.  Such changes could deliver savings in terms of staffing and accommodation.  Without significant change, the ongoing viability of Guildford and Ash CAs in their current form was questioned.  Guildford CA currently occupied Council owned premises for which it paid an annual rent of £41,400 and a service charge of £10,941, which was covered by the grant.  The market rental of the property was estimated at £53,000 per annum.

The mandate set out the five options for future funding of the CAs in the context of the Council’s challenging financial position and corporate priorities.  The options consisted of (a) do nothing, (b) do something, (c) do more [1], (d) do more [2] or (e) do most.  The mandate was considered by the Executive / Management Team Liaison Group at its meeting held on 30 June 2021 when it expressed support for option (b).

The following points arose from related questions, comments and discussion:

1.           Speaking as a Council representative on the Board of Ash CA, Councillor Graham Eyre provided information in respect of the financial and operational position of the CAs in the Borough.  He advised that neither of the CAs had received an increase in core funding from the Council over the past ten years and were relying on reserves whilst operating with unsustainable financial deficits which they sought to reduce by merging to improve their future financial viability.  Collectively, the CAs paid approximately £70,000 per annum from their grants to meet rental payments for operating premises and were seeking assistance from the Council to identify a new more economical location.  The greater amount of the local population resided in the most deprived areas of the Borough and therefore the CAs faced numerous complex challenges in their work which would increase owing to recent factors including increases in energy costs, the termination of the furlough initiative and benefit reductions.  Any funding reduction would result in a decrease in services and therefore Option A was promoted as the only practical option for the time being at least.  The outcome of a recent consultation had indicated that residents did not support budget reductions which would negatively affect elderly or vulnerable people.

2.           Whilst councillors expressed their support for the CAs and a reluctance to reduce their funding, it was acknowledged that this Council appeared to be providing significantly higher grants to the local CAs in comparison with other councils in Surrey and that value for money needed to be a factor taken into account when determining levels of grant allocation.  However, it was difficult to make meaningful comparisons as there were varying operating models in different areas with some other councils providing premises or other benefits beyond the allocated grant to CAs.  A factor was that Guildford was the only council in Surrey which funded two CAs and this was a likely contributor to its higher funding costs.

3.           It was suggested that this Council could offer cost free premises to its local CAs at Millmead House or other locations within its property portfolio and this had been discussed previously and was an option, although the Millmead complex was subject to another mandate concerning the future use of the site.  The pandemic had led to the CAs operating alternative working patterns of a digital nature that could be continued as part of a future offering together with a focus on outreach work delivered in community settings which may reduce overall office space requirements and costs.

4.           Although the EAB acknowledged the Council’s need to achieve savings, it felt that these should not have a major impact on service provision.

5.           Whilst the bulk of the CAs’ funding was provided by the Council, the organisations did undertake fundraising activities and at times secured contracts through other organisations to provide services.  The CAs were aware of the Council’s financial position and prepared to adapt to the circumstances.

6.           It was emphasised that CAs were independent organisations that were empowered to make management decisions regarding their operating models, selection of premises and expenditure of finances, over which the Council had no control and could only pose questions and offer guidance and mentoring.

7.           In terms of staffing, it had been published in the last annual reports that Guildford CA employed ten paid members of staff whilst Ash CA employed seven paid members of staff.  In addition, many volunteers worked for CAs.

In conclusion, the EAB expressed the view that the mandate did not contain sufficient information to enable it to select a mandate option as there were unknown comparators such as the reasons for the Guildford and Ash CAs’ spending per client being considerably more than that of other CAs, expenses associated with premises occupied by CAs, alternative fundraising initiatives, staffing structures and the type and complexity of issues dealt with.  Also, it was not possible to gauge whether a funding reduction would lead to a significant drop in service provision or if a higher level of reduction could be achieved.  However, these views did rule out options (c), (d) and (e).

The Lead Councillor thanked the EAB for its comments and advised that the mandate contained the potential for generating more options over time in a staggered approach by continuing discussions with the CAs to explore the potential for realising efficiencies and offering support.

In this connection, it was confirmed that a progress update in respect of the Council’s Savings Strategy would be circulated to all members of the EAB.