The County Council has been awarded level 1 poor performance

Why must the tax payers in Northumberland suffer this poor performance from Northumberland County Council ?
What was the Executive doing ?
Team of Elected members of Northumberland CountyCouncil
Leader Bill Brooks
Deputy Leader Peter Hillman
Executive J. Wrght A. Cutter, J. Smith I. Hayes, A.W. Reid, M.J. Scullion

The County Council had a significant and complex improvement agenda to deliver better value for money. It had been awarded level 1 (poor performance) in this area in its most recent corporate assessment by the Audit Commission.

This a council that wishes to run services for all of in the if we have one council for all of Northumberland

It had a relatively high rate of Council Tax, was slow to challenge in house high cost services, had above average investment in services to older people coupled with high thresholds for access to services. The adult social care budget had been further increased by 5.9 per cent in cash terms at the start of the current financial year. Targets for 2005-06 to reduce supported admissions to residential and nursing homes and to increase the numbers of older people helped to live at home had not been achieved. Taken together, this data prompts serious questions.
5.13 The Financial Governance report January 2006 reported that the County Council’s overall performance did not match the level of spend. Further work was needed to develop a shared approach to securing value for money with all stakeholders and to strengthen benchmarking activity so as to enable robust challenge and comparison of quality and costs. Some social care expenditure had been re-allocated to enable new models of support or capacity to be stretched. For example £1.5 million had been allocated to support the rollout of START teams across the county.
5.14 The County Council had been working for some time on developing alternative uses for the resources tied up in its residential care homes. A Best Value Review of Older People’s Services was initially undertaken in 2001. In the intervening years there has been a range of options proposed. All the homes required a significant level of new investment, both to carry out essential maintenance work and to improve the living environments so that they met the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes.
5.15 Some difficult decisions had yet to be taken with regard to the future role and function of some County Council run residential and day care services. Information was still being gathered on the future costs and capital investment requirements, and in some cases this required higher levels of investment than originally estimated. For example, the planned capital developments at one site to develop respite care, intermediate and day care as well as offices for front line staff were projected to cost up to £1.68 million at the end of March 2006, when a decision was taken to go ahead with this scheme. The original submission of the modernisation programme to the Cabinet in August 2005 stated capital costs would be minimal, and the options initially circulated for public consultation were based on this assumption. Part way through the consultation, update documents had to be circulated correcting the statement about costs. The discrepancy in investment requirements was said to be due to an insufficient appreciation by officers of the Commission for Social Care Inspection's regulatory requirements around the new development that would require more exacting standards to be met.