TheTotal Place Programme examines how effectively we spend public money. From government departments to local service providers and everything in between - top tier authorities, district and borough councils, regional and national quangos -are being looked at to see how effectively the money given to them to deliver specific changes has been spent - and more crucially, how could it be spent in the future.

The programme in Leicester and Leicestershire comprises three strands: ‘Drugs and Alcohol' and ‘Access to Services' in addition to the ‘High level Count'. It is a pilot programme which is testing a new approach to both reviewing services and is asking that the process asks pertinent questions and comes up with radical solutions.

The High Level Count

• Total gross expenditure across the entire public sector in Leicester and Leicestershire totals £6bn.
• The highest local spenders are the Department of Work and Pensions(£1.4bn), Leicestershire County Council(£892m), Leicester City Council (£846m), theUniversity of Leicester NHS Trust (£615m) andLeicestershire and Rutland PCT £434m (expenditure excluding commissioning).
• These five bodies account for c70% of expenditure in Leicester and Leicestershire. The highest proportion of expenditure is on education, which reflects the fact three universities are based in the area.
• The value of fixed assets on the balance sheet of local delivery organisations (local authorities, Fire Service, Police and local NHS) is £4.5bn including £2bn for council housing.
• The total number of local property and land assets excluding housing is 1,900. This includes 78 administrative buildings (excluding local NHS) and 16 depots (excluding highways agency).
• The cost of being in business (corporate management and support services) ranges from 3% (County Council) to 11% (District Councils) for the limited organisations analysed. The average is 5%. If this percentage is applied to local delivery organisations spend in Leicestershire, c£200m is spent on being in business.

Questions for local organisations

Is progress on shared services for both back office and frontline service provision happening quickly enough and is the extent of the programme ambitious enough in this current financial climate? For example,a 9.4% efficiency savings target agreed in the MAA is proving hard to meet.

Is it sensible for so many organisations to be involved in commissioning activity and provision for certain services? For example social care involves both PCTs and both upper tier organisations. Waste collection and disposal involves all 9 local authorities in commissioning and provision. Social housing involves over 40 organisations in provision. Should local agencies seek to actively pool more commissioning activity/provision and budgets?

Questions for central government

The Audit Commission estimate that for every layer of administration that is present within a chain, up to 20% of funding can be lost. Is the current landscape of complex funding flows with a variety of local providers fundamentally inefficient? Can the chains be shortened? Should local service providers be rationalised? Are policy decisions taken at the appropriate level? For example should there be local discretion over benefits levels and criteria given the variety of local conditions, including the cost of living?