Allocation of Parish Share to Deaneries and National Church Funding

Transcription

1 of to Deaneries and National Church Funding Introduction 1. This paper should be read in conjunction with the Budget Consultation 2018 (paper DS17 09). The figures presented in this paper are proposals supporting the consultation. For details of how to respond to the consultation please see page 2 of DS Incoming resources from the National Church 2. The National Church has confirmed the quantum of available during the period 2017 to 2019 which the Archbishops Council will be distributing from the funds managed by the Church Commissioners. Under the programme of Renewal & Reform the Resourcing the Future proposals brought to an end (2016) the previous mechanism (known as Darlow) of allocating national funds. New arrangements came into force from January 2017 and Newcastle is a recipient of two forms of income from the National Church: Lowest Income Communities Funding Transitional Funding 3. For the current triennium the position for Newcastle is as follows: Low Income Communities 815, , ,900 Transitional 571, , ,340 TOTALS 1,387,452 1,359,986 1,335,240 Application of the Lowest Income Communities Fund (LICF) 4. The distribution of the Lowest Income Communities Fund (for ease of reference this is referred to as LICF within the remaining parts of this paper) uses the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) , a recognised measure, to help to identify parishes that will receive support from the fund. The the overall IMD score for each parish comprises the following domains: Income Deprivation Crime Employment Deprivation Barriers to Housing and Services Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Living environment Deprivation Health Deprivation and Disability Each of the domains is based on a basket of indicators and the overall IMD score combines information from the seven domains. 5. In line with 2017, it is proposed that the incoming LICF grant for 2018 be split as follows: 90% to be applied to the parishes within the 15% most deprived neighbourhoods of England using the overall IMD score; and 1 _Deprivation_2015_-_Statistical_Release.pdf

2 10% to be applied to parishes within the 15% most deprived neighbourhoods using a geographical measure where the population of a deanery residing in those areas exceeds 15% of the deanery population. 6. For 2018 this results in a split as follows: 757,839 to parishes falling within top 15% of most deprived areas (34 parishes, see pg.3) 84,205 to parishes with geographical deprivation (23 parishes, see pg.4) 842,044 Total Lowest Income Communities Funding in The modelling thus far is to target support based on where the parish is ranked in terms of deprivation and the population of the parish. Proposed Apportionment of to Deaneries in The table at page 5 sets out a proposed distribution based on the budget set out in paper DS The modelling in the proposal uses four steps to reach the final distribution. STEP 1 is the starting position and distributes the overall This is the amount that would be requested without the we receive from the National Church. STEP 2 allocates the lowest income communities These are the amounts set out on pages 3 and 4 and which are added together to reach a figure for the amount of applied to the most deprived parishes within a deanery. STEP 3 allocates transitional This is to help us move to the new arrangements and has been applied to limit the increase to the request for the deanery. The available sum for 2018 limits the deanery request to a maximum of +6.9%. STEP 4 introduces mutual support between the deaneries Transitional helps to limit the increase to and mutual support between the deaneries helps to share the overall increase to. The Finance Group proposed a minimum inflationary increase to each deanery of +2.9% (CPI at May 2017). Therefore, this proposal helps to keep the maximum increase to a deanery at +4.5%. 9. formula The formula used to allocate to deaneries remains the formula agreed by the Diocesan Synod. This is weighted: (i) 70% towards parish income; (ii) 15% to attendance; and (iii) 15% to clergy points. For the projection in this paper the income and attendance data are based on statistics for 2014, 2015 and (the 2017 allocation used the years 2013,2014,2015). The clergy points are based on permanent posts at July 2017.

3 Lowest Income Communities Funding recipients (90% of available ) The table below lists the parishes falling within the top 15% most deprived areas of England (Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015). There are parishes in England. The parish ranked 1 is most deprived and the parish ranked is least deprived. The total available for allocation in 2018 is 757,839. The allocation in the table is weighted and provides a higher allocation per head of population to the most deprived areas. The basic cost of full-time stipendiary ministry (excluding housing) in 2018 will be 37,026 (see pg6 of paper DS17 09). The proposal is that the weighted allocation set out below is the amount of national to be applied towards the cost of ministry in the parishes within the table and is in addition to the amount of parish share that the deanery requests from each parish. Deanery Population IMD_ rank Weighted from Lowest Income Communities Funding 2018 ( 757,839) Weighted allocation per head of population ELSWICK ST STEPHEN & ST PAUL West 5, , BYKER: ST ANTHONY East 5, , BYKER: ST MICHAEL WITH ST LAWRENCE East 5, , BYKER: ST MARTIN East 4, , NEWCASTLE: ST MATTHEW & ST MARY West 1, , BENWELL AND SCOTSWOOD TEAM West 20, , COWGATE: ST PETER West 8, , WALKER : CHRIST CHURCH East 9, , TYNEMOUTH, PERCY: ST JOHN Tynemouth 9, , BLYTH: ST MARY Bedlington 9, , NEWBIGGIN HALL: ST WILFRID West 9, , NEWCASTLE: ST PHILIP and ST AUGUSTINE West 8, , WOODHORN w NEWBIGGIN: ST BARTHOLOMEW Morpeth 6, , SEATON HIRST ST JOHN & ST ANDREW Morpeth 18, , NEWCASTLE: ST ANN Central 1, , CAMBOIS: ST PETER* Bedlington , BYKER: ST SILAS East 6, , WALLSEND: ST LUKE Tynemouth 9, , KENTON: THE ASCENSION Central 12, , HORTON: ST MARY VIRGIN Bedlington 6, , BYKER ST MARK & WALKERGATE ST OSWALD East 7, , DENTON: HOLY SPIRIT West 11, , SLEEKBURN: ST JOHN* Bedlington 7, , SUGLEY: HOLY SAVIOUR West 7, , CHEVINGTON: ST JOHN THE DIVINE Alnwick 4, , NEWCASTLE: ST JOHN THE BAPTIST Central 1, , WILLINGTON TEAM: ST MARY THE VIRGIN Tynemouth 23, , NEWSHAM: ST BEDE Bedlington 9, , BILLY MILL Tynemouth 7, , BALKWELL: ST PETER Tynemouth 7, , WEETSLADE Bedlington 8, , FAWDON Central 4, , CRESSWELL & LYNEMOUTH Morpeth 4, , NEWCASTLE: HOLY CROSS West 7, , , ,283

4 Lowest Income Communities Funding; rural area recipients (10% of available ) The parishes listed below are the rural parishes that will benefit from the allocation of Lowest Income Communities Funding for rural areas. This distribution is set out in paragraph 9 above. This distribution is targeted where the percentage of a deanery population living with a geographical deprivation exceeds more than 15%. es within three deaneries benefit from this distribution: Bellingham Bamburgh & Glendale; and Norham Deanery Population Geographical Barriers rank Bamburgh Glendale ILDERTON: ST MICHAEL , Bamburgh Glendale INGRAM: ST MICHAEL , Bamburgh Glendale EGLINGHAM: ST MAURICE , Bamburgh Glendale CHATTON WITH CHILLINGHAM , Bamburgh Glendale SOUTH CHARLTON: ST JAMES , Bamburgh Glendale KIRKNEWTON: ST GREGORY , Bamburgh Glendale ELLINGHAM: ST MAURICE , Bamburgh Glendale BEADNELL: ST EBBA , Bellingham FALSTONE w GREYSTEAD AND THORNEYBURN , Bellingham HORSLEY WITH BYRNESS , Bellingham OTTERBURN: ST JOHN THE EVANGELIST , Bellingham ELSDON: ST CUTHBERT , Bellingham CHOLLERTON: ST GILES , Bellingham BIRTLEY: ST GILES , Bellingham SIMONBURN , Bellingham WARK: ST MICHAEL , Norham BRANXTON : ST PAUL , Norham CARHAM : ST CUTHBERT , Norham CORNHILL : ST HELEN , Norham NORHAM: ST CUTHBERT 1, , Norham ANCROFT : ST ANNE , Norham HOLY ISLAND : ST MARY THE VIRGIN , Norham SCREMERSTON : ST PETER , , , ,810.00

5 Deanery STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 starting point Total without National Church Funding This step allocates lowest income communities This step allocates transition agrees some mutual support (capping) between deaneries 757,839 84, ,941 Rural Transition from low income requested communities in 2017 lowest income communities request 2018 pre transition A less B less C request 2018 net of transition requested in 2017 Mutual Support between deaneries to limit deanery increase request 2018 net of all national and mutual support 2017 request in cash terms 2017 request as a % A B C D E F G H I J K L Bedlington 524, , , % 0 417, % 18, ,171 12, % Newcastle Central 1,054,099 51, ,002, % 145, , % -19, ,630 36, % Newcastle East 401, , , % 0 276, % 14, ,881 8, % Newcastle West 675, , , % 0 434, % 32, ,709 13, % Tynemouth 828, , , % 0 687, % 4, ,104 19, % Bellingham 176, , , % 0 143, % -1, ,627 6, % Corbridge 475, , % 51, , % -9, ,932 17, % Hexham 458, , % 112, , % -7, ,430 14, % Alnwick 596,643 9, , % 132, , % -10, ,495 19, % Bamburgh & Glendale 268, , , % 13, , % -5, ,733 9, % Morpeth 594,934 81, , % 2, , % -11, ,287 21, % Norham 308, , , % 60, , % -5, ,632 9, % Local Ecumenical 68, , % 0 68, % 0 68,089 2, % 6,431, ,839 84,205 5,589, % 517,941 5,071, % 0 5,071, , % There are four steps to the proposed distribution set out in the table above. The result, in this proposal, is that the overall request to a Deanery is a maximum of +4.5%. The overall change to from 2017 to 2018 is +3.9% STEP 1 Using existing methodology (see pg.2 para 9) this is the starting position and is the amount that would be requested if we received no from the National Church. STEP 2 This step reduces the amount calculated at STEP 1 by the sum of lowest income communities allocated to parishes within a deanery (see XXX 2 for a list of parishes) STEP 3 Distributes transition to reduce the impact of and to help deaneries with the new arrangements introduced through the national programme of Renewal & Reform (see page 4 of paper DS17 09). The amount of transition in 2018 is sufficient to limit the maximum deanery change to +6.9%. STEP 4 The Finance Group has proposed that the minimum change to is the inflation amount of +2.9%. Therefore this step introduces a degree of mutual support between the deaneries. The support between deaneries limits the increase calculated at STEP 3 to a maximum of +4.5%.