Th Committee will receive presentations on the following:

§  Budget Scrutiny 2019-20;

§  Children & Culture Directorate; and

§  Health, Adults and Community Savings Update.

The Chair introduced this item and welcomed the participants to the meeting.

Children and Culture Directorate

Councillor Danny Hassell ,(Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Young People) and Debbie Jones (Corporate Director, Children and Culture) gave a presentation on the budget for 2019-20 for the directorate.

Councillor Hassell drew attention to the increasing levels of demand for children’s services (in the context of government cuts) and the need for additional resources to continue the improvement journey’ following Ofsted finding in respect of Children’s Social Care. The over spend consisted of:

•           Children’s Social Care (£2.9 m)

•           Special Educational Needs (£1.7 m)

•           Youth and Commissioning (£1.5m)

•           Children’s Resources (£1.3m)

•           Sport and Leisure (£0.6m)

Some of the key issues highlighted included: the rise in the number of complex placements, including mother and baby assessment; additional pressures on the Leaving Care Services following changes in legislation and new responsibilities for Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers amongst other issues.

To address the issues, a recovery plan had been put together to achieve further savings and efficiencies.

The activities highlighted included:

• Funding for additional social work posts to ensure case-loads remained low, and good quality decision making
• Action to convert agency staff to permanent Social Work staff
• Preparation of a recovery plan for SEND services to reduce the historic overspend on the High Needs Funding Block
• Submission to the Cabinet in February 2019 of measures to address the over spend in contracted services

• The Committee were also advised that the Council had recruited newly qualified social workers to work alongside experienced staff with a focus on encouraging retention. The salaries were competitive
• The Committee sought clarification of the term ‘right sizing the budget’ for Children’s Social Care’ and ways of speeding up the recruitment of permanent social workers
• The Committee heard about the level of funding invested into the service in 2016/17, (the Ofsted Improvement Budget), and the funding decisions thereafter to address the needs of the service and continue to deliver service improvements.  This was what was meant by ‘right sizing the budget’

In response the presentation, the following points were raised and noted:

• The Committee asked further questions about the post Ofsted budget funding decisions, especially the decision to rebase the budget. The view was expressed that these decisions were not anticipated by the Committee. This was important given the impact it has had on the overall budget.  In view of this, assurances were sought about the measures to ensure the overspend was effectively managed.
• The Committee were reminded of the continuing pressures on the service, as set out in the presentation. A detailed assessment had been carried out of the budget requirements, in light of these factors. It was also emphasised that the bench marking data showed that the Council fell below other London Borough’s in terms of the number of agency staff.
• In view of the above, it was requested that further details be provided of the areas that needed more investment.
• The service would be bringing forward proposals on discretionary spending.

Health Adults and Community Directorate. .

The Chair welcomed to the meeting Councillor Anima Ali, (Cabinet Member for Adults, Health and Wellbeing) and Denise Radley (Corporate Director, Health, Adults & Community).

Councillor Ali advised of the 4.1 m overspend at the end of the second quarter for this year and the pressures on the budget in Adults Social Care from the increased costs of care services and forecast costs in Direct Payments.

She assured the Committee that most of the savings identified for this year of 3.4 m were on track to be delivered (2.6m at the end of quarter 2)

Progress continued to be made in address in the ‘red and amber rated’ areas of slippage relating to:

•           helping people with Learning disabilities live independently (red)

•           improving employment support for Adults with Disabilities (red)

•           Day Opportunities provision (amber)  

A recovery plan had also been prepared to mitigate the issues and identify further efficiencies.

The Committee sought assurances about the recovery plan and costs of home care compared to other Council’s.

In response to the questions, it was noted that the measures included:

•           Adopting a ‘strength- and assets- based approach’, –with a focus on providing personalised services.

•           the potentially to use ring- fenced Public Health Grant Funding to support Adults Social Care.

•           Reducing the use of agency staff.

•           Reviewing the high-cost care packages.

•           Reviewing benchmarking data for Adult Social Care with a view to reducing the costs of care in the Borough.

The Committee asked questions about the following issues:

·         The high costs of the home care compared to other boroughs. It was noted that the Council was an Ethical Care Borough and had a high number of complex cases – this increased costs. The cost of in-borough care was an issue (as showed by benchmarking). This was due to the relatively low number of residents in private care in the Borough. It was expected that the new strength-based approach should help reduce the level of support needed and maximise independence.

• The Committee also asked questions about progress with promoting in Borough care for Adults with learning difficulties. It was noted that the reasons for this related to a lack of placements in the Borough and also issues arising from the transitions from children services and managing expectations. The Council were carrying out a lot of work around this and had made progress.

• Members sought clarity on the nature of the day care provision savings and progress with this.  In response to these questions, Members noted details of the work to maximise day care opportunities within budget and the next steps in terms of the procurement process. The Committee asked for a breakdown of the day care savings opportunities to identify what had been achieved.

Mid Term Financial Savings

Councillor Candida Ronald, (Cabinet Member for Resources and the Voluntary Sector), along with Neville Murton (Corporate Director of Resources), and Kevin Bartle (Interim Divisional Director Finance, Procurement & Audit), gave a presentation on the delivery of MTFS savings

In particular they provided an overview of the MTFS process and the challenges around the process, especially in view of the uncertainties around the future government funding.

To improve the process, it was proposed to introduce a new more robust evidenced based challenge process to ensure savings were deliverable.

In response:

• The Committee asked about responsibility for ‘undeliverable savings’ 
• The Committee stressed the need to avoid such issues happening again and for proper scrutiny of the savings to ensure they were feasible, by if necessary, the Committee if they were delayed.
• It was noted that ultimately responsibility for slippages rested with the Corporate Directors and budget holders. Officers carried out a lot of testing of the proposals in assessing whether they are feasible. Nevertheless it was proposed to introduce the new challenge process, to ensure the savings identified could be delivered and the proposals were evidence based.
• In response to further questions, the Committee noted the possibility of greater shorter term planning due to the uncertainties over future government funding.
• It was also noted that the slippages had a significant impact on reserves, as it could potentially require drawing down money from earmarked reserves.
• A Member requested that the Committee receive the recommendations on last year’s budget before the 13 January 2020 Budget Scrutiny Committee meeting so Members could review progress.
• The Chair noted that the Committee, in scrutinising the budget, should look at demand, the way priorities were set and whether savings were deliverable.