Agenda item

The Children & Young People Sub-Committee is asked to review the information provided on the identified budget proposals and reach a conclusion on the following:-

1.     The savings are deliverable, sustainable and are not at unacceptable risk.

2.     The impact on service users and the wider community is understood.

3.     That all reasonable alternative options have been explored and no better options exist.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 31 to 42 of the agenda along with a supplement, which provided a response to the three areas within the Children, Young People and Education budget targeted by the Sub-Committee for in-depth scrutiny. The three areas selected were: -

1.   The review of care packages for children with disabilities aged 0-17.

2.   The impact of the reduction in spend on the adolescent service.

3.   The funding gap for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children

The Sub-Committee was asked to consider whether the savings identified were deliverable, sustainable and did not present an unacceptable risk. Consideration was also given to whether the potential impact upon service users and the wider community from the savings was understood by the senior management of the service and the Cabinet Member, and that all reasonable alternative options had been explored and no better options existed. The conclusions agreed by the Sub-Committee would be reported to the Scrutiny & Overview Committee at its meeting scheduled for 15 February.

The Sub-Committee considered each of the three areas in turn, starting with the proposal to review care packages for children with disabilities up to the age of 18. During the introduction to this section provided by the Head of Social Work with Families & Children, Rodica Cobarzan, the Sub-Committee was given an overview of the review process for care packages.  This included the work with the Transitions service for young people approaching the age of 18. Case studies which had resulted in both reduced and increased care packages were also provided to the Sub-Committee.

Following the introduction, it was acknowledged by the Sub-Committee that the budget position of the Council required difficult decisions to made. However, reassurance was sought that reassessments would not lead to an adverse impact upon the children or their families. It was confirmed that care packages were continually reviewed and reassessed to ensure the best outcomes for the child were being achieved. It was likely that the efficiency savings required would be achieved through reviewing service providers, rather than the level of care provided.

It was highlighted that many families were opting for the direct payment model, which delivered a saving to the Council. This led to a concern being raised by the Sub-Committee that the direct payment system allowing families to buy their own agency support may not have the same level of quality or consistency required as opposed to the higher quality support acquired using local authority input.

In response to a question about whether there had been any challenge from families because of the changes introduced, it was confirmed that there had been no tribunals. Assessments would be reviewed as required to ensure there was full transparent between the Council and families over decision making. There had been a low number of complaints received to date, which had been responded to as a priority.

It was acknowledged by Members that it was an ongoing challenge to ensure that commissioned services met the needs of the community, particularly given the level of resource available. However, this meant there needed to be a clear focus on the outcomes delivered by these services to ensure community needs were being met. It was questioned whether there was sufficient data available to inform the commissioning process going forward. It was important to use both quantative and qualitative data to gain a full understanding of local need. Reassurance was given that Service understood the importance of reviewing the provision of commissioned services and had been improving its monitoring processes over several years, which had been reflected in the recent SEND inspection.

Concerns raised by the Sub-Committee about the history of overspending within the service were acknowledged by officers. It was confirmed that financial control had been prioritised over the past year, which had resulted in a much more robust and visible indication of costs being available. It was agreed that consideration would be given to what metrics could be provided to the Sub-Committee to provide ongoing reassurance that the finances within the service were being effectively managed.

Members were keen for further information on the processes used to be able to make a judgement on the robustness of the financial controls within the service. It was advised that the importance of ensuring that all current packages were recorded accurately, with a clear trail for expenditure for each child had been emphasised to officers throughout the service and this would continue.

At this stage the discussion moved onto the second priority area, the support for vulnerable adolescents. During the introduction, it was acknowledged that this area presented significant challenges, particularly around higher risk children. These challenges were under constant review, using a multi-disciplinary approach which required careful coordination and continual refinement to ensure that the adolescents needs were being addressed.

Given the potential risks, it was questioned how these were being managed and whether the response was constrained by the budget. It was confirmed that it was important to have a flexible response, including having the ability to be able to reallocate resources as required.

It was highlighted that the recruitment and retention of staff was an ongoing issue that was mirrored across most local authorities in the country. The decline in the supply of temporary workers was flagged as a potential issue, but officers reassured the Sub-Committee that they were aware of this trend and were working with other authorities to address. The level of funding available for recruitment was not the main challenge, instead it was finding staff with the right skills. Recruitment, retention and turnover had a constant impact upon the experience available in the system.

It was questioned how the risk presented by the limited supply of staff was being managed going forward. It was confirmed that the salaries offered by the Council were competitive and transformational change was needed to ensure local staff were being retained for the sake of the children and the organisation. The latest offer had been reviewed to make it more attractive for staff to retain expertise. The Council was working with partners to establish a multidisciplinary approach to staffing which help to improve the attractiveness of working in Croydon.

It was highlighted that there was a reference in the report to work on developing new indicators for vulnerable adolescents and as such it was questioned when these would be available. It was confirmed that further work was required on the development of new indicators, with benchmarking proving to be complex and reliant on collaborative working to collect the appropriate information.

The meeting moved on to the final section of this item which concerned the budget for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC). During the introduction to this section, it was emphasised that any additional pressure would have to be met and that most of the additional cost were for over 18s. There was also a threshold at 21 years of age. The model included an estimation of the UASC who were NEET. This was not expected to be a big risk as many were not allowed to work.

In response to a question about the reliability of the estimates provided in the report, it was confirmed that these had been tested and confirmed as being reasonable assumptions on which to base the budget.

Given the actual cost of providing support to UASC had repeatedly exceeded the budgeted amount over a long period of time, it was questioned whether a reserve had been earmarked to manage this risk. It was confirmed that the additional support required for UASC in 2022-23 was estimated to be £2.9m, which had not been accounted for. Although the Government had provided one-off funding in 2021-22, the continued funding shortfall would continue to be raised as a significant challenge to the Council’s budget.  It was agreed that the potential risk created by the shortfall in funding for UASC would be flagged to the Scrutiny and Overview Committee as a significant concern.

At the conclusion of the item, the Chair summarised the discussion noting that a significant degree of confidence could be taken from the responses given by officers to the questions raised by the Sub-Committee. The three areas remained significant areas of risk to Council budget and would need to be revisited throughout the year by the Sub-Committee to ensure they remained on track.

Resolved: The Sub-Committee agreed that the Chair would provide a summary of its discussion to the Scrutiny and Overview Committee on 15 February 2022.