Agenda item
Children and Families
A presentation will be provided to the committee by the Director of Children and Families updating Members on the current budget issues facing the service.
Minutes:
Krutika Pau (Director of Children and Families) delivered a presentation to the committee, updating members on the current budgetary issues affecting the department. Following a brief overview of the organisation and work of the department, Krutika Pau set out the overall budget position for 2010/11 through to 2012/13. The committee was advised that there had been an overspend against the general fund budget of £373,000 in 2010/11; however, for 2011/12 there had been an overall underspend which had allowed the redirection of funds towards children’s social care unit to accommodate the overspend in this area. Similarly, the department was currently on track to deliver a balanced budget for 2012/13; however, there remained a need to redirect funds towards children’s social care to meet the demand-led pressure on the placements service. Mustafa Salih (Assistant Director Strategic Finance, Children and Families) explained that in addition to several service pressures and the required savings that all areas of the council had been required to make, Children and Families had been further and disproportionately affected by the cuts to and cessation of specific grants from central government.
Krutika Pau explained that several strategies had been employed to mitigate the pressure on the placements service. Action had been taken to reduce the number of Looked After Children (LAC) placed with independent foster cares, partially by expanding the in house foster care provision. A new methodology for assessing risk had also been implemented and, whilst child protection thresholds remained unchanged and robust, this had led to a reduction in the number of children being placed on child protection plans. This methodology was now considered best practice. There had also been a greater emphasis on obtaining permanency earlier for LAC, thereby reducing their time in the care system, as well as the associated costs. In the longer term, the council was in the process of developing its preventative early help services, which were being progressed via the one council project ‘working with families’. The department had been successful in reducing the unit cost of supporting children in the care system in Brent by 16% between 2010 and 2013, whilst the number of children had increased by over 150 over this period. Brent was currently working actively with the West London Alliance to renegotiate contracts with providers to further reduce the unit cost.
Krutika Pau drew members attention to the Children’s Social Care benchmarking data provided, explaining that whilst it was useful to make comparisons with other councils, due to different departmental structures, it was difficult to do so accurately. The comparisons that had been included reflected those examples for which data was available in a similar format. With reference to the figures for Ealing, Krutika Pau advised that if Brent were to spend the same per child as Ealing, it would equate to an additional budget pressure of £2m.
During Members’ discussion the Committee requested clarification around the national framework for adoption, the costs associated with in-house foster care placements and how the changes to immigration regulations would impact the work of the Children and Families department. With reference to the savings targets outlined in the presentation, members sought assurance from the Director of Children and Families that these were realistic targets to pursue. It was observed that there had been an overspend for the placements budget consistently over the three year period under discussion and several members of the committee commented that it was important to get the basic budget positions correct. It was felt that setting a true figure from the outset was crucial, in order to ensure that the executive, other members and officers were alerted to the probable need for action as soon as possible. This might then allow adjustments to be made elsewhere and would also increase the possibility of redressing shortfall and overspend. With reference to the benchmarking data, the committee requested an explanation of the large disparity with Westminster’s figures and queried whether there was a correlation between the quality of care and the level of expenditure per child.
Responding to the committee’s queries, Krutika Pau advised that whilst the savings targets for the department were ambitious, and some might be difficult to meet, they would be closely monitored and reviewed if necessary. The disparity in Children and Families departmental spending between Brent and other boroughs such as Westminster reflected the fact that they were better resourced and had greater levels of available funding, as well as smaller populations; Brent was the fifth largest borough in London. At present, there were 338 LAC in Brent, although the total number in the care system, which included children on child protection plans and care leavers, was greater. The costs of foster care placements as set out in the presentation to the committee did not include associated administration costs; however, taking these into consideration in-house foster care placements remained the most cost-effective option. One of the factors contributing to the pressure on the placements service was recent changes to immigration legislation, which extended the age range of unaccompanied minors for which the council had a social care responsibility.
With regard to adoption, Krutika Pau advised that there was considerable national regulation and external scrutiny of children’s social care. Brent had been subject to 6 Ofsted inspections within 2 years, the most recent of which had been an unannounced inspection of LAC and Safeguarding services in November 2012. This scrutiny did provide an opportunity to showcase some of the good work that Brent was doing but the inspection framework had been changed and the required standards raised, at the same time that funding for these services had been cut. In 2011, the government had also introduced the Adoption Score Card. It was explained that there were a number of required timescales for adoption and it was a general requirement that following the decision to place a child for adoption, the process was completed as soon as possible. There had been significant improvements in Brent’s performance against the statutory timescales for adoption and it was emphasised that a suitable balance was maintained between meeting the timescales for the process and achieving a good match for the child and prospective adopter. Unfortunately, the improvement in Brent’s performance had not yet been reflected in the score card as it was measured as a three year average.
Members agreed that an explanation of the rationale behind the department’s savings targets should be provided to the committee. The Chair added that it was also important for the committee to understand the timescales and risk assessment processes in place for reviewing the targets set. Councillor Choudry requested further detail in relation to the demographic data presented to the committee. Councillor Brown requested that benchmarking data be provided for Brent’s statistical neighbours.
RESOLVED: -
i. that the report be noted
ii. that an update be provided to the committee at a future meeting