Agenda item
Children and Families budget issues and service transformation
The Director of Children and Families will attend the meeting to provide a presentation for members on current budget issues facing this service area.
Minutes:
John Christie (Director, Children and Families) gave a verbal presentation on current budget issues and service transformation in the Department of Children and Families. Touching on the issue of staff morale, discussed under the previous agenda item on the 2010/11 budget first reading debate, John Christie reported a mixed picture. While staff were affected by change and external pressures at an already difficult time for social care and social workers nationally, there was also an element of positive thinking, and the results of the Council’s staff survey showed that the level of satisfaction at working in Brent had increased slightly. John Christie was positive about the invest to save programmes and the focus on child protection and the prevention of abuse, and was encouraged by the results of the staff survey. He was confident that the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) bid would be successful, and had been encouraged by the feedback so far.
Responding to members’ comments on the situation at Copland Community School, John Christie informed the Panel that the first priority had been to stabilise the school. An Interim Executive Board (IEB) had been appointed and disciplinary action had been taken against the relevant staff, who had either resigned or been dismissed, with further action to come. The Council now needed to review what had happened and learn lessons. The situation had arisen as a result of a combination of things, for example, the permitted independent auditing arrangements and the submission of returns that did not declare certain payments. As soon as the Council had the information that something was amiss, it had taken action. A report would be written on what had happened, and this would cover the issue of governance and interests.
Turning to the budget, John Christie reported that, while Council revenue had been squeezed on the whole, the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) had grown, and the schools had agreed to use £750,000 of the DSG to fund the employment of Common Assessment Framework (CAF) officers for the next year.
John Christie reported a general increase in social care activity, with a rise – as follows – in child protection referrals under section 47 of the Children Act 1989:
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
2763 3100 3434 5456 (projected).
The number of section 47 enquiries over the same period was:
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
528 720 830 900 (projected).
The number of children subject to child protection plans was projected to rise to 230 in 2009/10. While the number of looked after children showed a downward trend, other regulatory aspects had increased, and this had combined with increasing demand in the wake of the Haringey inquiry.
The cost of social care placements over the same four-year period, was as follows:
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
budget £14.4m £16.2m £16.3m £16.3m
actual £18.4m £18.2m £17.6m £18.5m
The effect of the invest to save strategy was demonstrated by calculations, which showed that, without it, the actual figures would have been as follows:
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
£18.4m £19.2m £19.9m £20.5m
The overall budget figures, as follows, showed that expenditure was being contained, and had gone down in real terms:
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
£59.605m £59.923m £59.002m £58.862m
Asked about budgeting for the future, John Christie drew the Panel's attention to the increasing proportion of young people in the borough, the increase in the birth rate and movement into the borough. Increased awareness of social care issues had also led to increasing numbers of referrals. For example, there had been a large increase in domestic violence referrals by the police, in part as a result of increased awareness from training they had undergone. It was difficult to predict demand for social care, although it was known from experience that demand tended to peak after an event such as the Haringey inquiry. The Council had already put an extra £1m into social care, and increased the number of social workers. Audit and quality control had been strengthened, and the number of placements was monitored regularly. Specialist staff had been appointed to review cases with staff, and they reported that things were as good as they could be in what was a difficult area of making the judgement whether to place a child in care.
The issue of savings needed to be balanced with coping with increased demand. Estimates were being made of the gap between the amount proposed in the budget and what was needed to cope with predicted demand.
While a 2009/10 overspend of £2.5m in had been predicted in May 2009, this had now been reduced to a predicted £400,000. The department was working on reducing it further, but success would depend on the cost of placements. Two main areas of concern were the underlying issue of covering the budget for children with disabilities with virements from other areas, and the future impact of the Southwark judgement by the House of Lords, which had ruled that looked-after child status should extend to 16 and 17-year olds. The impact of this judgement was a national issue, with the cost previously met by central government now falling to local government. It affected all local authorities, and would cost between £800,000 and £1.6m. While there had been no financial impact so far this year, it was clear that there would be in 2010/11 and beyond.
The department would therefore be bidding for an extra £600,000 for the children with disabilities budget, £1.4m to cover the cost of social care placements and £800,000 in 2010/11, rising to £1.6m in 2012/13, to cover the impact of the House of Lords judgement.
The department was still working on the invest to save strategy, which was a gold project in the Council's improvement and efficiency action plan. While the invest to save programme had been revised and recalibrated, some justified growth was needed to respond to the pressures identified.
One area the department was still working on was to increase the number of in-house Brent foster carers. John Christie informed the Panel that he had commissioned an independent review on why this had not been successful so far. Asked about the assessment process for foster carers, John Christie acknowledged that it was difficult and challenging for applicants, but it was important that the right people were recruited. Brent was competing for foster carers with other boroughs and independent fostering agencies. The issue for carers was not just the financial reward, but also the support package provided, which Brent wanted to improve.
Responding to questions about the shortage of school places in Brent, John Christie reported that the BSF bid and academies programme were key elements of providing secondary school places. The big issue was the increasing demand for primary school places. While the government had announced funding of £20m nationally to meet demand in the current year, Brent had not qualified, because the threshold was 15% growth, while Brent’s had been 12.5%. The situation was being dealt with by opening extra classes and introducing temporary classrooms. Year on year the authority had managed to contain demand, but the real pressure would come over the next few years. Councillor Wharton (Lead Member, Children and Families) added that the peak would be in 2013, largely as a result of the increase in the birth rate.
Asked why the gymnasium behind the Gwenneth Rickus building had not yet been developed, John Christie informed the Panel that the refurbishment would cost £500,000 and that the department could not afford this in the current financial climate. However, alternatives and more cost-effective solutions would be sought.
The Chair thanked John Christie for his very clear and forthright presentation and for answering questions from the Panel.
RESOLVED:
that the verbal presentation by the Director of Children and Families be noted.