Agenda item

To receive an update on the budgetary position relating to Corporate Plan Priority 1.

David Tully, the Interim Head of Finance (Adults and Children), reported that in Period 3 there was a projected overspend of £6 million.  This had come from a number of sources, including;

·         Children’s placements - £2.2 million;

·         Social care costs - £2.6 million; and

·         Special educational needs - £0.5 million.

The overspend would have been £3 million more had Cabinet not previously agreed to provide additional funding.  There had been particular difficulties arising from the delivery of projected savings and an increase in demand for social care.  Of the £16.7 million of savings that that have been aimed for, £6.5 million had so far been delivered. 

Jon Abbey, the Director of Children’s Services reported that the projected savings of £5.1 million in placements had proven to be undeliverable. In addition, the increase in the number of foster carers had not materialised.  The scaling back of the work force had also been affected by an increase in the number of looked after children.  The Panel noted that the number of Looked After Children (LAC) had stood at 600 LAC two years ago.  Although the figures had gone down to 406 in April this year, they had now gone up to 430. 

Neelam Bhardwaja, Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Social Care, reported that there were a number of reasons for children coming into care that were beyond the control of the Council.  For example, if young people were remanded in custody, the Council had no say about their placement but nevertheless were required to pay for it.  It was not possible to predict accurately the number of young people requiring secure accommodation and the costs of such placements could be up to £5,000 per week.  The Council was also responsible for assisting unaccompanied asylum seekers.  

In answer to a question regarding payments to people with no recourse to public funds, Ms Bhardwaja stated that the Home Officer could take several years to determine individual cases.  If people found that they needed help to provide adequately for their children, the Council was obliged to provide assistance.  Failure to do so could lead to legal challenge.  However, robust checks were made to ensure that claims were valid.  Mr Abbey commented that the amount spent on people with no recourse to public funds had gone down from £1.5 in the last two years but the threat of judicial review had increased. 

Mr Abbey reported that the Council’s Corporate Delivery Unity was currently looking at demand for children’s social care in order to try and understand the dynamics and improve prediction of costs.  The level of demand was such that it was difficult to reduce expenditure at the moment.  However, the Early Help service had only been in place since October and could have the potential to reduce demand.  Appointing permanent social care staff was still a challenge but the position had improved. 

Gill Gibson, Assistant Director for Early Help and Prevention, stated that a targeted response was provided by the Early Help service with the aim of working with specific cohorts and intervening at an earlier stage. 

In answer to a question, Mr Abbey reported that the Priority 1 budget had gone down from £80 million to £43.5 million within the last five years.  Although considerable savings had been made, they had not been made as quickly as necessary to meet targets.  Spending was broadly in line with that of statistical neighbours.  If it went much below this level, there was a danger that OFSTED would deem it to be unsafe.  The assumptions on which the budget had been set were correct but the methodology may have been flawed. 

Councillor Weston, the Cabinet Member for Children, commented that it was important that budget levels were not set at unsafe levels.  The Council was still facing huge budgetary pressures and looking at all options.  If less came out of the funding for Children and Young People’s services, the difference would need to be made good from elsewhere.  Mr Abbey stated that, although there was an overspend, the service had a grip on spending and there was now greater stability.  The right structure was in place but it would take time for improvements to be achieved.  The service wanted to be good and resources needed to be used effectively. 

Panel Members were of the view that the budget had not been set at the appropriate level at the start of the current MTFS and would not expect an unrealistic budget proposal to be set as part of the next budget strategy.

The Panel noted that the biggest reason for referral of children for social care was domestic abuse.  There had been a large increase in these and the Police were the source of most.  A large proportion of referrals resulted in no further action.  This was very similar to the experience of other boroughs.  This had been raised with the new Borough Commander but she had stated that she was restricted by Police regulations which meant that the Police were duty bound to make referrals.  However, she recognised that the issue needed to be addressed but this would take time and not be easy as it was a Metropolitan Police wide issue.  The issue had also been raised with the Chair of the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) and the Chief Executive. 

Ms Bhardwaja reported that the Council was represented on the London Safeguarding Board, who were currently reviewing how Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH) operated, and this would provide an opportunity to influence future policy.