Agenda item

To receive an update on the financial performance relating to Corporate Plan Priority 1.                                                 (COVERING REPORT TO FOLLOW)

Paul Durrant, Senior Business Partner from Corporate Finance, reported that Period 5 for 2017/18 showed a projected overspend of £2.8 million.  The position was nevertheless an improvement in previous years.  Savings had not been made at the pace anticipated though and it was also a struggle to accommodate pressures on children’s social care.  There was a £1.4 million overspend in children’s placements and current ones were being reviewed.  There had not been the move to less expensive placements in the numbers that had been planned and unit costs were 10% higher than expected.  There had been a focus on the most expensive placements and the average of these had now gone down.  Period 6 was likely to show an improved picture. 

There had been a net £700k overspend on staffing.  This had been due to the costs of recruiting social workers and the fact that service was currently above establishment levels.  Efforts were being made to convert agency social workers to permanent Council contracts.  SEN transport had a projected overspend but savings were planned to be achieved through the introduction of single pick up points.   Savings were intended to be achieved in respite care through the adoption of a more consistent policy.  Although £1.4m had been saved so far, this was £3.1m short of savings targets.  There was a management plan that would aim to bridge this gap and the projected £2.8m overspend was a worst case scenario.

The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) comprised three blocks of funding.  The high needs block showed a projected overspend of £1.34m and proposals on how this would be mitigated would be considered at the next meeting of the Schools Forum.  Any deficits would be carried forward so it needed to be addressed so that funding could be sustainable in the long term. 

Margaret Dennison, the Interim Director of Children’s Services, reported that the suitability and duration of the most expensive placements was being reviewed and benefits from this were already being seen.  However, there would always be a cohort of children and young people with exceptional needs.  The Cabinet Member for Children and Families reported that a letter had been written to the Secretary of State expressing concern at the lack of suitable residential placements, which limited the options available. 

In answer to a question regarding the use of agency social workers, Ms Dennison reported that there was an outline plan in place to address this issue and she was confident that more could be achieved.  The key issue was the context within which effective social work took place.   Haringey often lost social workers to competitor authorities that were better rated and could offer lower workloads.  It was not about money but providing a strong offer and improving the context.  The service was investing in a specific officer to address recruitment issues.  There were particular agency staff that Haringey needed to be looking to retain.  In addition, a more robust induction process needed to be developed.  The overall offer to staff needed to be improved though addressing issues such as workloads, professional development and working conditions.  Models of social work practice also needed to be developed further, such as the greater use of family group conferences. 

In answer to a questions, Ms Dennison stated that the savings in SEN transport accrued from just having a single pick up point.  Concern was expressed by Panel Members that children and young people with SEN might not live close to each other, making this difficult for parents and carers.  Ms Dennison stated that she would be happy to look at any specific instances where this might be causing hardship.    The Cabinet Member for Children and Families commented that decisions on travel had been taken some time ago.  There had not previously been a policy on the issue.  The new arrangements worked for some people but the SEND team would be happy to look at any cases where there were problems. 

In answer to a question regarding the cost per year of supporting children from families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF), it was agreed that a briefing note would be circulated with details. 

Panel Members raised the issue of schools that held large cash reserves.  The Cabinet Member stated that the Schools Forum determined how funding was allocated to schools but the Council did not have any control over how it was used after this.  The majority of schools were using all of their funding and many were under considerable financial pressure. 

In reference to the pressures in SEND funding within the DSG, the Cabinet Member commented that this was being replicated across London.  Work was being undertaken by the Schools Forum to mitigate pressures within the aim of ensuring that provision was sustainable. 

In answer to another question, Ms Dennison reported that an OFSTED inspection was expected within the next three months.  Until the inspection had taken place, there was no change in approach planned in respect of providers.  Many other London boroughs faced similar challenges to Haringey and there was still a large amount of “spot” purchasing that took place.

The Cabinet Member reported that DSG money had been needed to fund nursery places that were required for the two-year-old offer in order to balance the budget.  The intention was to avoid a repeat this year.  In answer to a question, she agreed to report back on the provision of speech therapy as part of the therapeutic input provided for two-year-olds.  She also stated that intention was that the interim Director of Children would be in post for a few months.  Stability for the service was required and there was therefore no urgency in making a permanent appointment. 

AGREED:

That further information be provided to Panel Members on the following:

·         Changes to travel arrangements for SEN children;

·         The total cost of support per year to children from families with no recourse to public funds; and

·         Provision of speech therapy as part of the therapeutic input provided for two-year-olds.