Agenda item

To consider and make recommendations to Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 2019-20 Draft Budget/MTFS 2019/20 to 2023/24 and savings proposals relating to the Panel’s remit.

Councillor Weston, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, stated that she felt that the proposed budget savings were both deliverable and achievable.  Of particular note was the fact that they strengthened early help and protected front line services.

Anne Graham, the Director of Children’s Services, reported that all service areas had been looked at for savings but the priority had been on deliverability.  They had been very conscious that a number of previous savings proposals had proven to be non achievable and a lot of work had taken place to ensure that the current proposals avoided this.  Paul Durrant, Senior Business Partner from Corporate Finance, reported that it had been acknowledged that some more recent savings proposals had been unrealistic.  Any proposals that were not considered to be sufficiently robust had been taken out during the current exercise.  A more collaborative approach had been followed that acknowledged the true cost of running the Children’s Service.  The Panel noted that only 20% of proposed savings in previous years had actually been achieved.

Ms Graham felt that the proposed savings in social work staffing carried some risk but greater stability in the workforce was more efficient.  Councillor Weston stated that the budget for children and young people’s services had been reduced by about one third due to the government’s austerity policies.  It had become progressively more difficult to identify savings. Ms Graham reported that savings were also intended to be realised through improved recruitment and retention of foster carers.  However, it was also important to ensure that children were allocated to them and care plans were reasonable.  The proposals had left some space for manoeuvre.  There would always be unforeseen circumstances but the service aimed to ensure they met their savings targets.

The Committee noted that the Finance Service had been required to sign off all of the proposals.  Ms Graham stated that the service would not break placements just for the sake of making savings.  However, they were happy to agree to children returning home if the service was able to work successfully with the family and if it was safe to do so.  Only three such cases had been identified so far as the service was taking a cautious approach.  Councillor Weston reported that the service had a moral and legal responsibility to meet the needs of children.  A large amount of work went into ensuring that they were placed in the right setting for them.  They sought to be as realistic as possible in their projections but the service was ultimately demand led.

The Panel noted that the Staffing and Remuneration Committee had considered a report on the recruitment and retention of social workers within the Children’s Service at its meeting on 17 December and it was agreed that this would be circulated to Panel Members. 

The Panel considered in detail the proposals relating to its terms of reference as follows:

·         P1; Reducing Agency Spend on Social Work Staff;

In answer to a question, Ms Graham reported that the posts that were most difficult to recruit to were those that were front line.  These were demanding and often stressful posts.  There was a lot of mobility amongst staff and a significant number were choosing to work for agencies now.  In answer to another question, she stated that the service was seeking to strengthen learning and development for staff and work was taking place with partners to progress this so that learning could be undertaken together, which had the added benefit of building stronger relationships.

·         P2: Reducing Operational Costs;

In respect of the reducing the management costs of running Children’s Centres, the Panel noted that these would affect the three centres that were directly run.  The aim was to rationalise management costs across them whilst improving the quality of practice.  The Cabinet Member reported that consultation had taken place with relevant trade unions.  Gill Gibson, Assistant Director for Early Help and Prevention, agreed to provide further details of the proposed reductions.  The reductions in management staffing were intended to be achieved through voluntary redundancies and there had already been a number of applications.  Council Policies for organisational change would be followed

Panel Members commented that voluntary redundancy had a cost and those who might wish to take advantage of it often had specific skills that the Council should be looking to retain. 

In respect of the proposal to deliver more support to less complex cases through the greater use of family support workers, the Panel noted that there would still be some social worker input as appropriate. 

·         P3: Reducing the Cost of Placements;

The Cabinet Member reported that targets for the recruitment and retention of foster carers had been achieved for this year. In answer to a question, Ms Gibson reported that promoting independence amongst SEND children was a priority.  However, independent travel training would only be offered to those young people placed out-of-borough where this was appropriate. Training was already being offered successfully for those placed in-borough.

In answer to a question, Ms Gibson reported that promoting independence amongst SEND children was the priority.  However, independent travel training would only be offered to those young people placed out-of-borough who were felt to have the potential to benefit from it.  Training was already being offered successfully for those placed in-borough.

In respect of the proposed savings in supported housing for young care leavers, Ms Graham reported this proposal was concerned with managing the market better and commissioning at a cheaper rate.  In reference to the timely provision of adaptations, Ms Gibson reported that there was evidence that these were taking too long at the moment and the aim was to address this.  In answer to a question, she stated that consideration was being given to using independent occupational therapists (OTs).  It was noted that a lot of work was taking place in Adults Services to improve the speed in which adaptations were undertaken and Children’s Services were working closely with colleagues in Adults Services to ensure that adaptations took place in a timely way in future.

·         P4: Reducing the number of Looked After Children;

In answer to a question, Ms Graham stated that there were currently no plans by the Council and other boroughs to replace the London refuge for young runaways that had closed.  It was nevertheless an interesting idea and could be considered at a later stage. She stated that where young people were at a very high level of risk, consideration could be given to moving them out of the borough.

·         P5:  Providing Educational Psychology and Advisory Teacher services to schools;

In answer to a question, Ms Gibson reported that Haringey’s services in these areas were well respected and valued by schools and a good level of interest had been expressed by them already.

·         Capital Programme;

In respect of the proposal concerning Fortismere School, the Panel noted that the proposal was to assist the school initially with the sale and development of a portion of their land.  Any capital used for this would be recovered from the development in due course.  A full business case would be developed.  The Cabinet Member reported that no decision had been taken on the proposal yet but including this in budget enabled one to be taken at the appropriate time should the Council decide to go ahead.  In answer to a question, she stated that Fortismere was probably in a unique position compared to other schools in the borough due to the higher projected land values. 

Panel Members commented that this appeared to be a disproportionately high amount of money to invest in a single school, particularly in the light of its foundation status.  Concern was expressed at the potential impact of the further expansion of the Sixth Form at Fortismere on other schools within the borough.  As it was a foundation school, it had been able to expand several times whilst community schools were not.  It was also the case that the consent of the Secretary of State for Education was required for the disposal of any surplus land that was currently used for education purposes.

The Cabinet Member responded that the impact on other schools of any further increase in the size of the Sixth Form at Fortismere would be considered as part of any process leading to a decision on the proposal.  However, a large number of young people went outside of the borough for post 16 education.  The capital funding proposal was nevertheless focussed on regeneration rather than sixth form expansion and it was being led by the Cabinet Members for Strategic Regeneration and Corporate Services and Insourcing.  She did not know whether an initial approach had yet been made to the DfE regarding the possible disposal of surplus land.

The Panel requested further information about the proposal and, in particular, the amount that would be required next year.

Panel Members felt that the proposals within the MTFS appeared to be achievable and realistic.  They also welcomed the transparent and collaborative approach and the income generation that was proposed.

AGREED:

1.    That the report on the recruitment and retention of social workers within the Children’s Service that was considered by the Staffing and Remuneration Committee at its meeting on 17 December be circulated to Panel Members (Action – Rob Mack);

2.      That further details of the proposed budget reductions arising from the rationalisation of the management of Children’s Centres and the capital proposal in respect of Fortismere School, including the amount of funding that would be required next year, be circulated to the Panel (Action – Gill Gibson/Eveleen Riordan/Paul Durrant).