Agenda item

The Panel was updated on performance information relating to Quarter 2 (July to September 2020), financial information for period 6 and emerging pressures and challenges for services ahead of setting the budget for 2021/22.

The Director of Children’s Services informed the Panel that she was very pleased and impressed with the performance data from WCF particularly at the time of the COVID pandemic.

Children’s Social Care

The Assistant Director, Family Front Door and Partnerships introduced the performance information for children’s social care and made the following main points:

·       The Family Front Door (FFD) had seen a significant increase in demand during this period.  On average, the FFD would see 800 referrals per month whereas this had increased to 1500 per month.

·       Although some of the referrals related to high risk concerns, there were also some that were classed as low risk, such as calls relating to breaches of COVID regulations.  Despite the rise in demand, the service had been able to respond with decisions made within 24 hours for 91% of calls.

·       91% of social work assessments had been carried out within timescales.

·       There had been a slight increase in the number of repeat social work assessments but this figure remained below England national levels.  This was to be expected given the increase in demand.

·       Challenges for the service related to an increase in domestic abuse and mental health concerns (of both adults and children).  There had also been an increase in concerns relating to physical health, disability and illness with COVID restrictions having had an impact on family support networks.

·       The number of looked after children had risen slightly from 822 last year to 834 this year.

·       96% of looked after children reviews had been completely within timescales and the service had kept in touch with 95% of care leavers.

·       There had been an increase in the number of children on child protection plans.  In part this was due to the fact that, in phase one of the COVID plan, it had not been felt appropriate to take children off plans at a time when families might be more in need of support.

·       Members were informed about a new project being undertaken with partner agencies in relation to safeguarding babies.  In particular, this project would look at babies born in 2020.  Work would start in December.

·       In relation to Children in Need, again these cases were not ‘stepped down’ during COVID leading to a slight inflation of the figures.

·       There had been a reduction in the number of missing children during this period, although some of this reduction could be due to COVID restrictions.

Members raised the following main points:

·       A Member wished to congratulate all staff who had been working throughout the pandemic.  She went on to express concern about the timeliness of missing from home return interviews.  In response, Members were informed that work had been done to understand this lack of engagement and it had shown that young people often did not see the point of the interview as they did not see themselves as missing or at risk.

·       The Assistant Director agreed that young people were often more comfortable with contact being made via the virtual world.  However, she also praised the work of the outreach team which had continued visits to vulnerable children.  Since September, all visits to all children had been face to face.

·       In response to a question about the quality of police referrals, Members were informed that a new police portal had gone live that week to support levels of need decision making.

·       It was confirmed that the figure of 115 with reference to missing children referred to episodes rather than individual children.

·       The Panel noted that children in care could be placed in foster care, residential care or with extended family or friends (as approved foster carers).  This was also known as kinship care.

Education and SEND

The Assistant Director for SEND and Vulnerable Learners introduced the education performance data and made the following main points:

·       Members were reminded that Ofsted had paused its visits to schools from March to September.  Visits had now restarted but these were intended to be supportive visits rather than inspections and would not result in a judgement.

·       Attendance levels had been maintained year on year and were better than the national average.

·       Permanent exclusions were down slightly and it was suggested this reflected adjustments made by schools in relation to COVID.

·       Enquiries in relation to elective home education (EHE) were being monitored to ensure that parents understood that EHE was not the same as remote learning with school support.  It was important that parents were able to make informed choices.

·       Figures for young people who were not in education, employment or training (NEET) peaked in September and would reduce when young people’s destinations post-16 became known.  The impact of COVID on this was not yet clear.

·       Members were told that an Early Years Area Learning Advocate had been recruited to support settings in the development of Personal Education Plans for early years pupils.

·       SEND data was very positive.  Post-16 graduated response guidance had recently been completed offering advice to post-16 settings on how to support students with SEND.

·       Positive feedback had been received from the DfE on improvements to the number and timeliness of EHCPs.  It would now be important to move on to quality assurance of the plans.

In response, Members raised the following main points:

·       A Member noted that the majority of schools now judged as inadequate or requiring improvement were academy and free schools rather than local authority maintained schools.  It was confirmed that the Regional Schools Commissioner would be involved in the improvement journey for free schools and academies.

·       Concern was expressed about the number of children being electively home educated (EHE).  It was disappointing that it had not been possible for the planned scrutiny into EHE to take place.  Particular concern was expressed about children with an EHCP who were home educated.  It was confirmed that if officers had concerns about a family’s ability to home educate, they would talk to the parents about a child’s need to be in school.

·       The Director of Children’s Services confirmed that the local authority would not support a looked after child being electively home educated.

Budget Monitoring 2020/21

By way of Introduction, the Director of Resources made the following main points:

·       Overall, the Council was broadly on budget, although COVID costs had exceeded grants received.  The Council was in a good position when compared to some other local authorities.

·       As at period 6, the Dedicated Schools Grant was forecasting a £2m overspend.  This was depressed due to COVID and it was anticipated this would increase.  Key pressures remained as previously reported to the Panel, namely out of county provision and post-16 provision in the High Needs block.

·       Increased funding had been provided for the High Needs block but this would not keep pace with demand.  Members were reminded that this was a national issue.

·       WCF budget monitoring showed a forecast overspend of £800k which equated to 0.6% of the budget and was mainly due to the cost of placements for looked after children.  This was very good when compared to other local authorities.

·       In response to a question about how much Corporation Tax had been paid by WCF, Members were told that this had been assessed as £120k but had not yet been paid.  A request had been sent to HMRC to assess the model used and a response had not yet been received.  Other local authorities had been successful in this challenge but it was important to prepare the financial statements with the worst case scenario in mind.

·       It was confirmed that a corporate group (including transport colleagues) was looking at home to school transport as part of the budget process.

·       As a result of COVID, there was a potential future budget pressure resulting from a change in the use of Short Breaks from groups to 1:1. It was suggested that initially this pressure could be in the region of £300k.  Further modelling would need to be done to see the whole year picture.

2021/22 Budget Emerging Pressures and Challenges

During the course of the discussion, the following main points were made:

·       The County Council was still under the direction of the DfE to support WCF to continue to improve services.

·       Members were reminded that, as part of budget setting, the Council and WCF had to agree a contract price.  This process had already started and would be agreed by the time the budget was set in February.  It was confirmed that WCF had a good working relationship with the Council.

·       The biggest budget pressure would be in demand for placements for looked after children.

·       It was noted that savings of around £3m would be required in 2021/22.  It was confirmed that this would be achieved through efficiencies and restructuring.  Although this would be a challenge, WCF was confident it could be done without affecting service delivery.  The Company would also look to increase income from traded services.

·       Members were reminded that 50% of the WCF budget was made up of demand-led services (ie placements and home to school transport).