Agenda item

As part of the budget scrutiny process, the Panel considered the 2021/22 draft budget for areas within its remit.  The Panel was also updated on performance and in-year financial information.

The Chief Financial Officer gave a presentation updating the Panel on the 2021/22 draft budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan.  The following main points were made:

·       The Agenda papers for the 4 February Cabinet meeting had now been published and it was confirmed that the figures in relation to this Panel’s remit showed no change.

·       Although this had been the most difficult budget for 20 years, the process of working with the Board of Worcestershire Children First (WCF) had gone well and he thanked Board Members and Directors for their work.  The budget development process had been ongoing since July.

·       The overall Council budget showed £26.5m of funding pressures including £7.7m for WCF.  An additional £9m had been received in grants, £5.9m of which was in the form of a Covid-19 grant.  This had been a one-off in the first quarter and the Council waited to see if further grants would be provided.

·       The slow down in the speed of house building meant that the New Homes Bonus was less this year.

·       Overall, the Council needed to find over £10m in savings.  £7.1m had been identified £3m of which were in WCF.  £3m would be covered by the potential use of reserves.

·       Final figures for the Council Tax Grant were not yet known but if worse than expected, reserves would be used as a one off.  Figures for the schools capital grant were not yet known and may not be available until April or May.

·       Members were reminded that there had been a delay in the Fairer Funding Review and the resolution of provision for the Higher Needs Block.  The Council would continue to lobby in these areas.

Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were raised:

·       The Chairman suggested that this was the most complex budget he had seen in his 25 years as a councillor.  The Chief Financial Officer reminded Members that, in relation to council tax, in an ordinary year any deficit would need to be resolved in the following year.  However, this could now be spread over 3 years.  He suggested that the Panel should monitor the capital budget alongside the revenue budget and this could be reported on a quarterly basis.

·       A question was asked about the detail of the local government income compensation scheme.  It was confirmed that the scheme referred to by the Panel Member was predominantly used by district councils.

The Director of Resources (WCF) outlined specific budget information in relation to children and families, reminding the Panel that they had discussed emerging issues in November and the report showed no surprises.  Points made included:

·       The budget setting process had been good, as had WCF’s internal governance via the Risk, Governance and Audit Board and the main WCF Board.

·       The overspend on safeguarding placements was part of a national picture.

·       Of the overall budget of £127m, half represented demand led budgets including home to school transport and placements.  It was acknowledged that this involved a level of risk and the risk reserve was there to mitigate this.

·       In relation to the Dedicated Schools Grant, the High Needs Block continued to see pressure, again reflecting the national picture.  In line with government guidance, the ongoing deficit would sit on the balance sheet.  A High Needs recovery plan was in place but this would take time.  Members were reminded that other local authorities were in a worse position.

Further Member questions were invited and the following main points were raised:

·       It was acknowledged that, as pay was agreed via negotiations between trade unions and local government, it was not possible for central government to impose a pay freeze.  The proposed budget did not include provision for any increase and this was in line with government guidance.  Therefore, if a pay increase was agreed, it would be argued that this would be the responsibility of central government to fund.

·       A question was asked about the level of risk in the placements budget.  Concern was expressed that the agenda report suggested that the budget could be exceeded by up to £2m and that this was mitigated by the £1.1m risk reserve leaving a gap of £900k.  There was concern that the additional societal stresses caused by Covid could result in more children needing to be brought into care.  Although the Council had a good track record in placement budget monitoring, it was not possible to be certain about the risk involved.  If there was a significant rise in the number of placements needed, WCF may need to re-negotiate with the County Council in order to resolve funding issues.

·       The Director of Children’s Social Care and Safeguarding reminded Members that WCF had been very successful in supporting families to avoid bringing children into care where it was safe to do so.  The work of the Supporting Families First team was ongoing and, despite additional pressures on families, there had not so far been a large increase in the number of children coming into care, in contrast to the national picture.  This reflected a multi-agency approach and a professional willingness amongst partners to manage risk.

·       In line with government guidance, the ongoing £10.5m overspend on the DSG was held on the balance sheet and carried forward against future income.

·       In response to a question about school-based actions in relation to the High Needs block, the Panel was reminded that a plan to manage spend was in place led by the Assistant Director for SEND and Vulnerable Learners.  It would take time to understand how spend was managed and achieve good value for money.  The action plan would be shared with the Panel.

·       The Chief Executive of WCF suggested that there should also be a focus on the education system with all schools needing to be more inclusive.  Wherever possible, children with SEND should attend their local mainstream school.  In relation to inclusion, the Council was still approximately 8% behind the national figure and more work should be done locally to avoid spending more on specialist provision.  There had been some progress (for example the development of mainstream autism bases) but there was still more to do.  It was not realistic to expect the deficit to be brought down in the next year.

·       In response to a question about potential blocks to greater inclusion, the Chief Executive suggested this was cultural with schools (who were not well funded) worried about exam results and their capacity to cope.  Also, placing a child in specialist provision was often supported by parental expectation and choice through the tribunal system.

·       The Chairman asked a question about the fragility of the home to school transport market and the fact that providers had continued to be paid during lockdown when fewer children were travelling to school.  It was confirmed that providers had used the furlough scheme and capacity was used by the Council in other ways, for example to transport equipment.  Once children returned to school, additional capacity was needed to accommodate social distancing requirements.  It was clear that no one would make money from the service.  It was a complex, changing picture and the Council needed the market to survive.

·       The Chairman pointed out that with only 15% of children in school for much of the year, 100% of the home to school transport budget had been spent.  Members were reminded that those children who were in school were the most vulnerable.  In particular, special schools had worked hard to remain open with a greater proportion of pupils still attending.  Operators were required to deliver transport in a Covid secure way meaning the service was not as efficient as in normal times.  It was important to protect children and develop parental confidence.  There had been additional pressure on the system from a loss of parental income.

·       The Chairman expressed concern that continuing requirements for Covid security and social distancing on school transport once all children returned to school may result in additional costs and further budget pressures.  Any additional expenditure would need to be funded through government grants.

·       It was confirmed that the budget had been considered line by line to check all spending was necessary.

The Panel considered in-year budget information for period 8 and the following points were made:

·       The Dedicated Schools Grant showed a forecast overspend of £4.6m with County Council budgets forecasting a slight underspend.

·       Confirmation had now been received from HMRC that transactions between Worcestershire County Council and Worcestershire Children First would be disregarded for tax purposes.

With reference to performance information, the following main points were made:

Children’s Social Care

·       Q3 data showed a rise in the number of contacts received by the Family Front Door with over 1000 contacts per month compared with approximately 800 per month previously.  However, these contacts had not led to an increase in requests for social worker interventions.  Instead referrals had been to lower level early help interventions.  This was a pattern seen across all partners including health, police, schools and members of the public.  It was suggested that those contacting the family front door were looking for a safeguarding assurance and were not sure which services were open so rang the FFD for advice.  This was not a manageable level of demand and was often outside the remit of the FFD staff who were having to signpost to other services rather than focus on level 4 safeguarding concerns.  Further work was needed to assess whether families did not know what support was available or whether this support was not meeting their needs.

·       The Covid pandemic had led to greater pressure on families in relation to poverty and emotional health and well-being.  Although national headlines suggested that cases of domestic abuse had risen significantly, this had not been the case in Worcestershire.  However, information for September to December showed an increase in additional risk factors such as substance misuse, parenting challenges and anti-social behaviour in young people, all of which contributed to a worrying picture.

·       Partnership work was good and the virtual way of working had proved very positive especially with schools, with 91% of strategy discussions now attended by an education representative.

·       Data for the timeliness of social work assessments showed that 95% were now completed within timescales.  The low rate of repeat social work assessments was an indication of the quality of those assessments.

·       The Director of Social Care and Safeguarding wished to thank all staff and managers for the way they had responded to the challenges of the pandemic.  A recent staff survey had revealed exceptionally high levels of staff morale and she did not underestimate the work undertaken to achieve this.

·       It was important that the early help offer was accessible and meaningful to families to meet the challenges.  Some families may need a telephone conversation or to be helped through an online course or literature rather than simply signposted to material.  Often the early help offer did not provide this support and therefore did not meet families’ needs.

·       It was suggested that the solution to levels of demand was not simply to employ more social workers as there was a shortage in the current market.  Instead, the answer was to support existing staff and share issues with partners.  Youth workers, money mentors and emotional wellbeing workers were also important.

·       In response to a question about newly recruited police officers, Members were told that training in appropriate decision making was working and would be continuing.

·       When asked about whether the service had everything it needed in terms of administrative staff, IT equipment etc, the Director confirmed that the service felt well supported.

Education

·       Members were reminded that there was no change to the data relating to Ofsted performance as inspections were currently paused.

·       Figures for school attendance had gone up last term and were above the national average.

·       The number of enquiries relating to elective home education was much lower in the spring term, as would be expected during a lockdown.  There was now a focus on understanding the experience of children whose families chose to electively home educate last term and consider the suitability of the education provided.  The expectation was that some children would return to school.

·       The number of 16 to 18-year olds who were not in education, employment or training (NEET) had reduced as destinations from September became known.  This would be a key group to monitor going forward.

·       Attendance figures for children who were looked after were monitored closely and shared with social care colleagues on a weekly basis.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)

·       The timeliness of decision making with reference to SEND remained good.  Although the percentage of Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) completed within 20 weeks had fallen from 100% to 93% in Q3, this related to only 7 plans where it had not been possible to complete assessments due to Covid related issues.

·       There had been an increase in the number of electively home educated pupils with SEND.  This mirrored the national picture and would be monitored through the SEND team.

The following points were made in response to Members’ questions:

·       The Chairman noted that over time there had been a fall in the Ofsted performance of academies and free schools and a general plateauing of performance across all schools.  He reminded Members that there would be a fuller discussion on educational attainment at the Panel’s next meeting.  The Director of Education and Early Help reminded Members that the Ofsted external inspection regime had now been paused for almost 12 months.  Before the pause, there had been a change in the inspection framework in September 2019 and Worcestershire had seen 50 inspections following this change.  The trend had been identified and officers would continue to build up intelligence, develop working relationships and consider evidence from monitoring visits but it was difficult to make a comment at this time.

·       Members were reminded that figures for permanent exclusions were cumulative.  The education strategy included an ambition to minimise exclusion and a review was currently underway.  Officers were in touch with schools where the data was a cause for concern.  It was recognised that permanent exclusion was a serious experience for children, families and schools.

·       Further concern was expressed about young people who were NEET with the suggestion that it would be very difficult for young people to get a job when sectors such as hospitality and retail were struggling due to the pandemic.  It was suggested that the Panel should hold a more detailed discussion on NEETs in the future and agreed that this should be added to the work programme.

·       Concern was expressed about children with SEND who were electively home educated.  It was suggested that not many parents would have the skills to provide an adequate education for a child with SEND.