Agenda item

The Panel was updated on performance information and 2020/21 Year-End Budget Monitoring.

WCF 2020/21 Year-End Budget

The Director of Resources updated the Panel on the year-end financial outturn for 2020/21.  The following main points were made:

·       Members were reminded that the deficit in the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs block was held as an unusable reserve on the balance sheet.  This deficit was set to rise and forecast to be £14.7 million by the end of March 2022.  Lobbying of Government on this issue was ongoing.  This was a big issue for the Council but should be seen in the context of much larger deficits in other local authorities.

·       The WCF 2020/21 outturn position showed a small surplus which, in the context of a £120 million budget, was a good position to be in at the end of a challenging year.  Money had been received from the County Council to cover the direct costs of Covid.

·       The pressure on the placements budget was still severe and the risk reserve had been increased to £1.9 million.

·       Internal audit had reported that budgets were robustly managed and well run.  External audit had been completed at the end of June 2021 and no issues were reported.  The accounts had been approved by the WCF Board and would be signed off in the next week.

·       It was confirmed that, as a separate company, WCF had to have separately audited accounts.

·       It was agreed that a breakdown of costs associated with Alternative Provision would be circulated to the Panel.

2020/21 Q4 Performance Information

The Director of Children’s Services reminded the Panel that this set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) had been previously agreed with the Scrutiny Panel.  The following main points were highlighted:

·       The Family Front Door had seen an increase in demand throughout lockdown and this had peaked when schools were re-opened to all pupils.  Referrals were assessed as having a lower level of need during the period that access to early help had been limited.  Resources had been used to target the peak and some repeat referrals had been seen.  Staff had worked well under pressure.  The Family Front Door had received an Ofsted focused visit and informal feedback included clear recognition of how well the service had managed demand and maintained quality.

·       The higher number of children in care reflected the impact Covid had had on the number of children able to exit the care system.  There had been delays in completing court proceedings and therefore overall numbers of children in care and caseloads had increased.

·       Care leavers had been provided with an additional £100 per month from December to March to help through lockdown.  In-person visits to those in semi-independent provision had continued.  There had been fewer visits to those children living in stable placements with carers in order to minimise face to face contact.  Children were kept on child protection plans as it had not been possible to have the reassurance that these plans could be removed.  Therefore, as new cases were coming into the system, the overall number had gone up and then reduced once face to face work could begin again.

·       School attendance was reported weekly to the Department for Education (DfE).  Feedback from the DfE indicated that the Council was one of the best examples of supporting children and schools through the Covid pandemic.

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

·       It was confirmed that there had been an increase in anxiety from parents and children, in relation to the return to school.  The ‘Back to School’ project had focused on supporting children who may have had a particular problem or anxiety.  Attendance rates compared favourably with other local authorities.

·       It was confirmed that there had not been a problem with social workers being able to access families and this had been done safely.

·       Members of the Adult Care and Well-being O&S Panel had asked about the impact of the pandemic on young carers.  The Director of Education and Early Help agreed to share her response to this enquiry with the Children and Families O&S Panel.  Through the pandemic, contact with young carers had initially reduced but was now increasing again.  Members were informed that, when a referral was received, one of the mandatory questions as part of the assessment process was ‘Is the child a young carer?’.  It was agreed that young carers would be invited to contribute to a future meeting of the Panel.

·       It was confirmed that the reduction in contacts at the Family Front Door reflected a return to pre-Covid normal levels.

·       The number of social workers was published annually as part of social work sustainability data.  It was agreed that this would be shared with the Panel on an annual basis.

·       A Member highlighted that schools’ Ofsted performance had gone from tracking marginally above the national figure to consistently below.  The Director of Education and Early Help reminded the Panel of the impact of Covid.  A new Ofsted inspection framework had been published in September 2019 and the County had seen 56 inspections under the new framework before inspections were suspended in March 2020.  Since March 2020 there had been virtual visits to inadequate schools.  The WCF School Improvement team had continued to work with all schools and saw a consistently good response.  In the Spring and Summer terms Ofsted monitoring visits of inadequate schools had resumed and all schools seen in Worcestershire were reported to have been taking effective action.  The trajectory of improvement was on track but the Ofsted inspection schedule was behind so many schools had not yet experienced full inspections under the new framework.  The data would therefore take a while to change.

·       The Panel was reminded that there were 116 maintained schools in the County and they were reviewed on a termly basis by School Improvement Advisers, a system which would highlight schools which may need additional support.  WCF did not have the same degree of leverage with academy schools but, overall, relationships were good with academy schools often contacting WCF officers for advice.

·       Although it was acknowledged that the Ofsted inspection framework had changed for all schools in England at the same time, it was suggested that the high proportion of single academy schools in the County (ie those which were not part of a group or chain) would have an impact.

·       In response to a question about the impact of Covid on children in care, the Director of Children’s Services reported that children in stable placements had responded positively.  Children in family-based care were supported to return to school where necessary but many were happy to continue home learning.  There had been a reduction in the number of children missing during lockdown and for some children it was an opportunity to build relationships.  There had been a rise in demand for support for families but not a rise in the number of children coming into care.

·       With reference to virtual learning, it was confirmed that all children in care and care leavers had been provided with laptops.  Children with a social worker were classed as vulnerable and schools had remained open for these children, although they had been able to study via remote learning if they preferred.

·       The data showing the disparity between maintained and academy schools in relation to Ofsted inspections was welcomed.  It was agreed that for future discussions, this would be broken down further to show the differences between schools which were single academies and those which were part of a multi-academy trust.

·       In response to a question about the relationship between the local authority and academy schools, Members were reminded that the local authority remained responsible for the provision of education throughout the County.  In terms of quality, there were the same expectations for all state-funded schools.  If Ofsted received a complaint about a school, the local authority would take this forward with a maintained school, whereas the DfE would be the contact for academies.  The local authority had a close relationship with the DfE with meetings taking place on a fortnightly basis.  Relationships were close with Worcestershire-based multi-academy trusts and good but slightly more distant with non-Worcestershire based trusts.  On behalf of the local authority, WCF administered in-year admissions for all academies in the County.