PART 1
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC) / ITEM NO. 6
REPORT OF THE LEAD MEMBER FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES
TO THE BUDGET AND AUDIT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY, 5th SEPTEMBER 2007
TITLE: CHILDREN’S SERVICES’ BUDGET ISSUES 2007-08
RECOMMENDATIONS: Members are asked to consider the current position on the revenue budget and the actions being taken by the directorate in addressing these issues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: Various working papers and reports. (Available for public inspection)
CONTACT OFFICERS:
Jill Baker: Strategic Director of Children’s Services
Robert McIntyre: Principal Group Accountant Children’s Services
ASSESSMENT OF RISK:
PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS:
SOURCE OF FUNDING: Revenue Resources
LEGAL ADVICE OBTAINED: Not applicable
FINANCIAL ADVICE OBTAINED: This report concerns key aspects of the city council’s revenue finances and has been produced following consultation with the Finance Division of Customer and Support Services.
WARD(S) TO WHICH REPORT RELATE(S): None specifically
KEY COUNCIL POLICIES: 2007/08 Revenue Budget
Report Detail
1. Introduction
1.1 The Directorate’s gross revenue budget for 2007-08 is £202.321 million as approved by the City Council, with a net budget of £47.435 million. Within this budget £126.906 million is allocated to the City Council by the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) which funds delegated schools’ budgets and associated costs.
1.2 At their last meeting members requested further information about specific areas of the directorate’s revenue budget. This report reviews the directorate’s budget for the current year and the implications for this year and future years’ budgets
2. Minerva House – Building alterations
2.1 Minerva House as a city council office needed to be compliant with DDA regulations and this compliance necessitated alterations to the reception area.
The required works included:
· The construction of the external access ramp and railings.
· Installation of double automatic doors (which required a new frontage).
· Construction of a new reception desk with appropriate access for the disabled.
· Replacement of some existing internal doors which did not afford access for wheelchairs.
2.2 It was decided to take advantage of the DDA works to undertake other improvements to the reception area. The reception area was much the same as it was when the Directorate first moved into Minerva House. The improvement works to the reception area included:
· The construction of two new interview rooms with appropriate ICT equipment for meeting members of the public and discussing confidential information.
· New flooring.
· General redecoration.
· Replacement furniture.
· Provision of additional IT facilities.
· Provision of staff alarm system
· New internal door.
· Plasma screen.
2.3 The scheme has been supervised by urban vision with a cost in the region of £90,000. It was originally envisaged that the scheme would have been completed in 2006/07 but has overrun into the current year requiring £ 52,000 to be met from this year’s budget.
3. School Funding
3.1 Following consultation with schools the schools forum implemented changes to the local funding formula for schools with effect from April 2007. The methodology for funding schools will require significant review over the next three financial years to accommodate DCSF requirements.
3.2 It is proposed that the current “spend plus” methodology used for distributing the DSG will change to a formula basis from 2011; the government proposes consulting on the new formula over the next 18 months. The new formula will use indicators of need and may be similar to those used in the FSS. It is important to note that Salford City Council previously spent approx 4% above the FSS and that this change in DSG funding methodology is likely to work to the detriment of Salford schools.
3.3 Central government has requested all local authorities to complete a statement of their education spend allocated on the basis of deprivation compared to the notional funding included in the DSG. Salford exceeded its notional allocation in 2005 but the government has changed the definitions of expenditure that is eligible and Salford only achieves 64% in 2007. The DCSF may require a change to the school funding formula to distribute more funding on the basis of deprivation.
3.4 From 2008 the level of school development grant distributed to local authorities will increase in line with the minimum funding guarantee per pupil. The level of initial funding to schools will increase by nil per pupil (there will be a cash freeze), the difference in funding will then be distributed to schools on the basis of deprivation. It is up to the City Council to agree a basis of distribution with its schools forum.
3.5 From 2010 each local authority will need to have a common formula for funding under”5’s” in both the maintained and non maintained sectors. This change could have major implications for the level of funding in schools and the nature of provision. Further details will be available later in the year.
3.6 Overall, including standards fund, the schools had an accumulated surplus of £2.9 million at 31st March 2007(appendix 1 illustrates the range of balances). This compares to balances of £3.5 million at the end of 2005-06. The spread of balances ranges from a surplus of £783,000 to a deficit of £1,500,000. Twenty nine schools are in deficit totalling £3.8 million, compared to twenty eight schools with deficits totalling £2.7 million in 2005-06. Seventy three schools have a surplus amounting to £6.7 million compared to seventy four schools with a surplus of £6.2 million in 2005-06. Only four schools have breached the threshold (8% primary and special and 5% secondary). Schools with deficits are being monitored to assist them back to financial health. As part of this process 4 schools came out of deficit in 2006-07(but 5 went into deficit). It should be noted that all Salford secondary schools have achieved the financial management standard in schools.
4. Early Intervention and Preventative Measures Around Looked After Children
4.1 Looked after numbers increased dramatically in Salford between 1997 and 2001, reaching a peak of 601 in that year (31st March). Subsequently numbers fell slightly. The lowest number achieved in recent years was 564 in 2004 and again in 2006. However, on 31st March 2007 the figure was 570. Although some reductions have been achieved there remains a strong upward pressure.
The predominant reason for children having to be looked after continues to be neglect, often but not always related to drug and alcohol abuse by parents. 75% of the children looked after in March 2007 had entered the looked after system for this reason. Significant progress has been made in discharging children from the looked after system when it is appropriate to do so, and over 140 children were discharged in 2006-07. However, admissions exceeded discharges. This means that the makeup of the looked after population changed by over a quarter in the last year.
Salford’s looked after population is high in comparison with most local authorities. On 31.3.2007 the rate per 10,000 of under 18’s was 120 compared to an England average of 54.6 and 74.4 for our statistical neighbours. Salford’s figures are more comparable with authorities such as Manchester and Liverpool which also have high levels of social disadvantage.
In the Green Paper “Care Matters” the Government posed the question – should there be a target level for looked after numbers? At present it has decided not to introduce a target.
4.2 The poor outcomes for children looked after nationally have been highlighted by a series of Government reports and initiatives starting with “Quality protects” in 1999. They do less well at school than the general population, they are more likely to get into trouble, they are more likely to be unemployed and homeless and they are also more likely to have mental health problems. This kind of comparison may be misleading in that children who enter the looked after system are not typical of the general population. However, it does indicate that the State is not very successful in its role as parent in achieving changes in the fortunes of its looked after children.
In contrast, Salford actually achieves relatively good outcomes for it’s looked after children. For example, we have good performances on the numbers of children taking GCSE’s and achieving at least one GCSE. Our numbers achieving 5 or more GCSEs have increased very significantly in the last three years (although still below the performance of the general population), and our children enjoy stable placements. Our care leavers also do well in obtaining work or undertaking training or further education.
However, the resource implications are very significant. The total cost of placements is clearly linked to numbers looked after. Partly due to our high numbers we have a higher proportion of children placed in residential care (as opposed to foster care) than most local authorities. Residential placements are more expensive and do not replicate family life in the way that a fostering placement should. We do, however, have a higher proportion of children than most local authorities placed with relatives and research suggests that this type of placement offers good stability for children. We are developing strategies to increase our capacity to place children in foster care including the Intensive Foster Care Programme of which Salford is part of a national pilot.
In addition to placement costs, high looked after numbers mean high numbers of statutory reviews (over 1400 per year), and a significant proportion of social worker time devoted to working with children and supporting foster carers.
4.3 The following work is already in hand to reduce looked after numbers:
· Supporting relatives and long-term foster carers to apply for special guardianship or residence orders on children (this means the children are not looked after and passes parental responsibility to the carer)
· Discharging care orders on children who are living with parents
· Maximising the use of adoption for children who cannot return home.
Over 60% of the children who left the care system in 2006/07 were as a result of managed changes as opposed to reaching 18.
4.4 Although it is important that the work on helping children to leave the care system continues it is equally important to reduce the number of admissions. To date the following steps have been taken to achieve this:
· Establishment of 4 inter-agency locality teams to enable us to achieve earlier intervention in children’s lives
· Establishment of a new family support service within Children’s Centres to provide a continuum of family support services (ongoing)
· Publication of a new inter-agency document on thresholds for intervention in children’s lives to improve coordinated working
· Review of the Family Action Model
· Continuing support for the Salford Assisted Families Project
· Development of parenting strategy as part of the respect agenda
Although some of these steps have yet to make their full impact, the level of admissions to the looked after system demonstrates the size of the problem in reducing admissions. However, even relatively small reductions in numbers would make significant savings in placement costs and demands on resources.
4.5 The following proposal is based on good practice examples identified by staff of the Children’s Services Directorate or cited in the Government Publication “Care Matters – Time for Change” and on discussion with social work teams about the circumstances of children who become looked after. They have identified these groups:
Families where parents have learning disabilities which limit their ability (but not necessarily their willingness) to care for their children. / Long-term support could assist these parents to provide good enough parenting for their childrenVery large families with parents with limited parenting ability / Long-term support could assist these parents to provide good enough parenting for their children
Very immature young parents who will probably be able to provide good enough parenting in the future / Sustaining these families for 3 to 4 years could avoid the need for children to be looked after.
Families in which parents have parenting ability but their ability/willingness to exercise it is impaired by drug/alcohol abuse. / Our experience is that drug abusers are more susceptible to change than alcohol abusers.
Children with disabilities accompanied by challenging behaviour / Additional support to parents including more short break care may assist. If the cause of the challenging behaviour is autistic spectrum disorder work is being developed within a school setting which may help to reduce the need for such children to be looked after.
There are families from which a child has been removed at birth. Work is not continued with such families until another baby is born / Ongoing work with such families may reduce risks.
4.6 The following are proposals to improve interventions with these groups.
Strengthen locality teams(12 posts) / They are key to earlier intervention but their social care element is very small. Strengthening this would allow for more comprehensive and prompt interventions and earlier identification of problems.
Introduce Family Group Conferencing / A technique of getting whole families together to discuss what is going wrong with a part of the family and how the extended family itself may be able to help resolve the problem.
Conferences would be facilitated by the strengthened locality teams
Extend the Courts & Child Protection Team to undertake child protection assessments
(5 posts) / It will be possible to extend this team on an inter-agency basis.
Establish an intensive support team
(15 posts) / This team would be equipped to provide intensive long-term support to the families identified above as needing long-term interventions and where the possibility of support from within the family was not available
Further develop short-break care with families
(1 post) / To provide additional breaks for parents of children with disabilities but also for families being supported from within the extended family and by the Intensive Support Team.
Develop Friends and Family Care
(1 post) / Salford is a high user of friends and family as foster carers. The Government has indicated in “Care Matters – Time for Change” that it intends to make changes to make it more straightforward for friends and families to care for children. It should be part of our strategy to take full advantage of this.
4.7 There could be a re-allocation of up to 17 social work posts to help strengthen the Locality Teams and the Courts and Child Protection Team as proposed above and as part of moving early intervention responsibilities towards locality teams.