Agenda item

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Specialist Children's Services and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Procurement and Deputy Leader which asks the Committee to Note the draft budget and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), including responses to consultation and Government announcements, and invites Committee Members to make suggestions to the Cabinet Members on any other issues which should be reflected in the draft budget and MTFP.

(Dave Shipton, Head of Financial Strategy, and Michelle Goldsmith, Finance Business Partner, were in attendance for this item).

1.    Mr Shipton introduced the report which accompanied the final draft 2017-18 Budget and 2017-20 MTFP, and provided further details on the key assumptions which underpinned the budget proposals and savings relevant to the remit of Children’s Social Care and Health Cabinet Committee, and included information from KCC’s budget consultation, the Chancellor’s Autumn Budget Statement and provisional local government finance settlement.

2.    Mr Shipton added that there were around £66 million additional spending requirements, of which £51 million was unavoidable, and £8 million were policy choices.  There would also be a £46 million reduction in government funding. This meant that KCC had £112 million to find.

3.    Ms Goldsmith then highlighted the service specific areas set out in the budget appendices.

4.    Mr Segurola then responded to questions of the Committee Members and made points including the following:

·         There were always potential funding opportunities, and the service consistently scanned for these and put bids in where possible.  They were not always successful but the team were certainly pro-active in utilising opportunities.

·         The staffing costs for the leaving care service, without the UASC component, for its citizen children was £1.3million.  Demography moneys were being used to increase the amount.

·         There was a benefit from increasing staffing in the leaving care service, in that children could be moved forward to a position of independence sooner, and a return was expected in costs of accommodation as a result of this.

5.    Ms Goldsmith also added the following points:

·         The Care Leavers aged 18 and over budget shown in Appendix two of the budget documentation showed that asylum was brought together in one service, and the £8.7 million included staff, as well as costs of accommodation support. The citizen young people care leavers line shown in line 61 showed an internal income which was a recharge to asylum.

·         Row 61 in appendix 2 showed the 16/17 budget position was £2.6, then 17/18 went up to £3 million, to include the demography monies.

·         The minus figures were where proposed savings could be made or there would be an income. Means testing of guardians for allowances would result in savings.

·         In total, the safeguarding spend was £5.8 million, but there was some income that would off-set that. The £6.82 was the recharge to the asylum budget. The £4.39 was a contribution towards the running of the Safeguarding Board.

·         The budget pages relating to Safeguarding only related to Social Care, not education and young people.

·         The budget book and the pages attached to the agenda showed different figures relating to Adults Social Care. Mr Shipton would provide further clarification around this.

·         The Children’s Public Health Service shown in line 64 of appendix 2 was fully funded by the current ring fenced care grant.

6.    Mrs Duggal stated that the co-location of the Health Visitors in the Children’s Centres was still in progress, but it was hoped to bring a report about this to the Committee at a later date.

7.    Mr Ireland then added the following points:

·         0-25 Services were presently being looked at in great depth.  Instead of looking at opportunities for efficiencies across social care, health and wellbeing, those opportunities would be looked at across 0-25 as a unity. It was not clear as yet how this would be set out in the report.

·         More efficient commissioning of supported accommodation for young people aged 16 plus was an area KCC could target to create efficiencies and savings.  Given the numbers looked at in the previous papers, market power was potentially much greater. Greater coherence in planning locations of accommodation was needed, rather than placing disproportionate numbers in a few locations.

8.    Mr Oakford also added that this budget did not reflect anything to do with the ongoing 0-25 work. That work related to the integration of children’s services and better pathways for the most vulnerable young people. Any savings would be a by-product.

9.    RESOLVED that the draft budget and MTFP including responses to consultation and Government announcements, be noted.