SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE

SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE
Date: 28 May 2008
Agenda No:
4.2
Purpose of Report
To explore performance between Gloucestershire and other comparable authorities with
regard to those areas highlighted by the JAR report, particularly relating to levels of resource.
Relevant Policy or Strategy
Phase 3 Change Project
BVPI/Local Performance Indicators/ Other Indicators/CPA Rating (to include direction of
travel and comparative figures where available)
Please see Appendix 1
Officer Contact
Linda Uren
Director – Commissioning and Partnerships
Children & Young People's Directorate
Gloucestershire County Council
Shire Hall
Gloucester GL1 2TP
Tel: 01452 427788
email: mailto:[email protected]
HTU
UTH
1
Context
Whilst outcomes for most children and young people remain good, with Gloucestershire maintaining its
position in the top 25% of authorities nationally on the key outcome indicators, the Committee will be
aware that the JAR report highlighted performance issues in the following areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thresholds for access to core children protection services
The quality of the council’s children’s homes
Support for children with learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD)
Access to services for children’s mental health
Safe staffing practices
Quality Assurance
Improved engagement between the statutory and voluntary and community sector
The Committee expressed an interest in exploring the relationship between performance and the
allocation/level of resource. Since the JAR further work has been commissioned to understand this
complex relationship and the impact upon policy and practice, structural arrangements and culture.
External advice has confirmed the JAR findings that families do not experience a consistent, coherent
response across social care teams because of current organisational arrangements.
A change project is underway to address this and the areas identified below.
1.
Processes and Systems
Arrangements for how children, young people and their families access our services are
inconsistent and unclear. We need simpler and more effective processes to ensure that our
customers get the right advice and support without the frustration of repeat referral and
assessment
2.
Customer Focus
We must become a more customer-focused service that puts children, young people and their
families at the centre of everything that we do. The focus needs to be on helping families in need
of advice or support rather than turning them away because they don’t need specific services.
3.
Quality and Consistency of Practice
The quality of our professional practice is variable. This means that children, young people and
their families receive different standards of service depending on where they are seen and who
they are seen by. We need quality assurance arrangements that give us the confidence that we
are offering our customers the best possible quality of service whatever support they are getting,
as well as good staff development opportunities.
4.
Capacity, Structure and Organisation
As we move towards integrated multi-agency support to improve outcomes for children and young
people, we must deploy our limited resources most effectively. We must ensure we have the right
structures, type of staff roles and organisational capacity in order to offer support to those most in
need of advice and support.
Resources and Benchmarking
Information on comparable spend is currently available through the Audit Commission Value for Money
Profile on local authorities. Whilst this data is useful, care needs to be taken as local authorities make
different assumptions when providing the information. Data is still mainly categorised against
‘education’ and ‘social care’ which, over time becomes less useful e.g. analysis of spend on family
support relates only to social care spend and does not include other budgets that may be used for this
purpose. Relevant information to JAR issues is summarised at Appendix 1. Given the caveats above it
is possible to draw some broad conclusions:
2
•
•
•
•
High child protection levels probably do relate to the relatively low numbers of childcare social
workers
Demand for services for children with LDD is putting pressure on existing services
GCC Children’s homes are not providing value for money
Spend on children in need and SEN is comparable to other LAs
There is little available data on referral rates and patterns across LAs. Attempts have been made to
analyse whether continued investment in early intervention through the common assessment process
is impacting on referrals to social care but relevant data is not available. At the current time referrals to
social care remain constant although these are hugely influenced by professional practice and
expectations e.g. a new police emphasis on domestic violence has resulted in an increase in referrals
to social care as previously unmet need is identified.
Progress since the JAR
GCC and other partners have already started to address the issues raised by the JAR, including
investing in services where capacity appears to be an issue. Appendix 2 is an extract from the new
CYPP business plan, summarising investments mad by partners and though the Area Based Grant. In
particular the following investments have been made:
Short term•
•
•
•
£200k has been invested in child protection social work
£250k has been invested by GCC in support for children with disabilities
The PCT has invested in occupational therapy and CAMHS services
A Prevention Fund of £2.3m has been established through the new Area Based Grant to
maintain services in this area
Medium Term:
•
•
A major project is in place to improve outcomes for children with complex needs and ensure
better value for money in respect of placements
Change project to improve quality of practice, systems and organisational arrangements for
service delivery
These issues need to be considered within the overall context of significant financial constraint.
Services for vulnerable children and young people (safeguarding and LAC) constitute 49% of the GCC
children’s services budget (excluding DSG and Grants). Over the next three years, at least, efficiencies
will need to be identified within the CYPD budget; it will be a considerable challenge to protect front line
services given the risks identified in the JAR.
Conclusion
At this stage, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the highly complex relationship between
performance and resourcing levels. Agencies, including GCC, have already addressed some of the
immediate cost pressures. It will be equally important, however, to address culture, practice and
organisational issues over the longer term. In particular there will be a real need to focus on about
ensuring better value for money over the next few years and setting clear priorities for improvement.
3
APPENDIX 1
1. Safeguarding – Staffing
Gloucestershire’s spend on the social work staff has historically been below that of our comparator
group (tables/diagrams 1 & 2). An additional 13 frontline child protection staff are being appointed,
the first of which take up post in June.
Table 1 - SSD operational staff working specifically for children’s services (WTE) per 10,000 population
aged 0-17
Glos.
SN
Eng.
2000-01
5.9
12.5
13.3
2001-02
6.2
12.6
13.4
2002-03
8.6
12.8
14.2
2003-04
9.3
12.8
15.0
2004-05
10.0
14.6
15.6
2005-06
11.2
13.6
16.0
2006-07
11.4
14.2
16.9
Diagram 1
Table 2 - SSD operational staff working specifically for children’s services (WTE) per 10,000 population
aged 0-17
Glos.
SN
Eng.
2000-01
9.5
18.8
18.8
2001-02
9.2
18.9
19.2
2002-03
12.2
20.0
20.8
2003-04
14.9
20.7
22.7
2004-05
21.5
23.4
24.6
2005-06
22.5
24.8
26.0
2006-07
22.2
25.8
27.5
Diagram 2
SN = Statistical neighbour average
4
2. Family Support
Gloucestershire spend is comparatively low per capita, but as a % of overall gross spend the level
is at the comparator average. Our hypothesis is that as a result of spending lower amounts on a
larger number of families, the County is able to keep the Looked After Children (LAC) population
low, whereas other authorities may spend larger sums on a smaller number of families and have a
higher LAC population.
Diagram 3 - Spend on family support services per capita aged under 18 2006-07
80
76
70
70
60
50
44
46
47
47
48
Shropshire
SN ave
BANES
42
38
40
29
30
24
24
Somerset
Wilts
20
10
0
GCC
Worcs
W.Sussex
Dorset
Suffolk
Cambs
Devon
Diagram 4 - Relative spend on family support – Gross expenditure on children in need but not looked
after, as a percentage of gross expenditure on all children’s services
60
49
50
43
41
40
36
37
37
38
38
39
37
Shropshire
Devon
Dorset
GCC
SN ave
Somerset
34
30
24
20
10
0
Wilts
W.Sussex
Worcs
Cambs
BANES
Suffolk
5
3. Placement stability –
The number of LAC with 3 placements has increased from Gloucestershire’s 12% (also the
comparator average) in 2006/7 to 13.8% in 2007/8 or 54 children. Comparator information
indicates that the statistical neighbour average will also rise above last year’s 12% figure.
Additionally the target for children and young people looked after for 2.5 years or more to be in the
same placement for 2 or more years was 70%. For 2007/08 our outturn figure was 61.6%.
A commissioning strategy for placements is being developed and is expected to be completed in
June 2008. This will improve placement stability and also see the beginning of new developments
for the Intervention Team and Family Support Service. The Fostering Service has introduced
matching meetings for long-term placements. Work is also being undertaken to improve early
support packages for placements.
As an authority Gloucestershire has generally spent more than our financial comparators on foster
care and children’s home placements as the graph below shows:
Diagram 5 - Average gross weekly expenditure per looked after child in foster care or in a children’s
home.
900
800
700
857
833
782
694
728
657
600
500
£
Gloucestershire
Financial comparators
400
300
200
100
0
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
Gloucestershire has 19% (or 77) fewer looked after children than our comparator group average
(470). A small proportion of these young people have very complex needs which impacts
disproportionately upon placement stability given our low numbers of LAC when compared to our
comparator group.
6
4. Statements of SEN prepared within 18 weeks
Performance has been behind target throughout 2007-08. Targets were revised and changes to
the team responsible for statements has led to an improvement in performance. Nevertheless the
revised targets have not been reached and comparative performance remains low compared to
other authorities. For 2007-08 Gloucestershire prepared 92% of statements without exceptions,
placing us in the bottom quartile compared to 2006-07 results. For statements with exceptions the
Gloucestershire total was 61%, again in the bottom quartile when comparing with other authorities.
However, diagram 6 indicates that Gloucestershire’s spend on SEN administration is significantly
lower than our comparator group.
This indicator is changing for 2008-09 to be the proportion of statements issued within 26 weeks.
Work is currently underway to establish a benchmark and targets for this new indicator.
Diagram 6 - Spend in £ per pupil on SEN administration 2006-07 (South-West Authorities)
25
23
£ per pupil
20
15
12
11
11
11
12
12
12
11
10
10
9
7
5
5
7
7
5
ol
e
So
m
er
se
t
Po
G
lo
B
s
ou
rn
em
ou
th
l
th
So
u
or
nw
al
So
Ea
st
B
at
h
an
d
N
or
th
N
C
D
m
er
se
t
or
se
t
ris
to
l
B
W
ilt
s
hi
re
d
t
se
gl
an
En
So
m
er
or
th
To
rb
ay
in
do
n
Sw
ev
on
D
th
Pl
ym
ou
G
C
C
0
Note: Red columns are comparator authorities.
This situation will be affected by subsequent investment in this area. Other areas of central SEN spend
e.g. on educational psychology is average.
7
5. SEN spend per pupil within schools in Gloucestershire 2006/7
(AC comparator authorities)
Authority name
2007
Somerset County Council
49
Wiltshire County Council
46
Bath And North East Somerset Council 41
Worcestershire County Council
33
Dorset County Council
30
Gloucestershire County Council
29
Cambridgeshire County Council
29
Shropshire County Council
29
Devon County Council
27
West Sussex County Council
26
Suffolk County Council
24
Benchmarking against South West authorities
also confirms Gloucestershire as an average
spender in this area. Overall low levels of
funding for schools should be noted. This data
includes costs of statements but will be a better
reflection of how funding is allocated to SEN
rather than analysis of how schools actually
spend it.
6. Numbers on the child protection register
We are lower than our statistical neighbours for the number of children on the child protection
register. At March 31st 2008 there were 205 children
8
APPENDIX 2
Funding the 2008/9 Children and Young People’s Plan
This table is a work in progress, representing additional resources being made available during 2008/09 (over and above
those already in the system), or redirection of existing resources. The table is linked to actions in the Change Programme
section 10.1, mapping resources.
Funding the 2008/9 Children and Young People's Plan
Identified service gap
Be Healthy
Universal:
Maternity (see 'targeted' below)
Health and well being promotion
Obesity strategy
Targeted:
Emotional health & wellbeing
Early years mental health
Parenting
Counselling
Conduct disorder
Primary mental health workers
Targeted mental health in schools project
Substance misuse
School Nursing
Teenage pregnancy/sexual health
Chlamydia screening (all ages)
Maternity/Increase breastfeeding/reduce infant mortality
Early Years - children's centres
£000
226
231
250
70
105
200
250
325
120
200
180
50
45
9,743
Source of funding
DSG, PCT, ABG
PCT
PCT
ABG
ABG, PCT
PCT
PCT
DCSF pathfinder project
PCT
PCT
PCT, ABG
PCT
PCT
Sure Start grant
Specialist:
Specialist CAMHS
200
PCT
Stay Safe
Targeted:
Support CAF infrastructure
Maintain BHLP (children with disabilities) MTFS Pathfinder
CAF Capacity Project
150
350
50
ABG, DSG
DSG, ABG, PCT
DSG
Specialist:
Capacity in social work teams
200
GCC
9
Child death review process
Care Matters
Children with disabilities
51
226
250
Enjoy and achieve
Universal:
Needs led formula for schools
SEN/Personalisation
1,750
3,718
2,410
30
1,462
50
3,928
Play coordination
Extended services
School “Buy Back” Project
3 & 4 yr old extended offer
ABG
ABG
GCC
DSG Headroom
DSG
Schools Standards Grant
ABG
Standards Fund, ABG
DSG
Specific Grant
This table is a work in progress, representing additional resources being made available during 2008/09 (over and above
those already in the system), or redirection of existing resources. The table is linked to actions in the Change Programme
section 10.1, mapping resources.
Identified service gap
£000
Source of funding
Targeted:
School improvement programme
Vulnerable children and young people programme
1,266
300
ABG
ABG
Specialist:
Staff development SEN
Pupil referral service
To meet 6 day responsibility
60
470
79
ABG
DSG
DSG
Positive contribution
Universal:
Youth Offer: 'Places to go; things to do'
Short breaks for children with disabilities
100
490
ABG
DCSF pathfinder project
Targeted:
Crime prevention
Youth Offending service
475
25
YOS prevention fund, ABG
PCT
Specialist:
Economic well being
Universal:
Advice, support, guidance (Connexions)
14 -19 Coordination
4,847
95
Total targeted
Total specialist
Specific grant
DSG,LSC, ABG
14,666
1,561
10