Agenda item

Report DCYP12012

The Committee considered the Portfolio Holder’s draft 2012/13 budget which incorporated future cost pressures and a range of additional saving options reported to Executive on 11^th January 2012 together with a detailed section regarding the Chief Officers’ comments on the funding and proposed options as context for CYP Services. Members were requested to consider the savings proposed and also identify any further action to be taken to reduce the cost pressures facing the Council over the next four years. 

The Chairman highlighted that the Budget Strategy had to be set within the context of a reducing resource base and that there was a need to secure priority outcomes within the resources available.  There was also a need to consider “front loading” savings to ensure difficult decisions were taken early in the budgetary cycle, providing some investment in specific priorities and supporting invest to save opportunities which would deliver a more sustainable financial position in the longer term.  Any budget decisions would need to consider the finalisation of the 2012/13 budget but also take a longer term view which would ultimately help to protect key services into the future. 

Members of the Committee considered the draft 2012/13 budget.  A Member highlighted the proposals regarding a reduction in both the Bromley Youth Music Trust contract and the Bromley Youth Music Grant.  A Co-opted Member was concerned that a reduction in funding for the Bromley Youth Music Trust would have a disproportionate impact on children and young people with special needs.  The Director CYP confirmed that Bromley Youth Music Trust was commissioned through the Local Authority contract to work with children and young people of all abilities and needs: this included support for children in mainstream school with SEN units and special schools. The Director explained that following a national review of music education provision, the National Plan for Music Education had been published by the Government on 25^th November 2011.  From 1^st April 2012, music education would be provided through new music education hubs, which would deliver music education through a hub and spoke partnership model, to ensure that every child had a high quality music education.  It was intended to nominate the Bromley Youth Music Trust as the lead organisation for the proposed Music Education Hub in Bromley, and Officers had formed a Bromley Music Education Partnership Group to provide the broad range of expertise and resource necessary to support the development of a submission to the Department for Education and the Arts Council for England by the deadline of 17^th February 2012.  Bromley would need to demonstrate that all children would have access to music education to be successful in their bid.  Another Member queried what action Bromley Youth Music Trust was taking to become more self-funding.  The Director CYP confirmed that Officers had been working with the Bromley Youth Music Trust Board over the past year to develop potential sold services and ensure Bromley Youth Music Trust fees were set at a competitive level.  Shared Services opportunities were also being explored through the Shared Services Board, which included the London Boroughs of Bexley and Croydon.

In considering the proposed reduction in funding for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), a Member was concerned that the quality of the service would be impacted by any reduction in funding and increased waiting times for CAMHS support and asked that the impact on the service of any reduction in funding be monitored.  The Director CYP highlighted the potential to access a higher level of health funding to compensate for the proposed budget reduction. It was noted that there would be opportunities to bid through the new commissioning avenues established within the new Health Commissioning Board which would determine future commissioning priorities to support childrens’ and adults’ health needs.  A Co-opted Member was concerned that alternate funding streams would not be realised and that the operational budget for CAMHS would be significantly reduced.

A Member noted the proposed reduction in funding to Carers Bromley for work undertaken in partnership with the Council to provide a framework of support for young carers.  The Member highlighted that there were now 802 young carers in the Borough, and the proposed cuts amounted to a 50% reduction in funding over 2 years which would lead to a significant reduction in the voluntary sector’s capacity to support young carers. 

In considering the proposed saving in Safeguarding and Social Care – Safeguarding and Quality Assurance, a Co-opted Member noted that the proposed reduction in costs associated with Looked After Children (LAC) reviews could be offset by reducing the number of Officers attending reviews and unnecessary overlap.  The Director CYP confirmed that capacity had been reviewed and it was believed that these savings could be made.

Another Member underlined the overall impact of service reduction across the Borough, including children and family centres and highlighted the need to increase availability of respite care to reduce high residential care costs.  The Director CYP confirmed that the Executive Member Officer Working Group for Special Educational Needs was currently overseeing officer work on an Invest to Save proposal to develop further provision to meet the needs of secondary aged pupils with autism which included respite services. 

The Member also queried where the proposed £410k staff savings would be made.  The Director CYP confirmed that the staff savings would be realised through future phases of restructuring, particularly in the Education Division of CYP and the early intervention children and family services. 

A Co-opted Member was concerned that the proposal to reduce funding to the Early Years Support Team and therefore the level of support provided to pre-school settings and schools would increase pressure on early years settings that had already been impacted by changes to the school admissions age.  Similarly the proposals to reduce funding for pre-school statutory support for SEN and inclusion were also an area of concern.  An increased number of pre-school children were being identified as having special educational needs, but a reduction in funding would mean support could only be targeted at those children with the most severe needs.  The Director CYP noted the concerns raised and highlighted that some of the proposed savings could be realised through a reduction in management costs and overheads through the merger of service teams undertaking commissioning of early years places and quality assurance and standards.  There would need to be evidence based judgements to target differentiated support to early years settings according to need. A Member highlighted the need to clarify the threshold and at what point additional intervention would be put in place for the setting.  A Co-opted Member noted the value of increasing the skills of the early year’s workforce to support children with special educational needs.

In considering the proposed saving around reviewing training capacity to children’s social care workers, the Director CYP confirmed that the Council received a grant allocation a percentage of which was apportioned between adult and children social care.  However, following the establishment of the new Education and Care Services Department, it was hoped there would be an opportunity to re-evaluate the allocation of funds for social care workers.  Additional funding to assist with the training of children’s social care workers had also been awarded by the DfE to Councils to deliver priorities identified in the 2011 Munro review.

A Member highlighted the potential for an Invest to Save project from Council funding to support early intervention for young children starting school.  The Director CYP confirmed that her Department was already working on a range of Invest to Save projects to access the new public health funding together with the SEN Invest to Save scheme highlighted earlier. Targeted early intervention was provided by a number of services, including Bromley Children and Family Centres and the Bromley Children Project, but an additional Invest to Save bid to secure Council funding to support Early Years settings could be developed if requested by Members.

In considering the Committee’s comments, the Portfolio Holder noted that savings were being sought at a corporate level and Members concerns around a range of proposed savings would be taken into consideration before any savings options were progressed. 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

1)  Note Members comments on the Draft CYP 2012/13 Budget proposals;

2)  Note the draft CYP budget savings options proposed by the Executive;

3)  Note the update on the financial forecast for 2013/14 to 2015/16;

4)  Note Members’ comments on how the Children and Young People PDS Committee could continue to contribute towards reducing the service pressures to achieve a more sustainable budget position; and

5)  Provide Members’ comments to the meeting of Executive on 1^st February 2012, when further consideration would be given to the Draft 2012/13 Budget.