Agenda item

Report by the Chief Executive.

21.1     Becky Shaw, Chief Executive, Stuart Gallimore, Director of Children’s Services, Councillor Sylvia Tidy (Lead Member for Children and Families) and Councillor Bob Standley (Lead Member for Education and Inclusion, Special Educational Needs and Disability) introduced the report by providing an overview of the current context within which the RPPR process has been undertaken.

21.2     The Committee then discussed the areas of search before them.   The key discussion points are summarized below:

·      Impact of reducing services to the statutory minimum.   The Committee asked for clarification as to what the likely impact of reducing a given service to its ‘statutory minimum’ might be on the public.    In particular, the Committee were concerned about the impact of ‘short term’ cuts within ‘Early Help’ and the longer term negative outcomes this might result in for young people; and that such cuts do not appear to be cost-effective.   In response, the Committee were informed that the Department share the Committee’s concerns with regard to these points.   However, the scale of the financial challenges which the Department is now facing means it believes it has no choice other than to make such savings.   In practical terms this means it will often not be possible to provide services to the same depth as before, to as wide a range of young people as before or as quickly as has previously been possible.  For example, the Department have moved away from universal youth work provision to targeted support.  Such targeting is aimed at focusing limited resources on the most vulnerable and where it is likely to produce the greatest benefit.  The Department have also taken steps to ensure it works as efficiently as possible.   This has resulted in the authority, when compared to its statutory neighbours, as being assessed as a ‘low cost, high outcome’ authority.  The Committee were also informed that the areas which the Department can take into account for potential savings are severely restricted.   So, for example, each financial year approximately half of the Department’s budget is reserved for named individual children (such as Looked After Children).  

·      The scope for income generation.   The Committee asked if the Department have a clear understanding of the potentially limited scope it will have for generating income from a traded school improvement service.  In response, the Department confirmed it understands the range of challenges and choices faced by local schools and how this might impact on their decisions as to whether they purchase services from the Council.   As a result the Department does not view potential income from this area of traded service as sustainable in the longer term. 

·      Engagement with the Voluntary Sector.   The Committee asked for clarification as to the nature of East Sussex County Council’s engagement with the voluntary sector, particularly with regard to Youth Work.   More specifically the Department were asked whether more could be done to develop relationships with relevant organisations.  In response, the Committee were informed that the Department is keen to identify further ways of working with the voluntary sector and that the ongoing review of how services are delivered includes consideration of this relationship.   In addition, East Sussex has a vibrant voluntary sector and whilst it is generally not able to provide financial support to these organisations, the Council actively seeks to assist voluntary organisations in a range of ways, including by signposting them to external sources of funding.

21.3     The Committee were satisfied that it did not need to add any further items to the list of issues it had formally identified at its September meeting.  However, Councillor Roy Galley, asked the Department to be in a position to respond to the following two matters at the RPPR Board meeting on Thursday 7 December:

• Standards and Learning Effectiveness Service (SLES).   Given the further savings identified in the Savings Plan, Councillor Galley asked if the Department could provide the Committee with an overview of how it sees SLES functioning in future.
• Savings Plan Targets.   The Chairman confirmed that he would also like to discuss at the RPPR Board meeting whether the savings identified in the Budget are realistic and the scope for individual savings targets not being achieved.     

21.4     RESOLVED – the Committee agreed:

that in addition to the information requested at its September meeting, the further information outlined in paragraph 21.3 above be made available to the Committee for its RPPR Board meeting on 7 December 2017.