Agenda item

7.1       The Director of Adult Social Care and Health introduced the report which marked the start of the Committee’s input into the 2023/24 RPPR Cycle and provided a stock take of the Council’s position for scrutiny’s consideration ahead of more detailed planning for the 2024/25 financial year. The report contained as appendices relevant parts of the Council’s Year-End Monitoring Report which highlighted achievements and challenges for services the Committee scrutinised and the State of the County report which looked ahead at demographic, financial and policy trends and challenges. The Director informed the Committee that the Council remained in a period of uncertainty with the cost of living, no long-term financial settlements, and ongoing pressures impacting on demand led services.

7.2       The Director highlighted the key issues in Adult Social Care and Health including the Department overspend for 2022/2023, performance around the targeting of NHS Health checks, and ongoing work to support better outcomes for this; the seasonal pressures on health services, including industrial action in the NHS; the new Serious Violence Duty, and the success of the South East Regional Public Health Conference, hosted by ESCC, and attended by Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England as a key note speaker.

7.3       The Director outlined the key priorities for the Department going forward, including the implementation of the Pan Sussex Integrated Care Strategy; the Adult Social Care Strategy; Community Networks; preparing for the upcoming Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection; and ongoing challenges around financial inclusion, migrant support, and suicide prevention.

7.4       The Director of Children’s Services highlighted the key issues in Children’s Services including the Department overspend for 2022/2023, owing partly to the increased number of children in residential care, and agency staff needed (as a result of fewer foster carers); increased complex needs requiring more costly care; and accommodating some families that do not meet the required criteria of local support from the District and Borough Councils.

7.5       In response to these financial challenges, the Department were prioritising demand management and prevention by recruiting additional social workers and additional posts to support Family Safeguarding and the government funded Family Hubs. Posts had also been created to support Lifelong Links, to connect looked after children with family and friends they may have lost connections with, and Connected Coaches were being used support teenagers to stay at home to meet the rising number of teenagers entering care.

7.6       The Director of Children’s Services told the Committee that a recent review by the Competition and Markets Authority had concluded that the external residential placement market was not working effectively with a number of children’s home providers raising prices significantly.

7.7       The Director noted the increasing number of children on Child Protection Plans (although these numbers had reduced in Quarter 4), and the increasing numbers of Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) as part of the National Transport Scheme which was contributing to increased numbers in care and recognised that this would be an ongoing issue. There would also be an impact from the proposed increase in support to adult asylum seekers who would require age assessments and for those identified as under 18, would need to be taken into the Council’s care.

7.8       The Director highlighted the progress in education results including the narrowing in KS2 with local and national results.

7.9       The Director outlined how the Department was responding to the evolving national policy framework including the government’s Stable Homes, Built on Love Strategy, and were working with the government on the new Early Career Framework for social workers. The Department was working with the DfE as regional experts to support the government’s Special Educational Needs (SEND) policy, as well as collaborating with partners in the southeast and with the DfE to address the broken care market. IMPOWER were also working with the Department on the procurement of children’s care.

7.10     The Committee asked a number of questions regarding the information provided in the report including:

•           Households in temporary accommodation – The Committee enquired about the high number of households in temporary accommodation, particularly in Hastings, and the increased waiting list times. In response the Director of Adult Social Care and Health noted there were similar challenges for all District and Borough Councils across the county and, in part, was a reflection of cost of living challenges. The Financial Inclusion Group, made up of the Adult Social Care and Health, Children’s Services and representatives from the District and Boroughs and voluntary sector groups aimed to support residents with these issues, including through information and advice on the cost of living website, and benefit maximisations which aimed to ensure people claimed the money they were entitled to.

•           Volunteering – the Committee enquired about the data on the number of volunteers and asked for a definition of the term ‘volunteer’. The Director of Adult Social Care and Health told the Committee that a definition and more information on how the figures were achieved would be sent to the Committee.

•           Drug and alcohol support services – The Committee enquired into the increase locally of adults in treatment for drug and alcohol, compared with national figures and suggested that this number would differ significantly across the county. The Director of Adult Social Care and Health noted that the increase in individuals in treatment was a positive indicator, as it reflected both the identification of people needing support and the successful provision of services. Some of the targeted work and additional funding received to support the ADDER and Harm to Hope projects had raised awareness and increased the capacity of services and support available which was reflected in the figures.

•           Adult Social Care and Health Workforce – The Committee asked about the number of staff vacancies and what impact filling all vacancies would have on the Department’s budget. The Director for Adult Social Care and Health told the Committee that he would send some of the most recent vacancy data to the Committee and clarified the Department were recruiting to all posts through several channels including apprenticeship schemes, the Refer a Friend scheme and partnership work with the Department for Work and Pensions, colleges, and veterans. The Director also noted that the Community Care budget was demand-led and that the Department would be using technology and more effective partnership, including working with the NHS, to manage the budget and that it would be closely monitored.

•               The RPPR process – The Committee requested to see more information about how decisions were made when deciding whether to prioritise or cut services. The Committee also asked for clarification on the red, amber, green (RAG) system in the Council Monitoring Report including how these related to national targets and if it demonstrated financial or performance risks. The Director of Children’s Services told the Committee that it was often more meaningful to compare East Sussex with the performance of statistical neighbours, but where there were national comparisons, these could be included in future reports, as well as statistical neighbour comparisons and more detailed information around decisions on costing. The Director clarified that the RAG system noted financial and performance risks, and the Council aimed to provide a quality but cost-effective service. The Director noted that investment in services needed to match the pace at which the Department could work towards, but that the Department would always prioritise funding on preventive measures. The Committee questioned whether the number of UASC should be identified in the Council Monitoring Reports, the Director of Children’s Services noted that this was evidenced in the State of County Report but could also be reflected in the Monitoring Report.

•               The Department overspend and future budgets – The Committee enquired about how the Department would continue to meet increasing need and address Departmental overspend. The Director of Children’s Services noted that the upcoming quarter 1 monitoring would show continuing pressures, however the Department was looking (through work with the consultancy firm IMPOWER) at how to transition some children from more expensive placements to alternative foster care such as independent fostering agencies, as well as how to reunify children. The Lead Member for Education and ISEND noted that pressures in children’s services would be a challenge in the RPPR process for 2024/2025.,

•               Education Health Care Plans (EHCP)– The Committee discussed the high number of children on ECHPs. The Director of Children’s Services noted that despite the increased number of EHCP applications, the Department had improved the timeliness of responding to these and were performing well nationally with this.

•               Children in Care - The Committee enquired into the reasons for the increased number and cost of children in care. The Director of Children’s Services responded to say that factors such as mental health needs and neurodiversity were driving the need for support, however the most significant cause of additional cost was the shortage of appropriate local foster care. The Director noted the difficulties in obtaining the right care, including in some cases competing for placements with other local authorities and suggested that going forward there would be increased focus on provision in the county. The Committee discussed these challenges.

•               Home to school transport – The Committee expressed concern about the high cost of home to school transport and enquired into ways this could be reduced by asking friends and family to transport children. The Director of Children’s Services clarified that by law, the Council must provide transport for SEND children, although transport could be provided by friends and family if that is what the family chose.

•               Unused Covid funding – The Committee questioned why the Council had returned unused Covid grants to the government and enquired if this money could be used to address parental anxiety around children going back to school and if the Council could use funding to support St Pancras School which was facing closure. The Director of Adult Social Care and Health clarified that Covid grants were one off grants with very strict criteria, and the Council had maximised the use of those. Some of this repayment was due to the independent sector not fulfilling the criteria of the grant but the Council was working hard to meet the upcoming deadlines of this funding. The Director of Children’s Services noted that funding for schools was tightly regulated and based on the funding formula, thus outside of the Council’s control. Proposals in relation to St Pancras school were subject to consultation and would be decided in due course.

Areas for future scrutiny

7.11     The Chair asked the Committee if there were areas covered in the report that could benefit from further scrutiny. The Committee requested that they were updated on the outcomes of the upcoming CQC inspection in Adult Social Care and Health. The Director for Adult Social Care and Health suggested it would be helpful for scrutiny to look at the self-assessment framework before the inspection to which the Committee agreed.

7.12     The Chair suggested that areas requiring future scrutiny were also discussed at the Committee’s work planning awayday in October and asked that the Committee notify the Chair of any areas they particularly wished to discuss at the awayday.

7.13     The Committee RESOLVED to establish an RPPR Board to meet in December to consider the developing financial position for 2024/25 and draft Portfolio Plans and agree detailed comments on those to be put to Cabinet. The Committee agreed the Membership of the RPPR Board would be the whole Committee.

7.14     The Committee RESOLVED to note the report.