Agenda item

5.1       The Director of Adult Social Care and Health (ASCH) introduced the report which marked the start of the Committee’s input into the 2025/26 RPPR cycle and provided a stock take of the Council’s position for scrutiny’s consideration ahead of more detailed planning for the 2026/27 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 highlighted the challenges of demand, complexity and cost outlined in the State of the County report and noted the limited financial options available to the Council due to reduced reserves.

5.2       In relation to ASC the report set out a £10m overspend, mainly due to additional demand on the community care budget arising from increases in assessments and reviews as well as specialist work in mental capacity and deprivation of liberty. The Council remained in the upper quartile for its indicators and the recent ASC survey showed improvement in 5/6 areas of ASC services.

5.3       Priorities for the department remained around prevention, waiting times, safeguarding, quality and value for money. There would also be a focus on developing an action plan in response to the awaited Care Quality Commission (CQC) rating outcome from the recent assessment; responding to national reforms including the recently published NHS 10 Year Plan; and developing health and social care integration programmes with partners. 

5.4       The Assistant Director Commissioning and Transformation set out the key headlines in relation to Children’s Services (CSD) in the report which included an overspend of £13.6m due to staffing costs in localities, looked after children placements, and costs in Home to School Transport. The Assistant Director commented that the Dedicated Schools Grant position in March 2025 was surplus of £2.8m, however that was not expected to continue and the Department was forecasting a deficit at the end of 2025/26. The Assistant Director noted progress against targets with many met as well as areas for improvement, including education measures and attainment in Bexhill and Hastings areas. There was significant work underway in these areas to improve attainment and would remain a focus looking forward.

5.5       Other areas of focus for CSD including addressing areas of overspend, including placement costs and Home to School Transport; responding to national policy changes; and prevention and early intervention.

5.6       The Chief Finance Officer (CFO) outlined the key financial outlook in the report which set out the 2024/25 outturn deficit position of £7.6m, in addition to the £14.3m planned draw from reserves when the budget was set. The Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) in the State of the County projected a deficit of £36.5m for 2026/27.

5.7       The CFO commented that the recent Government Spending Review (Fair Funding Review 2.0) included some welcome announcements, including the updating of relative needs formulae, recognition of remoteness in an Area Cost Adjustment and the consolidation and simplification of grants, however there were still many unknowns in terms of future funding arrangements. He also noted, for East Sussex, this had resulted in an increased recognition of need, however, for Adult Social Care, there was a reduction for ESCC in the relative need formula due to a shift in focus from older people to working age adults. The new foundation formula would also result in fewer allocations to some local services, including cultural and environmental projects. The demand on Home to School Transport however was recognised which was positive, although a 20 miles per journey cap would limit the potential benefit overall, there was a risk that ESCC could see reduced funding under new mechanisms and would be responding to the consultation to ensure allocations would be able to meet the needs of East Sussex.

5.8       The Government was also consulting on council tax equalisation. It was currently unclear how that would impact on ESCC, but shire counties could see reduced funding and local modelling would therefore need to factor in funding for ESCC to either flatline or reduce. The CFO also noted the work underway on a CIPFA Financial Resilience and Governance review.

5.9       The Committee thanked officers for the information provided in the reports and through ongoing briefings, although requested that fewer acronyms were used in reports. The Committee discussed and asked questions in the following areas:

• ASC survey – The Committee welcomed the positive feedback received from the ASC survey, particularly regarding the work of the Joint Community Rehabilitation Team.  The Director of ASCH also welcomed this feedback and noted that this highlighted good practice in health and social care integration and commented that work was ongoing to develop this further through integrated neighbourhood teams.
• Use of the independent sector– The Committee enquired about the use of the independent sector to deliver services, including Interventions Alliance, and asked if the Council prioritised the voluntary, community and enterprise sector (VCSE) in its commissioning and how many VCSE organisations had applied. The Director of ASCH clarified that during the tendering process priority was given to quality and value, including social value; the number of applications from the VCSE sector for the Refuge contract would be provided after the meeting. He also directed Members to the Market Position Statement which sets out the required provision to meet need. In relation to wider reliance on the independent sector, the Director commented that it was important to have a mixed economy of care and that due to CQC regulations, it could be challenging for some providers to meet standards and noted there was little interest in providing support for older people from the VCSE sector.
• Support for carers – The Committee enquired about a target to support carers. The Director clarified that this target related to a small, targeted service to support carers in crisis. The Department was focussed on preventing the need for this support so would aim to see a reduction. It was also noted that the voluntary organisation that provided this support was seeing fewer referrals but had increased the number of visits for individuals due to increasing complexities. The target had been changed to reflect this.
• Prevent workshops – There was a question about the number of workshops provided to Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) providers with a comment that this seemed high. The Director of ASCH noted that a detailed written response could be provided after the meeting but that this was not particularly high given the broad range of SEND provision, including schools, in the county.
• Employability Brokers – The Committee sought clarification on the KPIs in relation to the Employability Broker’s project. The Director of ASCH noted that this was partly due to the project building capacity - the KPI only reflected part year, as well as the significant work involved in supporting people into employment.
• Drug and alcohol support – The Committee expressed concern about the increase in drug and alcohol related deaths and asked about work to promote support services. The Director of ASCH commented that there had been an increase nationally and more significantly locally in drug and alcohol related deaths but clarified that most of these related to people with a long period of misusing alcohol and where alcohol is recorded as a factor of death; there had not been an increase in overdose related deaths. The Director noted the high success rates of people engaging with treatment, with ESCC above the national average for successful completion rates of rehabilitation courses, and there was continued investment in drug services. The Director of Public Health added that deaths often related to people unconnected with ESCC services. Work was underway to identify people in need of support, including through hospital admissions, and further promote support available, including the ADDER project, as well as work with provides to reduce stigma around seeking support. The Committee welcomed this work and asked for more information about the new measure which includes alcohol specific mortality and deaths related to drug misuse. The Director ASCH confirmed that a written response with this detail would be provided after the meeting.
• Cost of Adult and Children’s Social Care – The Committee asked if the Council had been too conservative in its budget planning for adult and children’s social care costs given the overspend. The Director of ASCH clarified that each year an estimate on growth and demography in terms of fee uplifts is negotiated for older people, but for other adults and younger people this is negotiated depending on need. The challenge for both budgets was that they were demand led, and the Council had a legal duty to meet eligible need, and it had been difficult to predict the level of need. The Council was however, seeing an increasing complexity in need each year.
• Local government funding – the Committee sought clarification on proposals for local government funding, including the consolidation of some specific funding and the increased focus on deprivation, and asked how the Council would be responding to the current Fair Funding Consultation. The CFO noted that a simplification of grants would be welcome, however the mechanism to deliver this was not yet clear. In terms of changes to relative needs, he noted that although this had increased for ASC, the shift in focus from older people to working age adults meant this would be a loss for ESCC. 100% Council Equalisation would also be a disadvantage due to the assumption of 100% collection. The Council would respond to the consultation outlining the needs of East Sussex to ensure ESCC and its partners could effectively use of grant resources to meet the needs of residents.
• Youth Centre Heathfield – Cllr Cross welcomed the imminent opening of the new youth centre in Heathfield. The Assistant Director,Commissioning and Transformation noted this was positive for young people in the area.
• Foster Carers – The Committee welcomed the increase in ESCC in-house foster carers and noted the excellent care children received from in house provision and foster carers and commented that some of the related red RAG ratings in the report reflected the complexity of care required by some young people. The Assistant Director, Commissioning and Transformation noted the success in recruiting in house foster carers which would benefit children in East Sussex as well as relieve pressure on social care costs. She also noted work with West Sussex and Brighton & Hove councils to further develop fostering services across Sussex.
• Educational attainment – The Committee expressed concern about attainment scores in Hastings and Bexhill, noting the ongoing challenges in these areas despite targeted funding and work, and asked what ESCC could do to support the performance of academies and improve attainment. The Committee also asked about wider support for parents. The Assistant Director noted the targeted work and collaboration with colleagues and partners to support families, including work to prevent the need for statutory support from children’s social care services for families, and work with academies to support attainment. A written response providing more detail on work to improve attainment in Hastings and Bexhill  would be provided after the meeting. In response to a question on how Pupil Premium was being spent in schools, the Assistant Director noted that a written response would be provided after the meeting. The Committee commented that there was a need to expand Family Hubs to provide support to wider areas and recognised the limited role of the Council to support and influence school academies.
• Youth Justice Inspection – In response to a request to see the Youth Justice Inspection report, the Assistant Director, Commissiong and Transformation noted that this would be circulated to the Committee and commented that it had received a good outcome.
• HUGG voucher underspend – The Committee enquired about the reasons for an underspend on HUGG vouchers. A written response after the meeting clarified that vouchers were delivered through early years settings, schools and college. However, not all vouchers were redeemed by families. CSD continued to promote the take up of vouchers through its communication channels and education settings.
• Home to School Transport – The Committee discussed the financial pressures in Home to School Transport (HTST), reflecting on the statutory duties in relation to this, and asked for more detail on how money is allocated and how alternative options are considered; how decisions on HTST are made across CSD and Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) departments; and if there was potential for further scrutiny. The Assistant Director, Commission and Transformation noted that further detail could be provided on work with CET. Some Members commented that the ability to means test parents in relation to HTST could significantly reduce costs.
• SEND reforms – The Committee enquired about anticipated changes to Education Health and Care Plans in the upcoming Schools White Paper. The Assistant Director Commissioning and Transformation commented that upcoming SEND reforms were still unclear, with the White Paper now expected in the autumn, but the reforms were expected to be significant. Despite this uncertainty, the Department was continuing to support pupils with SEND across the county.

5.10     The Committee RESOLVED to establish an RPPR Board to meet in December to consider the developing financial position for 2026/27 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.

5.11     The Committee RESOLVED to note the report.