Agenda item

(a)      That the Social Services portfolio’s cost pressures be noted;

(b)      That the Social Services portfolio’s options to reduce budgets be noted; and

(c)       That the Committee advise that no areas of cost efficiency had been identified at this stage.

The Strategic Finance Manager introduced the report, the purpose of which was to review and comment on the budget pressures and cost reductions under the remit of the Committee.  She gave a presentation on the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Setting 2024/25 which covered the following points:

• purpose and background
• additional budget requirements of the Council 2024/25
• additional budget requirement – ongoing risks
• overall position after initial solutions
• summary and conclusions
• next steps for the budget setting process 2024/25
• budget process Stage 2
• budget process Stage 3 – (Final)

The Senior Manager - Safeguarding and Commissioning, Senior Manager Integrated Services - Lead Adults, Senior Manager - Children and Workforce and Principal Accountant (Social Services) continued the presentation which covered the following points:

·         Social Services Cost Pressures; and

• Social Services Budget Reductions

Overview & Scrutiny committees were being asked to rigorously review their portfolio cost pressures, efficiency options and associated risks, and to identify any additional areas of cost efficiency.  A summary of outcomes from those sessions would be reported back to the Corporate Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee at the November meeting which would be open to all Members.  Following receipt of the provisional settlement on 20 December, Overview & Scrutiny meetings in January would need to consider further budget reductions required to meet the remaining budget gap in order for the Council to meet its statutory obligation of setting a legal and balanced budget in February 2024.

Councillor Linda Thew asked for the number of children receiving out of county placements.  The Senior Manager (Children and Workforce) explained that the term ‘out of county’ referred to children that the authority commissioned and cared for outside of the county’s own provision.  There were a number of children who lived in residential care homes in Flintshire which were classed as “out of county” because their support was provided out of county.  There were 37 children currently in residential care that was not provided by the local authority but was commissioned.  This did not mean that they were supported outside of Flintshire’s geographical boundary.  There were also 32 children supported by independent fostering agencies.  The Out of County budget from a social care perspective was supporting 69 children every week with the addition of the educational costs.

Councillor Thew also referred to the cost for the new Senior Social Worker posts and asked for a breakdown of the responsibilities that would be required for the role.  In response, the Senior Manager, Safeguarding and Commissioning referred to the Social Worker Review and the additional pressure that this had created.  It was explained that the pressure did not relate to the newly qualified social workers and experienced had remained the same.  The changes related to the inclusion of the new Senior Social Worker grade with 12 posts in Children’s Services, 16 in Adults Services and 1 in Safeguarding, 29 in total.  The inclusion of this new GO7 grade had resulted in changes to the grades above and it was explained that Senior Practitioners became Deputy Team Managers with a 1 grade increase to GO8 with 17 in Children’s Services, 13 in Adult Services and 1 in Safeguarding, 31 in total.  The same process applied to Team Managers which were changed to GO9 with 8 Team Managers in Children’s Services and 9 Adults Services with no changes in Safeguarding, 17 in total.  This collective group related to the pressure.

Councillor Thew also asked how many children had Special Guardianship Orders.  In response, the Senior Manager (Children and Workforce) confirmed that there were 63 Special Guardianship Orders at this time.

During a discussion around the recommendations outlined within the report, Councillor Paul Johnson (Cabinet Member for Finance, Inclusion, Resilient Communities including Social Value and Procurement) referred to the third recommendation and asked if this should be amended slightly to allow Members to forward any ideas of areas of cost efficiency to officers following the meeting.

The Chief Officer (Social Services) advised that the budget process was on-going with opportunities for suggestions to be included.  He added that officers were open to ideas being presented to them at any time.

The Chair suggested that the recommendation around cost efficiency be amended to - that the Committee advise that no areas of cost efficiency had been identified at this stage.

The recommendations were moved by Councillor Dave Mackie and seconded by Councillor Gladys Healey.

RESOLVED:

(a)      That the Social Services portfolio’s cost pressures be noted;

(b)      That the Social Services portfolio’s options to reduce budgets be noted; and

(c)       That the Committee advise that no areas of cost efficiency had been identified at this stage.