To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies of absence received.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on September 22^nd 2021.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes from the meeting held on 22nd September 2021 were approved as a true and accurate record.

Kevin McDaniel, Executive Director of Children’s Services, introduced the item, which was based on a request from the Panel for information on the overall funding in education and what was being done around the funding for special educational needs. This came about in a previous meeting after it was reported that the expenditure for High Needs Block elements was running in deficit.

James Norris, Head of Finance for Achieving for Children, gave a presentation to the panel on the Dedicated Schools Grant and High Needs Block.

He started off giving a summary of the Dedicated School Grant Funding (DSG), which allocated school funding into 4 blocks. Each block had its own formula to calculate the funding to be distributed to each local authority. The 4 blocks and their budgets were: Schools Block (£102 million allocated), the Central Schools Services Block (£1 million), Early Years Block (£10 million) and High Needs Block (£27 million).

James Norris then gave the current financial projection for 2021/22 for each block. The total net budget was £69.7 million with an in-year overspend of £900,000. When applying the £900,000 overspend to the deficit position from the previous financial year, the projected culminated deficit was £2.7 million or 2% of the total DSG budget allocation. Because of this overspend, a deficit management plan had to be prepared for submission to the Department for Education to explain how the in-year overspend would be brought in-budget and in future years and then reduce the overall accumulated deficit.

James Norris moved on to the financial trend. In summary, the deficit started in 2018/19 financial year and the deficit in 2022/23 is projected to be £4 million or 3.5–4% of the overall school budget.

James Norris then discussed the High Needs Block deep dive which he divided and analysed into 7 categories. He stated some of the blocks were “relatively on track” and a couple of block categories experienced a projected underspend: ‘Retained DSG’ experienced an underspend of £91,000 (-1%), while ‘Alternative Provision and other non-SEN’ experienced a £215,000 (-20%) underspend.

Meanwhile, to varying extents, other block categories experienced a projected overspend, including ‘OLA Schools Top Ups’ (£60,000 or 7%), ‘Placements-Independent, ISS, NMSS’ (£1.003 million or 18%), ‘Free Schools’ (£520,000 or 61%), ‘Placements-FE Colleges/ISPs’ (£370,000 or 23%), and ‘SEN Support Services’ (£184,000 or 9%).

The overall total High Needs Block budget was £21.7 million with a projected variance of £1.8 million overspend (or 8%).

James Norris then moved on to the progress update on the Deficit Management Plan. He stated that a deficit management plan was being formulated to address the cumulative deficit position with a recovery period of 3-5 years. This plan had to be submitted to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) on behalf of the Department for Education.

Following a Schools Form meeting in October 2021, it was agreed amongst the School Forum members and officers to explore key themes including expansion of the local offer within the Borough, increased local partnerships incorporating working with neighbouring authorities,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

To receive an update.

Kevin McDaniel introduced the item on education standards. He also highlighted that the DfE (Department of Education) had reduced the school improvement grants to local authorities by half from 1st April 2022 and then to 0 from April 2023. He added that during the Schools Forum meeting earlier in the day, the maintained school representatives agreed to fund the shortfall from a reserve of school’s budget to continue school services as well as collaboration on how to keep the services running.

Clive Haines, Schools Leadership Development Manager, gave a presentation on the standards and quality of education, starting off with Ofsted results. As of January 2022, the Borough stood at 97% where schools were judged as good or outstanding, compared to the last reported position of 94%. Only two schools, including a PVI (private voluntary and independent nurseries) were judged as requiring improvement.

As for disadvantaged pupils, Clive Haines reported that the pandemic had led to a growing gap between disadvantaged pupils and their non-disadvantaged peers. Methods to resolve this included catch-up strategies in schools, pupil premium strategies such as the National Tutoring Programme, continuing Pupil Premium Networks and encouraging Quality First Teaching.

Clive Haines then discussed Key Stage 4 Attainment. Due to the pandemic, summer examinations were cancelled in 2020 and 2021; therefore, alternatives processes were set up to award grades. The proportion of pupils who achieved a grade 5 or higher in both GCSE English and Maths was 55.7%, about 3.8% above the national average of 51.9%.

Clive Haines then moved on to the School Centre Initial Teaching Training (SCITT), a school-led teacher training programme to aid in the recruitment of teachers in RBWM which would lead to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). The programme was overall successful: 29 teachers (16 primary, 13 secondary) were successfully trained during the last academic year, training continued throughout the lockdown, all trainees had at least two teaching experiences, all trainees received QTS, and 100% of primary trainees received employment.

Clive Haines then discussed absences. The rate of absences due to positive Covid cases in RBWM had reduced from 3.1% in 2021 to 2.7%; compared to the national average from 2.8% to 2.5%. As for persistence absence, 11.3% of pupils were persistently absent during the autumn term 2020/21 compared to the national rate of 13%. The Education Welfare Team continued to support schools with persistent absence through a traded service for allocated education welfare officer.

Clive Haines moved on to permanent exclusions in schools. The number of exclusions in RBWM decreased from 31 in 2018/19 to 20 in 2019/20 and 2020/21, though lockdowns influenced this reduction. In 2019/20, there were 4 permanent exclusions of primary pupils. Because of this, the SHEMH programme was launched in the same academic year to reduce primary exclusions.

Clive Haines then discussed the SEMH programme (Social Emotional Mental Health Service), which was established in September 2019 to reduce primary permanent exclusions. Evidence suggested that this was beginning to have an impact: the programme had supported 23 pupils at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

To note the contents of the report.

Hilary Hall, Executive Director of Adults, Health and Housing, introduced the item. She noted that the report was for Quarter 2 (July–September 2021) and therefore would also give an update on where the Borough was presently at the end of Quarter 3 (December 2021).

Hilary Hall explained the status of the Adults Services.

She started with Care Package reviews. At the end of Q2, care reviews were slightly below target but within tolerance thresholds due to the impact of vacancies in the workforce as well as more complex new cases which had taken officer time. The position at the end of Q3 was improving, the figure was still just below target but there were still ambitions to reach the target. Hilary Hall added that all cases were risk assessed to ensure that reviews were prioritised according to need.

Hilary Hall then moved on to Permanent Admissions to care homes. By the end of Q2 (September 2021), there was an increase in admissions to care homes (above tolerance thresholds) mainly due to people being discharged from hospital with much more complexity of need and therefore required more intense support. The position at the end of Q3 had been the same with an increase in care home admissions and no expectation that this would be reduced in Q4 (January–March 2022).

Hilary Hall then discussed Reablement. By the end of Q2, the percentage of rehabilitation clients still at home 91 days after discharge was below target but within the tolerance threshold. While still below target in Q3, she predicted that the target would be reached by the end of 2022.

On Carers’ Assessments, Hilary Hall stated that performance had been dropping throughout Q2; therefore, there had been a focus on improving this over the last two months. There was a data cleansing exercise which was completed in November 2021, enabling a clear view of the people that needed to be reviewed. Hilary Hall added that a carers’ survey was conducted with the results being positive comments from carers about the support they received.

For satisfaction with the adults’ safeguarding process, Hilary Hall reported ongoing good performance.

Councillor Bateson asked if people left hospital and go into care outside the Borough and they have no money, does the area the person goes to pay for it or does the Borough do it. Hilary Hall answered that if the individual was a RBWM resident and their financial assets were below £23,000 then the Borough would pay for it, wherever they were located.

Councillor Bateson followed by asking about waiting times for people going into care homes. Hilary Hall replied that there was typically no waiting time, usually people go straight from hospital to the care home placement. At the moment, it was taking a bit longer to find placements due to the demand. She added that direct payments were being offered to families to support them to take their relatives back home rather than move them into care homes which may not be in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

A presentation on the demographic growth assumptions driving the budget build.

The Chairman informed Panel members and the public that the 2022/23 budget was discussed at the last Corporate Overview and Scrutiny meeting in December 2021. She mentioned that during the meeting, it was recommended that the Adults, Children and Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel considered whether there was evidence of growth demand, this was what the Panel was now considering.

Hilary Hall introduced the item by giving a verbal report.

Hilary Hall presented a couple of slides. The first slide showed the make-up of the budget for Adult Social Care.

The second slide summarised the demand for adult social care which encompassed learning disability, mental health, and physical disability and older people. It also showed a fluctuation in total costs: an increase before the pandemic (2018-20), then dropped slightly during the first year of the pandemic (2020-21), and then a slight increase during the second year of the pandemic (2021-22).

Kevin McDaniel then added some comments. With children in care – numbered around 130 per year – there was usually a churn of around 25 per year with children moving in and out, whether it was children going into care, being returned to family and relatives, going into adoption or care leavers moving on. The RBWM churn rate was relatively low compared to neighbouring boroughs and the England average; Kevin McDaniel hoped this rate would be maintained.

Kevin McDaniel also stated the key drivers for the future was to transform how to work with families, particularly with parenting needs, to earlier work by helping families with developing their parenting skills rather than from post-referral and becoming a child in care.

Referencing a slide stating the unknown quantity of support needed, Councillor Tisi asked Hilary Hall if there was a way of modelling what brackets people could fit in so that RBWM could prepare for this, mentioning that it appeared to be a risk to the budget.

Hilary Hall agreed it was a strategic risk to the budget. She then stated that while some modelling would be conducted, it would be difficult, adding there was little information on self-funders who would fall under the new capping regime. She also stated that domiciliary care providers and care homes would be asked if they could provide information on the numbers of self-funders.

Adele Taylor commented that until the statuary guidance came in, modelling on the potential costs would be difficult due to the complexity.

To receive an update.

Lynne Lidster, Head of Commissioning for People, introduced the item on the Domiciliary Care Update for January 2022 by giving a presentation. In summary, she gave an update on the progress and date of the Task and Finish Group established in Autumn 2021 to inform the tender for the new domiciliary care service.

Lynne Lidster moved on to the vision for the new service which was to be “personalised and [would] enable and empower people to ‘live their best life.’”

Lynne Lidster then discussed the new contract. The aspirations for the new contract included high quality service, a focus on prevention, enabling people to be self-reliant, flexibility of the responsiveness of service provision and contributing to a reduction in demand across health and social care systems. The people who would be supported through the services under the new contract included people who needed to settle back home following an episode resulting in hospital admission, people in crisis (or post-crisis) recovering after a period of reablement, people whose recovery could take longer than 8 weeks but were likely to not require support within 12 months, and people with long-term conditions who needed support to enable them to live independently.

Lynne Lidster then gave an overview of the model, a Dynamic Purchasing System.

Lynne Lidster then finished off by discussing the next steps for the Task and Finish Group. A third and fourth meeting was to be arranged, with the latter arranged to formulate recommendations for the Cabinet.

ACTION – Lynne Lidster to contact Democratic Services to arrange the next Task and Finish group meeting.

Councillor Tisi asked for confirmation on the new hourly rate for the providers. Lynne Lidster answered that under the main contract, the payment would be £19.40 – the price under the current contract was £17.95.

To suggest items for inclusion in the Annual Scrutiny Report, for consideration at Full Council.

The Chairman introduced the item, which was to suggest content for inclusion on the annual scrutiny report, for consideration at Full Council.

Councillor Sharpe expressed support for the report.

Councillor Tisi suggested if there was anything to add, then the Panel could send an email to the Chairman.

The Chairman then asked the Panel if they agreed to bring the annual scrutiny report to the next Panel meeting on 27^th April 2022. The Panel expressed agreement.

To note the ongoing work programme.

ACTION – Laurence Ellis to add the annual scrutiny report to the work programme for the next Panel meeting in April 2022.