Issue - items at meetings - Witnesses

 

• Draft Budget Proposals Communities
  • Cllr Geoffrey Bowden, Cabinet Member for Culture, Recreation & Tourism
  • Cllr Ben Duncan, Cabinet Member for Community Safety
  • Strategic Director Communities, David Murray

 

 

22.1 The Chair Councillor Ken Norman invited Cabinet Members Councillors Geoffrey Bowden (GB) and Ben Duncan (BD) to introduce the budget proposals for their portfolios. Cabinet Members answered Panel questions together with officers Strategic Director David Murray (DM) and Finance Manage Anne SIlley (AS).

 

22.2 Councillor Geoffrey Bowden (GB) said local authorities were in an unprecedented situation, having to do more with less, continuing to provide services for those in most need and minimising job losses. The proposals were to maintain the cultural offer that was critical to the wellbeing of the City’s residents and tourists. Some local authorities were closing libraries; in Brighton & Hove no libraries were planned for closure this year.

 

22.3 Councillor Ben Duncan (BD) said key principles included protecting the vulnerable, enhancing environmental sustainability and listening to people’s views. Proper scrutiny was helpful and constructive ideas were especially welcome he said. Though these budget lines were generally relatively small, the scope and reach of the effects was large and the impact high.

 

22.4 Cabinet Members answered questions accompanied by officers Strategic Director David Murray (DM) and Finance Manage Anne SIlley (AS).

 

22.5 GM: Sports Development Fund – what options have been considered? (p97). Seafront Properties – is there good evidence for this anticipated income in the timeframe? (p98). Restructure Library service; what is the intention re opening hours? Would the hours all be the same? Staff costs could reduce but what about overheads? Is this sustainable? How do DAAT team reductions fit with Intelligent Commissioning pilot work? (p100)

 

GB: We can keep all 14 libraries open by making some costs savings in equalising branch library opening hours. There will be a new library in Woodingdean. Libraries are used ‘outside hours’ for other purposes as well.

Yes we are confident in getting good incomes from The Wheel and from marketing the Peter Pan site. These will act as extra attractions for this part of the City. Sport England funding is also possible.

 

22.6 MM: Disappointed in reduction in sports development and mobile library. Shorter library opening hours will affect communities including learning/use of IT. How many vacant or non-vacant posts will be lost?

 

GB: These are difficult choices. We would like to hear constructive suggestions. The mobile library is near the end of life and costs £77k per year. A replacement would cost £120k. 865 people use it; 70% of whom already use static libraries and only 3 are housebound, who are served by our delivery service. All the remaining users are within 1 ½ miles of a static library. We are looking to develop libraries into access points/community hubs. There is a range of other providers of IT training, including the Third Sector.

 

Healthy lifestyles are important and we are planning that Take Part Festival of Sport will continue. We are looking at opportunities for other funding streams.

I can’t say how many posts are at risk; we will be going to consultation with the public and with staff.

 

DM: There has been much good work within the Sports Development Fund but that model will not be fit for purpose in 3 years’ time. We are looking at realigning sports and coaching development, looking at other funding potential.

 

We are looking at all our buildings and expect libraries to continue to play a key role.

 

Where income estimates have been quoted in the proposals, these are not just rough figures but they are tested eg against national benchmarks. We have tried to avoid overestimates.

 

22.7 MM: concerned about reducing library hours and removing visitor information centre from Royal Pavilion (p102)

 

GB: We would like to extend library hours, but we have to use the budget effectively We have looked at the data including useage rates and plan to contact councillors in affected wards early in the process.

 

22.8 OS: When will the mobile library be lost?

 

GB: Woodingdean is having use of the mobile library in 2012/13 to provide temporary provision.

 

 

22.9 AP: Removal of Visitor Centre and use of ‘satellite’ premises? (p102) Reduced maintenance of King Alfred Leisure Centre?

 

GB: Subject to consultation, bring Royal Pavilion café to ground level for better access and to enhance shop business, freeing upstairs space for exhibits. Some partners eg hotels will welcome satellite visitor centres.

 

A capital sum has been set aside for the wet area of the pool that should reduce maintenance needs.

 

 

22.9 OS: How likely is a VAT cultural exemption for Royal Pavilion?

 

DM: We are optimistic and this should be resolved by end of financial year.

 

22.10 Chair KN: Will the satellite centres be staffed?

 

DM: We plan to continue providing visitor information and looking at different methods (such as on the Pier, visitor guides etc) and how best to meet the demand.

 

The new Seafront Strategy confirms the key importance of the seafront.

GB: New technology is another important way to bring information and services to residents and visitors

 

22.11 GM: Not convinced about removing VIC from Pavilion eg it is an important focal point for visitor arrivals. What about a kiosk, space in a local store or other fixed focus.

 

Is there a solution for retaining mobile library which has a substantial number of users. It lends itself eg to a co-operative provider?

 

DM: Visitor information centre proposals are for 2013-2014 and aimed at improving an already good service.

 

GB: We are open to ideas.  High capital costs of mobile library but would like to explore options eg third sector.

 

22.12 JM: Concerned about poor adult education for the future in statutory and voluntary sectors. We need to look together at resourcing of training provision, especially in the Community and Voluntary Sector. CVS already provides services in library buildings. We should be looking at a wide range of potential services and the possibility of matched funding. The Communities and Equalities team are key players.

 

GB: We would like to discuss this.

 

DM: Volunteering opportunities are being developed too.

 

Communities and Community Safety

 

22.13 AP:  Equalities savings of £200K (p97) is not clear

 

GM: In view of the scale of the drug problem, how has the outcome from the IC pilot influenced the DAAT savings proposals (p100)? Are there more community safety synergies with YOT and other services?

 

BD: The approach taken is ‘how to preserve and build on a service that is working well’ rather than’ how much can we squeeze any service into a budget?’ The Community Safety team programmes eg Family Intervention Project, Communities Against Drugs and DAAT provide measurable outcomes. Reduced funding of Sussex Police will have a large impact in the next few years and responsibility for delivery and funding of some community safety work is moving to local authorities.

 

There is scope for restructuring and working eg with YOT. Also via Public Health funding, Louise Casey, European and other funds.The majority of FIP funds is spent on just a few families.

 

There have been, and continue to be, significant changes to these service areas since these proposals were first drafted; eg the papers do not include any external funding.

DM: eg there will also be new opportunities via the Police and Crime Commissioner

 

22.14 MM: Equalities savings of £200K (p97) is not clear. The EIA refers to the end of the pilot. Has the £200K Communities budget line been spent? How does this link with CYP budget, and what has been achieved?

 

GM: It is the transfer of this budget that needs clarification.

 

BD: A written reply will be given.

 

22.15 OS: The second and third bullet point on p94 re ‘reduction in specific grant funding’ and ‘tackling inequality and neighbourhoods?’ Also as Community Safety savings are relatively small on a large budget (p100) - is greater investment needed for ‘at risk’ families? How can we fill the gaps?

 

BD: We can mitigate some of the impact of austerity/changes to housing benefits but it is not realistic to increase every budget as we would like. We are looking at how to get the most out of commissioning eg working with PCST and Neighbourhood Policing Team and refocusing community development work.

 

Our grants programmes are key to supporting many organisations and there are examples of an average 11x social return on investment. We are working closely eg with BHT and through the Advice Partnership re homelessness.

 

22.16 JM: It is helpful that the effect on resilience of CVS organisations is being acknowledged (p93). Our services often impact on equalities, one of the Council’s corporate priorities. What thought has been given to increasing spend in the Third Sector? That does not seem to be reflected in the budget papers. I’m concerned about the effect of reductions in Annual Grants budget and City Communities Fund amounting together to £85k (p101) which seems to take away about a quarter of grants that are available to the very smallest organisations and will have a considerable impact. The priorities for this expenditure need to be more clearly justified.

 

I think the small savings from staff ( p97) would have a greater impact if spent externally.

 

This is a continuing theme – does CVS face disproportionate cuts? I’m grateful for the work now being done to draw out the figures for us, because until now expenditure and return on investment have not been recorded in that way. We think there should be continuous monitoring to show the real financial and social value of the Sector. We have evidence to demonstrate the impact and in an earlier session it was interesting to hear that Economic Development do not. We have a large reach on a small spend.

 

BD: We are carrying out SROI studies to measure outputs and I’m not convinced that Communities and Equalities are being disproportionately cut; these services do need to be protected. We are taking a realistic approach reducing expenditure and taking the impacts into account. There is still a range of grants available amounting to around £1.5m annually but they are not immune from savings although we are restricting the reductions as much as we can. The 2-year budget process still allows for flexibility. For example Community Development commissioning cannot be fixed too far in advance.

 

The Access Manager post is already vacant and by working differently we’ve been able to ensure that those services are unaffected. It is difficult to disagree with that approach.

 

DM: There is still some way to go in working with the CFVS; the Council has to be clear about what it is buying and that commissioned or procured services are as effective as possible. This requires more joining up. We also need to be clear what lies behind various costs.  For example, one Authority (Lambeth), passports significant funding to CFVS to run its services – but that includes services like libraries so figures are always worth delving into.

 

22.17 JM: Core investment by the Council to the sector allows additional funding to be leveraged in. Various funding opportunities are being lost in this way for training provision for instance.  A community organisation, once lost, is unlikely to revive. There should be strategic agreement on the priorities that need support and sustaining.

 

DM: We recognise the worth of the sector and that’s why we continue to be keen to work with agencies like CVSF. We also recognise that the sector itself needs to change because many agree that, for example, consortia ways of working - that streamline how the Council and other partners work with a sector that is currently vibrant and diverse, but complex and fragmented -  needs to happen.

 

22.18 MM: The whole picture needs clarity because the voluntary sector has to make plans.

 

BD: Cabinet will be considering the grants programmes

 

22.19 AP: Reducing allocation to FIP would have a disproportionate effect on women as seen in the EIA (p224)

 

BD: This is a good example of our approach to an area that is an absolute priority; working with families with the greatest problems and leading to the greatest expense; making proposals, assessing the impact and looking at alternative funding or provision. This work is not being reduced but done differently by closer integration with Partners. These budget line proposals give bald figures and it is a rapidly changing picture since the papers were drafted. We’re adopting strategic ways to reduce domestic violence at little cost and showing measurable outcomes

 

22.20 AP: So what has changed?

 

BD: The figures are presented by budget streams and not individual projects. We are actively looking for external matched funding for work with at risk families. Some of the EIAs will be developed further. Also, some responsibilities will change from November with the advent of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

 

22.21 MM: But none of these needs are new, so what is the timescale?

DM: Services for some vulnerable families are very costly. Government funding is being discussed at SLB later today. We want to take a fresh look at the families concerned at the same time building on what we already have. We have to be sure of the outcomes needed locally for the City, not only the outcome needed nationally

 

22.22 JM: What is the effect of the new public health budget? How will it be used? Will scrutiny get information?

 

BD: The public health budget is not yet known. 2012-2013 will be a ‘shadow’ allocation and the funding will be ring-fenced. The information will be provided if it’s available before this scrutiny panel ends.

 

22.23 GM: Members will need to be sure exactly what is being proposed.

 

22.24 Chair Councillor Ken Norman thanked everyone for attending and answering questions, especially members of the public present.

 

Draft Budget Proposals People

o     Cllr Jarrett – Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care

o     Cllr Shanks – Cabinet Member for Children & Young People

o     Strategic Director People, Terry Parkin

o     Director of Adult Social Care, Denise D’Souza

o     Geraldine Hoban, Chief Operating Officer, CCG

 

 

12.1 Councillor Rob Jarrett (RJ) told the meeting that proposed savings were inevitable within Adult Social Care and Health as these service areas represented a large part of the Council’s overall budget.

 

12.2 The underlying principle was that services remain wherever possible and would be delivered more efficiently. Savings would be sought when contracted out services eg in Home Care were due for renegotiation. The Council relied on having the right in-house expertise; internal structures were being looked at to ensure the right numbers and levels of officers. Savings would be made in external contracts wherever possible.

 

12.3 The Council had a statutory duty to provide care and Brighton & Hove faced some significant demographic pressures; eg there were relatively large numbers of people aged 85+ many of whom had significant health needs and a rise in the numbers of adults with learning difficulties surviving into old age and a related rise in cases of dementia. So although some significant savings had been identified, this did not mean that the total budget had reduced.

 

12.4 Raising the service eligibility threshold from ‘substantial’ to ‘critical’ had been considered and  judged to be a false economy in that service users then would tend to return with more severe problems later on. It is intended to take a preventative approach.

 

12.5 Compared with other areas Brighton & Hove is known to have significantly higher than average costs per individual, particularly for learning disabilities.

 

12.6 There are proposals to make savings on accommodation arrangements. Various parts of the City have relatively inefficient buildings, some of which are small and underused so reducing unnecessarily high overheads is key. This would involve rearranging some locations and potentially cause some dislocation to service users. A suitable consultation period was being planned.

 

12.7 Other efficiencies were planned by using new technologies eg in Home Care, helping people to stay in their own homes. Telecare can be used to reduce the number of home visits needed to ensure a person is OK, resulting in savings without loss of service. Simplifying the range of payment rates in new Home Care contracts would also bring about some savings.

 

12.8 Community Meals was another area of potential savings, pending the outcome of the current scrutiny process. The option of a new contract would be explored.

 

12.9 Councillor Sue Shanks (SS) pointed out the wide service areas covered by schools, early years and youth budgets. She said national funding was increasingly being switched from local authorities to individual schools and academies with cuts to spending on eg education welfare, school improvement and early years training subsidies. Councillor Shanks focussed on some of the key areas.

 

12.10 Some of the Children’s Centres did not provide a full range of services and had become expensive to run.  For the relatively large numbers of looked after children currently in Brighton & Hove, more learning interventions were being planned to help reduce escalation of service needs. In-house fostering would be used more in future and this was less costly.

 

12.11 Youth services were shown to be effective, especially at traumatic times in people’s lives and the Council would look to protect these; in particular by bringing together commissioning for sports and play services across the City.

A small reduction in employability service was being proposed as schools were increasingly taking responsibility in this area and children staying in school for longer. It was planned to bring together employment services in Housing and Supporting People to cover both young people and older age groups.

 

12.12 Councillor Shanks said she was keen for schools to stay within the local authority however there were national pressures and a school places commissioning group was established.

 

12.13 Geraldine Hoban (GH), Chief Operating Officer for Brighton and Hove’s Clinical Commissioning Groupgave the background to the changes to commissioning for healthcare within the City.  She confirmed that the CCG was working closely with the local authority on both the adult and childrens’ Section 75 and on the Commissioning Strategy and Improvement Strategy. She said that joint governance and decision-making process were in place and the budget proposals were aligned with healthcare processes. 

 

12.14 She confirmed that from an NHS perspective she was confident that the commissioning proposals would not adversely affect health or the local health economy. As with the approach in health, benchmarking had enabled ‘outliers’ to be identified, so that better value for money could be achieved. She noted that within the budget proposal there were also investment areas.

 

12.15 The level of spending on carers would be maintained; there would be changes to how these services are accessed. Mental health was a priority and more funding was being put into this.

 

12.16 Re-ablement funding was being re-aligned with £3.2 million being passported to the Council including £500k for work on prevention - enabling access criteria to be maintained.  Whilst this year there would be a reduction of £130k in this pot she felt confident it could be managed.

 

12.17 There would be a specific focus on Children’s health within the CCG, and Geraldine Hoban said they would want to work very closely with the Council on proposals around Children’s Centres.  Among the aims of the clinically led working group on Children that will be established this year is to improve the relationships and connections between primary care and the Children’s Centres and to ensure community health services are working to keep children out of secondary care whenever appropriate. 

 

12.18 Cabinet Members answered questions from the Panel together with Denise D’Souza, Lead Commissioner Adult Social Care and Health (DD),   Terry Parkin, Strategic Director (People) (TP) , James Dougan, Head of Children and Families (JD) and Jo Lyons, Lead Commissioner, Schools, Skills and Learning (JL).

 

a) MM: No reference to S75 in the ASC Strategic Financial Context (p35)?

DD: this will be set out more clearly when the proposals go to the Joint Commissioning Board.

 

b) MM: Savings in the assessment budget (p36)?

DD: Some of the £200k savings would be found within joint arrangements eg some growth in budget for mental health assessment.

 

c) MM: Bringing ‘in line,’ support for the Learning Disability Partnership Board (p36) ?

DD: This budget has been underspent for 2 years. The proposals are adequate to support the LDP Board and consultation.

 

d) MM: ‘£50k savings’ appears to be a general ‘accountancy’ number – are these reliable figures (p37, p40 )?

DD: The figures in such a large budget are ‘rounded.’ There are detailed budget sheets behind each of these.

 

e) MM: Are these deleted or vacant posts?

DD: A review of support services is in progress; more information can be provided following consultation.

 

f) MM: How many units would be taken out of Housing Stock for ‘extra care’ (p38)?

DD: Brighton & Hove is still an ‘outlier’ regarding numbers of older people in residential care. At current rates the numbers will have increased by 700 people by 2013. The Housing Commissioning Group is looking at a range of options for around 15 units locally at present. No decision on providers of housing has been made and other residential social landlords are also being looked at.

 

g) MM: Concerned about proposals affecting people with disabilities (p40)

MM: Details in EIA – question ‘no’ impact eg on transgender, ethnicity groups (p119): ‘no’ impact on older people (p121) EIA ‘to be completed’ (p123). Some comments may be misleading.

 

h) RJ: This budget has been prepared sooner than usual and the EIAs are still developing.

DD: Services would be clear about the potential impact regarding individuals but these EIAs are for budget scrutiny and would be enhanced for budget council.

 

i) GM: Timescale and achievability for reducing the numbers of people in residential accommodation (p38) ?

DD: Despite developing 200 extra places (eg Patching Lodge, Vernon Gardens) we are still short by around 200 units and the number of people aged 85+ is growing. 15 extra people are in care every week; we are working on how to address this and will consult on proposals.

RJ: At present we have people placed as far away as Devon and this is extremely expensive per person although only a few individuals are involved. We can manage transition better and by remodelling local provision we know we can accommodate people in Brighton & Hove, but this will take time.

 

j) GM: All current in-house provider services (bottom box p44) is this deliverable?

DD: This is for 2013/14, so there is a year to plan this.

TP: This is ‘joining up’ children and adult services better. Transitioning here is not as good as in some other local authorities; this is one of our biggest weaknesses. Significant savings have already been achieved and we’re confident further savings can be made.

 

k) GM: How will savings be achieved?

TP: We know that local provision can bring down costs significantly and improve the offer to the individual.

 

l) OS: Adults Assessment – meeting VfM target?

DD: Community Care is linked with Personalisation which is included in the summary of VFM gains (p29). This spending on Community Care eg on increasing independence via Telecare and other initiatives has been shown to be effective over the last 2 years and there is no reason to change this, but there is still more to do.

 

m) JM: We welcome protection of spending on prevention and we recognise budget pressures. How can we ensure that the quality of domiciliary care does not decrease?

DD: These are proposals covering 2 years; it is not intended to increase the eligibility criteria. Our demographics show that numbers of people over 65+ is not a significant issue, however the number of people aged 85+ is growing. The Community Care budget for older people continues to decrease and quality is an issue. We are moving to real time monitoring of care actually delivered and getting feedback from carers. The proposals are for more but different investment, targetting the most vulnerable.

RJ: There are savings planned on Home Care contracts but high quality is still expected. There will be encouragement for training and we are looking at ability to recruit staff at the right pay level. This is a key aim, but not in the budget papers.

 

n) JM: What is the nature of the cuts to the Learning Disabilities Partnership Board? A consultation is planned for next year – so is this a good time to make cuts of more than a half?

DD: The Board will still be supported but there will be less spend on infrastructure and funding targeted instead at specific initiatives, consultations and transitioning.

RJ: There was a small one-off discretionary grant for a pilot scheme. Individuals will still be supported including moving to employment. No reduction is proposed on advocacy or other support for individuals to participate.

 

o) JM: The Voluntary Sector has particular expertise in transition. How will integrated Transition be planned; what will be the impact on adult services?

JM: The EIAs need strengthening regarding older people. Referring to the questions for EIAs (p19) - have all the risks been identified in the services?

RJ: We want to make sure the EIAs work as they should but they are not perfect at this early stage. Any concerns that the Panel has on EIAs can be referred to Councillor Ben Duncan, either directly or at a Panel meeting.

 

p) KN: How are the Day Services proposals (p40) different from previous years? Any changes to mental health provision planned?

DD: There is a continuation in the service for carer relief but there is a relatively low occupancy rate and further reductions are expected in the personalisation budget. More preventive work and a move to more community-based options are expected.

GH: There are no firm proposals as yet. We plan to commission Depression services first and then we will look closely at Day Services this year via the Joint Commission Board with the intention of commissioning in 2013/2014.

RJ: Day Services will still be there for those who need them. But there are low occupancy rates and we want to reduce high overhead costs where possible, for example by reducing the number of buildings but still providing the service.

 

q) GM: No indicative savings for Youth Services for 2013/2014? Will these continue to be provided in-house?

SS: There are no proposals to reduce funding; the Youth Services Review has been published and we plan to work closely with the voluntary sector. Current staff are anticipated to stay employed by the Council.

 

r) MM: So Youth Services will continue to be provided in-house and there will be no reduction in funding to the voluntary sector?

SS: There is additional funding of £300k to grant aid more groups so there will be increased provision in this area and no reduction in funding. The Youth Services Review indicates area-based work which will bring services together and avoid duplication. Recommendations are being brought to 20 January CMM

JD: The CMM report will indicate how coordination is to be planned.

 

s) JM; How long will rollover last?

TP: Officer advice is that holiday schemes should not be put at risk so rollover is needed so that critical schemes can continue. This will take time and we are grateful to all currently involved for their commitment. We plan to stop providing advice on health and safety which most authorities stopped long ago.

 

t) GM: Does ‘Transport’ or ‘CYP’ subsidise school buses?

TP: I can confirm Transport is responsible to subsidise school bus routes and we have looked to ensure there is no double-subsidy. Our home to school policy is inconsistent with neighbouring authorities in that Brighton & Hove children receive funding to travel to schools outside the local authority area but children from elsewhere do not receive funding from their Authority to travel to Brighton & Hove schools.

MM: There is a range of different home-to-school subsidies paid, eg SEN and faith schools.

TP: Yes this could be made clearer in the papers. There are no hidden subsidies. We are taking a fresh look at bus routes. We are not good at supporting SEN independence and we’re looking at how to improve this.

MM: Regarding transport to faith schools, some children outside the City Centre could be disadvantaged.

SS: There will be consultation on proposed changes.

 

u) OS: How will schools be able to take on more responsibility and can that be a seamless transition?
SS: we are working closely with schools and Head teachers

TP: The national picture is that local authorities will not be working so closely with schools in future, other than taking responsibility as a last resort.

JL: We have been working with Head Teachers for a long time, on these changes to support school-school support. There is a national and local push for being self-supporting. The local authority team is refocusing on commissioning and brokering partnerships.

TP: It is important to help schools prepare. The pupil premium will rise and school budgets will increase especially for those with high numbers of pupils receiving free school meals. For the local authority this means a large funding reduction for previously grant-supported services eg around ethnic minorities, school improvement and early intervention so the local authority team may need to reduce further.

 

v) KN: There has been significant interest in changes to the music service and the reduction in funding – would you like to comment on this?
TP: Funding for music has changed; Brighton & Hove Council provide one of the highest subsidies nationally on top of the ring fenced central government grant. The only reduction proposed is in the additional subsidy made available by the Council. The central government grant remains although now the music service has to bid to the Arts Council for it. The Council remains one of the larger funders nationally however despite this cut.

JL: We will be focussing on music provision for vulnerable groups including looked after children and youth offenders and for 2012-2013 will be looking to schools to do their own commissioning.

 

w) GM: How will the music service be protected in this budget?

SS: There is free tuition for children receiving free school meals and our Arts Council bid will emphasise vulnerable groups.

 

x) GM :Youth Employability savings (p52)?; and could external funding be sought?

SS Brighton and Hove Business Enterprise Partnership will be looking at increasing employment across the city; there will be more joined up provision. Joint commissioning will help make savings here. The Foyer is active in this area.

TP: This is an example of where early intervention from age 16 can give better outcomes. At present our performance is low - we need to ensure that more young people achieve 5 or more good GCSE grades.

y) JM: Are these Youth Employability Services figures the latest available and why are 4 CVSF posts proposed to the lost in 2012-2013 not shown as a saving (p52) ? Has the transitional funding of £200k all gone?

JD:  The £200k was allocated to the voluntary sector for 2011-2012 as part of the transitional funding from Connexions service.

 

z) JM: we welcome the £300k new funding – how does this link with other grants programmes?

JD: This is a new pot of money for which the precise details are still being developed.

MM; What is the position regarding S75 funding and Children and Families Delivery Unit (p45) ?

JD: The Cabinet report can be made clearer here.

 

aa) MM: Numbers of vacant and deleted posts in services for children with disabilities?

SS: This could be made clearer in the papers.

JD No cuts are proposed to voluntary sector in Youth services.

 

bb) MM: Reduction of £10k in adaptations?

JD: this is a small saving for year 2 (not year 1) in a much larger budget that we think will have least impact. Discussions are on-going via the Partnership Forum

TP: New technology will bring down slightly the cost of adaptation; an explanation can be provided.

GH: Most adaptations are from S75 funding; I will check this.

 

cc) AP: Savings in school Improvement and Inclusion?
SS:  Schools will be able to buy local authority services back.

 

dd) JM: What changes will there be to contracting arrangements for Services for Disabled Children (p57)? The £120k proposed savings does not seem to be in line with the needs assessment. Why is the Voluntary Sector singled out for savings here or is there a proportionate reduction in in-house provision? Proposed savings could have a huge impact on staff levels and organisations’ ability to survive. This would disproportionately affect parent carers and disabled children.

SS: the move to 2-year commissioning will help contribute to job security including in the voluntary sector, as well as cost reduction.

TP: Identified savings amount to only a small percentage of the total budget. Efficiencies will result from multiyear commissioning and joint commissioning with adult provision.  New ways of commissioning will lead to improved services.

 

ee) JM: even relatively small cuts can impact disproportionately; not least because without core funding CV sector organisations cannot attract additional funding. The needs assessment has identified priorities and it should be followed. The service should be looked at as a whole, not just the voluntary sector.

 JM: Where will the £192k savings on the early intervention fund be made (p49)? Also the £107k cut to CAMHs and TAMHs at a time of a 40% rise in referrals, including children,  and the highest suicide rate for under-25s, in the UK

SS; At a national level, CAMHs was an initial pilot that was always due to end in March 2012. We have managed to find the money to support the continuation of the service albeit at a reduced level.

JD: Commissioning for Disability Services is actively being linked in with the needs assessments and the next stage is to look at targets. This could be made clearer in the Cabinet papers.

 

ff) JM: But the cuts appear to be prescribed to fall entirely on the voluntary sector, where they will have disproportionately greater impact.

JD: The savings are not new and have already been achieved via the EIG review. We can look at how the information is laid out in the table of savings description, impact and risk. (p49)

SS: a small funding reduction will be manageable, providing longer-term commissioning and security is achieved.

 

gg) MM: How many vacant and deleted posts are proposed in ASC and Childrens’ Services?

TP: Across ‘People’ there are approximately 90 vacant posts and 45 unfilled vacancies. These are subject to consultation and detailed figures will be provided. HR can provide the corporate picture.

 

hh) OS: How can savings be achieved on asylum seekers without service impact (p56)?

TP: There are fewer asylum seekers and we are working more closely with West Sussex colleagues regarding people arriving at Gatwick airport but then presenting at Brighton.

 

12.19 Cabinet Members provided a summing up:

 

12.20 Councillor Shanks said the EIAs did not fully identify all equality issues but could focus on the main matters. She emphasised that it was a challenge to balance targeted work with individuals, with generic services. However she was satisfied with the proposals put forward, including looked after children and play services.

 

12.21Councillor Jarrett said even though under difficult financial circumstances, the proposals fulfilled the manifesto commitment, protecting the most vulnerable and carers, and recognising the increasing value of community work. Equalities considerations had been applied across services so that wherever possible there was no disproportionate effect on any particular group. Savings would be applied without impacting on services, though the location or means of delivery might change or the profit line of contractors may be affected.

 

12.22 Councillor Ken Norman the Panel Chair thanked everyone for attending the meeting and answering questions.