Barbara Peacock provided the Committee with a presentation on the red risks within the People Department which can be found at item 7 of the agenda.
Following the presentation the Committee queried where the insight and intelligence was coming from. The Executive Director - People informed the Committee that data came from across the council which showed the One Team approach the authority aspired to.
The Executive Director - People informed the Committee that considerable lobbying and influencing was taking place nationally regarding the Dedicated Schools Grant. The Local Government Association had been lobbying heavily and released a number of papers which reiterated the important role local authorities had in education. The Executive Director - People informed the Committee that the new Secretary of State may have a new approach to the role of schools and the local authority.
The Cabinet Member for Finance and Treasury informed the Committee that £20 million in grants towards unaccompanied asylum seekers had been lost in 2015/16 and 2016/17. Furthermore there had been an attempt to reduce the daily rate which would have led to a loss of £4 million to the council, however after intense lobbying the plan had been reversed. The Cabinet Member noted that the grant provided by the government did not cover the indirect costs associated with unaccompanied asylum seeks, such as school places, in house foster care places being taken and the further responsibilities once the person is over 18 years of age. The council was working on calculating the indirect costs, which was estimated to be around £3-5 million per year which the council was covering. The Cabinet Member confirmed the council would continue to lobby government to maintain the grant.
The Executive Director - People noted that there was an opportunity for the council to put in a significant bid for the Controlling Migration Fund, for which there was an expectation from the Home Office that the council would do.
The Committee suggested that the council continued to work with the local MPs to assist in the lobbying for the continuation of the grant for unaccompanied asylum seekers. Members confirmed that it remained a cross-party concern.
Members noted that Croydon had a higher proportion of care homes with non-Croydon residents in placements which after a period of time was paid for by Croydon council. The Executive Director - People stated there were a number of detailed arrangements with regards to placements of non-Croydon residents. It was noted that the burden was not so much on the authority who paid for the placement, rather on the health economy as the care home resident would likely use health services within the borough.
The Committee were informed that the figure stated within the presentation of £3,952.40 for 410 days of accommodation was incorrect.
Members noted that it was difficult to judge the performance of departments and the associated risks when councillors were not closely aligned to the departments. Councillors queried whether the issue within the People Directorate was with inaccurate budgeting of the demand pressures, or whether the budgeting pressures were due to in year changes.
In response, the Executive Director - People stated that it was a challenge for a committee with an audit function to review the risks while a committee with an overview and scrutiny function looked more in depth at the concerns. It was suggested that it was for councillors to decide how best to hold officers to account.
The Executive Director - People noted that it was difficult to judge demand, however it was important to be proportionate in allocating budgets and officers would continue to attempt to give a realistic view. Officers would continue to work hard to provide accurate projections of demand, however there we a number of challenges including the market, increased costs being charge by providers, and the retention of social workers. In the People directorate there were a number of statutory responsibilities and it was important that the service delivered for residents of Croydon.
Members noted that there were a number of challenges for officers in the People departments, however Outcomes Based Commissioning (OBC) was within the council's control. The Committee queried whether there had been difficulties in agreeing the risk share model. Furthermore concerns were raised that better funded authorities may be able to pay more for the delivery of services.
In response to Member questions the Executive Director - People noted that due to Croydon council's commitment to paying the London Living Wage it would be paying more than other authorities. In relation to OBC and the risk sharing, there was an ongoing discussion that would continue for a few months. There was a sharing of the risk, on how they would manage if any budget is overspending, but there was also a sharing of the reward if a budget was making a saving. The key to ensuring the success of OBC was to have fewer people in acute care and more being cared for in the community. The authority would be commissioning for outcomes and the money would follow to ensure the right results for the residents of Croydon. It was stated that OBC was a red risk due to being in a transition phase, not because the model was wrong. There were a number of sophisticated models which would assist in calculating the figures involved, however the processes were not yet agreed which was an audit risk.
The Cabinet Member for Finance and Treasury stated that the quality of life and number to times people were being readmitted had been reviewed, and it was important to deliver a better quality of life for the people of Croydon. It was noted that it was critical for the health economy that OBC happened, as while the council spent £40 million a year on old people, the NHS spent over £100 million.
Concerns were raised regarding the risks and how the liabilities would be dealt with once the OBC agreements had been signed. In particular, it was noted that Croydon University Hospital was in special measures and the CEO of Age UK was leaving the role, and a number of the systems did not seem to be in place.
The Executive Director - People noted that the work around the sharing of liabilities given the different governance arrangements of the organisations involved was being actively worked upon. The report to Cabinet in December 2016 would recommend 1 year +9 years which recognised that year one would be used to work out the details and the transition required. It was stated that not all risks would need to be signed off by the end of December 2016 and it was confirmed that while the CCG and hospital were in special measures OBC would not carry any debt.
The Cabinet Member for Finance and Treasury noted that the reason for the recommendation for a 1 +9 year agreement was that it had been recognised that there were concerns.
The Executive Director - People stated in response to concerns that partners were leaving organisations, that when people left organisations it was often an opportunity to bring a new perspective and could strengthen partnerships.
The Committee noted that the council procured some temporary accommodation outside the borough and queried where residents were being placed and at what cost. The Executive Director - People stated that placements had not yet been procured but a number of locations were being considered for those residents who would welcome moving outside of Croydon. It was noted that it was important to take into consideration people's aspirations.
The Chair noted she had help a resident relocate to East Grinstead for which the family was very happy as they had a larger home and were near a local school. The Committee stated it was important to relocate only if that was the customers wish, not to just decrease the housing list.
In response to Member questions the Executive Director - People stated that there was a strong team working closely on reducing the reliance on commercial B&Bs as urgent accommodation. Two directors were working closely to influence across London to shape the policy offers and were reviewing how to increase the volume of good quality temporary accommodation, such as using brownfield sites. The Cabinet Member further noted that events were being held with those in temporary accommodation and council tenants to review how to meet people's aspirations. It was stated that every option was being considered.
In response to Member questions the Executive Director - People stated that the government recognised that there was inequity in school funding across the country as funding was per pupil and costs of educating a student differed across the country. The government had looked at reviewing the funding, however it had stalled due to the lobbying of organisations and a desire to not destabilise the education system.
The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that there had been cross party London meetings on the issue as previous proposals had amounted to every London borough seeing a drop in funding. Proposals had shifted money from urban areas to rural areas.
The Chair thanked the Executive Director - People for attending the meeting and answering member questions.
RESOLVED: To note the presentation.
Councillor Sherwan Chowdhury arrived at 6.45pm.
Councillor Mike Fisher left the meeting at 8pm.