Agenda item

To consider key themes and priorities for Children, Young People and Learning as outlined in the Council’s Draft Budget Proposals for 2016/17.

The Panel considered key themes and priorities for Children, Young People and Learning as outlined in the Council’s draft budget proposals for 2016/17.

The Executive agreed the Council’s draft budget proposals for 2016/17 at its meeting on 15 December 2015 as the basis for consultation with the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, Overview and Scrutiny Panels and other interested parties.  The consultation period would expire on 31 January 2016, after which the Executive would consider the representations made at its meeting on 9 February 2016, before recommending the budget to Council.

Attached to the report were relevant extracts from the 2016/17 Revenue Budget and Capital Programme.  The extracts were comprised of Revenue Budget Report, Commitment Budget, Draft Revenue Budget Pressures, Draft Revenue Budget Savings Proposals, Proposed Fees and Charges, Capital Programme Report and Summary, and Proposed Capital Schemes.

The Panel was advised that notification of the Government grant had been received subsequent to the draft budget proposals being agreed as the basis for consultation and as the settlement was lower than expected it would be necessary for further savings to be identified.

Members focused their attention on the draft revenue budget savings and pressures.  Attention was drawn to savings arising from additional income streams, reduced placement costs for Looked After Children and efficiencies resulting from revised delivery of services and support totalling £714,000.  Budget pressures, which related to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), Post 16 Education Transport and Special Educational Needs (SEN), amounted to £246,000.

In response to related questions and discussion the following points were made:

·                There had been an underspend in the Emergency Duty Team budget for several years and the proposed budget reduction constituted a saving without a service reduction.

·                The proposed reduction in Youth Justice support to parenting services would be partially compensated by work in other areas such as the Early Help Offer and Children’s Centres and by signposting to other forms of support.

·                As there had been low take up of some aspects of the Information, Advice and Guidance to young people service, the related contract had been reduced to achieve a saving and some services brought in-house to improve service provision and value for money.

·                Efficiencies and cost reductions in the commissioning of the Joint Legal Team that provided a Berkshire-wide service hosted by Reading Borough Council had been sought.

·                As part of the on-going process to improve efficiency, a review of the youth offer had resulted in a saving of £58,000.  The service would continue to provide targeted work.  Other measures to support emotional health and wellbeing included bids to NHS England and the Clinical Commissioning Group’s Innovations Fund, focused work in schools stemming from the Autism Strategy and training of professionals and volunteers through the Parents’ Project.

·                The streamlining of the management structure of the Children’s Centres would increase consistency and efficiency.

·                There was a budget pressure associated with the MASH which facilitated improved and more rapid decision making and information sharing consistently across Berkshire.

·                The mandatory conversion of SEN Statements into Education Health Care Plans was a significant task requiring additional staff and posed a budget pressure.

The Capital Programme included Phase 1 of the expansion of The Brakenhale School which had qualified for a grant associated with the condition survey.