Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Scrutiny of Services

To review the procurement processes home to school transport services for young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

Witnessess:

Shona Snow, Senior Category Specialist
Tracey Coventry, Transport Coordination Specialist
Dierdre Linehan, Senior Principal Accountant
Sarah Bryan, Contract and Performance Officer

Key points raised during discussion:

1.    Finance, Transport and Procurement officers gave the Board presentations on SEND Transport.

2.    Officers explained that there had been consistent budget overspends in SEND transport provision from the financial years 2012/13 to 2015/16. It was suggested that this was, in part, due to an increase in the demand of SEND transport in Surrey. It was also explained in the presentation that the per pupil cost of SEND transport had consistently risen in conjunction with a reduction in the number of children carried per route, highlighting the statistic of the number of solo routes has increasing by 8%.

3.    The Board queried whether combining more transport routes would increase efficiency and reduce costs incurred by transport provision. Officers agreed that shared routes would bring down transport costs, however, they warned that there was a balance required to meet the needs of some SEND students.

4.    Members asked if there was a possibility of combining SEND transport with regular school transport. Officers responded that this was already a practice in some cases, but that any conjunction of service would need to be implemented by the SEND team. Members suggested that better linkage between services would be beneficial to the aim of solving such logistical issues.

5.    The Board raised concerns with projected savings in this services and questioned how, with the consistent history of overspend and the numbers of eligible pupils rising, the service can feasibly to deliver the projected £7 million cost reduction.
The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement suggested that a key contributor to savings would be transforming the county provision of SEND support. The Cabinet Member went on to suggest that appropriate provision was already available, but not necessarily in the right places; and by transforming the Council’s SEND provision, including appropriate targeted funding, it was believed that savings could be found.

6.    The Board questioned the major increase in SEND transport routes between April 2013 and October 2013 and asked why these figures were anomalous in comparison with the trend. Officers commented that this was indeed out of place and that investigation into these statistics would need to take place in order to identify this anomaly.

7.    Officers identified that the number of required medical and behavioural escorts had increased; indicating a changing trend in SEND requirements. The Board questioned whether escorts were more prevalent on solo routes and whether this served to increase costs. Officers informed Members that the requirement for escorts depended on a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and, although would directly affect overall costs, could not be negotiated. Officers explained that more information on escorts and how they were deployed was required to analyse any possible cost reduction in the service.

8.    Officers highlighted the changes made to the transport procurement system, praising the new system’s flexibility and ability to increase competition, offering the best opportunity for cost reduction. Officers also extolled the benefits of opening routes up to “mini-competitions,” suggesting that these have had a positive effect on cost reductions in transport procurement.

9.    Members commented that parents of children with SEND frequently had high expectations for service provision for their child, which could have lead to increasing demand on the service. Members were also concerned by the potential exploitation of the system by some parents, and how exposed officers may be to this risk. Officers accepted that there was much room for improvement in this regard but also highlighted the importance of transforming the local offer further.

10.  Officers highlighted the risks and the risk avoidance strategies employed in future SEND transport procurement strategy proposals going forward:

a.    That the team ensures that operators are made fully aware of their responsibilities in ensuring that children with SEND requirements are effectively safeguarded,

b.    That the team ensures operators are made fully aware of any complex medical needs and their requirements with regard to these, and;

c.    The increase in labour costs for SEND transport and escort services for the Service.

It was concluded that, while this would take time to implement, the team would work with the SEND transport team to set in motion procedures to minimise these risks.

11.  The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement informed the Board that the work being undertaken with regard to procurement improvements was supported by the parents of children with SEND requirements, citing the group Family Voice as a key proponent of the strategy put forward. The Board suggested that it should be ensured that this group is representative of the wider community of parents of children with SEND requirements and suggested that a wider consultation might be considered.

12.  The Board suggested that a scheme should be implemented to explore increasing the attractiveness of parental transport. Officers responded that, within the consultation, there is a recommendation to encourage parental transport as a positive option going forward.

13.  It was asked by Members what the breakdown of costs were in relation to transport procurement, particularly identifying the percentage costs of taxi hire and escorts, and if there was a feasible means of quantifying this. Officers responded that an annual review of escort services was being implemented to ascertain this outlay, and that planned better linkage between procurement systems will serve to create a more comprehensive dataset with regard to these figures.

Recommendations

The Board recommends that:

1.    The Procurement team report back to the Board in collaboration with the SEND team, in November 2016, in order to monitor progress made, as part of the proposed Parent Guide consultation review.

2.    That the Procurement team provide, a more detailed breakdown of costs, including: comparison data for solo routes vs group routes, with and without escorts; duplicate route information; and, with input from the SEND team, investigate other potential local transport options.

3.    That the Board’s Performance & Finance Sub Group regularly request to review and address future generated savings.