Witnesses:
Helen Atkinson, Strategic
Director for Adult Social Care and Public Health
Sian Kenny, Transformation and
Development Manager, Finance
Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and
Independence
Tim Evans, Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and
Independence
Declarations of interests:
None
Key
points of discussion:
- Officers outlined
that there were a number of future Better Care Fund (BCF)
allocations. The Board was informed that in addition to the BCF and
Improved BCF allocations that a third funding stream had been
announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8 March 2017. It
was noted that the service was awaiting guidance from central
government regarding the Chancellors announcements.
- It was highlighted by
officers that the service was forward planning using existing
funding streams for 2017/18, due to the recent nature of
changes.
- Officers noted that
the third workstream was estimated to
contain approximately £7.5 million which was ring-fenced to
fund adult social care (ASC).
- It was explained by
officers that existing BCF funding streams were financed partially
by NHS England, under the stipulation that funding from this source
is ring-fenced for ASC. The Improved BCF was a funding stream that
came from the Department for Communities and Local Government
(DCLG). It was noted that planning guidance and policy had not yet
been published for the BCF 2017/18 stream. NHS Clinical
Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and Surrey County Council were in
discussion regarding funding the financial year ahead.
- The Cabinet Member
for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence noted that there
was a significant funding gap present in the Improved BCF and that
this effected all of the Surrey CCGs. It was also noted that the
new funding workstream was also a lower
amount than its statistical neighbours.
- The Board questioned
the reasoning for the lower level of funding than its statistical
neighbours. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and
Independence expressed the view that central government had
determined that Surrey County Council could independently raise
funding for ASC through Council Taxes, rather than requiring
substantial additional funding.
- Members questioned
whether the service could provide a breakdown of the funding
allocated through the BCF funding streams per head of those in
receipt of ASC, in order to better clarify the funding issue in the
service.
- The Board questioned
whether the service could look into reduction of any non-statutory
provisions that did not provide additional social or economic
value. Officers stressed that there had been work undertaken to
determine the social value of spending and that services had
already been decommissioned or recommissioned based on this analysis. However, it
was highlighted that the service had worked to reduce the majority
of services to their statutory requirements.
- Officers noted that
the service had reviewed voluntary sector grants with the aim of
reducing spend. However, Members raised the concern that the social
value of this spend was significant, noting that there was a
potential for high return on this investment. It was also stressed
by Members that significant numbers of community services relied on
voluntary service and that reductions in this area could adversely
affect service quality. Members also expressed concerns that some
voluntary organisations could become unviable without support.
However, Members did suggest that the service needed to look
critically at the voluntary sector to ensure that resources are
targeted at need more effectively.
- Members raised
concerns regarding Alzheimer’s UK and the closure of centres.
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and
Independence noted in response to concerns raised by Members that
the decision to do this was made by Alzheimer’s UK in
response to a lack of demand for services and that Surrey County
Council had no responsibility for this service.
Recommendations:
The Board recognises the value
of the BCF in ensuring the protection of social care services, in
ensuring closer integration with health services such as supporting
improved discharge in acute hospitals.
It notes that the improved BCF
formula places the County at a financial disadvantage. It
recommends:
-
That the Cabinet continue to make representations to
central government on an improved BCF formula based on need, rather
than the council’s ability to raise council tax.