Agenda item

To receive an update on progress made against the Select Committee’s December 2023 recommendations, the latest position on KPIs, impact of EHCP Recovery Plan to date and how the service sees the future for H2STA.

Witnesses:

Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning

Patricia Denney, Director – Quality and Performance

Suzanne Smith, Director of Commissioning – Transformation

Gerry Hughes, Assistant Director – Business Support & H2STA

Chris McShee, Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison

Matthew Winnett, Travel and Assessment Team Manager – Transport Delivery

Matt Marsden, Strategic Finance Business Partner – Strategy & Innovation

Key points of discussion:

1. The Chair said that, while huge progress had been made and the team should be proud of the improvements, challenges remained in providing a clear roadmap for families from application for a school to delivery of transport, and in improving collaboration among responsible teams. The issue of collaboration has significant implications and needs to be prioritised for attention. Parents may unwittingly choose a school, or have a school identified for them, which entails a very long journey for their children. They noted that in the 2023–2024 fiscal year, £65 million had been spent, including a £7.4 million overspend and £45 million on taxis alone. Rising costs highlighted the need to place children in suitable schools, based on their needs and locality.

2. A Member asked about how the Council compared to neighbouring councils regarding transport assistance. In reply, the Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison said that it was important to focus on different cohorts. They noted that understanding the information and that of different authorities was as necessary to understand how these factors varied across the counties. The Chair said that it would be useful to have a breakdown of the data in relation to the population size and that of each cohort, allowing the Committee to better understand the proportionality involved.

3. A Member asked why the decision to disallow the transport of children under five years old was enforced without clear communication to families prior to finalising placements, and what percentage of appeals from families with children under five had been successful. The Assistant Director – Business Support & H2STA said that the Council's policy stated children under five were ineligible for transport, though exceptions had become common over the past two years. Previous communications led to misunderstandings, as families were informed they might receive transport. Ultimately, 28 of 59 appeals were approved, while 31 were declined.

4. The Chair said that when implementing online services, there should be consideration of the specific circumstances of parents and carers in the event they cannot use online services. The Assistant Director replied that there were ongoing efforts to enhance the automation of forms and to educate colleagues about possible improvements to the service. Additionally, much work had been put into the development of easy-read guides for parents, which highlighted the importance of both parents’ understanding and effective communication with the team.

5. A Member asked if the support service would participate in the customer transformation programme. The Assistant Director said the support service was very involved and participating.

6. A Member asked about the approach and policy concerning dual placements, the policy for alternative provision (AP) and education outside of school, and the exceptional circumstances applicable to those in post-16 education. In reply, the Transport Delivery Team Manager – Transport Delivery said that the policy stated that the Council assessed travel assistance eligibility based on the schools named in the EHCP. For educational locations other than schools, while the law did not impose a duty on the council to provide travel assistance, the Council would consider individual circumstances. The Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison added that the Council had started transitioning from contracted transport to a travel allowance. The Service had developed guidance in collaboration with Family Voice Surrey to help families understand the requirements for qualifying for transport, with much work done over the past 18 months on the communications plan.

7. A Member asked whether Surrey County Council had conducted a cost analysis on offering more than 45p per mile to encourage parents to drive their children to school. In reply, the Assistant Director said that a cost analysis had been conducted, which led to the creation of a personal travel budget scheme structured in three tiers, with the first tier reimbursing 45p per mile.

8. A Member asked what other provisions had been looked at. In reply, the Assistant Director said that they considered several other kinds of provisions, and had worked with Freedom to Travel, Surrey County Council’s community transport providers, school bus fleets, and individual providers to improve the viability and feasibility of picking up local children.

9. A Member asked to be reassured that the payment processing would be streamlined. In reply, the Assistant Director said the Finance Team had adjusted its processes to resolve past issues. They were exploring automating parts of the payment process to improve customer service and considering allowing families to claim mileage. They also mentioned clawback, as payments were made in arrears due to some children being absent from school while receiving an independent travel allowance. If a child was not expected to attend school, Surrey County Council did not clawback those days. This policy was based on the number of days the child was expected to be in school, and in-service days would be deducted.

10. A Member asked that the difference between and ‘independent travel allowance’ and ‘personal travel budget’ be explained. In reply, the Assistant Director said that the term ‘independent travel allowance’ was out of date and had contributed to confusion and they would transition away from ‘independent travel allowance’, with all expenses being referred to as a ‘personal travel budget’.

11. The Chair asked how and why other councils neighbouring Surrey County manage to pay considerably more. The Chair also asked for some research into this and to ensure SCC was willing to pay what it costs to incentivise. In reply, they said that further analysis was needed to understand what other councils were doing in this area.

12. A Member asked about the proportion of safeguarding incidents that were responded to within 24 hours and whether there had been a reduction in complaints since a section on service standards was added to the parent guide. In reply, the Assistant Director said all safeguarding concerns would be addressed within 24 hours, although investigations might take longer. They also reported that no complaints had been received in June. The Chair asked if they had any success in improving those timescales. The Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison said that more data would be needed.

13. A Member asked about the short- and medium-term implications of the £10.3 million budget overspend for 2023–2024 and the current £7.4 million overspend for 2024–2025, which included an additional risk of £2.5 million. The Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison said that the service had several savings targets for the year as part of its medium-term financial plan and was on track to achieve efficiencies of £2.6 million. Regarding expenditures, there had been a noticeable increase. Additionally, they explained that a process known as hidden bidding was being utilised within their dynamic purchasing system (DPS) to help reduce costs. A Member said that they were concerned about a nearly £10 million overspend for the current year, noting that a similar overspend had occurred the previous year. This raised questions about the accuracy of the budgeting forecasts. The Cabinet Member said that one consequence of last year's budget overspending was a substantial increase in the Home-to-School Transport budget, which had been approved in February 2023 as part of the overall budget for the directorate and indicated that the Council made efforts to appropriately increase this year’s Home-to-School Transport allocation. The Strategic Finance Business Partner - Strategy & Innovation said much work had been completed on the forecasting model to support the school transport team.

14. A Member asked if the backlog of EHCPs had been considered for projections related to Home-to-School Transport budgeting. In reply, the Strategic Finance Business Partner said that they had worked closely with the SEND team regarding their forward trajectories regarding all EHCPs.

15. A Member asked how the cost increases from the previous year and the current year compared with those of other councils, whether data on unit costs was available, and how much of the budget increases for both years could be attributed to the current shortfall in special needs and alternative provision. In reply, the Cabinet Minister said that the forecast from the SEND AP Capital programme aimed to increase specialist school places in the county to just under 6,000. However, the Committee should consider that Surrey County Council currently had over 15,000 children and young people with EHCPs, and not all would need a specialist school. The Council wanted children in Surrey to be educated close to home and within their own communities, hoping many could be educated in mainstream environments. Although the Council had an ambitious programme to build and maintain specialist accommodations, it recognised it would not fully meet the demand for specialist schools. Even with the addition of four new free schools, there would still be children and young people whose needs the Council could not meet.

16. A Member said that Table 1 of the report outlined the costs of not addressing the shortfall. The report also described the changes in the scope of the SEND Capital Programme. It was thought that the Council would understand the costs both before and after the change in scope, as the same data was utilised and that it would be beneficial to understand the projected costs after the change was implemented, to assess any financial benefits for the Council and children, and to compare these factors with neighbouring councils. The Strategic Finance Business Partner said that, in terms of the comparison with neighbouring councils, one comparison could be made with Kent County Council and Surrey County Council, which considering updated figures, are comparable at £9,200 per child.

17. The Chair asked if the report had accounted for the decisions made because of the SEND Capital Programme or if it had been prepared prior to those decisions. In reply, the Strategic Finance Business Partner said forecasting included an allowance for improvement in the number of children transported due to increased efficiency within Surrey, though the details of how this would work had not been explored. The Chair said that the issue was understanding the strength of that assumption.

18. The Chair asked if the projected costs for Home-to-School Transport had considered all the data related to the SEND Capital Programme. In reply, the Strategic Finance Business Partner said it had not been considered in terms of the financial forecast. They said that work was being started to examine SEND trajectories by provision type. They hoped this would provide a better understanding to update their financial projections. The Director of Commissioning for Transformation said that part of the work started by the Forecasting Methodology Task and Finish Group involved studying various scenarios and methodologies to make certain the development of the best forecasting models. They noted that this subject could be included among the other topics being considered by the Forecasting Methodology Task and Finish Group.

19. A Member asked what is meant by the reference to ‘continued new routes’ in paragraph 32 of the report. In reply, the Cabinet Member said that one example illustrating the meaning was the establishment of two new routes that had an annual cost of approximately £40–50,000 per child but would not amount to the collective savings in the amount of £40–50,000 for one route. In reply, the Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison said that the route was determined by the destination, noting that the Council had a statutory duty to provide travel assistance to eligible children. They clarified that if children needed to be transported to a farther location but were eligible for transport, the Council had to arrange taxi services, which would also be classified as a solo route.

20. A Member asked about the type of data that would be analysed concerning paragraph 32 of the report, which said ‘work continues to analyse the data to get to a clear understanding of this position.’ In reply, the Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison said that an assumption had been made based on the type of placement data. They further asked about the allocation of places and if this considers factors of availability, distance, cost, and other such factors. In reply, the Chair said that it was very clear the first obligation of the local authority is to meet the needs of the child as stated in the EHCP. The Chair added there were many different issues to consider regarding the topic of the question. They believed it would be beneficial for the Service to return to the Committee later to address concerns about priority and obligation and whether these factors were considered in the process. The Chair, concluding, said that they would take that question and consider it for the next topic.

21. A Member asked about the expected impact of the new Labour Government's decision to impose VAT on independent school fees on Home-to-School Transport, and whether this change would lead to an increase in transfers to state schools. In reply, the Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison said that the Service had not made any analysis regarding this decision.

RESOLVED, the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee recommends:

1. The Surrey School Travel and Assessment Team (SSTAT) prioritises communications to parents and carers when changes to policy and practice are finalised and ensures that these communications are widely shared in advance of the change being implemented.

2. In order to further improve communication:

3. The forecasting of demand and the budget for Home to School Transport takes account of the forecast demand for SEND school placements.

4. SSTAT undertake a cost benefit analysis to identify whether a higher standard Independent Travel Allowance would incentivise uptake, what the implications for parents and carers would be, and what Surrey can learn from other local authorities who have implemented this strategy.

5. In order to come up with potentially innovative solutions, SSTAT looks further at what other local authorities are doing to manage home to school transport costs.

Actions/requests for further information:

Travel & Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison: To share benchmarking data to understand how the overall figure of 7% qualifying for H2STA compares to neighbouring councils and include per capita rates.