Agenda item

Purpose of report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets

This report provides an opportunity for the Committee to scrutinise the Adult Social Care budget.

Declarations of interest: None.

Witnesses:

Dave Sargeant, Interim Strategic Director for Adult Social Care

Paul Carey-Kent, Strategic Finance Manager

John Woods, Assistant Director for Policy and Strategy.

Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care

Steve Cosser, Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care

1. The Committee was informed that a balanced budget had been projected, with £4.1 million of savings already achieved and £12.7 million of savings on track without any further management action. £25 million of savings still needed to be implemented including £10 million through Family, Friends and Community Support (FFC) programme.

2. The Committee was informed that savings for the FFC programme had been remodelled on the basis of spending 20% less on new community care services compared to the amount spent in 2013/14 and carrying out targeted reassessments of existing community care packages. In 2014/15 it is forecast to involve commissioning effective support for 4,912 new community care services and carrying out 1,400 reassessments. The Committee was informed that research by the University of Birmingham has shown that there are positive outcomes for service users in the FFC programme, alongside savings.

3. The Committee asked for officers to bring qualitative evidence showing the outcomes of packages and what they mean for service users. Officers agreed to do this and informed the Committee that in the past money was sometimes duplicated for services and this should be looked at to make sure that public money is spent appropriately.

4. The Committee asked about the current status and the future for the FFC and if good practice was being shared. The Committee also noted that the community should be able to see the impact; that this is not just saving money but also helping individuals. Officers said they were reviewing progress and that they would bring evidence to committee.

5. Officers explained that the savings targets were not definitive figures. Projected savings achieved from new packages reducing cost by 20% totalled around £4 million. The Committee questioned the ‘savings from top 40 reassessments’ figure from page 5 of the handout and officers clarified that the figure was from a total of 1,400 and should read top 40 per locality per month.

6. The Committee questioned whether after reassessment, some service users may need a higher rate of support and how that would fit with the 20% reduction target. Officers said that the 20% reduction was an average and that not all service users would fit into this category. Some service users would require nothing after reassessment and some would require more support than before. Officers further noted that if a service user’s needs could not be met, then a discussion with the local team manager would take place. Officers confirmed that the targets were in place to help staff to better deliver social care but this would not prevent service users from getting the support that they needed.

7. Officers advised that the calculation of the amount of money that a service user would get was not a fixed model and also did not need to be met by a paid-for service. The 20% reduction target was based on a process staff have undergone to see how cases could have been handled differently. Officers commented that this was a challenging agenda and there were many that may need reassessing, at an annual cost of £7 million for assessments.

8. The Committee asked about the issue of procurement of services and questioned whether there was a guarantee of buying care at a specific price. Officers said that nursing care is the biggest resource cost for Surrey, that residential care is bought at a lower rate, and that non-residential care service prices are as a result of a tender where the supplier proposes the price.

Recommendations:

The Committee:

·         Noted the 2013-14 outturn

·         Noted the April/May report

·         Requests  a report on the first four months of the financial year at the September meeting, with a summary sent by email on Quarter 1 in the interim (Action by: Paul Carey-Kent)

·         Be provided with a further update on FFC at a future meeting or workshop, to include

o   An overview of the FFC offer covering best practice, current situation, next steps, and qualitative examples of care package  provision, with practitioners from rural and urban areas invited as witnesses

(Action by: Dave Sargeant/Paul Carey-Kent)

Actions/further information to be provided:

None

Committee next steps:

None.