This report is provided separately in a supplementary agenda and will be dealt with under agenda item 6.
Minutes:
Yvette Stanley, Director for Children, Schools and Families (CSF), introduced the deferred and replacement savings. The data review and potential centralisation is happening but is taking longer than planned due to the need to fully embed the new MOSAIC system and define future departmental needs. The review of the CSF staffing structure is happening and has been implemented in phases with the loss of an Assistant Director in April 2017 and further changes in administrative support happening in April this year. The Panel heard how savings will be made from the implementation of preventative services through the Social Impact Bond and the Family Drug and Alcohol Court. Evidence suggests that these approaches can reduce the chances of children staying in or returning to care from 60% to 40%.
In response to member questions, it was clarified:
· Merton’s involvement in the Family Drugs and Alcohol Court is just coming into effect so it is too early to say how this is working. It is hoped that this will also have an effect on the wider local economy beyond reducing the costs of children services. This will be achieved through successes such as better health outcomes, less engagement with the police and progression into work;
· It is not lawful to means test and charge for travel to school for students with special educational needs. This is a statutory duty on the council; and
· It would be possible for the Panel to consider having a more detailed review of the income generation of the CSF Department. This might be something to consider for the scrutiny work programme for the next municipal year.
RESOLVED: Councillor Holmes proposed a motion (seconded by Cllr Chirico): Recognising the excellent progress already made by the Children, Schools and Families Department in revenue generation, officers should explore additional opportunities for revenue generation in the same way as they are exploring opportunities for cost savings. Four Councillors voted for the motion, one against and five abstained meaning the motion was carried.
Supporting documents: