2. Personal Services Directorate - 2006/7 Budget Presentation 8 th December 2005 53

3. Budget Characteristics Big Budget - low flexibility Little capacity for service development Labour intensive - high staff costs Policy driven agenda National service frameworks Rising demand - limited supply Increasing public expectation 54

4. Budget Characteristics (cont.) High public profile and exposure Significant levels of audit and inspection Desire for hypothecation Pressures from external partners Operationally accountable Strategic capacity essential Virement risky 55

5. Commitment to Modernise Many examples of commitment to modernise and reshape services, e.g. Housing Stock Transfer Danygraig externalisation Deregistration of Learning Disability establishments Closure of 5 homes Reviews of Fees and Charges Learning Disability Day Services Joint Disability Services/Joint Mental Health Day Services BUT limited strategic capacity = limited pace of change 56

6. Social Services Scrutiny Joint Review every 5 years Review of Adult Services every 5 years Review of Children’s Services every 5 years Annual Performance Evaluation Twice yearly inspections of individual services by the Care Standards Inspectorate Direct Intervention Plus generic scrutiny e.g. internal audit 57

7. SSIW Performance Evaluation 2005 “The task with children’s services is to improve performance, focussing on targets set by the Chief Inspector”. “…resources have had to be diverted from adult services to children’s services which has obviously had an impact on developments and the adult division’s ability to sustain and maintain improvements is threatened”. 58

8. Personal Services Budget Strategy 1.Meet existing and known demand (statutory requirement). 2.Stabilise existing services e.g by recruitment and retention. 3.Improve performance and support Corporate priorities e.g. children’s service agenda, protecting vulnerable people. 4.Create new and additional services e.g. reablement 5.Modernise and reshape services. 59

9. 2005/06 Revenue Budget – The Figures (1) Service AreaExpenditureIncomeNet Budget Projected Variation £000s Children 12,606(1,938)10,6681,382 Older People 21,200(6,351)14,849(132) Physical Disabilities 3,113(264)2,84986 Learning Disabilities 14,940(7,287)7,65356 Mental Health/Other Adult Services 2,690(1,519)1,171(84) Housing Services 1,546(739)807(35) Cross Directorate 3,843(583)3,26021 TOTAL 59,938(18,681)41,2571,294 60

10. 2005/06 Revenue Budget – The Figures (2) £’M % Staff Costs29.148.6 Other Costs 5.8 9.7 Payments to other Providers25.041.7 Total Budgeted Expenditure59.9 Income from Grants 9.6 Income from charges/other bodies 9.1 Net Budget41.2 60

11. Services provided/commissioned include:- 61

12. Factors to consider RSG Settlement - £45m for Adult Services in Wales 2005/6 projected overspend reported at £1.3m Children’s Services recovery plan Joint Review Action Plan Adult Services Action Plan Joint Agenda with Health 62

13. ‘Specific’ Grants being transferred into RSG £000’s Capacity grant796 Children first636 Mental handicap strategy715 Carers strategy 246 2,393 This is not new money – already committed to existing services. Vital that it is earmarked in full to Personal Services The figures are provisional pending final settlement information. 63

14. What does this mean for us? Adult Services/Cross Directorate requirements £2.069m Children’s Services requirements£1.419m SubTotal£3.488m Less BCBC share of national £45m for Adult Services (£1.890m) Net Sum needed from Corporate resources £1.598m 64

15. Growth Submission – Adult Services/Cross Directorate Total = £2.069m BUT only £0.355m is real service growth The remainder is for: Meeting existing/known demand Stabilising existing services Improving performance 65

16. Growth Submission – Children’s Services Total = £1.419m BUT none is for real service growth It is for: Meeting existing/known demand Stabilising existing services Improving performance 66

17. Case Study – Budget Strategy No.1 Stabilise existing services NO INCREASE IN CARE HOME FEES  Local Providers lose faith with BCBC  Some providers will refuse to contract with BCBC  Some providers may decide they are no longer viable  Some providers will require top up payments from families  Overall fewer places available for people needing residential care in BCBC area  Waiting lists for people wanting placements in BCBC area  Additional supports at home while people wait  Worsening performance on delayed transfers of care  More placements out of county  No alternative but to pay the going rate for out of county placements, hence increased fees paid anyway 67

18. Case Study – Budget Strategy No.2 Improve performance IMPACT OF INCREASE IN FOSTERING PAYMENTS  Increased satisfaction of BCBC carers  Carers will stay with BCBC,more may be attracted  More carers available overall  Less pressure on carers  More appropriate placements/less breakdowns  Fewer alternative placements needed  Less reliance on Out of County residential/independent Fostering Agencies  Less expensive placements overall/less overspend  Better outcomes for children 68

19. Case Study – Budget Strategy No.3 Create new or additional services IMPACT OF INVESTMENT IN HOME CARE SERVICES  Equitable re-ablement service across BCBC  Modernisation of home care services  Service user satisfaction with service  Less reliance on family/friends  Enables more input into prevention/rehabilitation  Positive impact on service user independence  Less crisis support needed later and less expensive  Wider benefits for community health and wellbeing 69

20. Reductions/Efficiency Savings 2.5% target for 2006/7 equates to £1.03m Options put forward generate a max of £0.74m in 2006/7 But can generate at least £1.03m in 2007/08 and after 70

21. 2006/07 Budget – ‘Savings’ Proposals 2006/07 £000s 2007/08 £000s Efficiency Savings6361076 Increased Charges15115 Service Reductions88359 TOTAL `SAVINGS’7391550 71

22. SUMMARY Significant pressures on budget driven by local,national and other agency needs Must tackle children’s services agenda Scope for efficiencies/economies is limited Big budget/Little flexibility Must find other ways of reshaping services 72