CABINET
10.00 am on Wednesday 8 June 2016
MEETING PAPERS ATTACHED
Cabinet
Wednesday 8 June 2016 at 10.00 am
Cabinet Suite - Shire Hall, Gloucester
AGENDA
Item Discussion Portfolio
1 Apologies Leader of Council
To note any apologies for absence.
2 Minutes (Pages 1 - 18) Leader of Council To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20 April 2016, (minutes attached).
3 Declarations of Interest Leader of Council
Cabinet members are invited to declare any pecuniary or personal interests relating to specific matters on the agenda.
Please see note (a) at the end of the agenda
4 Questions at Cabinet Meetings Leader of Council To answer any written and/or oral questions from a County Councillor, (or anyone living or working in the county, or anyone who is affected by the work of the County Council), about matters which relate to any item on the agenda for this meeting.
Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
The closing date for the receipt of written questions is 4.00 pm on Thursday 2 June 2016.
Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Jo Moore (email: [email protected])
8 June 2016 An oral question may be asked by a member of the public if notice of the question is given by the questioner to the person presiding at the meeting, or the Chief Executive’s representative, at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting.
Depending on the nature of the questions, it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be provided as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.
Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Reports
5 Overview and Scrutiny Task Group Report (Pages 19 - 38) Cllr Shaun Parsons To consider recommendations from the A429 Scrutiny Task Group.
The report to be presented by Chairman of the Task Group, Cllr Shaun Parsons.
Key Decisions
6 A417 Missing Link - Payment of Revenue Funding to Fire, Planning and Highways England (Pages 39 - 44) Infrastructure To seek approval for the payment by Gloucestershire County Council to Highways England of £1m revenue funding to assist Highways England in the delivery of the solution to the A417 Missing Link.
7 Reshaping Services for Families with Young Children (Pages Children and 45 - 128) Young People and Strategic To seek Cabinet approval of the recommendations for reshaping of Commissioning services for families and young children and the procurement of those services.
8 Extension of contracts for accommodation based support Long-term Care services for vulnerable homeless adults (Pages 129 - 136) To seek authorisation to exercise contractual options to extend the contracts for accommodation based housing related support services for vulnerable homeless adults.
8 June 2016 9 Extension of the Parking Management Services Enforcement Highways and Contract (Pages 137 - 144) Flood To seek Cabinet approval to exercise the contractual right to extend the current Parking Management Services Enforcement contract for a further 2 years commencing on 1 April 2018, with an estimated gross value of £2.4m.
10 Building Better Lives - Consultation on all age, all disability Long-term Care short breaks provision (Pages 145 - 156) To seek approval to consult on the reconfiguration of adult learning disability respite care services in order to inform the ongoing commissioning strategy for respite and short breaks.
11 Building Better Opportunities (Gloucestershire GEM Project) Long-term Care (Pages 157 - 164) To authorise the Council to act as the lead organisation for the Gloucestershire GEM Project and to accept and administer European Social Fund funding as the responsible body should the funding bid to the Big Lottery Fund be successful.
12 Revenue and Capital Expenditure 2015/16 (Pages 165 - 186) Finance and Change To consider the Council's outturn expenditure for 2015/16 and consequential actions.
Other Decisions
13 Quarterly Strategic Performance Report 2015-16 (Quarter 4) Leader of Council (Pages 187 - 220) To provide Cabinet with strategic oversight of the Council’s performance during 2015/16.
CABINET Cllr Mark Hawthorne, Cllr Ray Theodoulou, Cllr Dorcas Binns, Cllr Andrew Gravells, Cllr Paul McLain, Cllr Nigel Moor, Cllr Vernon Smith and Cllr Kathy Williams
8 June 2016 NOTES 1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST – Members requiring advice or clarification about whether to make a declaration of interest are invited to contact the Monitoring Officer (Jane Burns 01452 328472 /fax: 425149 e-mail: [email protected]) prior to the start of the meeting.
2. INSPECTION OF PAPERS AND GENERAL QUERIES - If you wish to inspect minutes or reports relating to any item on this agenda or have any other general queries about the meeting, please contact: Jo Moore, Senior Democratic Services Adviser :01452 324196/fax: 425240/e-mail: [email protected]
3. DEFINITION OF A KEY DECISION - A ‘Key Decision’ is one that is, if implemented, is likely to Result in significant additional expenditure or savings to the value of £500,000 or more, or Be significant in terms of its effect on communities in two or more electoral divisions.
4. GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS - Members are required to sign the attendance list.
5. PHOTOGRAPHY, FILMING AND AUDIO RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS is permitted subject to the Local Government Access to Information provisions. Please contact Democratic Services (01452 324202) to make the necessary arrangements ahead of the meeting. If you are a member of the public and do not wish to be photographed or filmed please inform the Democratic Services Officer on duty at the meeting.
EVACUATION PROCEDURE - in the event of the fire alarms sounding during the meeting please leave as directed in a calm and orderly manner and go to the assembly point located outside the main entrance to Shire Hall in Westgate Street. Please remain there and await further instructions.
8 June 2016 Agenda Item 2
MINUTES of meeting of the Cabinet
Held on WEDNESDAY 20 APRIL 2016
PETER BUNGARD CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Page 1 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
CABINET MINUTES Gloucestershire County Council 20 April 2016
PRESENT
Cllr Mark Hawthorne - Leader of Council Cllr Ray Theodoulou - Finance and Change Cllr Dorcas Binns - Older People Cllr Andrew Gravells - Public Health and Communities Cllr Paul McLain - Children & Young People and Strategic Commissioning Cllr Vernon Smith - Highways & Flood Cllr Kathy Williams - Long-term Care Cllr Nigel Moor - Fire, Planning and Infrastructure
1. Apologies
No apologies were received.
The Leader of Council welcomed the recently appointed Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure, Cllr Nigel Moor, to the meeting.
2. Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2016 were agreed and signed as a correct record of that meeting.
3. Declarations of Interest
No declarations of interest were made at the meeting.
4. Questions at Cabinet Meetings
Public questions
No oral questions were submitted for consideration at the meeting.
- 1 -
Page 2 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Member questions
Please refer to the following link to view the responses to the member questions submitted for consideration at the meeting.
http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=117&MId=8217&Ver=4
A total of 16 (member) questions were submitted for consideration, for which the following supplementary questions were asked at the meeting.
Question 1: Cllr Paul Hodgkinson
The issue of excessive noise on the A417/419 is a major issue. Does this council have the power to bypass the bureaucracy of DEFRA and identify additional areas where noise is a problem? Will you, as Cabinet Member, work with opposition groups to move this matter forward?
Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor
I share your concerns about the A429 and give you my commitment to work with you on this issue.
Question 2: Cllr Paul Hodgkinson
Thank you for your answer. What I really need is a detailed timetable of the proposed works on the A417 Missing Link. This scheme was announced 18 months ago. Could you please provide details of the timeline before the next cabinet meeting?
Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor
Highways England is due to meet with the Planning Approvals Board on 29 April 2016 to seek funding for Phases 1 and 2 of improvements to the A417 Missing Link. After this meeting, we should have a better feel for the proposed timetable of works.
Question 3: Cllr Paul Hodgkinson
The A417 Missing Link is a top priority for the county. Are you aware that the council’s twitter page and web-page on this issue are out of date and have not been activated for about 10 months? I believe the council’s Communications Team should be doing something better to promote awareness.
Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor
Adoption of the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan will be noted by this Council. The Local Transport Plan incorporates proposals on the A417 Missing Link and, after today’s cabinet decision, will provide a fresh platform from which to inform everyone of where we are with the proposed works.
- 2 -
Page 3 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Question 4: Cllr Iain Dobie
Will the Cabinet Member consider use of dual performance indicators as a means of providing more challenge, and to inspire Drug and Alcohol Services?
Response by: Cllr Andrew Gravells
This was discussed at Shadow Member meetings. I will speak with officers and get back to you with a response. I think it is important to be clear on your different roles as Chairman of the Health and Care Scrutiny Committee and Shadow Member for Public Health.
Question 15: Cllr Richard Leppington
Could the Cabinet Member i) give me an idea of the criteria for the bursary qualification, and ii) how will the new direction affect Looked After Children?
Response by: Cllr Paul McLain
As stated in my response to Cllr Oosthuysen, there is a £2 million per annum bursary scheme for Gloucestershire, the criteria of which is outlined in point 1.5 of the decision report. I am currently awaiting more information on the scheme, but students aged 16 to 19 living in care, and care leavers on income support, are entitled to bursaries of up to £1200 a year.
Where children living in care fail to meet the necessary criteria, the council will look at other ways of providing support, including encouraging families to apply to the Council Transport Panel and how other support can be offered to the family. Cllr McLain asked officers to circulate more details to members, when available.
Question 16: Cllr Iain Dobie
What assurances can you give me that monitoring of the contract will not be a ‘light touch’ or ‘no touch’?
Response by: Cllr Andrew Gravells
This is not a tick box exercise, but part of an evaluation process and ongoing review. The issue has been taken very seriously, for which there are regular meetings.
5. Gloucestershire's Local Transport Plan (2015-2031) - Recommendation to Council
Cllr Nigel Moor, Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure, sought Cabinet approval of the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan 2015-2031 prior to formal adoption by the County Council on 29 June 2016.
Cllr Moor outlined the importance of the Transport Plan and commended officers for updating the document within the shortest time possible.
- 3 -
Page 4 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
The updated plan represents a comprehensive review of the existing plan, (adopted by the County Council in 2011), including two extensive rounds of public consultation.
Cllr Moor referred to the list of proposed changes at Appendix A of the report and suggested officers produce a briefing note to assist other local authorities with their understanding of the document.
It was noted that the proposal to ban private hire vehicles from bus lanes had generated a significant amount of interest during the recent period of consultation. In taking into account public opinion, a decision had been made to remove the proposal from the revised document.
Cllr Moor drew attention to the review of the monitoring arrangements for the Local Transport Plan, and to the inclusion of a revised target on transport carbon emissions from which the council intended to monitor performance in line with the terms of the Paris Climate Change Conference held in December 2015.
Leader of the Council, Cllr Mark Hawthorne, advised members that there would be an opportunity to debate the proposed changes to the plan at the forthcoming council meeting on 29 June 2016.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and the reasons for the recommendations,
CABINET RESOLVED:
To recommend that Gloucestershire County Council: -
1) Approve the Local Transport Plan 2015 -2031 at Appendix B of the published decision report for adoption by the County Council on the 29th June 2016 and,
2) Authorise the Commissioning Director: Communities and Infrastructure to amend the Highways Records List in line with the recommendations of the published report and abandon the transport schemes set out in Paragraph 1.6.
Once adopted, the Local Transport Plan will provide guidance for anyone requiring information on how Gloucestershire County Council will manage the transport network in Gloucestershire for the period up to 2031.
6. Overview and Scrutiny Task Group Reports
a) Climate Change Scrutiny Task Group
Cllr Sarah Lunnon, Chairman of the Climate Change Scrutiny Task Group, presented the task group’s recommendations following a review of the findings of the Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- 4 -
Page 5 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Cllr Lunnon informed members that, throughout the review, the task group had recognised the commitment by this council and by many other local organisations in addressing climate change. The task group also believed more could be done in this area, especially if the council took a leading role in Gloucestershire to contribute to the terms of the Paris Climate Conference in December 2015.
Cllr Lunnon welcomed the comments made earlier in the meeting by Cllr Nigel Moor, Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure, about the intention to monitor the council’s performance in reducing carbon emissions in line with the terms of the Paris Climate Change Conference.
In presenting the task group’s recommendations, Cllr Lunnon urged the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive of the Gfirst LEP to include the proposals within their long-term strategies and local business development plans.
Cabinet Member, Cllr Nigel Moor, and Leader of the Council, Cllr Mark Hawthorne, thanked the task group for its work and agreed to assist in progressing the recommendations.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and the reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Produce a formal response to the task group’s recommendations
b) Access to and from the Forest of Dean Task Group
Cllr Patrick Molyneux, Chairman of the Access to and from the Forest of Dean Task Group, presented the task group’s recommendations following a review of issues affecting access to and from the Forest of Dean District.
Cllr Molyneux referred to the vulnerability of local residents living in the Forest of Dean, especially in the aftermath of accidents and incidents on the two main highways coming in and out of the district. Cllr Molyneux also referred to the uniqueness of the district, the economic challenges it faced, and the impact of having to provide more housing development.
Cllr Molyneux explained that the initial request for the review had been based on concerns about the life-span of the First River Severn Crossing, and the feasibility of a creating a Third River Crossing. Such concerns, however, had been allayed during a presentation from Highways England, who had assured members that, for the foreseeable future, the River Severn Road Crossings were well maintained and did not require replacement.
Referring to the close proximity of the South of the Forest to South Gloucestershire, (as viewed from the opposite side of the River Severn), Cllr Molyneux referred to some of the frustrations that existed in not being able to take full advantage of the economic opportunities that might be available from access to the M5 corridor and to other areas outside of the district.
- 5 -
Page 6 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Cllr Molyneux proposed that the work already undertaken by the Gfirst LEP in considering the economic pressures placed on the Forest of Dean from its transport system should be resumed, and for the council to engage more actively with Monmouthshire Council and the Welsh Assembly in efforts to improve and expand the current transport network for the Forest of Dean District.
Leader of the Council, Cllr Mark Hawthorne, believed the recommendations provided a good stepping stone from which to explore opportunities to improve and expand transport links to and from the Forest of Dean District to South Gloucestershire and to other parts of the country. Thanking the task group for its work, Cabinet Member, Cllr Nigel Moor, agreed to work with officers and produce a formal response to the proposals.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Produce a formal response to the task group’s recommendations
7. Supporting People Strategy Update
Cllr Kathy Williams, Cabinet Member for Long-term Care, sought cabinet approval of the council’s contract arrangements, (as set out in the published decision report,) to maintain service delivery and support in accordance with the aims of the Supporting People Strategy.
Cllr Williams confirmed that the proposed arrangements would help ensure the council’s support to vulnerable people was maintained during the remodelling of services, and would allow the council to test how the arrangements complemented broader commissioning plans from which to enhance community participation and reduce the need for formal social care and health interventions. Future commissioning arrangements would be subject to Cabinet decisions.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Authorise the Commissioning Director: Children and Families, in consultation with the Cabinet Member Long Term Care, to :
1) Direct award a 14 month interim contract to Mears Home Improvement Limited commencing on 1 June 2016, with an estimated value of up to £1.09M, for the provision of Safe at Home, Home Improvement Agency Services;
2) Exercise contractual options to extend the existing contracts for accommodation-based support for homeless young vulnerable people with each of the seven providers listed in Appendix A of the decision report for a
- 6 -
Page 7 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
further period of 1 year, commencing on 1 July 2016, with an estimated total value of up to £1.5M;
3) Direct award new contracts for the provision of SL2 integrated housing management and related support services for vulnerable older people to each of the four current providers, (listed at Appendix B of the decision report), of community asset model SL3 accommodation based support services for vulnerable older people. The proposed new contracts shall commence on 5 October 2016, and continue for a period of 2 years. Their combined estimated value shall be not more than £150k per annum.
8. Settled, Secure and Safe Lives in Gloucestershire Policy
Cllr Kathy Williams, Cabinet Member for Long-term Care, sought Cabinet agreement on the council’s policy framework for supporting people in vulnerable circumstances, as set out by the Council Strategy.
The proposed policy framework to build on the extensive consultation undertaken during implementation of the Supporting People Strategy 2011-2015, for which the response had been positive, receiving strong support from a wide range of partners and stakeholders.
Cllr Williams stressed the importance of investing in effective, early and targeted help, aimed at re-instating service user independence to avoid further crises or harm to vulnerable adults struggling with daily life.
Ownership of the policy to rest with the Health and Wellbeing Board, allowing the work programme to become properly integrated with the council’s work with partners.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Agree the Settled, Secure and Safe Lives in Gloucestershire Policy.
9. Decision to Procure and Award a Contract to Deliver Community Drug and Alcohol Recovery Services for Adults
Cllr Andrew Gravells, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Communities, sought Cabinet approval to adopt the council’s new model for the delivery of community drug and alcohol services for adults, and to competitively tender and award a contract for the delivery of services from 1 January 2017
The Public Health Grant awarded to commission Drug and Alcohol Services in Gloucestershire requires the council to “improve the take up and outcomes of drug and alcohol services”. The current contract, awarded by the NHS in 2013, is due to expire on 31 December 2016.
- 7 -
Page 8 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Redesigned in 2013, the new model intends to build on the improvements introduced at this time, and to those already in place. During the recent public consultation, the proposals received strong support from service users, resulting in useful feedback on public access to services.
The proposed contract will be for a period of 5 years and 3 months, with an option to extend for a further two years. An invitation to tender will be published in early May 2016, followed by the award of the contract in August 2016.
Responding to comments from Cllrs Paul McLain and Dorcas Binns on the benefits to their respective portfolio areas following adoption of the new policy, Cllr Gravells thanked the Public Health Team and Shadow Members for their support in progressing this piece of work.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
1) Approve adoption of the proposed new model for the delivery of community drug and alcohol recovery services for adults, as set out in paragraphs 1.7 to 1.11 of the published report from 1 January 2017;
2) Authorise the Director of Public Health:
(a) To conduct an EU compliant competitive tender process for the award of a 7 year and 3 month contract, (with an initial term of 5 years and 3 months and an option to extend for a further 2 years), for the delivery of community drug and alcohol recovery services for adults in accordance with recommendation 1 from 1 January 2017;
(b) Upon conclusion of the competitive tender process, to enter in to a contract with the preferred provider evaluated as offering the Council best value for money for delivery of the services. In the event that the preferred provider is either unable or unwilling to enter into that contract with the Council, then the Director of Public Health is authorised to enter into such contract with the next willing highest placed and suitably qualified provider.
10. Decision to Procure and Award a Contract to Deliver a Remodelled Healthy Lifestyles Service
Cllr Andrew Gravells, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Communities, sought Cabinet approval to undertake a competitive tender process and the award of contract to deliver healthy lifestyles information and support across Gloucestershire from 1 January 2017.
Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the County Council has a duty to provide public health services and improve the health of local people across Gloucestershire. The contracts for services commissioned to support people enjoy
- 8 -
Page 9 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
a healthy lifestyle are due to expire in 2016 and early 2017, providing the council with an opportunity to review how best this support should be provided.
Cllr Gravells informed members that the new model placed more emphasis on helping people help themselves; strengthened prevention, and offered more flexible support. During the recent period of public consultation, there had been strong support from service users to introduce an integrated healthy lifestyle service. The proposed contract to run for an initial period of five years and sixth months, with an option to extend for a further two years.
Responding to comments from Cllr Dorcas Binns, Cabinet Member for Older People, about the emphasis placed of the ‘prevention’ aspects of the policy, Cllr Gravells thanked the Public Health Team for its involvement and support during the remodelling process.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Authorise the Director of Public Health to: -
1) Implement the proposed new model for healthy lifestyles provision.
2) Conduct an EU compliant competitive tender process for the award of a 7 year 6 month contract, (for an initial term of 5 years and 6 months with the option to extend for a further 2 years), with an estimated total value of £12.5 million for the delivery of an integrated healthy lifestyles service.
3) In consultation with the Lead Cabinet Member, to award the contract to the preferred provider once the competitive tendering process is completed. In the event that the preferred provider is unable or unwilling to enter into that contract with the Council, then the Director of Public Health is authorised to enter into such contract with the next willing highest place and suitably qualified provider.
11. Post 16 Home to School Transport for Young People Accessing Mainstream Education
Cllr Paul McLain, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and Strategic Commissioning, reported the outcomes of a recent consultation proposing removal of financial assistance towards travel support for Post 16 students accessing mainstream education.
Under the Education Act 1996, the council has a duty to provide home to school transport for children of primary and secondary school age, (age between 4 and 16 years), when placed in certain circumstances.
Cllr McLain explained that in the 2014/15 academic year, only 3 per cent, (389), of post 16 students received discretionary subsidised transport assistance through the
- 9 -
Page 10 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
council’s policy, (costing the council £126k), with the majority of students making their own travel arrangements. This number has decreased each year, reducing by a third in the past three years.
Recognising the need to avoid a surplus of unused government funding, Cllr McLain assured members that the proposed change would not disadvantage students in any way and that the proposal would be reviewed on a regular basis. There would also be an opportunity to lodge an appeal if a student believed they were being disadvantaged in any way. Responding to questions, Cllr McLain informed members that anyone currently receiving financial assistance would continue to receive support, and that students would be able to use council contracted school buses.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Remove automatic discretionary financial assistance towards travel support for Post 16 students accessing mainstream education from September 2016.
12. Funding Agreement with the Skills Funding Agency 2016 - 2017
Cllr Paul McLain, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and Strategic Commissioning, sought Cabinet approval to enter into a funding agreement with the Skills Funding Agency for the delivery of Community Learning and Adult Skills Programmes for the 2016-2017 academic year and to engage in a commissioning process for the delivery of adult learning.
Cllr McLain advised members of the need to enter into a Skills Funding Agency funding agreement for each year. Confirming the details of the amount of grant funding allocated by the SFA Funding Statement for 2016-17, Cllr McLain outlined the huge impact Community Learning Courses, (funded by the Skills Funding Agency), were having on unemployed adult learners and in meeting the needs of people with low skills and low incomes.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Authorise the Commissioning Director, Children & Families to:
a) Enter into the funding agreement with the Skills Funding Agency for the delivery of Community Learning and Adult Skills Programmes for the 2016- 2017 academic year, (from August 2016 – July 2017), and
b) Engage in a commissioning process for the delivery of adult learning, and more particularly:
- 10 -
Page 11 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
i. Conduct a legally compliant competitive procurement process for the award of not more than 15 one year contract(s) for the supply of adult education services; and
ii. Award such contract(s) following the conclusion of the above- mentioned procurement process(es) to the preferred service provider(s) who are found to offer the most economically advantageous tender(s); or
iii. Award contract(s) to the tenderer(s) who are found to offer the next most economically advantageous tender in the event that the preferred service provider is either unwilling or unable to enter into the proposed contract with the council.
13. Review of the 2010 Rural Strategic Estate Plan
Cllr Ray Theodoulou, Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, sought approval to adopt the 2016 Strategic Estate Plan.
Cllr Theodoulou confirmed that the Strategic Estate Plan adopted in 2010 had undergone an independent desk top review in late 2015 and early 2016. If adopted at this meeting, any capital receipts achieved during rationalisation of the council estate would contribute towards the ‘Meeting The Challenge 2’ targets set out in the council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy, and subsequently reinvested in core council services.
Whilst there had been some regret about the reduction in the size of the estate from the responses received from stakeholders during the recent consultation, the overall response suggested consultees understood the need for further rationalisation of the estate, and to proceed with the council’s policy of disposal.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Endorse the 2016 Strategic Estate Plan, in accordance with the key principles below : -
1) Progressive Rationalisation of the overall estate size to circa 5,600 acres with retained holdings in the region of 40 to optimise the total value of the asset.
2) Updating estate management practices to facilitate the progressive rationalisation.
3) Programmed investment in the retained estate in line with the Medium Term Financial Strategy.
- 11 -
Page 12 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
14. The Award of Contracts for Recycling, General Waste, Food and Confidential Waste Collection Services from Gloucestershire County Council and its Partner Premises within Gloucestershire
Cllr Ray Theodoulou, Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, sought approval to conduct an EU compliant competitive tender process, with Gloucestershire County Council, (the Council), acting as the central purchasing body for the award of 8 contracts, each with a term of 5 years, for the provision of recycling, general waste, food and confidential waste collection services in Gloucestershire.
Cllr Theodoulou explained that in December 2015, Cabinet had approved the procurement of a 3 plus 2 year premises waste contract. Following further market engagement, a 5 year contract was now proposed, based on the need to engage in a more economical and better value approach. All other aspects of the contract to remain the same.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
1) Approve the procurement strategy as set out in paragraph 5 of the published report;
2) Authorise the Strategic Finance Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member Finance and Change, to :
a) Conduct an EU compliant competitive tender process with the Council acting as a central purchasing body for itself and its partners (including Gloucester City Council ,Cheltenham Borough & Tewkesbury Borough Council and Parish Councils, Education establishments controlled schools and academies within Gloucestershire) for the award of 8 contracts (one for each of the lots described in paragraph 5 of the main body of this Report) each with a term of 5 years, for the provision of recycling, general waste, food and confidential waste collection services from the Council’s premises and its partners’ premises located within Gloucestershire.
b) Upon conclusion of the competitive tender process, to enter into separate contracts with the preferred provider for each of the lots described in paragraph 5 that are evaluated as offering the Council best value for money for delivery of the services in respect of the relevant lot. In the event that a preferred provider for any lot is either unable or unwilling to enter into a contract with the Council for such lot then the Strategic Finance Director is authorised to enter into such contract with the next willing highest placed suitably qualified provider for the relevant lot.
c) At any time during the term of the contracts awarded in accordance with Recommendation 2(b), to enter into an individual contract with each of the partner organisations to enable the provision of the contracted services to their premises on such contract terms and conditions as are approved by the
- 12 -
Page 13 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Head of Legal Services provided there is no additional overhead cost to the Council.
15. Procurement of Breathing Apparatus and Ancillary Equipment
Cllr Nigel Moor, Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure, sought Cabinet approval to authorise the Chief Fire Officer and Operations Director for the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service, (GFRS), to conduct a competitive procurement process for the replacement of breathing apparatus, as set out in line with new guidance, technological improvements, and impending end of life of existing sets and cylinders in 2017.
In January 2016, the GFRS Strategic Leadership Team approved replacement of existing breathing apparatus with technological enhancements. Funding was secured in 2013/14 to the sum of £170,000 via a Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) grant funding scheme. This decision was later deferred, pending changes in national guidelines.
Cllr Moor believed this was an optimum time for the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service to purchase the new apparatus, which he believed, would be a contributing factor to improving fire fighter and public safety.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Authorise the Chief Fire Officer and Operations Director to:
1) Conduct a legally compliant competitive procurement process for the procurement of a contract for:
a) New Breathing Apparatus sets and supporting technologies to improve the safety for both fire fighters and the public and to meet the health and safety requirements under The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and Health and Safety at Work Act 1974:
b) Maintenance services for a 10 year period in respect of such equipment.
2) Award the proposed contract (following the conclusion of the above- mentioned procurement process) to the preferred service provider who is found to offer the most economically advantageous tender; or
3) In the event that the preferred service provider is either unwilling or unable to enter into the proposed contract, to award the contract to a willing and capable tenderer who is found to offer the next most economically advantageous tender .
- 13 -
Page 14 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
16. Financial Monitoring Report 2015/16 (April 2016)
Cllr Ray Theodoulou, Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, gave an update on the council’s key financial issues, including the year-end forecast for the Revenue and Capital Budgets 2015/16.
Cllr Theodoulou informed members that the current forecast year end revenue position, (based on actual expenditure at the end of February 2016), reported an under-spend of £0.13 million. He confirmed that this outcome reflected a decision taken at the full council meeting on 17 February 2016, to change the council’s Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, (to be implemented in 2015/16), which had resulted in a £4 million saving.
Noting the two main areas of over-spend as; i) Adult Services Budget, with a forecast over-spend of £3.07 million, (2.1 per cent of the budget), and ii) Children and Families Budget, with a forecast over-spend of £0.68 million, (0.7 per cent of the budget), the report proposed for the £4 million saving reported above be split between the two areas.
Final revenue outturn figures for 2015/16 indicated an overall final position for the 2015/16 year end position to be line with the forecast included in the decision report for this item.
Cllr Theodoulou confirmed that, whilst the council’s financial commitments remained unchanged, the current capital forecast position showed an under-spend of £8.03 million in comparison with the re-profiled budget. Details of the year end’s forecast over and underspends are included in the Cabinet decision report.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
1) Note the forecast revenue year end position based on forecasts made in February 2016 of a net under-spend of £0.133 million, and the mitigating actions being taken to reach this position.
2) Note the forecast capital year end position of a £8.030 million underspend on the re-profiled budget for 2015/16.
3) Agree that £2 million of MRP budget savings be allocated to Adult Services and £2 million be allocated to Children & Families to mitigate over-spends in these budget areas.
4) Agree new capital projects be added to the Children & Families capital programme for;
• Tuffley Primary School (£0.258 million) and • Coopers Edge Primary School (£0.158 million) and, • School Kitchen Upgrade Programme (£0.400 million)
- 14 -
Page 15 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
The first two projects are fully funded by the schools Devolved Formula Capital budgets and the third project is to be funded from the surplus generated from the schools catering contract.
5) Agree the 2016/17 Schools Capital Suitability Programme of £3.08 million as shown in Annex A. This will result in an increase in the 2016/17 Children and Families capital programme of £0.36 million which is funded by additional school contributions.
6) Agree new capital projects or additional funding requirements to be added to the 2016/17 capital programme as follows;
• Additional photovoltaic provision to maximise renewable benefits for the Shire Hall rationalisation programme (£240,000), • Additional costs associated with ICT infrastructure to enable mobile working within Shire Hall (£330,000), • An extension to an existing lift shaft within Shire Hall (£78,000) to improve disabled access, • Additional records/document management within Shire Hall (£58,000) and architects fees for Archives Project (£20,000), • All to be fully funded by revenue contributions to capital.
17. Early Help and Children and Young People’s Partnership Plan - Annual Activity Card Refresh 2011-17
Cllr Paul McLain, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and Strategic Commissioning, referred to the Children and Young People’s Partnership Plan, (CYPPP), and to the refreshed Annual Activity Card Plans relating to the fourth version of the plan, (2015-2018). The annual activity cards represent the work undertaken throughout the year to meet the overall outcomes of the CYPPP.
Cllr McLain informed members that 90 per cent of the 23,000 children who had taken part in an on-line pupil survey in 2014 had stated they were ‘happy, satisfied and confident’ about the future. This, was not, however, the case for all children. Cllr McLain explained that the refreshed CYPPP intended to focus on the minority number of children and young people who needed the most support. The plan aimed to concentrate on developing integrated working and bespoke packages for individual communities.
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to: -
Agree the refreshed Annual Activity Card plans of the Early Help and Children and Young People’s Partnership Plan 2015-18 (CYPPP)
- 15 -
Page 16 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
23. Options to deliver the Household Recycling Centre (HRC) Service
Cllr Ray Theodoulou, Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, sought approval for: -
a) The Council to become a shareholder owner in Ubico Ltd; and
b) To award the contract for the operation of the HRC service to Ubico Ltd for a period of 5 years; and
c) To award contracts for the sale of recyclate materials.
Members were advised that, if Cabinet wished to discuss the contents of the exempt information at the meeting, (Appendix 1), consideration would have to be given to whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(b) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. No references were made to the exempt information relating to this item.
Members noted that the current contract for the Household Recycling Centre Service was due to expire on 6 August 2016. Since the decision to extend the contract had been taken, (by Cabinet, in July 2015), the existing contractor had expressed unhappiness with the terms of the contract and had requested that it be allowed to break from its obligations.
Following an options analysis of this position, it was suggested the Council consider letting the contract as a joint arrangement with Ubico Ltd, offering best value for money and avoiding short-term costs. In doing so, it would be necessary for the Council to establish separate contracts for the sale of recyclate materials. Members were advised that there was still a significant amount of work to do in order for the contract to comply with EU Tender Regulations.
Highlighting the levels of risk associated with the decision, Cllr Theodoulou clarified that the council’s legal team would be looking closely at the proposed contracts to ensure they met with all legal requirements. He also proposed Jo Walker, Director of Strategic Finance, to represent Gloucestershire County Council on the Board of Directors of Ubico Ltd.
Leader of the Council, Cllr Mark Hawthorne, advised members of a correction to section 4.5 of the decision report, and confirmed that the statement should read ‘ the Board of Directors require the majority approval of shareholders…’
Having considered all of the information, including known proposals and reasons for the recommendations, Cabinet noted the report and,
RESOLVED to:
Authorised the Director of Communities and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, to: -
- 16 -
Page 17 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
1) Enter into the required agreements to enable the Council to become a shareholder owner in Ubico Ltd;
2) Award to Ubico Ltd a 5 year contract for the delivery of the HRC service with an estimated value of £11m;
3) Nominate the Director of Finance to sit on the Board of Directors of Ubico Ltd;
4) Conduct an EU compliant competitive tender process for the award of 25 contracts with variable terms for the sale of recyclate materials with an estimated total value of £500k;
5) Upon conclusion of the competitive tender process to enter into contracts(s) with the preferred provider(s) evaluated as offering the Council best value for money for delivery of the sale services. In the event that a preferred provider(s) is either unable or unwilling to enter into that contract with the Council then the Director of Communities and Infrastructure is authorised to enter into such contract with the next willing highest placed suitably qualified provider(s).
Leader of Council
Meeting concluded at 11.30 am
- 17 -
Page 18 Agenda Item 5
A429 FOSSE WAY SCRUTINY TASK GROUP
FINAL REPORT
1. Background
The A429 Highway runs in a north easterly direction from Junction 17 of the M4 Motorway, (4 miles north of Chippenham in Wiltshire), to Coventry in the West Midlands). For much of its length, the A429 follows the route of the Roman Fosse Way, linking Exeter in the South West of England to Lincoln, via, Bath, Cirencester and Leicester.
The A429 is a strategic ‘A Class’ rural road with a predominantly single track carriageway. An intermittent pedestrian provision is provided along part of the route. Traffic flows are between 6,000 and 15,000 vehicles a day, with an estimated HGV flow of 200 to 300 vehicles per day. The A429 has few speed restrictions other than when passing through communities where speed limits are restricted to 50 mph and 40 mph. Speed limits of 30 mph are the norm through major town centres.
At the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14 September 2015, members considered a request from Cllrs Paul Hodgkinson and Nigel Moor for the committee to undertake a review of concerns relating to road safety on the A429 Fosse Way in the Cotswold District of Gloucestershire.
Terms of reference were presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee on 20 November 2015, where it was agreed a scrutiny task group would be established to consider congestion and road safety issues on the A429, with the 8 Gloucestershire County Councillors whose divisions are located in the Cotswold District, invited to form the membership of the group.
2. Membership Cllr Nigel Moor (Chairman until 26 April 2016) Cllr Joe Harris Cllr Tony Hicks Cllr Paul Hodgkinson Cllr Shaun Parsons (Chairman from 26 April 2016) Cllr Nigel Robbins Cllr Lynden Stowe Cllr Ray Theodoulou
1
Page 19 3. Officer support
Scott Tomkins – Lead Commissioner (Highways Authority) Kathryn Haworth – Area Manager: Highways Commissioning Team Andrew Parker-Mowbray – Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership Neil Troughton - Highways Development Manager (Gloucestershire Highway Authority) Christine Gore: Strategic Director at Cotswold District Council Jo Moore - Democratic Services Unit
4. Ambitions for the Review
The initial ambitions for the review have been summarised below: -
a) Promoting road safety; b) Considering congestion pinch points, and how these might be best managed; c) Improvements to road signage; d) Ensuring continued maintenance of the A429; e) Exploring the strategic role of the A429; f) Assessing the impact of new development; g) Exploring wider funding opportunities for road and allied transport investment; h) Considering the role of the A429 in fostering economic development.
5. Anticipated Outcomes
a) To gain a better understanding of the issues affecting safety and congestion on the A429 Fosse Way (Gloucestershire); b) To make recommendations to the Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership and Highways England on issues affecting road safety and congestion on the A429; c) To submit proposals to form part of the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan; d) To ensure future reviews of the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan include priorities for investment when considering the transport infrastructure of the A429; e) To advise on wider funding opportunities for future investment.
6. Task Group Meetings
The task group met on 7 occasions, including several meetings held at the Cotswold District Council Offices, and two meetings involving Cotswold Town and Parish Councils.
2
Page 20 The task group considered a wide range of in-depth information, with the agenda for each meeting categorised into themed topics to enable members to concentrate on specific areas of concern.
Please contact [email protected] in the Democratic Services Office, Shire Hall, Gloucester, to view the background information relating to this report, (listed at Appendix A of the report).
An overview of the information considered at the meetings is summarised below:
a) Safety Issues – Monday 18 January 2016 Presentation from Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership; Attendees included Andrew Parker Mowbray and Garry Handley, (Road Safety Partnership), Robert Vesty, (Speed Camera Partnership), and Inspector Kevin Roseblade (Gloucestershire Police); The task group considered enforcement issues and poor driver behaviour;
b) Planning and Development Considerations – 29 January 2016 The aim of the meeting was to better understand the impact of new development on the road network/infrastructure in the Cotswold District; Issues specific to the Cotswold District Planning Department and GCC Highways Commissioning Team were considered at the meeting; The task group considered historic data, (relating to planning development in the Cotswold District during the past 10 years), plus the proposals for new development anticipated in the next 20 years. The meeting was held at the Cotswold District Council Offices with Christine Gore, (Strategic Director at Cotswold District Council), and Deborah Smith, (CDC Officer), in attendance.
c) Congestion issues – 12 February 2016 The task group considered information relating to congestion on the A429 and responses from neighbouring authorities on cross county strategies and key priorities.
d) Town and Parish Council Meeting – 29 February 2016 Cotswold District Council Offices, Cirencester.
The purpose of this meeting was to invite representatives from Town and Parish Councils located in the South of the Cotswold District to express their views and share information on issues relating to the A429 in their areas. Invitations were sent to the following Town and Parish Councils:
3
Page 21 Ampney Crucis Kemble Barnsley Long Newnton Cirencester Town Council Preston Coates Siddington Coln Rogers South Cerney Culkerton Tetbury Town Council
e) Town and Parish Council Meeting – 10 March 2016 George Moore Community Centre, Moore Road, Bourton on the Water
The purpose of this meeting was to invite representatives from Town and Parish Councils located in the North of the Cotswold District to express their views and share information on issues relating to the A429 in their areas. Invitations were sent to the following Town and Parish Councils
Blockley Longborough Bourton on the Hill Moreton in Marsh Town Council Bourton on the Water North Cerney Broadwell Northleach with Eastington Chedworth Maugersbury Cold Aston Stow on the Wold Town Council Donnington The Swells Great Rissington Todenham Little Rissington Wyck Rissington
f) Meeting – 26 April 2016
At this meeting, the task group considered information on transport implications and the impact of the Chesterton Housing Development at Cirencester and an analysis of journey time arising from current and ongoing investigations. The task group also received a presentation from the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service on the resilience of the A429 Fosse Way when dealing with emergency situations.
7. Road Safety Considerations
At the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting on 18 May 2016, Cllr Shaun Parsons, presented the task group’s draft proposals for consideration and agreement by the committee before submitting for formal approval at the Cabinet meeting on 8 June 2016.
4
Page 22 In presenting the draft report, the Chairman informed the committee that the task group believed improvements to road safety on the A429 Fosse Way were imperative to addressing the issues highlighted by the review. The Chairman stated that the issue of road safety had been an instrumental factor throughout the entire review and in the setting of the task group’s recommendations.
Sharing this perspective, the committee supported the request for the task group to focus on the issue of ‘road safety’ and measures from which to better educate vehicle users in their understanding of the risks and consequences of poor road safety in it’s final report to Cabinet.
The committee also supported a proposal for a 50 mph speed restriction along the length of the Fosse Way, (in areas where no speed limit currently exits). Noting concerns about enforcement of the speed restriction, the committee believed such a restriction would benefit from self- enforcement, whereby the majority of road users would adhere to the stipulation and reduce their normal vehicle speed.
Reflecting on information provided by the Road Safety Partnership at one of its earlier meetings, it was suggested that the task group include some of the data considered at the meeting to highlight the relevance of ’road safety’ when presenting the final outcomes of the review to Cabinet.
Data considered by the task group, (for the period 2010 and 2014), included: -
a) In Gloucestershire, 68 per cent of fatal casualties, 42 per cent of serious casualties and 36 per cent of slight casualties, occurred on rural roads;
b) The most reported causes of road traffic incidents and accidents included; failing to look properly; failing to judge vehicle path and speeds; loss of vehicle control; carelessness; recklessness whilst travelling at speed; and poor driver performance;
c) The highest number of rural collisions in Gloucestershire occurred in the Cotswold District;
d) The A429 Fosse Way is the third highest route in Gloucestershire for the number of rural casualties recorded by severity, (after the A417 and A40);
e) Overall, the ‘strategic road network’ in some of the rural parts of Gloucestershire, (featuring longer stretches of roads and higher traffic volumes), tend to have the most casualties.
5
Page 23 8. Other Considerations
a) Based on the conclusions identified during the review, it was generally accepted that the prevailing road traffic congestion and road safety issues on the A429 Fosse Way would be unlikely to alter significantly in the immediate to mid-term.
b) Acknowledging the limitations of the existing road network, combined with characteristics commonly associated with semi rural locations, the group conceded that the issues identified for concern were likely to become more acute in the future. This was felt to be particularly apparent when acknowledging the potential for increased road traffic movements developing from the continuous demand for new homes in the Cotswold District; increased traffic movements resulting from the impact of new business development; the close proximity of the A429 to major motorway networks, and ongoing repercussions arising from cross border traffic movements, including HGV traffic.
c) In spite of this, the task group believed there was a strong case for implementing some short-term, plus several longer term proposals, aimed at alleviating some of the issues in question, and from which to better manage and control current circumstances impacting on traffic congestion and road safety on the A429.
d) Welcoming contributions from Town and Parish Councils, the task group made a conscious attempt to incorporate the views of local communities, in particular, comments made by Stow Town Council, submitted in a separate report.
e) The task group submitted several recommendations to the council’s consultation on the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan, (please refer to Appendix B). In considering some of the priorities identified by the review, (approved by Cabinet on 20 April 2016, and awaiting formal adoption by Full Council on 29 June 2016), the task group acknowledged the financial constraints that hampered the funding opportunities necessary to secure local transport schemes. For this reason, the task group believed further work was required, including investigating additional funding opportunities from which to address any long term aspirations.
6
Page 24 f) In terms of encouraging and promoting safer cycling, the task group acknowledged that Gloucestershire is predominantly rural, with utility cycling, (i.e. cycle trips with a purpose such as work or education), likely to be of a lower-density activity than in towns where populations are denser and destinations closer. The risks of cycling along the A429 are unquestionable. One outcome from the recent review of the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan, is that the focus of investment in cycling is likely to be in the more developed areas of the Cotswolds, especially where new development is to be allocated through local development plans. Nevertheless, it is hoped utility trips between communities and from rural areas into urban centres will continue to contribute to support the objectives of the Local Transport Plan, and that recreational cycling will benefit Gloucestershire’s local economy. On this basis, the task group supports the council taking opportunities to maximise the benefits of both utility and recreational cycling when delivering inter-urban measures such as elements of the National Cycle Network. g) The task group believes consideration of the funding streams identified to support delivery of any future activities, including, i) development funding via section 106 agreements; ii) engagement with Gfirst LEP to secure funding through the Community Infrastructure Levy; iii) central funding streams, and iv) local capital funding, might be useful. In addition, the task group noted the funding opportunities that might emerge from the devolution bid submitted to Government by Gloucestershire in September 2015. h) A recurring concern throughout the review was the road network classification of the A429. (The A429 currently forms part of the County Council`s Primary Route Network). At several meetings, including those involving town and parish council’s, it became increasingly apparent that the route often functions as a trunk road linking the Midlands with Swindon, M4 and M5. The task group unanimously supported the proposal that the A429 should be re- classified as a trunk road, enabling future works to aid investment and long term development management plans. The task group noted, however, that the proposal was un-likely to be achieved since the Highways Agency was actively involved in the de-trunking of roads with this classification. A key factor throughout the review was the need to actively raise the profile and accentuate the importance of this strategic transport route through Gloucestershire. i) The task group agreed that the status of the A429 as a primary route on the Local Highway Network should not in anyway diminish the ability of the Local
7
Page 25 Highway Authority in fulfilling its primary function of ‘accommodating through traffic through the Cotswold District, in balance with the need to accommodate other road users as safely as possible’. j) Another key concern highlighted during the review was the impact of slow moving traffic and levels of congestion resulting from increased HGV traffic on the A429 and associated link roads. The task group identified that, whilst attempts have been made to detract HGV traffic from the A429, the level of traffic has been inflated due to an inter county-agreement with Oxfordshire Council routing HGV’s between Oxford and the Vale of Evesham via the A44, North of Oxford, the A40, via Northleach, continuing onwards towards the Midlands via the A429 and Stow on the Wold. k) In term’s of road safety, the task group welcomed the launch of the ‘Route Aware Campaign’, (launched by the Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership in April 2016), and the intention of improving road safety across the Cotswold District, including the A429.
Cllr Vernon Smith, Cabinet Member for Highways and Flooding at Gloucestershire County Council, said: “With between 6,000 and 15,000 vehicles using this route through the Cotswolds every single day our messages will be seen by many road users. I hope that they will positively respond to our reminders and help to improve road safety on this route and all of the routes that they use.”
The ‘Route Aware Campaign’ was introduced by a large text sign placed on the A429 for motorists entering Gloucestershire from Wiltshire, and at sites along the route North to Warwickshire. It is hoped the campaign will encourage road users to focus on the risks and consequences of a collision. The four themes of the A429 Route Aware Campaign include: - Don’t Get Dead Close; Kill Your Speed; No Mobile, When Mobile; and Seat Belt On. The campaign aims to encourage drivers to drive at the safest speed for the prevailing conditions; keep their distance from the vehicle in front; ensure drivers never use a mobile phone whilst driving; and to always wear a seatbelt when driving. l) In making its recommendations, the task group identified four categories of concern. The four areas of concern included; i) road safety ii) strategic overview of planning development, including historic and future development; iii) congestion and iv) micro-issues, including maintenance and road signage.
8
Page 26 m) The task group also highlighted the strategic importance of the A429 to tourism in the Cotswold District and its contribution to the local economy.
The task group would like to thank all those involved in the review of congestion and road safety issues affecting the A429 Fosse Way. Particular thanks are extended to the officers of the Gloucestershire County and Cotswold District Councils, and to the Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership. The task group would also like to express its appreciation to those Cotswold Town and Parish Councils who made contributions to the study, and whose comments proved an invaluable source of information. .
9. Detailed recommendations:
Having undertaken an in-depth review of concerns relating to congestion and road safety on the A429 Fosse Way in Gloucestershire, the task group produced a comprehensive list of short, medium and long term proposals, from which the task group aims to monitor and review the detailed outcomes of the review over time, (according to the category of recommendation).
A. Short term
1) Obtain better recognition of the importance of the A 429 to the economic health of the vibrant rural community through which it travels. In the longer term, seek re-classification of the road as a ‘trunk’ road. The task group noted officer advice that this proposal was unlikely to be achieved since the Highways Agency is actively involved in de-trunking roads with this classification.
2) Improve the road safety and resilience throughout the length of the A429 by:
i. Maintaining the surface of the road to a high standard throughout its length in keeping with its status as a primary route.
Schemes to be completed in 2016 – Kemble and Malmesbury Road, Kemble and Kingsmeadow to Grove Lane Roundabout, Cirencester
Road surface in very poor condition requiring attention but not in any schedule-Hare Bushes to Fosse Cross.
ii. Implement schemes to keep traffic moving at congestion points
Planned improvements to be made to many of the roundabouts on the Cirencester inner ring road with Section 106 monies from the Chesterton development. These will be implemented over a number of years as the money becomes available.
9
Page 27 A notorious congestion point, for traffic travelling north on the A429, is where that road joins the A433 North of Kemble. (Though there was no evidence of serious accidents at this point, traffic increasingly takes evasive action to bypass the junction by, for example travelling down Windmill Road in Kemble to the Thames Head cross roads, which is an accident black spot and also to the Coates cross roads, turning right onto the A433).
iii. Take necessary measures to improve the road layout of the A429, thereby reducing the number of accidents, in particular at Kemble.
There needs to be more understanding of why Kemble has become an accident black spot. Public comment suggests the winding characteristics of the road to the North and South of Kemble encourages drivers to drive too fast.
iv. Widen the road to allow faster moving vehicles to overtake slower moving lorries, especially on steep hills where no three lanes exist.
3) Continue to regularly monitor traffic flows throughout the length of the A429. Prior to the start of the review, there was no evidence of the monitoring of traffic flows in the southern section of the A429.
4) Obtain a better understanding of the causes of accidents at traffic black spots.
5) A key issue on the A429 and A433 is the congestion and inappropriate use of traffic through Tetbury, and its affect on minor lanes. Tetbury suffers from increased HGV transport travelling from the M4 and Malmesbury direction via the A433, rather than the A429. The Dyson Development will create further congestion. Wiltshire Council planning proposals will be significant to this issue
6) Traffic congestion in Tetbury needs to be controlled and better directed. Consideration should be given to reducing existing weight restrictions, both in the centre of the town and for passing through HGV traffic on entry roads.
7) The railway bridge on the A433 forces HGV traffic onto minor roads, which is completely unsuitable for the size and weights of vehicles. Lorries to be directed to take the A429 from the North, South, East and West of the A429. The railway bridge on the A433 would benefit from traffic lights to ensure safety
8) Introduce a comprehensive approach to the re-surfacing of the A429, including scheduled dates planned well in advance to avoid disruption to communities. Ensure effective communication with local communities, including details of planned works and diversions necessary to facilitate the re-surfacing.
10
Page 28 9) Produce a defined, timetabled programme of vegetation clearance, sign-cleaning, and white-line repainting. This should be introduced with a safety audit of the whole length of the road to identify what is required.
10) Introduce road signage to inform drivers of the number of deaths and accidents along the A429, (particularly at the accident hotspot at Broadwater Bottom).
11) Ensure all planning applications for developments of more than 20 houses along any part of the A429 are considered by Gloucestershire County Council.
12) Continue regular high profile road safety campaigns and speed enforcement along the A429, including targeting motorbikes. At the committee meeting on 18 May 2016, a member suggested the task group consider a proposal to impose a 50 mph speed limit along the length of the A429 in Gloucestershire, (where no other ‘lower’ speed restrictions exist). This was based on the view that long stretches of the road can safely accommodate traffic travelling at the maximum legal speed limit. Another member of the committee expressed concern about the feasibility of the proposal in terms of enforcement.
13)Introduce an ongoing road safety education awareness programme to inform local communities of the potential dangers.
14) Consider introducing overtaking/crawler lanes on land already safeguarded in the vicinity of the Broadwell/Donnington Junction.
15) Consider improvements to the A40/A429 roundabout near Northleach. The roundabout is too small, with the chevrons surrounding it impeding visibility. The roundabout needs enlarging.
B. Mid term
1) The A429 suffers from a lack of 50 mph speed limits around the Cirencester area. The addition of roundabouts and pedestrian crossings, which will be required to facilitate the Chesterton Development, (potentially generating 6000 vehicle movements a day), will introduce some traffic calming along the existing pedestrian tunnel, but is not widely used. There are concerns that congestion around Cirencester will persuade traffic to travel through Coates from the A429 to join the A417. Weight limits on the B Road through Coates are recommended from the A433.
2) Lobby ministers and MPs for the A429 to become a trunk road managed by Highways England.
11
Page 29 3) Introduce air quality monitoring in he Moreton-in- Marsh and Stow on the Wold, using money voted for in the 2016/17 Council budget.
4) Consider introducing overtaking lanes, North of Stow and between Northleach and Bourton.
5) Make improvements to the junction of the A436 when turning into Bourton.
6) Make improvements to bus stops at Moreton-in-Marsh Hospital. Buses stopping on the A429 cause hazards to pedestrians and other road users. The bus stop needs to be repositioned away from the highway, and include waiting bays for the buses.
7) Gridlock at the junction of the Fosse and Oddington Road (A436) is caused by delays at the Unicorn lights in Stow on the Wold. This causes congestion, noise and poor air quality throughout the town centre and is exacerbated during bank holiday weekends. Improvements need to be made to the capacity of the carriageway and at the junction.
8) Improvements to the public transport interchange at the Moreton-in-Marsh and Kingham Railways Stations, together with bus service connectivity. Further car parking is required at the Moreton-in-Marsh Railway Station.
9) Investigate the re-opening of the Chipping Campden Railway Station.
10)The railway bridge at Moreton-in-Marsh has insufficient width to cater for HGV`s, pedestrian and cyclists. The road surface requires repeated maintenance and the bridge walls are often impacted. It is a strategic weakness in the resilience of the whole road network, causing congestion throughout the town. An additional bridge to accommodate cyclists, pedestrians and emergency vehicles is required.
C. Long term
1) The A429 is currently classified as a part of the Count Council`s Primary Route Network. The route should be re-classified as a truck road which would assist both investment and development management.
2) Develop a cycle strategy for the Fosse Way, and identify where cycle lanes can be introduced.
3) Introduce over-taking lanes along the length of the A429, so as to introduce additional road capacity and minimise disruption from road closures caused through accidents or road re-surfacing.
12
Page 30 4) Investigate possible road by–passes for Moreton-in-Marsh and Stow-on-the Wold to safeguard these routes for the long–term.
5) Install driver a management system to alert drivers of delays and diversions along the route.
10.Summary recommendations:
Condensed from the detailed recommendations, (above), the task group submitted the following recommendations for consideration to the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 18 May 2016.
The A429 task group proposed that Gloucestershire County Council, as Local Highways Authority, and working in partnership with the Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership,
1) Support an asset management approach to maintenance along the A429 to ensure it is maintained to a suitable standard, (including cyclical and structural maintenance).
2) Promote the importance of the A429 to the economic health of the vibrant rural community through which it travels; and in the longer term, to seek re- classification of the road as a trunk road.
3) Investigate traffic monitoring requirements to complete any gaps in the current knowledge base, with particular regard to congestion and HGV movements, so that the impact of developments and neighbouring authority plans can be fully understood.
4) Explore and maximise funding opportunities from which to support improvements and maintenance on the A429.
5) Further investigate potential options for managing congestion, resilience and road safety with a view to having a long term plan of improvements in place for the A429.
6) Support air quality monitoring at key locations, including Stow-on-the-Wold and Moreton-in-Marsh.
7) Further consider the public transport and cycle provision on the A429, and investigate where improvements can be made.
13
Page 31 8) Engage with neighbouring authorities in coordinating activities from which to progress any long term aspirations relating to traffic movements on the A429 and supporting road network.
Appendices:
Appendix A: Bibliography
Appendix B: Task Group submission to the Local Transport Plan Review
Appendix C: Stow-on-the-Wold Town Council response to Draft Report.
8 June 2016
14
Page 32 A429 Scrutiny Task Group Review
Appendix A – Bibliography
1. One Page Strategy 2. Summary of Priority Issues and Concerns 3. Proposed Discussion Points 4. Meeting Notes – 22 December 2015 5. Meeting Notes – 18 January 2016 6. Meeting Notes – 12 February 2016 7. Meeting Notes – 29 February 2016 8. Meeting Notes – 10 March 2016 9. Briefing Note: Congestion 10. Feasibility Study: A429 Moreton-in-Marsh Railway Bridge 11. Briefing Note: Views from Neighbouring Authorities 12. Meeting Notes – 26 April 2016 13. Road Aware – Road to Share Campaign 14. Gloucestershire Road Safety Partnership – Urban/Rural Profile 15. Country Roads Campaign – ‘Brake the Bend, Not on It’ 16. Invitation Letter to Town and Parish Councils 17. List of Town and Parish Councils invited to event meetings 18. Local Transport Plan - Connecting Places Strategy (North Cotswolds) 19. Local Transport Plan - Connecting Places Strategy (South Cotswolds) 20. Traffic Taming Tools (E-Booklet) 21. Route Management Notes (Stow-on-the Wold-Council) 22. A429 Traffic Flow Data (Moreton-in-Marsh) 23. Briefing Note: Journey Time Monitoring 24. Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service Presentation: Resilience of A429 25. Key issues and transport considerations arising from Chesterton Housing Development 26. Cotswold District Council Presentation: Local Development Update 27. Cotswold Development: Data 28. Cotswold District Net Completion Chart - 2011 29. Cotswold District Housing and Class B Employment Land Requirements: 2011-2031 30. A429 Draft Recommendations 31. Interim Report 32. Final Report
The above documents were considered as information documents during the scrutiny review of ‘Congestion and Road Safety Issues on the A429 Fosse Way’.
The documents are available on request from [email protected]
Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank A429 Scrutiny Task Group Review
Appendix B – Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan Review
The task group submitted the following proposals to form part of the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan Review (2021).
a) Adopt an ‘Asset Management’ approach for the future maintenance, and traffic management of the A429 and A433 Highways;
b) To secure additional funding for improvements to the highway safety and traffic management of the A429 Highway, the task group proposed lobbying the local MP to support in the re-classification of the A429 as a trunk road. Should this approach prove unsuccessful, the task group propose that the council approach Gloucestershire First Local Enterprise Partnership to seek additional funding.
c) Express concerns about the lack of comprehensive traffic data from which to consider issues covering the length of the A429 Highway, the task group proposed investigating potential gaps in traffic data. As part of its investigation, the task group proposed the council contact i-Transport LLP to seek information on the development located at Land South of Chesterton near Cirencester.
d) The task group proposed that the County Council engage with neighbouring authorities to pursue joint long term activities and aspirations.
e) Individual members of the task group offered to make contributions from their 2016/17 local highways funds to commission a ‘specific journey time’ survey of the A429 Highway.
Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank A429 Scrutiny Task Group Review
Appendix C
A429 FOSSE WAY SCRUTINY TASK GROUP DRAFT REPORT
STOW ON THE WOLD TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
1. Thank you for sight of the above mentioned draft report which obviously took a lot of work and gives a comprehensive report on the traffic problems on the A429 (Fosse Way) throughout its entire passage through Gloucestershire. We generally welcome the content as it affects Stow on the Wold but have the following comments for consideration:
A429 Road Network Classification (7g – page 5). HGV Traffic Levels north of Northleach on the A429 and the impact of the inter-county routing agreement (7i- page 6). Monitoring Traffic Flows on the A429 (8A3- page 8). Gridlock at the Unicorn Traffic Lights Stow on the Wold (8B7- page 9) Recommendation – potential options for managing congestion (9 -5 page 11).
2. A429 Road Network Classification. As you know we suggested, and the Report supports, the reclassification of this road as a national trunk road which would then entail management and funding by Highways England. It is most important that pending this re designation any improvement work to the A429 does not fall into limbo until this change is agreed. Furthermore, when “ownership” is eventually transferred, the new owner seamlessly takes over the improvements and does not have to start from the beginning again. This road has been sorely neglected for many years whilst similar routes elsewhere in the country have been progressively improved so there is an urgent need for “catch up”.
3. HGV Traffic Levels north of Northleach on the A429 and the impact of the inter-county routing agreement. This old inter county agreement is rightly mentioned in para 7i on page 6 as being a contributory inflation factor to HGV traffic on the sector north of the Northleach A40/A429 junction but is not considered further in the report. As HGV traffic levels have increased since the inception of this agreement on both the A40 and the A429, and the A44 north out of Oxford is relatively lightly loaded, especially since the M40 came fully into existence, is it not time to review this agreement as to whether it is still fit for purpose? There are rumours that there is an intention for HGV traffic to be curtailed or even banned on the A44 through the centre of Chipping Norton which could increase the traffic levels on the A40/ A429 route! This aspect needs further examination as it seems that Oxfordshire`s gain is contributing to Gloucestershire`s pain.
4. Monitoring Traffic Flows on the A429. As part of the monitoring process of traffic flows the rate of increase needs to be considered. This has increased over the last few years and is very likely to increase even further with all of the extra 1 V2 – 26 May 16
Page 37 A429 Scrutiny Task Group Review
Appendix C
development proposed along this route including the need to cater for an ever increasing commuter load in addition to the increase in commercial vehicle traffic.
5. Gridlock at the Unicorn Traffic Lights Stow on the Wold. The Oddington Road A436 junction at the Unicorn Traffic Lights is well known as a gridlock point on the Fosse Way, but as mentioned in our written submission it is essential that it is developed in conjunction with the sister junction just north where the A424 branches off north on the Evesham Road, and also the turning into Stow on the Wold town centre via the High Street. Currently, traffic exiting the A436 westwards is inhibited by the short length of the 2 lanes leading into the traffic lights. Traffic wishing to turn right (north ) onto the Fosse stacks up because there is insufficient capacity on the Fosse Way to receive it, and as the lanes are narrow this frequently blocks the exit onto the Fosse for traffic wishing to turn left . Despite it not being a designated HGV route it appears that an increasing large number of HGV`s use the A436; including those based in the Bourton on the Water Trading Estate. To reflect this problem it is suggested that the last sentence of 8B7 is amended to:
“Improvements need to be made to the capacity of the carriageway and lanes at the Unicorn junction and also the nearby associated Fosseway / Evesham Road (A424) junction which in itself needs modification to include the entrance/exit to the town centre via the High Street being incorporated into the signalised system.”
Also, a separate investigation into the apparent increasing HGV traffic levels on the A436 (Oddington Road), a non designated HGV route, might be appropriate?.
6. Recommendation – potential options for managing congestion. In 8C4 (page 10) there is a long term recommendation to “Investigate possible road by-passes for Moreton in Marsh and Stow on the Wold in order to safeguard the integrity and resilience of the A429. However, this is not carried forward into para 9 – Summary Recommendations. In the past proposals for a Stow by-pass have stalled in the bureaucratic process and in view of the potential change of ownership highlighted in para 2 above it is essential that this is incorporated into para 9. To this end it is suggested 9 -5) is extended by adding: “including the construction of by-passes for Stow on the Wold and Moreton in Marsh; the 2 main weak points in the A429 network resilience.”
2 V2 – 26 May 16
Page 38 Agenda Item 6
A417 MISSING LINK
PAYMENT OF £1M REVENUE FUNDING TO HIGHWAYS ENGLAND
Cabinet Date 8 June 2016
Fire, Planning and Cllr Nigel Moor Infrastructure
Key Decision Yes
Background th Documents Cabinet on the 16 December 2015 ttp://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=743
Cabinet on the 3rd February 2015 http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=761
County Council on the 17th February 2016 http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=778 page 74 of MTFS and note 20
Location/Contact www.glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk for inspection of Background Documents Highways England Main Consultees
Planned Dates The payment of £1m revenue funding to Highways England will be completed by 1st September 2016. Cllr Robbins - Cirencester Beeches Divisional Cllr Hodgkinson - Bourton-on-the-Water and Northleach Councillor Cllr Vines – Brockworth
Amanda Lawson-Smith Officer 01452 426394 [email protected]
Purpose of Report To seek approval for the payment by Gloucestershire County Council to Highways England (HE) of £1m revenue funding to assist HE in the delivery of the solution to the A417 Missing Link
Recommendations That Cabinet approves the payment by Gloucestershire County Council to Highways England (HE) of £1m revenue funding no later than 1st September 2016.
As set out in this report and agreed at Full Council in February 2016. Reasons for recommendations
Page 39 The proposed payment by Gloucestershire County Council to Highways Resource Implications England of £1m revenue funding is funded from the approved A417 Missing Link earmarked reserve; a £1 million transfer was made from the 2015-16 revenue budget to create the Reserve.
Page 40 MAIN REPORT CONTENTS
1.0 Background The A417/A419 between M4 (Swindon) and M5 (Gloucester) is a Trunk Road and part of the Government’s strategic road network (SRN), requiring the Department for Transport, and Highways England, to be responsible for its upgrade and maintenance. The majority of this 50km long, A417 / A419 Trunk Road route is high quality dual carriageway. Over the last 20 years road improvements have been made by the Government to the route, including grade separated junctions at Swindon, the Blunsdon Bypass, the North of Stratton to Nettleton Improvement, Latton and Cirencester bypasses and the Brockworth Bypass.
1.1 Just one, 5km section of single carriageway of the 50km A417/A419 remains, between Brockworth and Cowley. This section is known as the “Missing Link” and features two roundabouts, a number of priority junctions / local accesses and steep gradients at Crickley Hill, Birdlip Hill and Nettleton Bottom. There are congested pinch points at Air Balloon roundabout and Nettleton Bottom. The main concerns are of safety, congestion and air pollution.
1.2 Over a period of 20 or so years the (then) Highways Agency investigated a wide number of options for a solution to the Missing link, including tunnels, low cost traffic management solutions and off line solutions. The (then) Highways Agency’s work culminated in the conclusion that the ‘Brown route’, rebranded by Gloucestershire County Council as the ‘Loop’, was the most appropriate solution. The County Council, District Councils, MPs, LEP, local businesses and residents have campaigned and lobbied for many years for the solution to the Missing Link to be resolved, with the solution known as the ‘Loop’ seen as an acceptable solution.
1.3 In December 2014 the Government announced, as part of the Autumn Statement, that funding would be granted to develop and deliver a solution to the ‘Missing Link’. This funding was announced as part of the Road Investment Strategy (RIS) funding. An allocation was made by Government to develop the scheme during the RIS 1 period (2015-2020) with construction of the scheme during the RIS 2 period (post April 2020). By April 2016 the feasibility stage, called ‘Stage 0’, of the scheme’s development had been completed by Highways England (HE); including Stage 0 there are 7 stages in the HE scheme development process.
1.4 The proposed payment by Gloucestershire County Council to Highways England of £1m from the A417 / Missing Link Reserve is to aid the commencement of the next stages of work, namely ‘Stage 1’ (options identification) and Stage 2 (options selection). It is anticipated that these will be completed by the end of 2018/19, when Stage 3 (detailed design) will start prior to Stage 4 (the Development Control Order process – i.e. seeking planning consent); ‘pre- construction’ and ‘construction’ are stages 5 and 6 and complete the 7 stage process. The Secretary of State for Transport has committed that construction will start as early as possible in the next Roads Investment Strategy Period, which starts in 2020.
1.5 The work packages that are expected to be undertaken utilising the £1m include: Traffic and Economic assessments including but not limited to: Traffic Data Collection and Forecasting; Appraisal Summary Tables; Economic Assessment Reports Environmental and Technical appraisals including but not limited to: Environmental Assessment Reports and Risk Assessments; Habitat Surveys; Geotechnical Studies
Page 41 Stakeholder Engagement including but not limited to: Statement of Community Consultation and Consultation strategy; Photomontages; fly-throughs and webpages
2.0 Options The A417, as a trunk road and part of the SRN is under the management and control of Highways England, therefore all of the option testing to date has been previously undertaken by Highways England (previously Highways Agency). As part of the Government’s scheme development processes, all options will be reviewed again. That requires all options to be considered again as part of a transparent option selection process. Therefore all options, such as tunnels, low cost solutions and off line solutions, including the County Council’s favoured ‘Loop’ solution will be revisited.
3.0 Risk Assessment The County Council has campaigned and lobbied for a solution to the ‘Missing link’ over many years. As part of the Government’s transparent route selection process Highways England will be expected to review all options again. It is possible that the preferred option will differ from ‘the loop’ solution that previously had local acceptability. However, Highways England will undertake full public consultation as Stages 1 and 2 progress.
4.0 Officer Advice It is recommended that £1m revenue funding from the County Council reserve be paid to Highways England to facilitate the development of a suitable resolution to the A417 Missing Link. A funding agreement will be drafted between the County Council and Highways England that will set out a number of criteria to include: A project specification; A monitoring regime; and Milestone deliverable dates
5.0 Equalities considerations The responsibility to improve the stretch of carriageway known as the ‘Missing Link’ is that of Highways England, as they oversee and manage the maintenance and improvement of the SRN. The County Council is a consultee in the Highways England process of scheme delivery on the SRN. Highways England are responsible for the equality considerations, and due regard statements via their own governance arrangements.
The County Council will monitor the equalities consideration made by Highways England as the scheme selection process progresses and will include a requirement for HE to comply with the equalities considerations in developing the consultation strategy for the project.
6.0 Consultation feedback Consultation has taken place over many years lobbying for the Government/Highways England to find a solution to the A417 Missing Link. The County Council gathered over 5,000 pledges on its website from individuals, with over 300 businesses pledging support.
7.0 Performance Management/Follow-up County Council officers will be part of a steering group set up and overseen by Highways England. Terms of Reference for the steering group will be agreed between the County Council and Highways England.
Page 42 Report Title A417 Missing Link-payment of £1m to Highways England
Transport Acts, in particular the Local Transport Act 2008, the Statutory Authority Localism Act 2011 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The LTA 2008 Act places a duty on local transport authorities to develop policies relating to transport, so that these policies must cover all aspects of transport, rather than the more limited requirement relating only to transport facilities and services, and must take the protection and improvement of the environment (including mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change) into account.
Relevant County Council Gloucestershire’s adopted Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) policy and emerging LTP Review.
Resource Implications The payment of £1m revenue funding by Gloucestershire County Council to Highways England for the development of the solution to the A417 Missing link, is funded from the approved A417 Missing Link ear marked reserve.
Sustainability checklist:
Partnerships Delivery of a successful outcome for the Missing Link will require successful partnership arrangements between Highways England, the County Council, statutory consultees and other stakeholders.
Decision Making and Highways England will undertake decision making and Involvement involvement as set out in its framework for scheme development and delivery.
Economy and Employment The A417 Missing link is viewed as the number one priority for businesses surveyed regarding road infrastructure. It is the number one priority for highways investment by the Gfirst LEP.
Caring for people The local community is severely constrained by the current road network, causing severance, air pollution and road safety concerns. A solution to the Missing link will be expected to address these concerns.
Social Value Residents, businesses and road users of the A417 will benefit from the improvement that this road will bring to the social environment from reduced severance, greater community cohesion and reduced safety concerns.
Built Environment Any solution to the Missing Link will bring about impacts to the built environment. However, any disbenefits will be assessed by Highways England and compared to the overall benefits of
Page 43 the preferred solution.
Natural Environment’ The stretch of road known as the A417 Missing Link sits within including Ecology the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It is (Biodiversity) widely acknowledged that Highways England will have many significant environmental impacts to take into account when determining the preferred solution to the Missing Link.
Education and Information The County Council will benefit from being part of the steering group which will be set up by Highways England to deliver the solution to the Missing Link. This education/information will be useful to the County Council when preparing strategies and bids for future major scheme within the County.
Tackling Climate Change Carbon Emissions Implications? Positive Vulnerable to climate change? No
Due Regard Statement Has a Due Regard Statement been completed? No This Cabinet report is recommending that £1m revenue funding is paid by Gloucestershire County Council to Highways England for scheme development for the solution to the A417 Missing Link. A thorough equalities assessment/due regard statement will be prepared by Highways England as part of the scheme development process adopted by Highways England. Gloucestershire County Council will be part of a steering group which will consider equalities of solutions.
All stakeholders that have an interest in the scheme will be Human rights Implications able to put their views forward at future public consultations.
Consultation has taken place over many years lobbying for the Consultation Arrangements Government/Highways England to find a solution to the A417 Missing Link. The County Council gathered over 5,000 pledges on its website from individuals, with over 300 businesses pledging support.
Page 44 Agenda Item 7
RESHAPING SERVICES FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN
Cabinet 8 June 2016
Children & Young Cllr Paul McLain People and Strategic Commissioning
Key Decision Yes
Background 1) Early help and Children and Young People’s Partnership plan 2015-16 Documents 2) Options Appraisal Provider Models for Targeted Services for families with Young Children.
3) Integrated Working Pilots- Evaluation Report.
4) Commissioning Plan for Families with Young Children.
Location/Contact 1) Children and Young People’s Plan 2015-18 for inspection of Background http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/cyppp 2) Options Appraisal Provider Models for Targeted Services for families Documents with Young Children. www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/familyservices 3) Integrated Working Pilots - Evaluation Report www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/familyservices 4) Commissioning Plan for Families with Young Children www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/familyservices
Parent, carers and young children using children’s centres. Main Consultees Children’s Centre Partnership Advisory Boards. Children’s centre staff, managers and managing organisations. Professionals and partners who deliver services to young children. NHS Gloucestershire CCG through the Joint Commissioning Partnership. District, Parish and Town Councils. Gloucestershire Schools Forum.
1
Page 45 Planned Dates 8 June 2016 - Cabinet.
June 2016 Soft Marketing testing events for potential providers.
July 2016 Tender process for targeted family support service opens.
July 2016 Tender process for parent and community service opens.
September 2016 Tender processes closes.
October /November 2016 – evaluation of bids.
December 2016 – award of contracts.
January – March 2017 Mobilisation.
1 April 2017 New contracts begin.
Divisional All Councillor Ruth Lewis – Lead Commissioner Early Years Officer Tel: 01452-328533 Email: [email protected]
Purpose of Report To seek Cabinet approval of the recommendations for reshaping of services for families and young children and the procurement of those services.
That Cabinet authorises the Commissioning Director, Children & Families in Recommendations consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People and Strategic Commissioning:
1) To conduct an EU compliant competitive tender process for the award of three contracts for a period of 3 years with an estimated total value of up to £11.4m with the ability to extend for a further period of 2 years (to a value of £19 million) for the delivery of a targeted family support service based in 16 Children and Family Centres across Gloucestershire .The service is to be procured as three contracts: Contract 1 Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Localities. Contract 2 Gloucester North and Gloucester South localities and Contract 3 Forest of Dean and Stroud localities. (section 4.1, 5 and 7).
2) To take the Cotswold locality service back in house from 1st April 2017 to enable the County Council to deliver the services in the Cotswolds directly to vulnerable families by integrating the new targeted family support service with the existing Families First plus teams to provide an integrated and efficient response to meeting the needs of vulnerable families in the Cotswolds (section 4.2 and 7).
2
Page 46 3) To conduct an EU compliant competitive tender process for the award to suppliers of a two year contract with an estimated total value of £200k for the delivery of business support service to facilitate parent and community led universal provision for children and families across the Gloucestershire. (section 4.3)
4) Upon conclusion of the competitive tender processes set out in 1 and 3 above to enter into a contract with the preferred providers who are evaluated as offering the Council best value for money for delivery of the services set out in 1 and 3 above. In the event that the preferred provider for the contracts is either unable or unwilling to enter into those contracts referred to in 1 and 3 above with the council then the Commissioning Director, Children and Families is authorised to enter into such contract with the next willing highest placed suitably qualified providers. (Section 5.1).
5) To facilitate the continuation of nursery provision based in the 22 children’s centre buildings through an expressions of interest programme to take effect by 31st March 2017. (Section 4.4 and 7).
6) Prior to the de-designation of the 30 children’s centres as statutory children’s centres to seek expressions of interest and subsequently business cases from organisations including schools who wish to be host sites for the delivery of early education and childcare and for universal services for children and families thereby offering greater flexibility to meet the needs of the community.(section 4.3 and 7).
7) To give notice to end the current children’s centre contracts to take effect from 31st March 2017. (Section 7).
To enable the Cabinet to secure a targeted family support service for families Reasons for recommendations with children under 11 years to both improve outcomes for the most vulnerable, provide a diverse range of early years provision and achieve savings reductions for reinvestment in the social care workforce.
The total budget in 2016/17 for services for vulnerable children including Resource Implications early help, prevention and children’s social care is £80m, which is an increase of 6.7%, £5M from 2015/16. £90.4m if public health grant funded services are included. As part of the medium term financial strategy the council has agreed to invest in additional social workers supporting the most vulnerable children over a two year period, this equates to £3.7m by 2017/18.
The recommended proposals in this report will release annual revenue savings of £3.2 million which supports the additional investment in social workers.
The budget for education, health and family support for young families in 2016/17 is £42.9m. This includes public health nursing (health visiting and school nursing), nursery education, children’s centres and other family
3
Page 47 support services funded by the council.
The total combined value of the 3 year locality based contracts is estimated as being in the region of £11.4m with the ability to extend to a value of £19.0 m if contracts operate over their full 5 year terms.
The contracts will need to include a mechanism for price adjustments to be made in the event of changes made in central government funding. The Early Years Funding Block of the Dedicated Schools grant is £25.3m (2015/16) which includes £22.5m allocated to nursery provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds and £2.8m allocated to children’s centres.
£100k will be allocated to the provision of parenting assessments.
Income received by 22 nurseries based in children’s centres for 2016/2017 will be approximately £2.3m due to the provision of nursery education places.
£100k will be allocated annually to fund a parent and support service with an additional £300k capital contingency to support the transitional arrangements.
Where appropriate, capital funding secured through the Education Funding Agency to meet the government proposal to offer 30 hours of funded nursery entitlement to 3 and 4 year olds of working parents, would be used to expand provision.
4
Page 48 MAIN REPORT CONTENTS
1. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to seek Cabinet approval for proposals to reshape services for families and agree how these services will be procured in the future. Extensive consultation has told us what is important to families – easily accessible information and advice, networks of friends and family and specialist help when needed. The aim is to ensure that services are targeted on the most vulnerable children and families who are not benefiting as well as they could be from existing services, in particular children’s centres. The report outlines a shift away from buildings based provision to a more flexible model where families get help and support in their local communities and professionals travel to them. The proposals also ensure that existing childcare and open access support is still available in the same places as before.
2. Background
In June 2015, following a review of provision for families with young children, an Individual Cabinet Member Decision agreed that steps should be taken to transform Gloucestershire’s services for families. There is a statutory duty as described in the Childcare Act 2006 on Local Authorities to consult before making changes to the range and nature of services provided through children’s centres. Any agreed changes to services delivered through children centres would need to ensure that ‘local need’ continues to be met and the Council continues to discharge its legal responsibilities.
The proposals are aligned with the strategic objectives set out in the 2015-18 Children and Young people Plan agreed by the Gloucestershire Children’s Partnership and with its Active Communities policy. The Proposals also need to ensure that the Council is able to meet its commissioning intentions agreed as part of the medium term financial strategy, namely:
To shift and increase investment into the social care workforce to improve the quality of interventions. To reshape family support services for families with younger children to ensure they target emerging needs effectively. To continue to support a diverse range of early years provision to work in an integrated way to support all families.
Key principles underpinning the service redesign included the development of a targeted and networked family support service for families with children aged 0-11 years, an agreement that support from services for families should be integrated at point of delivery and that parents and communities were fully supported to be involved in contributing to universal services that were accessible from local venues.
Following the Individual Cabinet Member Decision in June 2015 a period of extensive engagement during the autumn of 2015 allowed the council to test the underpinning principles and guide the subsequent consultation process. A series of pre-engagement events were run with professionals, parents and carers. Feedback from these sessions informed the development of a commissioning plan for families with children aged 0-11, this is a joint commissioning plan agreed with Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group (GCCG).
5
Page 49 The Cabinet decision in December 2015 authorised the Commissioning Director for Children and Families to undertake a formal consultation on proposed options for family support services and early years and childcare as outlined in the commissioning plan and to agree to a proposed investment of £3.7m between 2016/18 in additional social worker capacity as part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy.
The methodology of consultation was based on feedback from the pre–engagement sessions and included an online survey and face to face events for professionals, parents and children. The proposals for consultation were to:-
Create 16 Children and Family Centres in the County’s most deprived areas and reconfigure children’s centres and Families First plus teams to provide a locality based family support response service located in the centres but supplemented by additional outreach activities for families, delivered from a wide range of community buildings.
Consult on whether the targeted family support service should be extended to work with families and children pre birth to 11 years of age.
Develop the current network of the other 30 children’s centres for early education and childcare, universal services for families delivered by voluntary and community groups and as bases for professionals who work with families.
Create a new parent and community support service who would offer advice and support to organisations wishing to run universal services from children’s centres.
Expand existing childcare facilities based in children’s centres and the proposed Children and Family Centres.
Consult on whether a high quality public health nursing service should continue to work closely with other services that support families.
The consultation has now ended; this report seeks decisions on the final proposals for early years services having taken into account key findings from the consultation. This report also includes an overview of the approach the Council has taken to gathering stakeholders’ views and a summary of the consultation responses. Full details of both the engagement and consultation processes and subsequent feedback are available in the background papers.
The council’s duty in respect of children’s centres is to ensure early childhood services are available either by providing the service at the centres or by providing advice and assistance to parents and prospective parents in accessing services elsewhere. It follows that children’s centres are as much about making appropriate and integrated services available, as it is about providing premises in particular geographical areas. The council also has a duty to secure sufficient nursery education.
No major changes to legislation are anticipated. Government proposals to consult on children centre services are due to be published in summer 2016 linked to a Life Chances Strategy as yet unpublished. However it is clear that many local authorities are redesigning their services for families with young children. The latest national survey published by 4Children reports that a total of 1,426 of the 3,631 network of Sure Start children's centres have closed or changed since April 2010.
6
Page 50 Consultation feedback
A series of opportunities for the public to respond to the proposals were made available from 18th January-11th April 2016 and included an online survey, 18 ‘drop in’ events and 25 parent focus groups. Hard copies of the survey were made available from children’s centres and libraries.
656 responses were received online and 327 people attended the drop in events with 313 parents / carers providing feedback though focus groups. Experience of consultation processes generally suggests this is a good level of response given the overall usage of children’s centres. In comparison the consultation on the recent Local Transport Plan consultation received 270 responses.
Feedback from events and online were received from all seven children’s centre locality areas. Additional written responses were received from residents, voluntary organisations, current providers of children centres services and parish and town councillors in the Stroud and Cotswolds localities. One petition with 566 signatures was submitted relating to services in an area of the Stroud locality. These council responses outlined concerns about possible changes in centre provision and made specific comments about the future of services currently available. (Appendix 2)
The feedback received was broadly in favour of a targeted family support service with 87% agreeing with proposals for an integrated targeted family support service for families with children aged 0-11 years and 81% supporting a service for families with children aged 0-5 years. Many of the online comments positively endorsed the need for early contact with multi- disciplinary teams to ensure families were supported quickly and effectively.
77% of responses indicated that the proposed targeted service would have a positive impact on the early identification and support for children with special needs and disabilities.
The greatest number of responses from all localities believed the proposed locations of the Children and Family Centres would have no impact or a positive impact on their families although there was more support for the locations of the Children and Family Centres in the responses from the urban areas of Cheltenham and Gloucester. The number of positive responses for the locations of the other 30 centres ranged from 82% in Gloucester North to 45% in Stroud.
86% of responses supported the use of buildings for early education and childcare, 77% for universal services for families and 86% as bases for professionals who work with families.
64% of responses strongly supported the proposal that a parent and community support service should be created to offer advice and support to schools and voluntary and community groups. 71% agreed that existing children’s centre childcare facilities should be expanded to meet the government proposal to increase nursery entitlement to 30 hours for working parents of three and four year olds and 91% strongly agreed or agreed that a high quality public health nursing service should continue to work closely with other services to support families
Families were also asked to provide feedback on their perceptions of early education and child care. 46% were happy with the quality of childcare they were able to access however 29% of
7
Page 51 responses cited a lack of suitable childcare as a personal barrier to training or working and 23% would use more childcare if it was made more affordable.
The Children and Families Scrutiny Committee received a detailed presentation on the consultation on 10th March 2016 outlining the engagement process, the proposals, and the headlines from feedback received so far. The Committee welcomed the opportunity to take part in the consultation. Members agreed that it was important to recognise that this was about services not buildings; providing the right services in the right way to ensure that we reach those children and families most in need of our help. Members indicated a wish to review this matter at a future meeting, for example, to identify how the risks associated with the proposed policy direction will be mitigated; and how the approaches from schools and community groups to use the buildings were being taken forward. In the main the committee agreed that this was a positive direction of travel as it was trying to make the best use of limited resources for the benefit of those families most in need.
33 pre- school and school aged children in rural and urban locations were involved in a number of activities to collect children’s views about their early years, health and life opportunities and experiences. The children thought their mothers kept them healthy and safe, helped by fathers and doctors. This highlighted the importance of effective partnership working between health practioners, early years providers and schools enabling effective transitions for children.
It is important to note that it became apparent through the consultation that not all ‘children’s centre services’ are actually delivered directly by current children’s centres providers. There are some much valued community activities that are run, for example by libraries, which would be unaffected by any proposed changes. Some feedback also suggested an assumption that families would need to travel distances to visit remaining centres and expressed concern should this be the case. The proposals assume outreach services will be located where families can access them and staff will travel to families.
4. Proposed Service
Both the Gloucestershire Early Help and Children & Young People’s Partnership Plan (CYPPP) and the council’s commissioning intentions focus on the need to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children. The CYP Plan strategy is therefore is to create a more sustainable system focused on prevention & permanence that:
Harnesses the energy, commitment and capacity of communities and universal services. Intervenes to make a lasting difference and reduces process. Takes preventative action to help teenagers and keep them out of trouble and out of care.
The primary aim of any commissioned service supporting Gloucestershire‘s Early Help provision for families with young children must be to provide community support to vulnerable children and families in order to promote their wellbeing and prevent any concerns or difficulties escalating to a point where statutory services are required. It is therefore proposed to focus resources on three key areas: -
8
Page 52 Developing a targeted family support service operating from Children and Family centres Maintaining a network of community based, open access support Ensuring the availability of high quality nursery education for 2, 3 and 4 year olds
The expectation is that all these services will continue to work in close collaboration with teams of public health nurses (health visitors) and community midwives to provide an integrated response to families.
4.1 Developing a targeted family support service operating from Children and Family Centres
It is proposed to create a networked locality model working from 16 Children and Family Centres (Appendix 1) in areas of greatest deprivation. A careful analysis has been undertaken of the needs of vulnerable families and demand for services. This analysis is set out in the Commissioning Plan for Families with Young Children aged 0-11 which is a background document to this report and provides the rationale for situating the Children and Family Centres in the proposed locations. Consultation feedback largely supported this.
This will provide skilled family support interventions, programmes and support to the families who will most benefit from it, recognising the need to work with whole families and address a range of needs including health, housing, education and employment. The service will reflect local characteristics and address differing needs across Gloucestershire. This flexible and integrated, needs led offer will ensure the Council maximises the impact of services to improve life chances for those who would otherwise be at a disadvantage in future years.
Families requiring the service would access support through the Early Help Partnership allocation process which would be managed by the council (GCC). Partners working in universal services such as primary care, schools and district councils will be able to identify children with emerging additional needs and receive support and advice from the Early Help Partnership. The proposed Family Support Service would provide part of a locality response and would be aligned to the work undertaken by Health Services and the Families First Plus teams and also work to ‘step down’ families from social care intervention. Family support staff will need to work flexibly across local communities often on an outreach basis. Centres themselves are likely to also act as the base for other more informally organised activities supported by local communities and volunteers.
Current children’s centres are expected to provide parenting assessments in respect of families where legal proceedings are being contemplated or in progress. As part of these proposals the process for carrying out parenting assessments will be streamlined and become the responsibility of the council’s children’s social care service.
This new service will enable the council to discharge its extensive statutory duties set out in a range of legislation including the 1989 Children Act as well as the 2006 Childcare Act.
All children’s centre staff, excluding those staff who deliver early education and childcare, would TUPE to the new providers identified to run the targeted family support contracts from April 1St 2017 with any resultant restructure of staff undertaken by the new providers of the service.
9
Page 53 4. 2 Cotswolds
Consultation feedback has highlighted the particular challenges of providing a targeted family support service for families in the predominantly rural areas of the Cotswolds. This relates to the comparatively lower levels of need and large geographical area and suggests the need for a different service model in this area.
The Cotswolds had fewer than 35 children aged 0-11 being taken into care over the last three years compared to 93 in Cheltenham and 218 in Gloucester City. Even when compared against other rural areas levels of need are lower e.g. during in the first phase of the Troubled Families programme (locally known as Families First) the service worked with 73 families in the Cotswolds, 109 in the Forest of Dean, 124 in the Stroud district and 155 in Tewkesbury.
Issues of teams of staff covering large areas of the county, rural isolation and poor transport links places greater emphasis on ensuring that a flexible and integrated family support workforce are able to work with families in a holistic way. Despite being an advantaged area overall, individual families can face significant challenges and are often unable to access services.
The proposal therefore is to integrate the new targeted family support service with the existing Families First plus teams run by the council to provide an integrated and efficient response to meeting the needs of vulnerable families in the Cotswolds. In the longer term opportunities for further integrating services in the district will be explored. In practice this will mean the team of council employed family support workers being expanded; the number of workers will need to be determined by the available budget. This proposal will allow for management efficiencies of at least £50k annually.
The Cotswold team would be based at Cirencester Children and Families Centre which would be located in the old Watermoor Primary School site adjacent to the current Cirencester children’s centre. The children’s centre nursery based in the Watermoor Primary School site would transfer to a provider identified through an expression of interest process (see below).
4.3 Maintaining a network of community based, open access support
Building on the council’s Active Communities Policy we propose to support local communities to develop a range of support operating from existing children’s centre bases including early education and childcare for families, open access activities delivered by voluntary and community groups. A local approach to services will allow people to take control of the process, help them to decide which matters most and find solutions that suit local circumstances. This means that solutions will look different in different communities and may include services run from buildings other than current children’s centres. The buildings or spaces can also act as bases for professionals from agencies who work with families. In many cases services are already provided by Adult Education, health professionals, library staff and voluntary and community groups and these would continue. This type of activity also runs at the 16 proposed Children and Family Centres and it is envisaged it would continue.
The majority of the 30 buildings (Appendix 1) are adjacent to schools or within libraries which are best placed to become the host organisations for future services. Initial conversations with schools and Library Services have been very positive and indicate a willingness to undertake such a role.
10
Page 54 Where a school or library is unable to manage the facility an expression of interest process would be used to seek expressions of interest in running children and family services to meet the needs of the communities they serve. Applications would be considered against an agreed set of criteria to ensure proposals were suitable and sustainable and would continue to provide services for young children to comply with capital grant conditions.
In order to support local communities Gloucestershire Rural Community Council has been commissioned to undertake a community facilities study in each of the areas surrounding the location of the 30 children’s centres. It is intended that each audit will provide useful information when the communities are considering future needs and priorities.
A separately commissioned parent and community service would offer practical advice and support to organisations who wish to run the children centre buildings or services. The provider of this service will work with existing and emerging groups to develop the capacity and skills necessary to allow them to manage local facilities and services in a legal, responsible, sustainable and safe way. It is also proposed to allocate £300k to support the development of this provision and adapt facilities where necessary.
4.4 Ensuring the availability of high quality nursery education for 2, 3 and 4 year olds
The 22 nurseries, offering 827 childcare places, currently based within children’s centres (Appendix 1) including those buildings designated as Children and Family Centres would continue. An expression of interest process would be used to identify providers to run each of the nurseries.
All early education and childcare provision offered would be funded from Nursery Education Funding and through income generation in line with all other early education provision in the county Where appropriate, capital funding secured through the Education Funding Agency to meet government proposals to offer 30 hours of funded nursery entitlement to 3 and 4 year olds of working parents, would be used to expand provision within each nursery.
All staff involved in the delivery of early education and childcare currently delivered under the current seven children’s centre contracts would TUPE to the provider(s) who are identified to run the 22 nurseries through an expression of interest programme.
4.5 Other options considered
There were three main alternative options considered:
To retain the existing children’s centre service as it is To increase the number of Children and Family Centres To reduce the number of Children and Family Centres
There was consistent support for reshaping these services from the consultation process. Retaining the service in its current form would not enable resources to be targeted on the most vulnerable families and would not release savings and allow reinvestment in social work services as planned. The needs profile has been re-examined which has confirmed that the current proposals would site Children and Family centre bases in the most deprived areas. The proposals ensure a Children and Family Centre base in each district; further reducing the
11
Page 55 number of these centres at this stage could compromise our ability to maintain a presence across the county. The focus of the plan is on services reaching out to families rather than being buildings specific; there is also a degree of confidence that activities will be retained from all current bases which does not suggest that expanding the number of bases is necessary.
5.1 Procurement Options
A number of options have been considered in respect of the proposed new targeted family support service. Any procurement model is required to:
Support the achievement of strategic objectives set out in this report.
Provide flexibility to respond to emerging needs.
Enable the council to meet all its statutory duties to children and young people.
Meet savings targets as proposed through the Council’s financial strategy.
Meet timescales (implementation possible by April 2017).
The main options that have been considered for the tendering of a targeted family support service are:
Procure a county wide service through a Prime Provider or Prime Contractor who would be part of a consortium or subcontract some or all of the service.
Procure a county wide service through a Prime Provider.
Procure a service through seven locality contracts.
Procure a service through three contracts covering three areas of the county.
Procure a service through alliance contracting arrangements.
Take the service back in house.
Following analysis of the consultation feedback and council objectives the preferred option is to procure a targeted support service for families with children aged 0-11 years as three separate contracts which will cover the whole county (excluding Cotswolds). The grouping of the localities mirrors current organisational arrangements within Children’s Services in the council. The three contracts would be aligned to the relevant Early Help Partnerships within each locality and an annual locality commissioning plan for each area with agreed priorities and outcomes would ensure service provision was appropriate to geography and need.
Contract 1 would include Cheltenham and Tewkesbury, contract 2 would cover Gloucester City and contract 3 would cover the Forest of Dean and Stroud. Potential providers would be able to submit bids as individual organisations or as consortia. As described previously it is proposed to run the service within the Cotswolds in house.
12
Page 56 The three contracts extends economies of scale opportunities whilst providing contract packages that are more likely to be attractive and viable for a range of potential providers. It allows for the possibility of consortia bids and a shared accountability and responsibility across providers that drives improvement, innovation and efficiency.
5.2 Other Procurement Options
Other options considered but not supported include:
5.2.1 Use of a prime provider .The contract would be let to a single provider who would then subcontract some or all of the service through a consortia arrangement including early education and childcare. Although this option provided an opportunity for smaller organisations including social enterprises to deliver part of the contract there is a high financial and relational risk for the prime provider who would need to ensure due diligence when subcontracting parts of the service.
5.2.2 Use of an alliance contracting model. In this model a set of providers enters into a single arrangement with the council to deliver an integrated service. Commissioners and providers are legally bound together to deliver the specific contracted service, and to share risk and responsibility for meeting the agreed outcomes. Members collectively govern the alliance through a leadership board with agreed terms of reference. Although this option provided an opportunity for the council to put in place a framework for collaborative working it ultimately was rejected as the complexity of implementation did not match the timescales available.
5.2.3 Locality contracts. This option would involve separate locality/ district contracts. However this would not address current issues of inconsistency and variation of service delivery or drive greater integration of services.
5.2.4 Bringing the service in house. This option is recommended for services serving the Cotswolds. Bringing all the services in house was rejected because it would not allow the council to benefit from the skills, expertise and added value offered by external providers and would have significant resource implications.
6. Resource Implications
The council can only afford to invest in more social workers by saving money elsewhere. The total budget in 2016/17 for services for vulnerable children including early help, prevention and children’s social care is £80m, which is an increase of 6.7%, £5m from 2015/16. This rises to £90.4m if Public Health grant funded services are included.
The allocation of funding for the revised service would be based on indices of deprivation affecting children index (IDACI) data with the allocation of funding based on the numbers of children aged 0-11 living in income deprived households. 12,373 children aged 0-11 across Gloucestershire live in income deprived households of these 33% live in Gloucester, 21% in Cheltenham and 46% across the other four localities.
It is proposed to retain £500k annually to fund facilities management and provide a capital maintenance fund. Additional one off costs associated with changes to IT infrastructure to support integrated, working across GCC and its partner organisations including the
13
Page 57 implementation of a single early help assessment, resource allocation and evaluation process would need to be met from this retained fund.
It is anticipated that there will be transitional costs in relation to workforce, buildings and ICT infrastructure associated with the proposed changes. These costs would need to be met by the council to avoid unnecessary service reductions in the first year of operation.
Staff transferring into the revised Cotswold service would be subject to council conditions of service and would have access to the GCC pension scheme. The costs of the expanded team would need to be met within the available budget of £306,395 annually.
7. Officer Advice
The Cabinet is recommended to adopt a revised specification for a targeted family support for families with children pre-birth to eleven years of age through the retendering of the service – to be co-ordinated and delivered from the 16 Children and Family Centres in the areas of greatest deprivation across Gloucestershire. These Children and Family Centres would retain the official designation of children’s centres. It is also recommended to support the development of community based support services operating from remaining children’s centres and reshaping of nursery education provision to meet government targets.
The targeted family support service would be procured as three contracts, with interested providers or consortia having the opportunity to tender for two of the three contracts as described in section 4 .The contracts would be offered for a three year period with an opportunity to extend for a further two years subject to an annual review.
The Cotswold contract would be decommissioned from 1st April 2017, taken back ‘in house’ and aligned with GCC Family First Plus service to create a targeted support services for families with children and young people from 0- 19 years. The competitive tender process would run during summer and autumn of 2016 and subject to award of contracts the new service would begin on 1st April 2017 until 31st March 2020.
The proposals to procure a targeted family support service is based on the Council’s strategic objective to target resources at the more at risk or most disadvantaged with the aim of achieving equity of outcomes for children and families across Gloucestershire. The revised service allows for the reinvestment in children’s social care as outlined in the report to Cabinet in December 2015.
The proposals to develop community based support operating from the remaining children’s centres is consistent with the Council’s Active Communities Policy framework and its core value of helping people to help themselves. A key strength in Gloucestershire is its wide and diverse range of communities; the development of parent champions and involvement of parents in running centres has been a success over the last few years and ensuring support is available for these groups is an important part of the strategy. These children’s centres will be able to offer a wide range of activities dependent on local need and demand; they will no longer have to meet national requirements implied by official designation as a children’s centre but will need to continue to deliver services for young children, particularly where Sure Start capital funding has been invested in the building.
14
Page 58 Ensuring that all children access high quality early education provision remains a priority to prepare very young children for school and to improve life chances. The recommendation to maintain and increase the number of places within the 22 nurseries based within children centres provides further opportunity to address the barriers outlined by parents during the consultation and supports the Council’s statutory duty as outlined in the Childcare Act 2006 to provide sufficient childcare places. This duty includes access and support for vulnerable children and children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities as well as providing affordable childcare to allow parents to take up employment and training opportunities.
If the recommendations of this report are agreed notice would need to be given to the current children centre providers by 31st August 2016 that the council wishes to terminate the current children centre service contracts from 31st March 2017.
The consultation process has been extensive and has been broadly supportive of these proposals, whilst highlighting concerns within individual communities. The intention will be to work proactively with these groups, schools, libraries and other voluntary organisations to maintain the existing infrastructure of informal support, childcare and links to health services.
The recommendations allow for the Council to adopt these changes whist also meeting its duties in respect of children centre services as outlined to the Childcare Act 2006 - namely to make appropriate and integrated services available for families in a manner calculated to facilitate access and maximise the benefits of these services whilst also improving the well being and reducing the inequalities of young children in Gloucestershire.
8 Risk Assessments
8.1 Legal
The main risk associated with these recommendations is associated with ensuring that the Council Council’s statutory duties continue to be met.
The Childcare Act 2006 places a duty on local authorities to secure early childhood services to improve the well-being of young children in their area and reduce inequalities between them and to ensure that there are sufficient children’s centres so far as reasonably practicable, to meet local need. A children’s centre is defined in the Childcare Act 2006 as being
a place or group of places which is managed by on behalf of, or under arrangements with the locality authority with a view to securing that early childhood services in the local authority area are made available in an integrated way. Through which early childhood services are made available (either providing the services on site, or by providing advice and assistant on gaining access to services elsewhere) and At which activities for young children are provided.
Statutory guidance confirms that children’s centres are as much about making appropriate and integrated services available, as it is about providing premises in particular geographical areas. The government is reviewing the role of children’s centres; our current assumption is that the 16 Children and Family Centres offering the integrated family support service would continue
15
Page 59 to be formally designated as Children’s Centres under the 2006 Childcare Act. The proposals in this report will enable the council to continue to meet its legal duties as set out above.
The 30 other children’s centre buildings would no longer need to have an official designation but would be free to deliver services for families as local organisations and providers see fit. When a local authority puts forward proposals on the change of use of capital projects that were originally funded through Sure Start and Early Years Capital Grant, they must inform the Department for Education and set out whether the new use fulfils the conditions of the capital funding. It is believed that the proposals for the future use of the buildings for families and children are within the original conditions of the grant and would not evoke claw back of Capital funding.
The Childcare Act 2006 also places duties on local authorities in respect of early years provision and childcare, councils need to:
Secure sufficient childcare for working parents Secure early years provision (nursery education) free of charge
The proposals in this report are intended to maintain and, indeed, expand the current levels of nursery education and meet the government’s extended offer. Access to nursery education is currently high in Gloucestershire; of particular note is the fact that 90% of eligible 2 year olds are accessing nursery education locally, the highest percentage in the South West.
The proposals in this report also enable the council to meet its extensive duties in relation to safeguarding.
8.2 Tender Process
A key risk is that the tender process and subsequent contract award disrupts services and impacts negatively on performance of the service. All potential providers will be required to provide robust evidence about their ability to mobilise the new contracts. Council mobilisation plans and resources will be put in place to ensure families who require support are able to access services. The council will continue to support children’s centres providers until March 2017 under current arrangements.
8.3 Financial
The main risk is that the new providers of children’s centre services are unable to meet quality standards and achieve value for money under the new specification and contract terms.
All bids will be thoroughly evaluated for service delivery and quality and tested for legal, financial and technical compliance. All contracts will be closely monitored, supported by quality assurance mechanisms and the external Ofsted inspection regime. The new service will be aligned to the early help allocation processes in each locality.
9. Equalities considerations
Due Regard Statements have been completed for these proposals ensuring that those involved in the procurement and implementation of the service are aware of the needs of those groups with protected characteristics, and how they may be particularly affected by the
16
Page 60 delivery and procurement of the revised service. The statements for the seven localities take into account the results of the 12 week public consultation, the 19 public meeting events and 25 parent focus groups that took place within the seven areas covered by the current children’s centre contracts. Equalities information was collected as part of the online survey.
The current children’s centre service supports children under five and 85% of adults who use the service are women. Any changes in the services may therefore disproportionately impact on these groups. However there is an identified positive impact on the age of children being able to access a targeted support service as the proposals include extending the age range of children to 0-11 years. Disabled children are a targeted group for the new family support service and will continue to be supported.
There is no indication that any groups with protected characteristics will be adversely impacted by the proposals to provide a targeted family support service and the providers of universal services for families from the 30 satellite centres will need to ensure open access to these groups. Partnership working with health services, other professionals and voluntary and community groups who work with families ensures that the need of all children and their families is assessed and the identified support is provided based on these needs taking into account protected characteristics.
The Due Regard Statements will be reviewed and updated on completion of the award stage and at relevant points in the following full procurement process to ensure a continuing duty of regard for equality impacts on groups with protected characteristics.
Cabinet Members should read and consider the Due Regard Statements in order to satisfy themselves as decision makers that due regard has been given.
10. Performance Management/Follow-up
All contracts will be managed through routine quarterly contract monitoring systems using a performance framework. This will be used to monitor key aspects of the specification including engagement with vulnerable families, key outcomes for families, partnership working, financial management, user involvement and governance.
The contracts will be a part of a locality early help response. A partner organisation ‘dashboard ‘of data and information will be provided for each local area providing key performance and outcomes data to improve decision making and resource planning.
17
Page 61 Report Title Reshaping Services for families with Young Children
Statutory Authority Childcare Act 2006 and Childcare Act 2016
Statutory guidance on early childhood services and Sure Start Children’s Centres (2013)
Statutory guidance for local authorities on the provision of early education and childcare.
1989 Children Act and subsequent related statute and statutory guidance
Relevant County Council Children and Young Peoples Plan 2015-2016 Policy Meeting the Challenge 2: Together We Can. Gloucestershire County Council’s Strategy 2015-2018.
The total budget in 2016/17 for services for vulnerable children Resource Implications including early help, prevention and children’s social care is £80m, which is an increase of 6.7%, £5M from 2015/16. £90.4m if public health grant funded services are included. As part of the medium term financial strategy the council has agreed to invest in additional social workers supporting the most vulnerable children over a two year period, this equates to £3.7m by 2017/18.
The recommended proposals in this report will release annual revenue savings of £3.2 million which supports the additional investment in social workers.
The budget for education, health and family support for young families in 2016/17 is £42.9m. This includes public health nursing (health visiting and school nursing), nursery education, children’s centres and other family support services funded by the council.
The total combined value of the 3 year locality based contracts is estimated as being in the region of £11.4m with the ability to extend to a value of £19.0 m if contracts operate over their full 5 year terms.
The contracts will need to include a mechanism for price adjustments to be made in the event of changes made in central government funding. The Early Years Funding Block of the Dedicated Schools grant is £25.3m (2015/16) which includes £22.5m allocated to nursery provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds and £2.8m allocated to children’s centres.
18
Page 62 £100k will be allocated to the provision of parenting assessments.
Income received by 22 nurseries based in children’s centres for 2016/2017 will be approximately £2.3m due to the provision of nursery education places.
£100k will be allocated annually to fund a parent and support service with an additional £300k capital contingency to support the transitional arrangements.
Where appropriate, capital funding secured through the Education Funding Agency to meet the government proposal to offer 30 hours of funded nursery entitlement to 3 and 4 year olds of working parents, would be used to expand provision.
Sustainability checklist:
Partnerships Consultation with partners was integral to the development of the proposals outlined in this report. High level outcomes and overarching specification have been agreed by the Joint Commissioning Partnership Board. Decision Making and Lead Member Decision and COMT June 2015 .Cabinet Involvement December 2015
Economy and Employment The further development of nurseries to delivered 30 hours of free child care will support working parents of 3 and 4 year olds. Caring for people The focus of the proposed service is the role that the Council and communities play in caring for vulnerable people.
Social Value Added value– complementary services including early years and childcare being delivered to the community in parallel to the contract by voluntary and community groups from the 30 satellite children’s centres. . Built Environment The Sure Start Capital grant that was allocated to Local Authorities to support the building of Sure Start Children’s Centres is subject to a 25 year claw back clause that has implications for the use and allocation of buildings and resources. Any future service delivery model has to consider this. It is anticipated that by continuing to use the buildings through schools, community groups and partners delivering universal children’s activity the Council will mitigate this risk
Natural Environment’ No direct implications including Ecology (Biodiversity)
19
Page 63 Education and Information The report recognises the role the Council has to play in providing information, advice and guidance in order to help people make informed choices about services in their area.
Tackling Climate Change Carbon Emissions Implications? Neutral Vulnerable to climate change? No
Due Regard Statement Has a Due Regard Statement been completed? Yes Yes - considerations included in main body of report
A copy of the full Due Regard Statement can be accessed on GLOSTEXT via http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.aspx?bcr=1
Alternatively a hard copy is available for inspection from Jo Moore, Democratic Services Unit, e-mail: [email protected].
It is not envisaged that any of the proposals in this cabinet Human rights Implications report would have any significant human rights implications. The proposals in this cabinet report are informed by a wide- Consultation Arrangements ranging consultation which took place during January – March 2016.
20
Page 64 Appendix 1
Cheltenham / Tewkesbury Network Locality Children and Children Centres Nursery provision Family Centre within centres and Hubs childcare places Cheltenham Oakwood Rowanfield Oakwood 66 Hesters Way Leckhampton Hesters Way 30 Gardners Lane Up Hatherley Library Gardners Lane 80 Charlton Kings Library Rowanfield 36 Tewkesbury Noahs Ark-(York Jigsaw Noahs Ark 38 Rd) Noahs Ark(Chance Street) Jigsaw 24 Brockworth Northway and Ashchurch Winchcombe Library Bishops Cleeve Library
Total 5 sites 9 sites 274 places
Gloucester network Locality Children and Children Centres Nursery provision Family Centre within centres and Hubs childcare places Gloucester North Bartongate – Bartongate-(Hatherley site) Bartongate 72 (Widden site) Tredworth Finlay 26 Finlay Elmbridge Tredworth 40 Kingsholm Kingsholm 60
Gloucester South The Lighthouse The Compass The Compass 50 The Link- The Link ( Matson site) The Lighthouse 24 (Robinswood site) The Beacon The Link 21 The Oaks Quedgeley Library Total 6 sites 7 sites 293 places
Forest of Dean/ Stroud Network Locality Children and Children Centres Nursery provision Family Centre within centres and Hubs childcare places Forest of Dean The River Leaves – Newent River 32 Hilltop Twigs - Mitcheldean Library Hilltop 32 Branches – Coleford Branches 20 Stroud The Park Nailsworth Library Park 66 Treetops Painswick Treetops 90 Parliament Parliament 20 Wotton Five Ways Total 4 Sites 8 sites 260 places
Cotswold network Locality Children and Children Centres Nursery provision Family Centre within centre and Hubs childcare places Cotswolds Cirencester Stow Cirencester 26 Tetbury Library Fairford Library Nortleach Total 1 site 4 sites 26 places
21
Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank Reshaping Services for Families with Young Children
Consultation Report
May 2016
1
Page 67 Engagement
Date Engagement Project Officer Contents
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………….. Page 3 Background…………………………………………………………………….... Page 6 Introduction………………………………………………………………………. Page 6 Scrutiny……………………………………………………………………………Page 6 Proposals for Consultation……………………………………………………...Page 7 Methodology for Consultation…………………………………………………..Page 11 Methodology who attended – Public Drop In’s………………………………..Page 12 Methodology who attended – Parents Focus Groups………………………. Page 13 Responses……………………………………………………………………….. Page14 Targeted Family Support……………………………………………………….. Page 17 Children and Family Hubs………………………………………………………Page 19 Satellite Children’s Centres……………………………………………………..Page 20 Locality Feedback - Cheltenham……………………………………………………………………….Page 23 Cotswolds………………………………………………………………………....Page 25 Forest of Dean…………………………………………………………………....Page 27 Gloucester North……………………………………………………………….....Page 29 Gloucester South…………………………………………………………………Page 31 Stroud……………………………………………………………………………...Page 33 Tewkesbury……………………………………………………………………….Page 35 Parent and Community Support Service……………………………………...Page 39 Expansion and Childcare Facilities……………………………………………Page 40 Public Health Nursing…………………………………………………………...Page 42 Childcare and early Education Needs…………………………………………Page 42 Child’s Voice……………………………………………………………………...Page 45
Appendix 1 – Equality Data……………………………………………………..Page 48 Appendix 2 – Breakdown of Survey Results………………………………….Page 55
2
Page 68 Executive Summary
Introduction This consultation report is a summary of the activity and feedback on the proposals to reshape services for families with young children.
The 12 week consultation was undertaken from January – April 2016 following cabinet approval in December 2015. A series of pre- engagement sessions in September and October 2016 with parents, carers, professionals who work with families and other interested organisations informed the proposals for the revised service provision and the methodology for consultation.
Methodology A variety of opportunities were provided by Gloucestershire County Council to provide feedback on the proposals. All consultation questions were available through an on line survey and in a consultation booklet. Easy read versions of all documentation were made available through children’s centres and libraries. 18 public events took place with open invitations to anyone interested in gathering information or giving feedback and 21 parent focus groups took place. 33 children of preschool and school age living in rural and urban areas of the county were also interviewed.
I-Pads were made available at the face to face events and support was offered to assist families to respond to the survey in this way. This method proved a popular method of engagement. All responses and comments can be accessed at the following weblink www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/familyservices
Responses 656 questionnaire responses were received and 313 parents attended the focus groups, 327 people attended the public events.
Five organisations or individuals also submitted written responses and one petition with 566 signatures was submitted relating to proposed changes to services in an area of the Stroud locality.
Equality Data From the 656 responses we received the equality data indicated; 91% of responses were from females People aged 25 - 44 provided the majority of responses 85% of responses were from people who identified themselves as white/English. 5% of responses were from people who considered themselves disabled 65% were married or in a civil partnership. 48% were Christian with 40% recording no religion 21% were pregnant or had been pregnant in the last year. 78 % had been on maternity leave, paternity leave or adoption leave in the last year.
Further breakdown of these figures can be seen in Appendix 1.
3
Page 69 Targeted Family Support Service The consultation asked for feedback on whether a future targeted family support service should work with families where children were under five years of age or whether the age range should be extended to work with children up to the age of eleven.
87% of respondents supported the proposal for an integrated family support service for families and children aged 0-11 years and 80% supported a service for families with children aged 0-5 years. Advantages identified included better information sharing across agencies and opportunities for professionals to work in an integrated way providing continuity of care for vulnerable families. There were concerns about the dilution of early years’ provision, and the possibility of stigmatising families who used the service.
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities 77% of respondents thought that the proposed targeted family support service would have a positive impact on the early identification and support of children with special educational needs and disabilities. 12% of families who responded to the survey indicated their child had a special educational need or disability.
Children and Family Hubs The proposal is to reconfigure children’s centres and Families First teams to provide a locality based support service located in and around 16 Children and Family Centres in the areas of greatest deprivation. The greatest number of respondents from all localities believed the proposed locations of the children and family hubs would have no impact or a positive impact on their families, although there was more support for the locations of the Children and Family Centres in the responses from the urban areas of Cheltenham and Gloucester where 60% of respondents supported the proposal. 27 % of respondents to this question disagreed with the proposal
Children’s Centres The consultation asked for responses to the proposal to develop the other 30 children’s centre buildings as a network of universal services for families, including early education and childcare, and as bases for professionals who work with families. Agreement for the location of the centres ranged from 82% in Gloucester North locality to 45 % in the Stroud locality. 86% of respondents supported the use of buildings for early education and childcare, 77% for universal services for families and 86% as bases for professionals who work with families.
Localities A number of the consultation questions allowed for responses in relation to one of the seven locality areas namely: Cheltenham, Cotswolds, Forest of Dean, Gloucester North, Gloucester South, Stroud and Tewkesbury.
The questions related to the location of the Children and Family Centres, the additional 30 children’s centres within a particular locality, and the impact this would have on the person who was answering the questions.
The greatest number of responses to the proposals related to the Stroud locality (18%) and the fewest number for the Forest of Dean (9%) There was variation in the levels of support for the proposals across the localities with the greatest number of concerns reported for the Stroud and Cotswolds proposals. Advantages identified included the 4
Page 70 opportunity to enhance services delivered from the 30 children’s centre buildings to meet each locality’s community needs.
Parent and Community Support Service 64% of responses supported the proposal that a parent and community support service should be created to offer advice and support to schools and voluntary and community groups. Comments received to this question highlighted the importance of parent and community run provision within communities but also the need to provide professional support to ensure sustainability of provision.
Expansion and Childcare Facilities 71% agreed that existing children’s centre childcare facilities should be expanded to meet the government proposal to increase nursery entitlement to 30 hours for working parents of three and four year olds. Families highlighted the importance of being able to access affordable childcare to allow them to work or take up training opportunities .However many parents believed that government proposals to increase funded hours to 30 a week was too much for very young children
Public Health Nursing 91% strongly agreed or agreed that a high quality public health nursing service should continue to work closely with other services to support families. Comments were received from some respondents who indicated that this proposal would prevent service duplication and early identification of families who needed additional support. Although some comments implied that this was fully embedded, there were concerns expressed about the variation of provision across the county.
Childcare and Early Education Needs Families were also asked to provide feedback on their early education and childcare. 44% were happy with the quality of childcare they were able to access, however 42% of responses cited a lack of suitable childcare as a personal barrier to training or working.
Children’s Voice 33 pre-school and school aged children in rural and urban locations were involved in a number of activities to collect children’s views about their early years, health and life opportunities and experiences. The involvement of a young person’s ambassador allowed the children to talk to a young person and share their views
The children thought their mothers kept them healthy and safe, helped by fathers and doctors and highlighted the importance of effective partnership working between early years providers and schools enabling effective transitions for children. The interviews with children also identified potential gaps in access to dentists or opticians in urban areas as some children reported they had never been to the dentist or had their eye sight checked.
5
Page 71 Background
An Individual Cabinet Member decision in June 2015 agreed six principles as the basis for a consultation on future planning for services for families with young children aged 0-11 years and authorised the Commissioning Director, Children and Families, to undertake a formal consultation on the proposed principles. On advice from the Consultation Institute a decision was made by Gloucestershire County Council to run a series of pre-engagement sessions during September before a full consultation took place from January – March 2016 following Cabinet approval. A series of events during September 2015 were used to obtain feedback on these six principles, identify key participants for a future consultation on options for a revised service and the preferred methodologies for consultation. Barriers to participation were identified and solutions suggested. The full report, feedback and principles can be seen here; http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/extra/birth-11-pre-engagement Following the presentation of the pre-engagement report to cabinet a decision took place on 16th December 2015 that authorised the Commissioning Director for Children and Families to undertake a formal consultation on the proposed options for family support during January to March 2016.
Introduction
This report provides the full consultation findings from the public consultation entitled, Reshaping of Services for Families with Young Children, undertaken between 18th January and 11th April 2016. The formal consultation documents can be accessed here www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/familyservices . Gloucestershire County Council invited all parents, stakeholders and professionals to share their thoughts and experiences on the future proposals for the delivery of services for families with young children. The consultation documentation provided parents with information on the history, development and current challenges facing the long term sustainability of Children’s Centres in their current format. The consultation document set out proposals for a possible future operating model with some key questions for parents, stakeholders and professionals to respond to.
Scrutiny
On Thursday 10th March 2016 an overview of the Reshaping of services for families with young children was presented at Scrutiny. The full minutes, and a copy of the presentation are available by following this link. http://stafftext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=12063
The committee received a detailed presentation, from the Lead Commissioner Early Years, on this consultation outlining the engagement process, the proposals, and the headlines from feedback received so far. The Director of Children’s Services (DCS) informed the committee that within the context of reduced resources it was important that 6
Page 72 there was a clear and consistent link between universal and targeted services; that those children and families most in need were able to access support; and that services were structured such that these families could be identified.
The committee was informed that the Ambassadors for Vulnerable Children and Young People have been involved in the stakeholder events with regard to ensuring that the voice of the child was heard and listened to within this consultation. An Ambassador was in attendance to enable the committee to hear first hand how this was undertaken. Members felt that it was clear that a lot of thought had been given as to how to engage with these very young children.
In the main committee members agreed that this was a positive direction of travel in that it was trying to make the best use of scarce resources for the benefit of those families who most needed them. It was important to note that this was not the view of the whole committee. The committee agreed that this matter should be added to its work plan in order to follow up on progress in due course.
Proposals for Consultation
The proposals are outlined in the commissioning plan for services for children aged 0 to 11 years, which is a joint commissioning plan agreed with Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group (GCCG). The plan describes how services should work together to improve support for families, particularly those in most need, and proposes a different way of delivering family support services from children’s centre buildings.
Proposal 1 – Create 16 Children and Family Centres in the county’s most deprived areas. Reconfigure Children’s Centres and Families First Plus teams to provide a locality based family support response service located in and around 16 Children’s and Family Centres. The service to be based in the most deprived areas or where needed to support vulnerable families who live in rural communities in Gloucestershire. These 16 Children and Family Hubs will be supplemented by additional targeted outreach activities for families, delivered from a wide range of community buildings. Family support teams and health professionals will work closely together to ensure families with additional needs receive the help and support they need. There will be further development of joined up working with Early Years providers, schools and Midwifery services to improve the identification, support and appropriate referral of vulnerable children.
7
Page 73 The 16 proposed Children and Family Hubs would be based in existing Children’s Centres across the county.
8
Page 74 Proposal 2 – Develop the current network of 30 Children’s Centres for:
Early education and childcare for families. Universal services for families delivered by voluntary and community groups. Bases for professionals from across agencies who work with families.
9
Page 75 Proposal 3 – Create a new Parent and Community Support Service.
The service would offer advice and support to schools and voluntary and community groups who wish to run universal services within Children’s Centre buildings. This would include early education and childcare provision.
Proposal 4 – Expand existing Children’s Centre childcare facilities.
Expand the existing Children’s Centre childcare facilities to meet government proposals to increase the nursery education entitlement to 30 hours a week for 3 and 4 year olds of working parents. Where children’s centre buildings currently have a childcare provision opportunities, further expansion will be considered. Early education and childcare delivered from any children centre building would be funded solely from Nursery Education Funding. 10
Page 76 Proposal 5 – A high quality public health nursing service will continue to work closely with other services that support families.
A high quality public health nursing service based on the national Healthy Child Programme will work closely with midwifery services and family support teams. Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust would continue to deliver a Universal Health Visiting Programme for families with children pre-birth to five years of age. Health Visitors would also support the further development of the informal support networks and groups, families and communities provide for themselves.
Methodology for the Consultation Parents and professionals across Gloucestershire were invited to take part in a countywide consultation to seek their views on the reshaping of services for families with young children. Different opportunities were provided for both parents and professionals to engage in the consultation process:
On line ‘U Engage’ Survey with paper versions available from libraries and Children’s Centres. An easy read version of the consultation booklet and commissioning plan was also available which detailed how the proposals were developed.
18 public drop-in sessions across Gloucestershire.
21 parent focus groups, for parents that currently use children’s centre services and those that do not. Groups included parents from a range of different socio economic backgrounds that included: fathers, young parents, parents with learning disabilities, parents with mental health difficulties, parents experiencing domestic abuse, parents with English as a second language. Parents new to Gloucestershire/children’s centre/area, parents who live in rural areas, parents with children with SEN/Disabilities who use a centre, parents with children with SEN/Disabilities who don’t use centres, parents where child protection was an issue, unemployed parents and working parents, grandparents and informal carers.
The online survey was open from 18th January - 11th April 2016. Postcards and posters advertising the link to the survey were made available through children’s centres, GP surgeries, libraries and at the face to face events. I-pads were made available at the face to face events and support was offered to assist families to respond to the survey in this way. This method proved a popular method of engagement. Hard copies of the survey were made available, including an ‘easy read’ version, through children’s centres, libraries, at the drop in events and parent/carer focus groups. Copies of the consultation booklet were also made available on a web link. A proportion of the questions were based on service provision across the county but there was also an opportunity to leave responses on a particular locality. 13 of the questions were free text where respondees could record comments. 313 parents attended the 21 parent focus group sessions. 11
Page 77 33 children from 2 primary schools gave us feedback. These schools were situated in an urban area and a rural area across Gloucestershire. A total of 656 questionnaire responses were received. 219 were posted and 437 were completed on line. The complete survey and all responses can be accessed at this weblink. www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/familyservices In addition to the responses received through the survey 5 written responses from the following organisations and individuals were received. Type of Feedback Date Focus of Feedback Letter from Nailsworth Town 17/03/2016 Concerns regarding potential Council. Signed by Myles loss of services that run from Robinson Mayor of Nailsworth Arkell Centre Forest Green Town Council Nailsworth Letter from Cotswolds District 7/04/2016 Concerns about the proposals Council. Signed by Councillor for the Cotswold locality Sue Oakley and Diana Shelton Head of Leisure and Communities Responses from Hill Valley and 8/04/2016 Business plan for future Vale a children centre provider service provision in the Stroud for the Stroud locality locality Letter from Peter Lang 29/03/2016 Particular reference to Children’s Trust. Signed by proposals for Stroud locality, Trust Manager Diane information sharing and Mautterer stigmatising of families Petition received from 23/03/2016 Petition against the potential Nailsworth Town Council loss of the services provided 566 signatures by the current children’s centre provider at the Arkell Centre from April 2017 Letter from Hazel Miller Chair 08/04/2016 Concerns about the proposed of Nailsworth Health changes to the support for Partnership families with young children at the Arkell Centre in Nailsworth
Methodology - who attended the public drop in events? There were 327 attendees made up by professionals and parents living or working in the local area. Locality Numbers who attended the event Cheltenham 25th January 11-2pm Cheltenham Library 9 18th February 10-12pm Prestbury Library 9 18th February 2-4pm Community Resource Centre 10
12
Page 78 Forest of Dean 28th January 2-4pm Newent Library 16 22nd February 10-12pm Cinderford Library 19 22nd February 2-4pm Lydney Library 22 Stroud 1st February 10-12pm Stroud Subscription Rooms 9 16th February 10-12pm Dursley Vibe Youth Centre 3 16th February 2-4pm Nailsworth Town Council 30 Cotswolds 1st February 2-4pm Cirencester Library 12 16th March 10-12pm Moreton Town Council 9 16th March 2-4pm Bourton Library 5 Gloucester 26th January 3-6pm GL1 Leisure Centre 39 15th February 11-2pm Eastgate Mall 106 15th March 2-4pm Hucclecote Library 10 18th March 10-12pm GL3 Community Hub 4 Tewkesbury 28th January 10-12 Roses Theatre 10 17th March 10-12pm Bishops Cleeve Library 15 Total Attendees 327
Methodology - who attended the parents’ focus groups? 313 parents were also involved in 21 focus group consultation events. In many cases the facilitators were able to contact the parents through established groups and networks and also revisit the groups consulted as part of the pre-engagement consultation.
Type of events attended:
Area Number of parents/carers Type of event Cheltenham 45 Stay and Play & Baby Weigh In. Family Time Forest of Dean 18 Stay and Play and Baby Group Stroud 44 SEN Group, Family Support Group, Dad’s Group and Stay and Play Cotswolds 23 Stay and Play x 2 Glos North 80 Baby Group, Drop in event, 13
Page 79 Parents Group, Women’s Centre and Community Café Drop In Glos South 42 Stay and Play, Baby Group and Bumpz to Totz Tewkesbury 61 Toddler Group, SEN Group
Demographics of Responses
From the 656 online responses received the equality data reported; 91% of responses were from females People aged 25 - 44 provided the majority of responses 85% of responses were from people who identified themselves as white/English. 5% of responses were from people who considered themselves disabled 65% were married or in a civil partnership 48% were Christian with 40% recording no religion 21% were pregnant or had been pregnant in the last year. 78 % had been on maternity leave, paternity leave or adoption leave in the last year
Further breakdown of these figures can be seen as Appendix 1. (NB Results from the online survey have been rounded up to whole numbers. Actual % are indicated by the % answer column).
14
Page 80
What the data tells us for Q1, Q2 & Q2a. There were 655 responses and 22 comments received for question 1. The majority of responses, 38%, came from parents or carers of children under 11 years old who currently use a Gloucestershire County Council service provided through a children’s centre .14% of responses came from people who had never used a children’s centre. 22 responses were also provided from people who identified themselves as child-minders, community volunteers, pre-school staff, grandparents, retired workers, private day nursery owners, a lecturer and a school governor. There were 633 responses received for question 2. The greatest number of responses, 48%, came from families that access services through a children’s centre at least weekly. There were 630 responses for Q2a.The greatest number of responses to the online survey were from users of children’s centre services in the Stroud locality(18%) with the Forest of Dean having the fewest number of responses at 8%,
15
Page 81 Targeted Family Support Service
What the data tells us. 516 responses were received for Q3 with 80% of responses agreeing that the targeted family support service should be for families with children pre-birth to 5 years. 628 responses were received for question 3a.with 87% of responses agreeing that the targeted family support service should be for families with children pre-birth to 11 years.
16
Page 82 What the data tells us. There were 637 responses to Q4. 77% of respondents thought that the proposed targeted support service would have a positive impact on the early identification and support for children with special needs and disabilities.
There were also 420 comments made about the proposals to extend the age range of the service for children.
Themes identified from the comments on the Themes identified from the comments on advantages of a targeted family support the disadvantages of a targeted family service for families with children aged 0-11 support service for families with children years aged 0-11 years
Better Information sharing across agencies Stigmatising for families
Drives integrated working by professionals Dilutes early years element of provision
Supports continuity of care for families Loss of professionally run universal services as a way of early identification of families who need additional support
Fewer points of transition for families Stretches limited provision across a wider accessing services age range of children
17
Page 83 Quotes taken from the online survey ‘As a parent I would like to see services for my family based in one place, talking to each other to enable me to get the best support available for my whole family’.
‘A targeted service would be available for the children and families that need it the most’
‘By extending the age range to 11 it will help parents form better relationships with professionals as they will work with them for longer’
‘Cuts will take away universal services that support the early identification of vulnerable children and their families. More families will become vulnerable and need more support later on’
‘Extending the age range is a good idea as long as resources are then not stretched to meet the needs of all children. There still needs to be a particular focus on early years’
‘The support available would meet the needs of my whole family not just for my child that has SEN.’
‘Things would be spotted sooner’
‘This joined up approach to working with pre-birth to 11 would support vulnerable families when a child within a family is identified as having SEN or a disability’.
Children and Family Hubs
What the data tells us. Of the 641 responses received to this question 60% supported the proposal to create 16 Children and Family Centres in areas of greatest deprivation across Gloucestershire and 27% of respondents disagreed. 18
Page 84 A network of 30 Children’s Centres
19
Page 85 What the data tells us. From the 629 responses received there was greater consensus about the location of the other 30 children centres with agreement ranging from 82% in Gloucester North to 45 % in Stroud. 86% strongly agree or agree that the 30 Children’s Centres should be used for early education and childcare. 86% strongly agree or agree that the 30 Children’s Centres should be used for bases for professionals that work with families. 77% strongly agree or agree that the 30 Children’s Centres should be used for other universal services run by the local community.
There were 286 comments received for Q5, Q5a, and Q5b &Q5c.
Themes identified from the comments on the Themes identified from the comments on advantages of the locations and use of the the disadvantages of the locations and use children centre buildings of the children centre buildings
Co-location of professionals who work with Accessibility in rural areas families
Seamless service and fewer points of Inconsistency of services if run by transition for families volunteers
Local communities making decisions on Loss of early identification and intervention what services they need through universal services
Professional support to help voluntary Stigmatising for families if accessing a organisations targeted provision
20
Page 86 Quotes taken from the online survey
‘It is all very well families saying that they want to run services, but when it comes down to it quite often there is a failure to commit long term and so the services are run for a while and then fall by the wayside’.
‘Targeting areas of deprivation may appear economically sound in this era of cuts, but runs the risk of creating a stigmatising service far removed from the original Sure Start Children’s Centre ethos. A progressive universal model would be better, but not slimmed down to so few fully operating children’s centres’.
‘I support the idea as long as local communities have the support, funding and training, if needed, to offer these universal services’.
‘I think that the Children’s Centres should aim to help everyone and not just those most deprived’.
‘Reducing the number of centres can and will only end in more children being missed. The existing centres should remain with increased multi-disciplinary staffing’.
‘Having a local children’s centre helped me as a new mum in my town and we have created an invaluable support network for each other’.
‘Although I agree that the most deprived areas are likely to have the most need other families also have needs so even if the targeted support is based in the most deprived areas it must be available for everyone. All families sometimes struggle’.
‘I support the proposal that 30 children’s centres remain open and to be enjoyed by universal families as well as targeted groups’.
‘I would feel uncomfortable sharing my needs and problems with people not trained and that I don’t know or trust’.
21
Page 87 The greatest number of responses (18%) were received for the proposals for the Stroud locality , with the fewest number of responses 9% commenting on the proposals for the Forest of Dean. 14% of responses commented on the proposals for Cheltenham , 16% for the Cotswolds. 17% for Gloucester , 13% for Gloucester South and 12% for Tewkesbury.
Locality Feedback - Cheltenham
22
Page 88 23
Page 89 What the data tells us.
From the 105 responses received to Q7a1. 69% strongly agree or agree that the Children and Family Centres in Cheltenham should be at Hesters Way, Gardners Lane and Oakwood.
33% of respondents thought the proposal would have a positive impact however 43% thought the location of the children and family centre in Cheltenham would have no impact on them or their family.
61% agreed that Rowanfield, Up Hatherley, Charlton Kings and Leckhampton children’s centres should be used for early years and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families.
28% of respondents thought the proposal would have a positive impact however 51% thought the proposed services at Rowanfied, Up Hatherley, Charlton Kings and Leckhampton in Cheltenham would have no impact on them or their family.
24
Page 90 Cotswolds
25
Page 91 What the data tells us.
From the 121 responses received, 37% strongly agree or agree that the Children and Family Centre in the Cotswolds should be in Cirencester. However 45% strongly disagree or disagree with this proposal.
26
Page 92 30% of respondents indicated that this would have a positive impact on them or their family. However 46% reported that this would have a negative impact on them or their family.
60% either strongly agree or agree that in the Cotswolds locality Stow, Northleach, Fairford and Tetbury children’s centres should be used for early years and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families. 51% of respondents reported that this would have a positive impact on them or their family, with 28% reporting that the proposed services at Stow, Northleach, Fairford and Tetbury in the Cotswolds would have no impact on them or their family.
Forest of Dean
27
Page 93 Q7c3 To what extent do you agree with the proposals that in the Forest of Dean Locality Branches (Newent), Twigs, (Mitcheldean) and Leaves (Coleford) children’s centres will be used for early education and child care, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families?
28
Page 94 What the data tells us. From the 70 responses received, 60% strongly agree or agree that the Children and Family Centres in the Forest of Dean should be River (Lydney) and Hilltop (Cinderford). 38% of responses reported that this would have a positive impact on them or their family; however 51% thought the location of the Children and Family Centres in The Forest of Dean would have no impact on them or their family.
67% either strongly agree or agree that in the Forest of Dean locality Branches (Newent) Twigs (Mitcheldean) and Leaves (Coleford) children’s centres should be used for early years and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families. 36% of respondents thought the proposed services at Branches (Newent), Twigs (Mitcheldean) and Leaves (Coleford) would have a positive impact on them or their family, while 52% reported that this would have no impact on them or their family.
29
Page 95 Gloucester North
30
Page 96 What the data tells us. From the 129 responses received, 84% strongly agree or agree that the Children and Family Centres in Gloucester North should be Bartongate (Widden site), Finlay/Tredworth (Finlay site) and Kingsholm. 61% of respondents thought the location of the Children and Family Centres in Gloucester North would have a positive impact on them or their family, while 29% reported that this would have no impact on them or their family.
82% either strongly agreed or agreed that in Gloucester North, Elmbridge, Finlay (Tredworth site) and Bartongate (Hatherley site) children’s centres should be used for
31
Page 97 early years and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families. 57% of respondents thought that the proposed services at Elmbridge, Finlay(Tredworth site) and Bartongate (Hatherley site) would have a positive impact on them or their family, while 40% reported that this would have no impact on them or their family.
Gloucester South
32
Page 98 Q7e3 To what extent do you agree with the proposals that in Gloucester South, Quedgeley, The Compass (Coney Hill), The Link (Moat Site) and The Beacon children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families?
What the data tells us. From the 101 responses received, 74% strongly agree or agree that the Children and Family Centres in Gloucester South should be The Lighthouse (Linden), The Link 33
Page 99 (Robinswood) and The Oaks (Grange). 45% of responses thought the location of the Children and Family Centres in Gloucester South would have a positive impact on them or their family, while 42% reported that this would have no impact on them or their family.
77% either strongly agree or agree that in Gloucester South, Quedgeley, The Compass (Coney Hill) The Link (Moat site) and The Beacon children’s centres should be used for early years and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families.
49% of respondents thought the proposed services at Quedgeley, The Compass(Coney Hill), the Link (Moat site) and The Beacon would have a positive impact on them or their family, while 45% reported that this would have no impact on them or their family.
Stroud
34
Page 100 Q7e3 To what extent do you agree with the proposals that in Stroud, Fiveways, Parliament, Painswick, Nailsworth and Wotton children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families?
35
Page 101 What the data tells us. From the 136 responses received, 29% strongly agree or agree that the Children and Family Centres in Stroud should be The Park (Stonehouse) and Treetops. However 50% of responses strongly disagree or disagree with this proposal. Only 18% of responses thought the location of the Children and Family Centres in Stroud would have a positive impact on them or their family, while 32% reported that this would have no impact on them or their family. However 49% reported that this would have a negative impact on them or their family.
45% either strongly agree or agree that in Stroud Fiveways, Parliament, Painswick, Nailsworth and Wotton children’s centres should be used for early years and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families. 39% of respondents either strongly disagree or disagree with this proposal.
30% of respondents thought that the proposed services at Fiveways, Parliament, Painswick, Nailsworth and Wotton would have a positive impact on them or their family, while 31% reported that this would have no impact on them or their family. However 38% reported that this would have a negative impact on them or their family.
36
Page 102 Tewkesbury
37
Page 103 Q7e3 To what extent do you agree with the proposals that in Tewkesbury, Northway/Ashchurch, Noah’s Ark (Chance Street), Jigsaw (Innsworth and Churchdown), Bishops Cleeve and Winchcombe children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families?
What the data tells us. From the 93 responses received, 40% strongly agree or agree that the Children and Family Centres in Tewkesbury should be Noah’s Ark (York Road Priors Park) and Brockworth. However 42% of responses strongly disagreed or disagreed with this proposal.
23% of responses thought that the proposed location of the Children and Family Centres in Tewkesbury would have a positive impact on them or their family, while 37% reported that this would have no impact on them or their family. 40% reported that this would have a negative impact on them or their family. 38
Page 104 52% either strongly agree or agree that in Tewkesbury, Ashchurch, Northway, Noah’s Ark (Chance Street) Jigsaw (Innsworth and Churchdown), Bishops Cleeve and Winchcombe children’s centres should be used for early years and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals who work with families.
38% of respondents thought that the proposed services at Ashchurch and Northway, Noah’s Ark (Chance Street), Jigsaw (Innsworth and Churchdown), Bishops Cleeve and Winchcombe would have a positive impact on them or their family, while 38% reported that this would have no impact on them or their family.
Themes identified from the locality responses
272 comments were received about a specific locality.
Themes identified from the comments on Themes identified from the comments on the the advantages of the location of services disadvantages of the location of services within localities within localities Opportunity to enhance services delivered Access to services for families in rural areas from 30 children’s centre buildings to meet with particular reference to the Cotswolds community needs
Creates more volunteering opportunities Isolated communities who are unable to travel to services require services to come to them Increases early education and childcare Concerns on losing services from individual opportunities children’s centre buildings with particular reference to Rowanfield in Cheltenham and Parliament in Stroud Create a network of professionals that Concerns of losing services from a work with families co-located in one place community building especially the Arkell and supports information sharing to keep Centre in Nailsworth vulnerable children safe
Importance of volunteering and community Lack of universal services to pick up low led provision level issues
Importance of peer support networks
39
Page 105 Quotes taken from the online survey
‘Childcare availability is really important for working families. It is also important to be able to access other groups and activities as being a mum is hard especially if you are on your own or don’t know many people’. ‘I strongly believe that the support network these centres offer is invaluable to the communities in which we live! I also believe that without these centres a lot of families would be in a very different place to where they are now! The centres offer not only as much advice but also a network of people they can talk to whether that be other parents that use the centres or professional advice! I as a parent who has both used the centre and volunteered at the centre feel it has given me a safe haven for both me and my son and lots of other families to go and feel like we are doing a great job! I will be very disappointed if centres close, there are no other services like this available’. ‘I love my volunteering role and would do more hours if I could’. ‘There should be more help for families with special needs children, with all the cut backs there is hardly any left’. ‘I like the idea of a hub for support where a range of professionals are working under one roof. However I am concerned about there not being enough practitioners based out in the community as I have found that in isolated areas there is a lot of need for support and a first point of call’. ‘Please ensure vital community services such as breastfeeding groups retain space in the 30 centres free of charge’. ‘The children’s centres need to be doing things the community can’t i.e. parenting and child and family therapy. Bonding sessions with your baby, Dad’s stuff, activities that enhance the community and doesn’t compete with services run by local groups. A family service and children’s team need to be aware of all other groups and make their presence felt’. ‘To link to other voluntary groups and recommend each other to enable max support for families, especially isolated parents/families with special needs’. ‘If the proposals go through it would be very beneficial for children and their families’. ‘It would be good to have more services on site, providing we continue to share information with each other as this is vital to keeping every child safe’. ‘It would be very sad and detrimental to take this facility away. Families that are not classes as deprived or don’t have children with special needs also need support!’
40
Page 106 64% of respondents strongly agree or agree with the proposal that a parent and community support service should be created to offer advice and support to schools and voluntary and community groups.
Themes identified from the proposal to create a parent and community support service.
343 comments were received;
Themes identified from the comments on Themes identified from the comments on the the advantages of a parent and community disadvantages of a parent and community support service support service Build and sustain community capacity Training and support for high quality volunteers would be required
More universal services Lack of trust in the community for volunteers delivering services
Better networking opportunities for Division of communities volunteers and professionals
41
Page 107 Empowers parents and communities Recruitment and retention of volunteers
Quotes taken from the online survey
‘Parent led groups are good because they offer a service to the community. However I have seen a difference in the services offered as parent led and the services run by staff. If someone is struggling there are staff on hand to support and offer advice which keeps that person attending the group, in parent led groups the person is sometimes alienated or frowned upon which results in them not returning. They are then not accessing the support they need’. ‘I would agree it is a brilliant idea but there is still a lack of parental and community involvement. One because families are not confident to run their own services and two community groups are fractured in terms of struggling themselves with finances, resources, budget cuts as they are struggling to survive themselves. These families are already being supported by the Children’s Centres and they are still not taking over the groups’. ‘Any extra help and support can only be a bonus especially to new parents.’ ‘Sometimes volunteer led services experience disruption such as groups being cancelled. This is due to volunteers moving onto paid employment or other commitments taking priority’. ‘I would like more parent led services which are easily accessible’. ‘A parent and community support service helps empower people to build a stronger community and provide networks within communities’.
42
Page 108 71% agreed that existing children’s centre childcare facilities should be expanded to meet the government proposal to increase nursery entitlement to 30 hours for working parents of three and four year olds.
Themes identified from the proposal to expand childcare facilities in children’s centres
273 comments were received;
Themes identified from the comments on Themes identified from the comments on the the advantages of expanding early years disadvantages of expanding early years and and childcare places in children’s centres childcare places in children’s centres
More support to return to work for families A possible drop in places for funded 2 year Parents could come off benefits olds places
More high quality childcare Lack of flexible childcare places
Networking of childcare providers More transition points for children
Greater opportunities to enable parents to More bonding and attachment issues as obtain work or work extra hours parents will spend more time away from their children
43
Page 109 Quotes taken from the on line survey
‘This would directly and positively impact my child and my family. My child is coming up to 3 this year and I have found very little support and advice to be freely given about this process. I have discovered that it is difficult to find childcare places in good settings therefore expanding facilities for additional space and hours would be great’.
‘I really feel 30 hours is a lot for a child of this age and it would take a lot of movement for a Children’s Centre to offer that as they currently run. I hope they don’t end up running in the same way as a nursery. I feel current children’s centres offer a very unique service different to that offered by wrap around care in a day nursery. I also feel it would need to be looked at to decide whether provision is required in that area’.
‘This would be brilliant as a working mum it is so hard to ‘afford’ to work as it is, this would benefit the whole family and show the children that it is good to work’.
‘Little children need the opportunity to create a very strong attachment with their parents and carers and 30 hours per week away from the home environment sounds a lot’.
‘Some flexibility needs to remain to cater for working shift patterns’.
‘Getting parents back into work is not easy as childcare is so expensive. I would definitely consider going back to work if the entitlement was 30 hours’.
44
Page 110 91% strongly agreed or agreed that a high quality public health nursing service should continue to work closely with other services to support families.
Themes identified from the proposal that a high quality public health nursing service should continue to work closely with other services to support families
177 comments were made;
Themes identified from the comments Themes identified from the comments about about the advantages of integrated working the disadvantages of integrated working with with the public health nursing service the public health nursing service
Prevents service duplication and conflicting Inconsistent service delivery for families messages for families where teams are not co-located
Co-location of professionals who work with Where links are not embedded families slip the same families through the net
Links with family support services are High staff turnover does not support trusting already well embedded relationships with families
Early identification and effective Variation of provision in different parts of the intervention for vulnerable children and county families
Quotes taken from the online survey
‘This is key to integrated working but only if it is county wide and offers the same service to all urban and rural areas’. ‘My experience of health visiting in Gloucester so far has been extremely positive. Although having just got to know a very good health visitor, I am saddened to learn that the team is about to be reorganised and I will have a new health visitor before my third child arrives’. ‘Health Visitors will find it more difficult to support families if Children’s Centres close’. ‘A Health Visitor on site is something I would appreciate’. ‘Children’s Centre staff currently have good network support from other agencies including Health Visitor services with whom family service teams have regular contact regarding shared families’.
45
Page 111 ‘I agree that the health service have a huge part to play alongside other sectors of the professional workforce in supporting families. The importance of working closely with other services is key to promoting early intervention and safeguarding. I have experienced issues when supporting families with regard to working with health professionals in relation to communication, sharing information etc.’
Childcare and Early Education Needs Parents and carers were asked to provide feedback on the childcare they currently use. 80% of responses indicated at least one child under 5 in the family. 68% of responses indicated at least one child aged 6-11 years of age in the family. 12% of responses were from a parent who has a child with special educational needs or a disability. Parents/carers were also asked to tell us how much childcare they use for each child per week. The greatest majority of responses indicated a requirement of 1-15 hours of childcare was required per week for each child within the family.
Parents and carers who responded to the survey indicated the most popular forms of childcare were provided by friends and family 20%, pre- school and playgroups 17% and nurseries 16%. Responses were also received from families who used the following for their childcare needs: personal assistants, children’s centres, school kindergarten, parent and toddler groups, and full time crèche, disabled care for child at home, family time, still on maternity leave and breastfeeding support group. What the data tells us Parents responding to the survey indicated 47 of them access a funded place for a two year old of between 1-15 hours a week. 144 parents were taking up a funded nursery place for a 3 or 4 year old.
46
Page 112 44% of respondents indicated that they were happy with the quality of childcare and 22% of parents and carers reported that a lack of affordable childcare was a barrier to them with 42% of responses indicating that a lack of suitable childcare had been a barrier to working or training in the last year.
Child’s Voice - Evaluation One of the consultation proposals asks if services should be delivered pre-birth-11; therefore it was felt appropriate to talk to children at transition points within this timeframe – those aged 4/5 evaluating transition between early years and school and children aged 7/8 recently transferring from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2.
It was agreed to talk to children in two schools, one urban and 1 rural, located in contrasting socio economic environments, to establish whether there were any significant differences. The involvement of a young person Ambassador was sought to allow the children to talk to a young person to share their views.
It was agreed to select 2 groups of 4 children per age group in each school, which reflected the schools demographic, to participate. Parental/carer permission was sought for each child’s involvement in the consultation. Three sessions per group were diarised, which included the opportunity to recap on all of the questions. 47
Page 113 To link the Children’s Voice to the Adult Consultation, we looked at the main principles and created suitable questions for the children to consider. For the younger children, a series of photographs/pictures were prepared to act as visual prompts to support the discussion. We also equipped them with iPads to photograph their answers to some of the questions, whilst in school.
The older children created individual Thinking Trees, considering their thoughts and responses to the questions, writing their answers on the leaves, (Early Years experiences), blossom (school experiences) and fruit (Out of school experiences) for their trees.
All the children were given the opportunity to express their opinions via a third party, e.g. a puppet/teddy if they would rather distant themselves from what they were saying. Full details can be found of the processes used and feedback received can be found at www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/familyservices
Child’s Voice Evaluation – Key Themes Early Years
Age Urban Rural Group Reception Liked being visited by school staff at All accessed Early Years home. Enjoyed coming to school for visits prior to starting No home visits undertaken by the school Diverse range of Early Years experiences some had none Liked starting school with friends Limited recall of specifics, either who had been at their preschool, activities or people which shares the same site as the school
Less of a range of Early Years experiences
Year 3 Strong recollection of Children Centre Mix of recall about Early Years Early Years attendance, staff and experiences activities All were nervous about coming to Mentioned teaching staff coming to school and couldn’t remember their homes as a positive visiting it beforehand
Highlighted their sense of anxiety about starting school
48
Page 114 Health
Age Group Urban Rural Reception Could identify why families Children familiar with health practitioners visited doctors and most had Did not recognise dentist visual prompt accessed them 1 child said their family did not see any Majority had never been to a health professionals dentist Children did not recognise a photo of their No children had had their eyes local hospital tested
All children were unaware of what a health visitor was
Year 3 All children identified that they All children knew about doctors and thought their mothers kept dentists and said their them healthy and safe, helped parents/grandparents kept them well and by fathers and doctors safe
Some children identified a A quarter of the cohort said they visited the parental mistrust of GPs, which dentist had impacted on them not seeing doctors
The majority of children say they access dentists
Life Opportunities/Experiences
Age Urban Rural Group Reception Little knowledge of local Talked about feeling unsafe if there were community based activities, free no teachers around or otherwise Shared information about all the activities Majority wanted visitors in they do out of school – majority have school, e.g. fireman, policeman private swimming lessons and access and popular children’s other sports characters They talked about seeing the wildlife in Said they did not access any their local park and hearing the music non-school based after played in the bandstand school/weekend activities Majority were unfamiliar with housing One child talked about their types apart from detached and semi- parents’ separation and another detached houses that they did not have a
49
Page 115 bedroom More comfortable with saying what magic wand wishes they would like Children could identify a wide range of housing types
Struggled to think about magic wand wishes and 1 child said their mother and grandmother did not like magic so they did not have any Year 3 Some of the children said they Majority said their favourite thing out of accessed free school clubs school was swimming
Majority talked about going to a They discussed eloquently what scared local recreational ground and the them out of school occasional visit to Weston Some children said they go to Breakfast As with the younger children, and After School Club as their parents this cohort could identify a range work of diverse housing Able to talk about a range of activities and Favourite restaurants – fast food experiences and their interactions with their families
50
Page 116 Appendix 1 – Equality Data
Gender
Total 614 94% No response 42 6% Male 36 5% Female 559 85% 19 Prefer not to say 3%
Gender re-assignment Total 538 82% No response 188 18% Yes 498 76% No 18 3% 22 Prefer not to say 3%
51
Page 117 Age Total 620 95% No response 36 5% 16-24 36 5% 25-29 95 14% 30-34 131 20% 35-39 132 20% 40-44 77 12% 45-49 34 5% 50-54 40 6% 55-59 24 7% 60-64 13 2% 65+ 15 2% Prefer not to say 23 4%
52
Page 118 Ethnicity Total 623 95% Prefer not to say 16 2% White British 527 80% Welsh 13 2% Scottish 6 1% Irish 3 0% Any other white background 30 5% White and Black African 2 0% African 2 0% Caribbean 2 0% Any other mixed background 6 1% White and Asian 1 0% Pakistani 3 0% Indian 3 0% Arab 1 0% Any other Asian background 6 1% Any other ethnic group 2
53
Page 119 0% No response 33 5%
Do you have any kind of disability?
Total 609 93% No response 47 7% Yes 32 5% No 556 85% Prefer not to say 21 3%
Disability Type Total 45 7% No response 611 90% Mobility (Getting around) 13 2% Hearing 6 1% Eyesight 5 1% Using hands/fingers 3 0% Learning Difficulty 11 2% Mental Health 23 3% Other 5 1%
54
Page 120 Marriage and Civil partnership Total 608 93% No response 48 7% Yes 396 60% No 173 26% Prefer not to say 39 6%
Religion or Belief Total 610 93% No response 46 7% No religion 246 38% Buddhist 0 0% Christian 292 45% Hindu 0 0% Jewish 2 0% Muslim 11 2% 1 Sikh 0% 14 Any other religion 2% 44 Prefer not to say 7%
55
Page 121 Pregnancy and maternity Total 608 93% No response 48 7% Yes 129 20% No 457 70% Prefer not to say 22 3%
Maternity, paternity and adoption leave
Total 212 32% No response 444 68% Prefer not to say 48 7% Maternity leave 156 24% Paternity leave 6 1% Adoption leave 2 0%
56
Page 122 Appendix 2 – Breakdown of survey question responses
Question Responses Comments Q1. In what capacity are you responding to this survey? 655 22 Q2. How frequently do you access services through a 633 N/A Children’s Centre? Q2a. In which locality? 630 N/A Q3a. To what extent do you agree that the proposed 648 N/A family support service should be for families with children pre-birth – 5 years? Q3b. To what extent do you agree that the proposed 628 N/A family support service should be for families with children pre-birth to 11 years? Q4. What impact do you think the proposed targeted 637 N/A support service would have on the early identification and support for children with special educational needs and disabilities? Q4a. Explain answers to the questions 3-4. N/A 420 Q5. To what extent do you agree with the proposal to 641 N/A create 16 Children and Family Centre’s in areas of deprivation Q5a. To what extent do you agree that a network of 30 638 N/A Children’s centres should be used for early education and childcare, other universal services run by the community and as bases for professionals who work with children? Early education and Childcare? Q5b. Other universal services run by the local community? 616 N/A Q5c. Bases for professionals who work with families? 615 N/A Q6a. If you have any comments or suggestions about the N/A 286 proposed integrated family support service or services to be delivered from other children’s centres please tell us? Q7. Which area of Gloucestershire would you like to 638 N/A comment on? Q7a1. To what extent do you agree that the Children and 105 N/A Family Centres in Cheltenham should be Hesters Way, Gardners Lane and Oakwood? Q7a2. Would the location of the proposed Children and 103 N/A Family Centres in Cheltenham have any impact on
57
Page 123 you and your family? Q7a3. To what extent do you agree with the proposals that 105 N/A in the Cheltenham locality Rowanfield, Up Hatherley, Charlton Kings and Leckhampton children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals that work with families? Q7a4. Would the proposed services offered at Rowanfield, 103 N/A Up Hatherley, Charlton Kings and Leckhampton in Cheltenham have any impact on you and your family? Q7b1. To what extent do you agree that the Children and 121 N/A Family Centre in the Cotswolds should be Cirencester? Q7b2. Would the location of the proposed Children and 115 N/A Family Centre in the Cotswolds have any impact on you and your family? Q7b3. To what extent do you agree with the proposals that 119 N/A in the Cotswolds locality Stow, Northleach, Fairford and Tetbury children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals that work with families? Q7b4. Would the proposed services offered at Stow, 113 N/A Northleach, Fairford and Tetbury in the Cotswolds have any impact on you and your family? Q7c1. To what extent do you agree that the Children and 70 N/A Family Centres in the Forest of Dean should be River (Lydney) and Hilltop (Cinderford)? Q7c2. Would the location of the proposed Children and 66 N/A Family Centres in the Forest of Dean have any impact on you and your family? Q7c3. To what extent do you agree with the proposals that 70 N/A in the Forest of Dean locality Branches (Newent), Twigs (Mitcheldean) and Leaves (Coleford) children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals that work with families? Q7c4. Would the proposed services offered at Branches 70 N/A (Newent), Twigs (Mitcheldean) and Leaves (Coleford) in the Forest of Dean have any impact on you and your family? Q7d1. To what extent do you agree that the Children and 129 N/A Family Centres in Gloucester North should be Bartongate (Widden site), Finlay/Tredworth (Finlay 58
Page 124 site) and Kingsholm? Q7d2. Would the location of the proposed Children and 129 N/A Family Centres in Gloucester North have any impact on you and your family? Q7d3. To what extent do you agree with the proposals that 129 N/A in the Gloucester North locality Elmbridge, Finlay(Tredworth site) and Bartongate (Hatherley site) children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals that work with families? Q7d4. Would the proposed services offered at Elmbridge, 126 N/A Finlay (Tredworth site) and Bartongate (Hatherley site) in Gloucester North have any impact on you and your family? Q7e1. To what extent do you agree that the Children and 101 N/A Family Centres in Gloucester South should be The Lighthouse (Linden), The Link (Robinswood) and The Oaks (Grange)? Q7e2. Would the location of the proposed Children and 101 N/A Family Centres in Gloucester South have any impact on you and your family? Q7e3. To what extent do you agree with the proposals that 102 N/A in the Gloucester South locality Quedgeley, The Compass (Coney Hill), The Link (Moat site) and The Beacon children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals that work with families? Q7e4. Would the proposed services offered at Quedgeley, 94 N/A The Compass (Coney Hill), The Link (Moat site) and The Beacon in Gloucester South have any impact on you and your family? Q7f1. To what extent do you agree that the Children and 136 N/A Family Centres in Stroud should be The Park (Stonehouse) and Treetops (Dursley)? Q7f2. Would the location of the proposed Children and 138 N/A Family Centres in Stroud have any impact on you and your family? Q7f3. To what extent do you agree with the proposals that 140 N/A in the Stroud locality Fiveways, Parliament, Painswick, Nailsworth and Wotton children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals that work with families?
59
Page 125 Q7f4. Would the proposed services offered at Fiveways, 139 N/A Parliament, Painswick, Nailsworth and Wotton in Stroud have any impact on you and your family? Q7g1. To what extent do you agree that the Children and 93 N/A Family Centres in Tewkesbury should be Noah’s Ark (York Road Priors Park) and Brockworth? Q7g2. Would the location of the proposed Children and 87 N/A Family Centres in Tewkesbury have any impact on you and your family? Q7g3. To what extent do you agree with the proposals that 90 N/A in the Tewkesbury locality Ashchurch/Northway, Noah’s Ark (Chance Street), Jigsaw (Innsworth and Churchdown), Bishops Cleeve and Winchcombe children’s centres will be used for early education and childcare, other universal services run by the local community and as bases for professionals that work with families? Q7g4. Would the proposed services offered at 85 N/A Ashchurch/Northway, Noah’s Ark (Chance Street), Jigsaw (Innsworth and Churchdown), Bishops Cleeve and Winchcombe in Tewkesbury have any impact on you and your family? Q8. If you have any comments or suggestions about the N/A 272 proposed 16 Childen and Family Centres or the other children’s centres please tell us? Q9. To what extent do you agree that a new Parent and 617 N/A Community support service should be created to offer advice and support to schools and voluntary community groups? Q9a. Please explain your answer? N/A 343 Q10. To what extent do you agree that the existing 611 N/A Children’s Centres childcare facilities should be expanded to meet government’s proposals to increase nursery entitlement to 30 hours a week for 3 and 4 year olds of working parents? Q10a. Do you have any comments or suggestions about N/A 273 this option? Q11. To what extent do you agree that a high quality 611 N/A public health nursing service should continue to work closely with other services to support families? Childcare Questions Q11a Do you have any comments or suggestions about N/A 177 this option? Q12. How many children aged 5 and under do you have? N/A 527
60
Page 126 Q13. How many children aged 6-11 do you have? N/A 452 Q14. Do any of your children have special educational 514 N/A needs or a disability? Q15a. Please indicate how many of your children need 363 N/A childcare and how much you use for each child each week? Child 1 Q15b. Child 2 163 N/A Q15c. Child 3 43 N/A Q15d. Child 4 17 N/A Q15e. Child 5 5 N/A Q15f. Child 6 4 N/A Q16. What types of childcare do you use (tick all that 493 14 apply) Q17. Tick all statements that apply to the quality of your 404 N/A childcare? Q18a. In the past has a lack of suitable childcare been a 456 N/A barrier to working for you or your partner? (please tick all that apply) – You? Q18b. Your partner? 367 N/A Q19a. Do you currently access free nursery education for 2 317 N/A year olds or 3 and 4 year olds and for how many hours? Free 2 year funding? Q19b. 3&4 year old nursery funding? 363 N/A Q19c. Please add any further comments about your N/A 141 childcare use and needs? Equality Questions Q20. Gender – Are you? 614 N/A Q21. Is your gender identity the same as the gender you 538 N/A were assigned at birth? Q22. Age – What is your age? 620 N/A Q23a. Ethnicity – Please indicate your ethnic origin by 623 ticking the appropriate box? Q23b. Other ethnicity – please state? N/A 10 Q24a. Disability – Do you consider yourself to be disabled? 609 N/A Q24b. Please provide additional information by selecting 45 N/A the box(s) that apply? Q24c. Other – Please state? 5 N/A Q25. Marriage and Civil Partnership – Are you married or 608 N/A in a civil partnership?
61
Page 127 Q26a. Religion and/or belief – What is your religion/belief? 610 N/A Q26b. Other - Please state? 8 Q27. Are you currently pregnant or have been pregnant in 608 N/A the last year? Q28. Maternity, Paternity and adoption leave? – In the 212 N/A past year have you taken?
62
Page 128 Agenda Item 8
EXTENSION OF CONTRACTS FOR ACCOMMODATION BASED SUPPORT SERVICES
FOR VULNERABLE HOMELESS ADULTS
Cabinet Date 8 June 2016
Long Term Care Cllr Kathy Williams
Key Decision Yes
Background Supporting People Strategy Update Cabinet report 6 February 2013 Documents Settled, Secure and Safe Lives in Gloucestershire Policy. Cabinet report 20th April 2016.
Location/Contact http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.aspx?bcr=1 for inspection of Background Background documents are also available on request from: Documents Kathryn Rees, Lead Commissioner Supporting People
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 01452 426151
Main Consultees District Councils
Probation
Planned Dates Contracts start date – 1st July 2016
Divisional All Councillor Kathryn Rees. Lead Commissioner Supporting People Officer Tel: 01452 328485 Email: [email protected]
Purpose of Report To seek authorisation to exercise contractual options to extend the contracts for accommodation based housing related support services for vulnerable homeless adults.
That Cabinet authorises the Commissioning Director: Children and Recommendations Families, to:
Exercise the contractual option to extend each of the following contracts for accommodation-based support services for vulnerable homeless adults, for a final period of 1 year in each case, commencing on the 1st July 2016 :
(a) the contract with Elim with a maximum value of £119k; (b) the contract with Riverside with a maximum value of £284k;
Page 129 (c) the contract with Homegroup Ltd (Stonham) with a maximum value of £550k; and (d) the contract with Cheltenham YMCA with a maximum value of £125k
Reasons for The purpose of exercising the contractual rights to extend in each case as set recommendations out in the recommendations are to maintain service delivery and support in accordance with the aims of the Supporting People Strategy and the recently approved Settled, Secure and Safe Lives in Gloucestershire: 2016-19: Support for people in vulnerable circumstances.
It is important to extend each of the contracts to maintain support whilst we further review long term options. Other models of support have been developed through the Supporting People Strategy which complements these services, e.g. community based support; emergency assessment services for homeless adults with complex needs and chaotic lifestyles.
Resource The total value of the proposed one year extensions for accommodation-based Implications support for vulnerable homeless adults is £1.08M and will be met from within the existing budget.
This level of spend is within the current Supporting People Programme budget and in line with the Cabinet decisions made in the Supporting People Strategy Update Cabinet report – February 2013.
Page 130 Background
1. Following the approval in March 2011 of the Supporting People Strategy, detailed commissioning plans were developed by the Supporting People Partnership. Building on the extensive consultation and learning accumulated in the implementation of these plans, Cabinet agreed a Supporting People in Vulnerable Circumstances policy in April 2016, Settled, Secure and Safe Lives, which: addresses the small but significant number of adults who have poor life experiences creating vulnerabilities, which means they struggle to cope with daily living; sets out the Council’s approach to investing in effective, early and targeted help; that is focused on re-instating service user independence thus helping to avoid further crises and incidents of harm; and states how we will work with other agencies, offering intensive support to address severe and complex issues, moving through to community re-integration, skills development and meaningful employment; to get people back to independence.
2. A series of decisions have previously been made by Cabinet to transform services to better meet need, increase efficiency, and support existing service users positively through transition. The contracts for provision of accommodation based support for vulnerable homeless adults, awarded as part of this transformational agenda, are now coming to the end of their current terms, with a contractual option to extend for a further year.
Homelessness Pathway
3. Following Cabinet approval in February 2013 a series of single tender negotiations were initiated with providers of accommodation based support for vulnerable homeless adults. This was undertaken as the second stage of a recommissioning process following the establishment of the first stage emergency assessment services for homeless adults with complex needs and chaotic lifestyles. These models have been developed to form part of a wider partnership pathway including assertive outreach services, reconnection policy and community based support. This pathway has been developed in recognition that supportive networks increase opportunities for people to move away from homelessness as most individuals are more likely to re-establish themselves in stable accommodation in a familiar area where they have developed social ties.
4. Following the single tender negotiation process four providers were awarded contracts for a period of one year with contractual options to extend for 2 further periods of 1 year each. The combined total maximum annual value of these contracts to the Council is £1.08M.
5. This approach was to provide a transitional period to manage the change for current residents of accommodation based support carefully, facilitate the required change in pattern of delivery and inform the future commissioning of services.
Performance
6. The first stage of the transition was to ensure that needs are met in a consistent way across the provision. The development of a single service specification requires all providers to deliver responsive, flexible support to single homeless people with complex and high level needs. Since the commencement of the contracts on 1st July 2014 there has been good progress by providers to meet the new specification, including: Training and information sessions have been opened up to non residents
Page 131 Development of a wide range of activities for service users Increase in positive move on to independent living Introduction of START – the single assessment and referral procedure which has led to a more transparent and targeted allocation of accommodation based support Reduction in out of county referrals Improved partnership working
It is recommended that the contracts are extended for a final period of one year, starting on 1/7/2016 within current values, i.e. at a maximum total value of £1.08M.
Options
7. The following options have been considered: 1. Not to extend contracts with services ending at end of current term 2. Not to extend contracts and undertake a competitive tender process 3. To exercise the contractual option to extend current contracts
The most appropriate option for the Council is Option 3. The two alternative options have been considered and rejected because: Option 1 - Not to extend contracts to maintain provision would reduce support to vulnerable homeless adults with an adverse impact on other health, housing and social care services. It would also prevent us from achieving the specific aims as detailed in paragraph 3. Option 2 - Not to extend contracts and undertake a competitive tender process; would prevent us from undertaking further analysis of current provision necessary to inform future levels and benchmarks of provision. There is insufficient time to conduct a compliant tender process for new contracts to start on the 1st July 2016. It would also prevent us from providing transitional arrangements for existing service users as provision is remodelled in accordance with verified need. Running a competitive tender process now would incur significant cost and produce no discernable benefit over and above the terms secured by using the extension.
Officer Advice
8. The recommended option will enable us to maintain provision and continue development work on the remodelling of services in the wider context of the homeless pathway. Further work is required to understand the levels of accommodation based support services required and how best to meet the needs of our most vulnerable and unstable homeless adults.
Risk Assessment
9. The main risk is the potential rise in homelessness and lack of adequate provision of support through the entire homeless pathway for vulnerable homeless adults – continued performance monitoring of these contracts and the sharing of intelligence with partners and providers of the efficiency of the wider homeless provision will seek to ensure that vulnerable homeless adults in need of housing related support will be provided with an appropriate service. Equalities considerations
Page 132 10.The Due Regard Statement completed to inform the decision to tender and award the original contracts, has been reviewed when considering the recommendations of this report. The maintaining of support to vulnerable service users as development work on the remodelling of services continues means that the position regarding these assessments remains valid for the proposed new contractual arrangements, i.e. the proposed arrangements have been assessed as having a positive affect on supporting people who are in need of housing related support in Gloucestershire. This is because the service models offer more flexible support tailored to meet the individual needs of people.
11.Cabinet Members should read and consider the Due Regard Statement in order to satisfy themselves as decision makers that due regard has been given.
Consultation feedback
12.Partners support the recommendations, and will continue to be informed of performance and progress in delivering the objectives.
Performance Management/Follow-up
13. Current contract management arrangements will remain in place under the extended contractual arrangements. The extension period will enable us to continue to work with partners, most notably the District Councils to: further develop the accommodation pathway for single homeless people across Gloucestershire, continue to gather data to understand the longer term outcomes for homeless people and how sustainable their move to independence living is following their stay in accommodation based support; understand appropriate levels of future investment; analyse cases of repeat homelessness ; and continue to work with partners to reduce rough sleeping
Page 133 Report Title Extension of contracts for accommodation based support services for vulnerable homeless adults
Statutory Authority
Relevant County Council Supporting People Strategy 2011-15. policy Settled, Secure and Safe Lives in Gloucestershire Policy. 2016-19. Support for People in Vulnerable Circumstances
Resource Implications The total value of the proposed one year extensions for accommodation-based support for vulnerable homeless adults is £1.08M and will be met from within the existing budget.
This level of spend is within the current Supporting People Programme budget and in line with the Cabinet decisions made in the Supporting People Strategy Update Cabinet report – February 2013.
Sustainability checklist:
Partnerships These proposals have been subject to consultation with strategic partners. Partners will continue to be involved in the monitoring of such arrangements and future commissioning intentions. Decision Making and Stakeholders have been consulted on the proposed contract Involvement arrangements
Economy and Employment No significant impact
Caring for people The proposals will maintain service delivery and continuity as services continue to be remodelled in line with the Supporting People Strategy and Settled, Secure and Safe Lives in Gloucestershire Policy. Service users will be positively supported as services are remodelled, to better meet need and enable the Council to test how these arrangements can complement broader commissioning plans to enhance community participation and reduce the need for formal social care and health interventions.
Social Value The Providers extend their services into the community and contribute to the wellbeing of the area by extending training, drop in facilities and work in partnership with local agencies to support to the wider neighbourhood and vulnerable people living in the area.
Page 134 Built Environment No impact
Natural Environment’ No impact including Ecology (Biodiversity)
Education and Information The services are required to support people to achieve positive economic outcomes, including providing information and support access education and/or training if appropriate. Tackling Climate Change Carbon Emissions Implications? Positive - Potential through the improvement of the condition of peoples’ homes Vulnerable to climate change? No Due Regard Statement Has a Due Regard Statement been completed? Yes Yes - considerations included in main body of report
A copy of the full Due Regard Statement can be accessed on GLOSTEXT via http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.aspx?bcr=1
Alternatively a hard copy is available for inspection from Jo Moore, Democratic Services Unit, e-mail: [email protected].
None Human rights Implications Strategic partners have been consulted on these proposals. Consultation Arrangements
Page 135 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
EXTENSION OF THE PARKING MANAGEMENT SERVICES
ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT
Cabinet Date 8 June 2016
Highways & Flood Cllr Vernon Smith
Key Decision Yes
Background Cabinet Report – Parking Enforcement Review 4th July 2012 Documents http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/documents/s13409/Agenda%20item%2 06%20Parking%20Enforcement%20Review%202012.pdf
Main Consultees Existing service provider – APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd.
Planned Dates Summer 2016 – negotiation with APCOA Autumn 2016 –award extension March 2017 – end of Framework Contract March 2020 – extended contract ends. Divisional Countywide service – all councillors affected Councillor Liz Kirkham, Network Manager Officer 01452 583585 [email protected]
Purpose of Report To seek Cabinet approval to exercise the contractual right to extend the current Parking Management Services Enforcement contract with APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd for a further 2 years commencing on the 1st April 2018 with an estimated gross value of £2.4m
Recommendations That Cabinet authorises the Commissioning Director: Communities and Infrastructure: 1) 1) To exercise the contractual right to extend the current Parking Management Services Enforcement contract with APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd (APCOA) for a further 2 years commencing on the 1st April 2018; and
2) In consultation with the Head of Legal Services to negotiate and agree the terms of the extension with APCOA and subsequently enter into an agreement on those terms for the extension period 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2020.
Page 137 The decision will enable the Council to ensure that it has a continuous Reasons for arrangement in place for the management of the on-street parking service, recommendations whilst providing best value to the Council.
Resource The Contract extension will be carried out using existing in-house resources; Implications the Contract is funded from the income received from parking charges and permits. The value of the extension is estimated at a maximum of £2.4m. Surplus generated from parking charges is ring fenced and can only be reinvested into parking services or highway maintenance.
Page 138 MAIN REPORT CONTENTS
Background 1.1. The Parking Management Services (Enforcement) contract (the Contract) provides for the enforcement of relevant parking restrictions, administration of the appeals process and cash collections in Gloucestershire. The Contract was let following an OJEU procurement in accordance with a Cabinet decision in January 2012 and began operation on 1st April 2013. The Contract has an initial term of five years expiring 31st March 2018, with an option to extend for a further 2 years.
1.2. The right to extend the Contract is exercisable solely by the Council; however the terms of any such extension have to be agreed with APCOA.
1.3. On-street parking management is an important component of the Council’s network management activities contributing significantly to road safety and maintaining efficient traffic flows. The Contract is an important part of the overall service and to date has achieved the outcomes originally envisaged for it, including increased parking compliance by drivers, effective enforcement of parking restrictions, improved cost efficiencies in administrative process and more efficient deployment of on-street enforcement resources. On an on-going basis the Council continues to monitor decisions made by the National Parking Adjudicator to make sure its policies and operational procedures, including those relating to the contract, continue to be compliant with national legislation and guidance.
Options 2.1. Three options have been considered, the following is a brief description and summary of the pros and cons of each of them.
2.2. Option 1 – End the contract Allow the existing Contract to terminate at the end of March 2018: This would require us to bring the service back in house in order to continue to fulfil our statutory duties and undertakings in Civil Enforcement of Parking; There would be increased costs in directly employing the staff required to carry out the service. This option moves away from the strategic direction the Council is taking in becoming a commissioning council.
2.3. Option 2 – Extend the existing contract The existing Contract has an option to extend for a further 2 years. Existing Contract works well and has fulfilled its expectation of delivering savings and efficiencies. Minimises disruption to the service Potential to negotiate improved service/rates – although not to significantly vary the Contract or the Council may be subject to challenge.
Page 139 APCOA have indicated that they are interested in an extension to the Contract. The cost of the negotiation and award of the extension is estimated at £5k- 10k An early decision to extend would improve the Council’s negotiating position regarding the terms of the extension.
2.4. Option 3 – Re-procure the service A new contract could be procured through an OJEU compliant route. The cost of a full procurement is estimated at £35k-45k and could reasonably take 18 months to deliver using existing resources. Unlikely to deliver significant cost improvements when compared to the extension of the existing Contract.
2.5. Conclusion Option 2 is the best option for the Council at this time. There are commercial benefits in exercising the extension at this relatively early stage in that this ensures continuity and should allow the Council to negotiate more favourable terms.
Risk Assessment
4 The risk register for the project has been regularly updated in line with the Council’s Risk Management process, in order to investigate, manage and mitigate key risks.
5 The following are the key risks still currently live for the project: - Change in service provider may reduce overall performance Insufficient internal resource to carry out a negotiation or re-procurement
6 These risks are mainly in the areas of Service Continuity, Legislative & Regulatory, Reputational and Health and Safety. The risks are well understood, and acceptance of this report, and the recommendations within it, are the next critical stage in managing the risk profile for the project. Risk will continue to be regularly reviewed as part of the project management process, and any significant changes will be reported to Lead Cabinet Member.
Officer Advice
4.1. The recommended option is :
Option 2: - to extend the current Parking Management Services Enforcement Contract with APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd. for a further 2 years commencing on the 1st April 2018 with an estimated gross value of £2.4m.
Page 140 Equalities considerations
5.1. A Due Regard Statement has been completed for this project ensuring that those involved in the procurement and implementation of the service are aware of the needs of those groups with protected characteristics, and how they may be particularly affected by this service.
Cabinet Members should read and consider the Due Regard Statement in order to satisfy themselves as decision makers that due regard has been given.
Consultation feedback 6.1. Preliminary engagement has taken place with APCOA and they have confirmed that they are happy to extend the contract and enter into the negotiation process.
Performance Management/Follow-up 7.1. Management of the Contract will continue in accordance with its terms and the Council’s Contract Management Framework.
Page 141 Extension of the Parking Management Services – Enforcement Report Title Contract
Statutory Authority Traffic Management Act 2004
Relevant County Council Local Transport Plan 3 policy
The Contract extension will be carried out using existing in- Resource Implications house resources; the Contract is funded from the income received from parking charges and permits. The value of the extension is estimated at a maximum of £2.4m. Surplus generated from parking charges is ring fenced and can only be reinvested into parking services or highway maintenance.
Sustainability checklist:
Partnerships
Decision Making and Involvement
Economy and Employment
Caring for people
Social Value
Built Environment
Natural Environment’ including Ecology (Biodiversity)
Education and Information
Tackling Climate Change Carbon Emissions Implications? No Vulnerable to climate change? No
Due Regard Statement Has a Due Regard Statement been completed? Yes Yes - considerations included in Appendix A to this report
Page 142 A copy of the full Due Regard Statement can be accessed on GLOSTEXT via
Alternatively a hard copy is available for inspection from Jo Moore, Democratic Services Unit, e-mail: [email protected].
This service area is unlikely to have Human Rights Implications Human rights Implications
Consultation There are no formal consultation requirements for this service. Arrangements
Page 143 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10
BUILDING BETTER LIVES REVIEW OF SHORT BREAKS
CONSULTATION ON ALL AGE, ALL DISABILITY SHORT BREAKS PROVISION
Cabinet Date 8 June 2016
Long-Term Care Cllr Kathy Williams
Key Decision No
Background Documents Building Better Lives policy Easy Read Building Better Lives policy Consultation report: Building Better Lives, a summary of findings Short Breaks Review Due Regard Statement
Location/Contact The online consultation portal for Building Better Lives can be found here: for inspection of Background http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/buildingbetterlives Documents
Main Consultees The consultation proposals in this report are informed by consultation feedback on the Building Better Lives policy, and further feedback and discussions with service users, parent carers, other stakeholders and providers. The proposed consultation will include:
People with learning disabilities
People with mental health needs
People with physical and sensory disabilities
Family members and Carers
Gloucestershire County Council Social Care –Adults & 0-25
Providers of short breaks
Planned Dates June 2016: Cabinet approve the proposal to consult on future development of an all age all disability approach to the provision of short breaks
1 July -1 October 2016: consultation
December 2016Cabinet to consider recommendations following consultation
January 2017 - implementation changes commence
1
Page 145 Divisional All Councillor
Officer Chris Haynes, Lead Commissioner for Learning disabilities 01452 328490 [email protected]
Purpose of Report - For Cabinet to approve the Building Better Lives short break proposals on which to consult
- For Cabinet to be satisfied that the consultation will be sufficiently detailed, diverse and wide-ranging to inform decisions
- For Cabinet to have access to the information required to take a decision
Recommendations That Cabinet authorises a 3 month consultation on the proposals for short breaks, as detailed in paragraph 5, to run from 1 July to 1 October 2016
Reasons for Short breaks have repeatedly been highly successful in the children’s recommendations area at improving outcomes and are recognised nationally as best practice. This paper seeks to extend the use of short breaks in the adult area for people with learning disabilities. The Building Better Lives policy is the blueprint for an all age, all disability model of support, and short breaks are an essential element of that support. Short breaks are a vital support for disabled people of all ages and their carers and future plans should therefore be coproduced, informed by wide consultation.
The overall spend on short break services by the County Council is Resource Implications approximately £4.2m across children’s and adult services. The cost of Adult provision within this total is currently £1.6m.
An annual contribution of £34,326 pa (£4,360 joint funding and £29,966 CHC funding) towards the costs of short breaks for disabled adults is provided by Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group.
The costs of implementation will be met within existing resources.
2
Page 146 MAIN REPORT CONTENTS
1. Introduction
This report concerns the council resourced short breaks for adults with a learning disability and presents proposals on which to consult. These proposals are based on evidence of use of short breaks, demand, trends, needs and opportunities and includes feedback from disabled people, their families and carers.
2. Background
Cabinet approved the Building Better Lives policy and implementation plan in 2014. The implementation plan includes a Reshaping workstream, and within this a review of short breaks.
Local authorities have a statutory duty to assess the needs of adults with a learning disability and as part of the provision which may be necessary short breaks maybe considered. Such short breaks may provide improved outcomes for service users.
Short breaks, which used to be referred to as ‘respite’ for carers, have in the past been delivered solely through a limited range of specialist services – residential units, shared lives , and day centres. In the children’s area short breaks have become opportunities for disabled children to spend time away from their parents, families and/or carers, doing a range of activities. Everyone has short breaks; for most these are natural breaks that they get by participating in sports and leisure activities, staying with friends, going for a walk – the ways in which people have short breaks are as varied as their interests, preferences and way of life. But for disabled people these opportunities are often closed to them, and because of this local authorities commission short breaks for disabled people.
This consultation intends to seek new ways of delivering short breaks in a more varied and interesting way and to build on the knowledge gained in the children’s area to re-design the network of resources available for adults with a learning disability.
Commissioning (whilst ensuring the availability of specialist services for those who cannot access short breaks any other way) must develop to include a major focus on inclusive activity breaks as close to the person’s home as possible. The key to success will be in bringing together knowledgeable enthusiasts of sport, arts and leisure activities with experts in inclusion, and using small amounts of capital and revenue to facilitate the participation of disabled people in using these activities. In the area of adult services the focus must continue to shift to day opportunities which allow service users to choose from a wider range of activities and give them personal control over how they spend their day. A number of Drop In centres have been opened which allow groups to meet up and venture out into inclusive community activities. This consultation seeks to open up new opportunities and to solicit fresh ideas from the wider community.
3
Page 147 3. Short Breaks provision in Gloucestershire
The majority of people now access short breaks through arts, sports and leisure activities, with or without the support of a Personal Assistant. The range of short breaks in Gloucestershire has extended over the last few years to include: Arts and leisure activities (e.g. music, drama, horticulture, cooking, camping) Sports and physical activities (e.g. football, sailing, swimming, wheelchair basketball, boccia, cycling, archery, horse riding) Resourcing of Personal Assistants to facilitate participation in activities The Of Course We Can Programme of challenging and adventurous activities Family based short breaks (Shared Lives) Day Opportunities and Drop In centres for adults
At the other end of the spectrum, residential short breaks in residential units for adults are provided for very small numbers of people whose complex needs prevent them from accessing community-based short breaks. These have operated alongside more traditional short breaks (sometimes known as respite):
Three residential respite centres for adults with very complex needs Spot purchased residential short breaks Nursing staffed short breaks, residential, day and outreach provided by Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust (GCS) and voluntary & community sector organisations (VCS) Short breaks for carers provided by two VCS providers via a contract with Carers Gloucestershire
There have been significant changes in the use of different types of short breaks over the past 5 years. The need for residential services has reduced significantly as the availability of day opportunities and activity focused breaks has expanded for those with complex needs. The use of these types of short breaks has increased as they are able to support the achievement of a wide range of outcomes for people beyond the basic need for a break. At the current time 105 (7.60%) of the 1380 adultsknown to social care use residential care provided by residential respite units. This has reduced from 148 (10.72%)in 2011/12.
This changing pattern of usage is having an impact on costs and value for money as explored in section 7. Although the shift in the pattern of need and demand described above began some time ago for children and young people, this is now gaining momentum for adults.
All of the above changes in patterns of need and provision mean that we have more residential overnight short break provision than is required, or will be required in the future, alongside a greater need and demand for other types of short breaks.
In keeping with the Building Better Lives principles, we need to ensure that we continue to support the availability of a wide range of short break options by supporting inclusion and by developing new provision. There are a number of contracts that the council currently has with the Voluntary and Community sector which support such inclusion and access, including market development for arts, leisure and sports providers, Inclusion Needs You training, and weekend activity that supports and promotes enablement. These contracts will need to be re- commissioned from October 2016 or April 2017
4
Page 148 4. Key messages from Building Better Lives (BBL)
In 2014, after extensive consultation and co-production with a wide range of disabled people, carers and other stakeholders, Cabinet agreed the Building Better Lives Policy and Implementation Plan. These documents are available at: http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/buildingbetterlives
The seven core principles of the Policy (see Annexe 1) have relevance for all aspects of the lives of disabled people including short breaks. The principles that have most relevance to short breaks are Early Help, Inclusion, Contribution, Shared Responsibility and Personalisation through Choice and Control.
As part of the BBL consultation, specific feedback was received concerning short breaks, and details can be found in Annexe 2. In summary, disabled people and their carers said that they wanted greater and easier access to activity-based breaks in their local communities for people of all ages, and for these to be as flexible as possible, with access to residential breaks for those who are unable to have a short break any other way. In addition, the report concluded that:
‘New thinking and new direction is required to establish a framework for services within sustainable resources and with the ability to value the capacities and strengths of people with a disability to assist in the solutions for change and transformation.’
5. Proposals for consultation
As explained above, the Building Better Lives policy was informed by extensive consultation and was co-produced with a wide range of stakeholders including disabled people and carers. Developing the availability of short breaks across the age range is an important part of implementing the policy and in ensuring that children and adults with disabilities are able to play a full role in their local communities. To achieve this, short breaks should:
be as widely available as possible to provide opportunities for disabled people of all ages and their families and carers to spend time apart provide opportunities for building friendships, gaining skills, learning to manage risk safely, increasing independence, working towards employment, taking responsibility and making choices and decisions be natural, community based universal short breaks whenever possible be available for people however complex their needs
We have already made significant progress in developing short breaks, especially for children. Short breaks mean value added experiences for adults where they pursue meaningful and interesting activities that they have chosen for themselves. To progress further we will need to:
Have an all age, all disability approach to short breaks Continue to work with organisations that provide activities – such as arts, drama, physical activities, music, sports, horticulture, activity of all sorts with animals – so 5
Page 149 that disabled people of all ages have choices for natural breaks in their own communities Develop our information and advice services) so that it is as easy as possible to find information on short breaks and the support available for disabled people of all ages to take part Support disabled people and carers who have practical and deliverable ideas for developing short break opportunities in their local communities.
The Building Better Lives policy framework allows us to make progress in many areas and there are some significant proposals that we now need to consult on as part of its implementation:
1. To expand the number of families who offer short breaks to adults and integrate the Family Link Service (children) with the reshaped disability Shared Lives Service (adults), making these breaks as flexible as possible and able to include those with complex and challenging needs as previously approved by cabinet.
2. To increase the availability of short breaks by developing accommodation for people with complex needs to have breaks staffed by their own personal assistants, and provide capital to support projects which will create additional short break opportunities for children and young people in the community (through a one-off capital fund)
3. To ensure the availability of residential short breaks for those who cannot access or have their needs met by any other kind of short break, by reshaping residential provision for adults. This reflects the fact that the increase in need and demand for a wider range of alternative types of short breaks has reduced the need for residential support. This is despite the high quality of the current residential provision.
To achieve this objective we are considering and want to consult on a proposal to consolidate the residential provision for Adults (currently offered from The Vicarage in Cheltenham to the other two sites at Cathedral View in Gloucester and Longhouse in Stroud). All current service users would have their assessed needs met at either of these sites.
Officers are of the view that this proposal would achieve both greater flexibility for service users and better value for money. Maintaining three residential respite homes would mean continuing to provide more residential provision than is needed . The purpose of the proposed consultation between July and October 2016 is to ensure the council has a full understanding of the implications of the above proposals.
Proposed consultees and methods of consultation
The proposed timeline for consultation is as follows: June 2016: Cabinet asked to approve the proposal to consult
1 July – 1 October 2016: consultation period
Oct-Nov 2016: consultation feedback considered by Building Better Lives Board and Cabinet 6
Page 150 December 2016: Cabinet to make decisions on recommendations following consultation. January 2017 implementation of Cabinet decisions commences
Proposed consultees Proposed method of consultation Users of short breaks services User led organisations, meetings, online surveys Users of specific services where Series of meetings with service users changes are proposed through the consultation period, plus written material and online opportunities Inclusion Gloucestershire Methods to be agreed with this organisation Carers Carers Gloucestershire Service providers Provider forums Partner organisations Meeting to be arranged with: Clinical Commissioning Group CCG, Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust GCS, 2gether NHS Foundation Trust 2GT, VCS Staff of short breaks services – Staff meetings Children & Adults Assessment and support planners Staff meetings – Children & Adults
6. Risk Assessment
The main risk associated with the proposals in this report is that the engagement process does not reach all the relevant stakeholders.
This will be mitigated by the council ensuring that all relevant stakeholders have opportunities to engage in the consultation process, using a range of methods. Consultation will also need to be conducted in accordance with the BBL Co-production Charter.
7. Financial implications
The overall spend on short break (disability) services by the County Council in 2015-16 was £4.2m across children’s and adult services. The cost of Adult provision within this total was £1.6m.
The changing pattern of usage is having an impact on costs and value for money. At the current time there are 3 residential respite homes, The occupancy rate across the homes is 60% As a consequence, the council is funding excess capacity in this part of the system. Residential short breaks are the most expensive short breaks by a considerable margin with a cost per bed night of £258 for 2015/16. The current under-occupancy in the homes results in the cost of the provision being above the cost of most of our externally commissioned residential placements and with the number of residential short breaks
7
Page 151 continuing to reduce the costs will continue to increase. Consequently, the use of resources invested in this provision must be challenged on a value for money basis.
As we re-shape services we must ensure the best possible outcomes for individuals with a disability and this means we must ensure that the service meets the test of being a personalised service which meets and is constructed according to the individual needs of each service user. Cabinet has previously approved and accepted the 7 principles of Building Better Lives and the primacy of values such as choice, independence and inclusion must be fully respected in this process.
8. Officer Advice
Short breaks are already making a positive difference for children, adults and their families. Building Better Lives is now taking us a step further - into an all age all disability framework for short breaks as described above. Officer advice is to consult on the proposals outlined in Section 5 of this report. The proposed consultation will enable the council to understand a wide range of perspectives and take forward proposals which aim to support the ambitions of Building Better Lives.
9. Equalities considerations
The fundamental intention of the Building Better Lives policy is to promote the three aims of the general equality duty, as the next stage of a continuing journey to recognise and support the right of disabled people to full citizenship. Short breaks are essential to support disabled children, young people and adults to live in the community as full citizens, and to enable family carers to continue to provide the care that enables disabled children and adults to be fully part of their families. Short breaks for children and young people have been transformed over the last 8 years, and now provide opportunities for disabled children, young people and increasingly adults, to gain confidence, resilience, friendships and skills that enable them to be more independent and able to access opportunities to contribute and gain employment.
The next step is to review short breaks in the context of implementing the core principles of Building Better Lives, sharing learning and best practice and developing the use of resources to provide as many short break opportunities as possible in a time of reducing budgets.
The proposed approach is to promote inclusion and market development, expand community based options, and ensure that provision of specialist residential services match and do not exceed demand, in order to make best use of available resources. A focus on promoting inclusion, widening the range of opportunities and promoting full citizenship through short breaks is intended to contribute to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and promoting good relations.
10. Performance Management/Follow-up
The consultation feedback will be considered by the Building Better Lives Board and Cabinet in December 2016 as part of the process of reaching subsequent decisions on implementation of the changes to follow.
8
Page 152 Building Better Lives review of short breaks – consultation on all Report Title age, all disability short breaks provision Local Authorities have a statutory duty assess people with a Statutory Authority learning disability and to provide short breaks for adults where this is deemed to be necessary as a result of their assessment and a statutory duty to meet the assessed eligible needs of disabled children and adults, which may include the need for short breaks. Relevant County Council Building Better Lives policy Resource Implications The overall spend on short break services by the County Council is approximately £4.2m across children’s and adult services. The cost of Adult provision within this total is currently £1.6m.An annual contribution of £34,326 pa (£4,360 joint funding and £29,966 CHC funding) towards the costs of short breaks for disabled adults is provided by Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group. The costs of implementation will be met within existing resources. Sustainability checklist:
Partnerships Short breaks are provided in partnership with NHS commissioning and delivery organisations and the VCS. Service users are involved through feedback to short break Decision Making and Involvement provision, and parent carers through feedback and the, Parent Voice and Parent Carer Forum. Economy and Employment Short breaks are commissioned better to support the aspirations of people with a disability as valued contributors to society. Short breaks support the Gloucestershire Carers strategy which Caring for people includes a section on the role of carers. Built Environment n/a
Natural Environment’ including n/a Ecology (Biodiversity)
Education and Information Short breaks play an important part in supporting the education of disabled children and young people Tackling Climate Change Carbon Emissions Implications? Neutral
Vulnerable to climate change? No Due Regard Statement Has a Due Regard Statement been completed? Yes – a copy has been submitted together with this report. Human rights Implications It is not envisaged that any of the proposals in this cabinet report would have any significant human rights implications. Consultation Arrangements The Building Better Lives policy was informed by extensive consultation and was co-produced with a wide range of stakeholders including disabled people and carers, and the results have been used to inform this report. This report seeks authorisation for further consultation to take place between August and November 2015. 9
Page 153 ANNEX 1 Building Better Lives: Seven Core Principles of the policy
1. Early Help: Children and young people with a disability and their families get off to a good start with access to information and support to be included in the community and developing skills right from the beginning.
2. Inclusion: All people with a disability, whatever their age, should be able to be fully included in all aspects of community living without exception. Such inclusion includes the ability and freedom to be part of the workforce.
3. Independence: People should be able to live in the community as freely as others, making best use of their skills, preferences and strengths to maintain their own lifestyle choices to the best of their ability. All adults, children and young people with a disability should exercise their own choices over as many matters as they can and then have control over how those choices are put into effect.
4. Contribution: Children, young people and adults with a disability have the right to make their individual contribution to society as others do. Whether it’s about learning, taking part in activities with others, paid work, volunteering or peer support each person has something unique to offer and any planning needs to facilitate how that contribution can be made.
5. Shared responsibility: Good practice means including informal as well as formal networks of support. It’s about linking people into their community capacity rather than circling them with services. To do this, a significant cultural shift is required.
6. Personalisation through choice and control: Individually commissioned services need to respond to the expected outcomes for each individual and ensure that planning is personalised in every aspect.
7. Coordination of a whole-life approach: Instead of being passed to another provider at a certain age to receive essentially the same service, an individual should be able to receive continuous care wherever possible to reduce unnecessary disruptions in people’s lives.
10
Page 154 ANNEX 2 Key messages from Building Better Lives consultation related to short breaks: We (disabled people) want: - More access to football, horse riding, swimming, cycling, music, drama.... - More opportunities for friendships - Opportunities to spend time with disabled and non-disabled people - Some people like excitement and challenge - Some people like quietness and calm - Opportunities to learn and to contribute and find a job - Wider access in shops and public places. - More use of symbols to increase access and inclusion - Leisure staff need proper training, they can be patronising. Not just them but everyone who works with the public and Social Workers. - Individual transport that is really accessible. - More sports clubs just for disabled people which would mean that people won’t laugh at us then. There are not many for disabled people.
We (carers of adults) feel: - The affect on the family of not getting enough support is bad – we are stuck at home - Without the right help, problems get more difficult to manage, this can make a carer depressed, sick, no friends, stuck at home - What breaks? Unless we pay Dad doesn’t get a break. - Carers need breaks away from families and the person they care for. - Want shorter day time breaks – not necessarily overnight (talking about respite) - Carer support and help is more important for short break and holiday outings - How do you find out what ‘carer’s breaks’ are or how do you qualify or pay? - [taking part in short breaks] has increased [my child’s] skills over time, where I have become accustomed to taking care of him, and not realised he has become capable of more.
Key messages from parent carers are: - there need to be more short break opportunities - there are some (rural) parts of the county with very few opportunities - families are looking for more availability for under 8s - short break opportunities need to be affordable for families with or without a Personal Budget - the existing short break opportunities, including weekend clubs, are highly valued by those who access them - inclusive activities should not stop at 18, it is important to have activity opportunities for 18-25 year olds
11
Page 155 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11
BUILDING BETTER OPPORTUNITIES (GLOUCESTERSHIRE GEM PROJECT)
Cabinet Date 8 June 2016
Long Term Care Cllr Kathy Williams
Key Decision Yes
Background Building Better Lives-An all age All Disability Service Policy. Documents ESIF (European Structural and Investment Fund) Strategy
LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) Strategic Economic Plan
Gloucestershire GEM (Going the Extra Mile) Project – Delivery Plan
Location/Contact http://www.gfirstlep.com/News/EU-Structural-and-Investment-Funds- for inspection of Strategy-/ Background http://www.gfirstlep.com/gfirst-LEP/Our-Priorities/Our-Vision/ Documents Vikki Walters – [email protected]
Main Consultees Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector organisations, key stakeholders including district councils, LEP, DWP, private sector organisations, education providers, GCC officers (Lead Commissioners and Directors, Finance, Risk) and members, beneficiaries (people from a cross section of eligible participation groups),
Planned Dates Project Delivery 1/10/16 – 31/12/19
Divisional All Councillor Chris Haynes, Lead Commissioner, Learning Disabilities Officer 01452 328490 [email protected]
Purpose of Report To authorise the Council to act as the lead organisation for the Gloucestershire GEM Project and to accept and administer European Social Fund (ESF) funding as the responsible body should the funding bid to the Big Lottery Fund be successful.
Recommendations That Cabinet;
1) Affirms the appointment of the Council to act as lead organisation for the Gloucestershire GEM Project (the Project);
Page 157 2) authorises the Commissioning Director: Children and Families should the funding bid to the Big Lottery Fund be successful:
(a) in consultation with the Head of Legal Services to enter into a funding agreement in respect of any and all ESF funding offered to the Council for the delivery of the Project;
(b) to accept and administer any and all ESF funding received as the responsible body in connection with the delivery of the Project in accordance with the funding agreement referred to in Recommendation 2(a) above;
(c) in consultation with the Head of Legal Services to negotiate, agree and enter into a Partnership Agreement with each of the delivery partners required to deliver the Project.
Reasons for recommendations The Council has agreed to act as the lead organisation for this collaborative bid. Lengthy discussions and consultations took place before agreeing to be lead organisation with full consideration given to the risk and benefits. We are the only preferred bidder through to Stage 2 of the project funding which means a strong likelihood of success. This funding will help people from across all vulnerable groups to move closer to and into work. There is a positive impact on the individual and an improvement in their wellbeing. The workforce will be strengthened by increased inclusion of individuals from vulnerable groups and communities strengthened
Total project funding of £3.2m. £1.6m from European Social Fund matched Resource Implications by Big Lottery. This will form a grant which will be drawn down by GGC against actual costs evidenced by delivery partners. Provision for any additional costs incurred by GCC has been made within the project budget. There is no requirement of revenue or capital funding from the Council.
Page 158 MAIN REPORT CONTENTS
Background The purpose of this project is to assist vulnerable individuals in Gloucestershire communities to develop life skills, confidence, self esteem and motivation to move closer to, and into, education, employment or training with a strong emphasis on employment. The outcome will be measured in terms of the increased numbers of vulnerable adults in paid employment across the county.
In May 2015 the Building Better Opportunities (BBO) fund was launched with Big Lottery (BL) matching funding from European Social Fund (ESF) to a value within Gloucestershire of £3.2m. The Council was asked to lead a consortium of Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations to submit a bid which would engage with 1100 individuals from across all vulnerable groups including people with disabilities, care leavers, carers, women, people aged over 50, people from Black and Minority Ethnic communities (B&ME), young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) and the homeless.
As lead organisation we provide the partner organisations with expertise across financial and governance functions as well as in the delivery of employment projects successful in helping people who are disengaged from the labour market. ESF funding requires tight management and compliance and our partners felt we were well placed to provide this and to secure the funding for Gloucestershire ensuring the funding got to front line services and beneficiaries.
The project aims to help 1100 individuals to move closer to or into work. There are 56 delivery partners mainly from VCSE sector with another 20 stakeholders including employers from the private sector, District Councils, the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the Department for Work and pensions (DWP). These stakeholders will help to deliver the outcomes through their supply chains and networks whilst the delivery partners will be responsible for the day to day delivery to individuals.
The Council as lead organisation will maintain responsibility for the project delivery, governance and funding however the day to day management function will be fulfilled by Gloucestershire Gateway Trust. This ensures that we are helping to increase the capacity to delivery projects through the VCSE but underpinned by our infrastructure and expertise.
Following our successful bid at Stage 1 in August we have submitted to The Big Lottery a detailed Stage 2 delivery plan and draft Partnership Agreement to which all delivery partners will sign up to. This delivery plan has been developed through consultation with delivery partners, potential participants and stakeholders as well as Council teams including Finance, Legal and Risk Management to ensure that it minimises both financial and reputational risk to the Council . The outcome of our submission will be known in June.
As lead organisation the Council will be able to ensure that the project continues to deliver outcomes that are linked closely with Council objectives; to help provide assistance to those who are most vulnerable and to manage potential demand on future services. As a model it has helped us to engage further with VCSE organisations and also those from the private sector and will compliment employment services commissioned by or delivered by the Council. ESF governance requirements are strict and the funding is for new initiatives only and only payable against actual costs. All costs incurred by the Council for any additional work on this project will be recouped.
Page 159 The project aim is to create a legacy and encourage sustainable change through engaging those furthest from the labour market in work. Through this project the Council will work with employers and individuals to change attitudes and create sustainable futures for people living in some of the County’s most deprived areas. Whilst there is a keen focus on employment outcomes this is a social inclusion project using work, education and training as the vehicle to help people become connected within their communities.
This project will help to create employment opportunities across all sectors by working with employers, delivery partners and key stakeholders to broaden knowledge and understanding of the skills and talents of participant groups. Job creation will be realised by matching these skills and talents to business needs and developing opportunities through public, private and voluntary employers, social businesses and self employment.
Risk Assessment A full risk assessment has been undertaken and this is part of the Delivery Plan. Where a risk has been identified action has been taken to mitigate this risk.
All delivery partners will be required to hold essential policies including Equal Opportunities, Health and Safety, Safeguarding, Disclosure and Barring Service, Data Protection and Risk as part of the agreement which they sign with the Council . This Partnership Agreement has been developed with the Council’s Legal Services and has been signed of by Big Lottery Legal Team.
This has been signed off by the Senior Risk Management Advisor within Internal Audit, and risk analysis will be part of the ongoing monitoring process.
Alternative options considered To not accept the funding. This would mean that the project could not move forward.
Officer Advice Officer advice is to support the recommendations. The potential outcomes are significant both in the lives of individuals who will receive support in to the labour market and to the many communities in Gloucestershire who will be strengthened by a more inclusive and diverse workforce.
Equalities considerations A full equalities impact assessment has been conduct by the University of Gloucestershire and is part of the Delivery Plan. Equalities is an important aspect of this project and it is a requirement that this is monitored on an ongoing basis throughout the life of the project. This work will be undertaken by the University of Gloucestershire and there will be careful assessment to ensure that all groups are equally represented. This is a governance requirement from ESF/Big Lottery.
Equalities policies and procedures for all Delivery Partners will form part of the Partnership Agreement and they will be required to submit detailed information as part of their funding agreement.
In addition to this, a Due Regard Statement has been completed which will accompany this report and identifies a positive impact on all of the protected groups.
Page 160 Cabinet Members should read and consider the Due Regard Statement in order to satisfy themselves as decision makers that due regard has been given.
Consultation feedback The project requires that this project is co-designed and co-delivered by participants. Consultation has taken place though delivery partners and through a participants event the feedback from which has shaped the delivery model particularly around the need to ensure that people get 1:1 support finding work and support to sustain the job. There was also some level of assurance needed to help navigate the complex benefits system which has also been addressed.
Feedback from the delivery partner events has also informed the delivery model. The model has been well communicated and signed up to by delivery partners. It provides 56 organisations with the opportunity to develop their diagnostic skills in helping vulnerable people to progress. It also requires those organisations to lead by example to provide opportunities for people across the participant groups.
Internal consultations were lengthy and consideration given to the following; Financial risk Reputational risk Increasing VCSE capacity to deliver projects The alignment of the project to the Council business, objectives and priorities
Financial risk can be mitigated through robust systems and governance procedures. The Council can protect its reputation by being clear about the project timeline, objectives and the Council’s position within the partnership.
The Council can by providing leadership and security can help to develop the capacity of VCSE organisations and by allowing a VCSE organisation to manage the project this will be seen as a VCSE led project.
This project aligns fully to the Building Better Lives and Active Communities policies.
Performance Management/Follow-up The project is required by ESF and Big Lottery to have in place robust performance management procedures. The Council as the Lead Organisation will monitor performance on a monthly basis. The ESF/BL requirement is quarterly reconciliation however to mitigate any financial risk we will do this with Gloucestershire Gateway Trust on a monthly basis. This will identify any issues which may need remedy before the quarterly claim/audit.
The partnership agreement details how the delivery partners will be monitored and how under- performance will be managed. Governance is provided through Project Executive (which includes the Council ) and the Project Delivery Group (includes the Council) as well as Big Lottery audit requirements. The project will also be subject to internal audit governance as appropriate.
Quarterly reports will be provided to the Lead Commissioner and relevant Director(s).
Page 161 Report Title Building Better Opportunities (Gloucestershire GEM Project)
Statutory Authority
Relevant County Council Building Better Lives, Active Communities policy
Resource Implications Any additional resource incurred by the Council will be reimbursed through £3.2m funding allocation from Big Lottery
Sustainability checklist:
Partnerships This project will enhance the Council’s partnerships particularly within the VCSE and private sectors Decision Making and GCC will be the key decision maker for this project Involvement
Economy and Employment Significant potential impact for both the economy and employment as this project focuses on employment outcomes. Caring for people This project will help those who are disadvantaged, vulnerable or disengaged become part of their communities, increasing their confidence and general well being and helping to limit workless households within the County
Social Value Enhances social value through promoting work, training and education helping people become connected and improve their lives. It will also help employers to understand more about people from different backgrounds which will encourage them to employ more people from diverse backgrounds. Promotes the presumption of employability for young and disadvantaged people.
Built Environment
Natural Environment’ including Ecology (Biodiversity)
Education and Information The project will act as a conduit of information helping people to understand what resources are available to them. It will help to build an understanding of support and also the work environment and what is involved within specific employment sectors. The provision additional learning (adult education) will help to enable people to have the confidence to pursue career or
Page 162 education opportunities.
Tackling Climate Change Carbon Emissions Implications? Positive/ Neutral/ Negative Vulnerable to climate change? Yes/ No/ Maybe
Due Regard Statement Has a Due Regard Statement been completed? Yes/No Yes - considerations included in main body of report
A copy of the full Due Regard Statement can be accessed on GLOSTEXT via http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.aspx?bcr=1
Alternatively a hard copy is available for inspection from Jo Moore, Democratic Services Unit, e-mail: [email protected].
Social inclusion project – this project has the potential to Human rights Implications improve human rights Main consultees - Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Consultation Arrangements (VCSE) sector organisations, key stakeholders including district councils, LEP, DWP, private sector organisations, education providers, GCC officers (Lead Commissioners and Directors, Finance, Risk) and members, beneficiaries (people from a cross section of eligible participation groups),
Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12
REVENUE AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2015/16
Cabinet Date 8 June 2016
Deputy Leader and Cllr Ray Theodoulou Cabinet Member for Finance and Change Key Decision Yes
Other Documents
Main Consultees Corporate Management Team, Senior Officers, Cabinet Members.
Planned Dates Not applicable
Divisional Not applicable Councillor Jo Walker, Strategic Finance Director (01452) 328469 Officers [email protected] Paul Blacker, Head of Financial Management (01452) 328999 [email protected] John Kear, Financial Accounting Manager (01452) 328912 [email protected]
Purpose of Report To consider the Council's outturn expenditure for 2015/16, and consequential actions.
Key That the Cabinet: Recommendations 1) Notes the revenue and capital outturn positions and the following transfers to reserves: i. revenue contribution to capital of £0.807 million for Highways Minor Capital Works ii. transfer £0.223 million to a new LED renewables reserve iii. transfer £0.476 million of the Communities and Infrastructure underspend to a new Communities and Infrastructure reserve to fund the following commitments in 2016/17: Highways Local £0.168 million Street Lighting Phase 2 of LED mobilisation £0.137 million Libraries book and access improvement funding £0.150 million Road Safety Partnership £0.021 million iv. transfer the Children & Families underspend of £0.268 million to the Vulnerable Children Reserve v. transfer £0.3 million of technical and cross cutting underspend to a new Services to Families with Young Children Reserve
1
Page 165 vi. transfer £1.0 million of technical and cross cutting underspend to the new Communities & Infrastructure reserve to invest in Highways vii. increase the bad debts provision by £0.539 million to cover all debts over 18 months viii. transfer underspends on Traded Services of £0.067 million to a new Trading Services Reserve ix. transfer of £0.175 million to the Rates Retention Reserve x. other technical reserve movements for 2015/16 set out in annex 1.
2) Approves the balanced revenue budget position for 2015/16, on the basis that the above transfers to reserves are approved.
Resource As set out in the report. Implications
2
Page 166 Revenue Expenditure 2015/16
A. Outturn Position
The overall unadjusted revenue outturn position is an underspend of £3.855 million (or 0.92% of the total budget).
Due to the continuing financial pressures facing the authority it is recommended that the following transfer to reserves and provisions are also made in 2015/16:
Revenue contribution to capital of £0.807 million for Highways Minor Capital Works.
Transfer £0.223 million to a new LED renewables reserve to help smooth out the savings from the wider LED Street Lighting project.
Transfer £0.476 million of the Communities and Infrastructure underspend to a new Communities and Infrastructure reserve to fund the following commitments in 2016/17:
. Highways Local monies £0.168 million . Street Lighting budget for Phase 2 of LED mobilisation £0.137 million . Libraries book and access improvement funding £0.150 million . Road Safety Partnership £0.021 million
Transfer the Children & Families underspend of £0.268 million to the Vulnerable Children Reserve.
Transfer £0.3 million from the technical and cross cutting underspend to a new Services to Families with Young Children Reserve.
Transfer £1.0 million of the technical and cross cutting underspend to the Communities & Infrastructure Reserve for Highways purposes. This transfer and other Highway related adjustments equate to an investment of £1.98m in Highways,
Increase the bad debts provision by £0.539 million to cover all debts over 18 months
Transfer £0.067 million of Trading Services underspends to a new Trading Services Reserve to invest in services, thereby mitigating future risks around income generating potential.
Transfer of £0.175 million to the Rates Retention Reserve following declaration of a surplus for the Gloucestershire Rates Retention Pool.
3
Page 167 These recommendations move the outturn position to a balanced budget position for 2015/16.
Details of the outturn position, assuming the above recommendations are agreed, are provided in the following table.
2015/16 Initial Outturn Recommended Recommended Variance Variance Service Area Budget Position Outturn Transfers % £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 %
Adults 151,507 154,168 487 154,655 3,148 2.1%
Public Health 24,934 24,934 0 24,934 0 0.0%
Children & Families 101,102 100,822 280 101,102 0 0.0%
Communities & 88,356 86,843 1,513 88,356 0 0.0% Infrastructure
Business Support 27,663 27,050 31 27,081 -582 -2.1% Services
Support Services -27,663 -27,663 0 -27,663 0 0.0% Recharges
Total for Services 365,899 366,154 2,311 368,465 2,566 0.7%
Technical & Cross 54,535 50,425 1,544 51,969 -2,566 -4.7% Cutting
Total 420,434 416,579 3,855 420,434 0 0.0%
4
Page 168 Commentary and main reasons for the outturn positions are provided in the following sections.
Adults
The outturn position is a net overspend of £3.15 million, across all client groups and service areas (equivalent to 2.1% of budget).
The outturn position comprises an underlying net overspend of £8.84 million, as detailed below, across main service headings, offset by £5.69 million of one-off and grant funding made available in 2015/16: .
Learning Disabilities £0.45m underspend Older People/ Physical Disabilities £7.80m overspend Mental Health £0.60m overspend CES £1.01m overspend Other £0.12m underspend
Underlying Net Position £8.84m overspend
Less MRP savings £2.00m Less Better Care Fund £1.50m Less Care Act £2.00m Less ILF £0.19m
Outturn Position £3.15m overspend
The main area of underspend in Adults relate to services for adults with learning disabilities (£0.45 million, 0.9% of budget), which is due to the early achievement of future savings, mainly through the renegotiation of a major service contract which is offsetting in-year shortfalls on other savings plans that have been subject to implementation delays.
With regard to services to older people and adults with physical disabilities (PD), the overspend (£7.80 million, 15.2% of budget) is largely due to the under-delivery of budget recovery plan savings, together with net commitment activity increasing at a greater level than anticipated at the beginning of the year.
The main areas where savings under-delivered were reassessment of current clients, improved social care practice and support planning, slippage in work relating to PD care home placements, and cost avoidance actions targeting a reduction in net new commitments.
5
Page 169 Initial projections for 2016/17 suggest that the shortfall remains at a similar level, therefore the financial position in relation to these budgets continues to be a significant risk to the Council. As in 2015/16, the budget position for these areas will be managed through a Single Programme Plan aimed at reducing both current spend and new commitments. Responsibility for delivery of the Plan sits with Lead Commissioners and the Operations Lead- Adult Social Care.
With regard to Mental Health, the overspend of £0.60 million (9.4% of budget) related to increased pressures for community care services.
For Community Equipment Service/Telecare the overspend includes a £0.65 million Telecare overspend, due to an increased staffing establishment and equipment purchases following expansion of the service to support commissioning intentions, and £0.36 million relating to Community Equipment (this is activity-related, but is offset by underspend within Gloucestershire Industrial Services). Overall, the overspend is equal to 43.5% of budget. In 2016/17 both budget areas are being supported by non-recurring funding, with the aim of operating under a balanced budget in future years.
Although the underspend reported under Other (Services) is relatively small (£0.12 million, 0.4% of budget) it represents a net position. There were contract underspends in Carers and Occupational Therapy services (£0.41 million), and within GCC-managed joint funding allocations (£0.10 million), offset by the proposed additional provision for doubtful debts (£0.49 million).
Public Health
Public Health Grant conditions permit any underspend to be carried forward into the next financial year providing it is used for “qualifying purposes”, which can include new commitments. This is actioned through the Public Health Reserve (as per Annex 1)
The year end balance on the Reserve is £4.60 million, comprising £2.52 million uncommitted prior year balances, and £2.08 million underspend on current year allocations.
The main reasons for the £2.08 million under-spend are £0.45m uncommitted Active/ Healthy Together Scheme funds, which will be carried forward into 2016/17, £1.19 million relating to activity-led programmes, and £0.33 million uncommitted Public Mental Health funds.
The Public Mental Health funds were unallocated due to a lack of capacity within the team to be able to commission planned activity based on local need by the end of the financial year; and the earmarking of funds to specific activity for which national funding became available towards the end of the financial year, meaning that funding from the public health budget was no longer needed. Capacity issues have now been addressed and the 2016/17 public mental health budget is fully allocated.
6
Page 170 Children and Families
The outturn position for Children & Families is breakeven, after the recommended transfer of the Children & Families underspend, £0.268 million, to the Vulnerable Children Reserve.
This position takes account of the allocation of £2 million of the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) policy change savings and no longer requires a draw down of £1.65 million from the Vulnerable Children’s Reserve, thereby providing additional resilience in 2016/17.
The MRP policy change savings have offset significant over-spends within operational social care services. Over the last two years there has been a sustained increase in demand for social care including children coming into care (March 2016 563 cases compared to April 2014 479). This has caused significant pressures within children’s services and in particular against the external agency placement and safeguarding budgets. Workload pressures combined with the national shortage of skilled, experienced social workers has resulted in high agency staffing costs although the recruitment and retention strategy is starting to have a positive impact to increase the number of permanent social workers.
A financial recovery plan to reduce costs for external agency placements was put in place and third tier managers have reviewed every high cost placement and worked to drive down the spend on the most expensive provision. This has included identifying more appropriate provision to better meet the needs of young people as well as ensuring placement drift is reduced. The overspend has been reduced by £0.5 million in-year (full year effect of £1.012m) through commissioned savings on placements but this has been offset by the requirement for new cases. Without the continued focus by senior management on reviewing these placements the overspend could have been much higher.
The major variances for non-DSG, with summary explanations, are as follows:
The external placement budget for children in care is £3.56 million over-spent (45.3% above budget). The expenditure is high due to the volume of residential placements and the complexity of these cases compared to previous years. In- house fostering services are over-spent by £0.26 million all against allowances due to the number of placements being provided for linked to the higher number of children in care.
Safeguarding staff costs within Children and Families and Referral and Assessment teams have overspent by £1.37 million (21.2% of budget) due to the use of agency staff to cover for staff vacancies, maternity leave, long-term sickness and increasingly to support the increased workload within teams and where there are newly qualified workers. Section 17 and discretionary payments for children in care have over-spent by £0.49 million (150.6% of the budget). As well as the recruitment of permanent social workers there has been a review of caseloads and the use of innovative approaches for improving services and working conditions, which will be funded by the £2 million investment agreed as part of the 2016/17 budget.
7
Page 171 Underspends to offset the cost pressures include adoption services, where additional income of £0.68 million is due to GCC assessed families adopting children from other authorities, and access services forecasting an under- spend of £0.84 million, due to home to school transport expenditure and staff vacancy savings. Lower expenditure than anticipated within Supporting People and welfare reform support has resulted in a £0.9 million under-spend and disability services are underspent by £0.59 million, due to costs against residential units, contracts and care packages. Early Years and Locality commissioning budgets are £0.29 million under-spent against a number of commissioned projects which were not fully committed in-year and there is a further under-spend of £0.19 million relating to the release of a contingency.
Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) position
DSG funded services are under-spent by £7.54 million which includes uncommitted balances brought forward from 2014/15 of £4.72 million. Early year’s budgets have declared a £1.08 million under-spend due to under-spends within Nursery Education funding relating to capacity building for two year old places. Independent special school fees and recoupment budgets are over- spent by £0.28 million, due to high numbers of young people requiring specialised education provision. High need top up budgets are £1.8 million under-spent, related to special schools and post 16 provision.
Communities & Infrastructure
The outturn position for Communities & Infrastructure is breakeven, subject to:
Highways Local funding – a £0.17 million underspend carried forward to meet agreed 2015/16 contributions. Street Lighting – a £0.14million underspend carried forward for Phase 2 LED mobilisation. In addition a further £0.22 million transfer is required to help smooth out the savings from the wider LED Street Lighting project. Libraries – £0.15 million carried forward for funding book purchase and access improvements. Road Safety Partnership – a £0.02 million underspend carried forward to Road Safety Partnership to be retained within and used by the Road Safety Partnership. Highways - £0.81million revenue contribution to capital for Capital Minor Works; resulting from a slow down in routine maintenance delivery during quarter 4 as the end of winter focus shifted temporarily onto 28 day safety defect repair.
The main budget variances were:-
The Highways underspend after the carry forwards and RCCO detailed above was £0.60 million, which is mainly due to higher than anticipated income from highway records, street works and parking.
Higher than expected income of £0.14 million in Registration Services, relating to income for certificates and ceremonies in 2015/16. 8
Page 172 An underspend on Healthwatch of £0.17 million, due to actual amount of grant received exceeding the indicative allocation.
Customer Programme - a £0.30 million overspend, due to savings not being achieved within the timescales originally envisaged.
An overspend on Transport of £0.21 million. The consultations and procurement for a number of services took longer than expected and anticipated costs reductions were not realised as originally planned.
An overspend in Waste of £0.10 million, reflecting increased volume of waste through Household Recycling Centre, partially offset by underspends on kerbside residual waste collections and waste projects.
An overspend in Trading Standards of £0.10 million due to anticipated savings not being realised as originally planned.
Business Support Services
Overall the outturn position for business support services is an underspend of £0.58 million (2.1% of the budget).
The under spend is primarily related to buoyant income from academies and the early delivery of planned MTC savings through vacancies and restructures across the service, but in particular affecting Strategic Finance (£0.25 million underspend) and Property Services (£0.37 million underspend).
These underspends were partially offset by some very small overspends in other areas.
Technical and Cross Cutting
The outturn position for Technical and Corporate budgets, after recommended transfers to reserves and provisions identified earlier, including £0.175 million to the Rates Retention Reserve following declaration of a surplus for the Gloucestershire Rates Retention Pool, is an under-spend of £2.57 million (4.7% of the budget).
The main areas of variance, as previously reported to Cabinet, relate to:-
Additional government funding of £1.76 million notified since the 2015/16 budget was approved, as previously reported to Cabinet, mainly relating to revenue support grant (£0.58 million), business rates retention system (£0.86 million), and Autumn Statement s31 grant adjustments (£0.32 million).
9
Page 173 Over achievement of income against interest credit budgets of £1.8 million, reflecting increased returns for longer term investments with other local authorities and higher investment balances being made available following earlier
Additional savings of £0.24 million relating to the carbon reduction programme, given that changes to the scheme has removed the need fro the Council to purchase allowances.
The overall underspend is lower than previously reported due to the following proposed transfers:
£0.3 million to a new Services to Children with Young Children to facilitate the proposed redesign of services.
£1.0 million carry forward to a Communities & Infrastructure Reserve for Highways purposes.
£0.067 million to a Traded Services Reserve to reflect underspends in Traded Services which are required in 2016/17 to improve services to mitigate risks in future income generating potential.
B. Reserves
Full details of all reserve movements in 2015/16 are shown in the table at annex 1 with the summary position outlined below:
Type of Revenue Reserves Balance at Balance at 1st April 2015 31st March 2016 £000 £000
Earmarked Revenue Reserves – Non 94,773 106,866 Schools
Earmarked Reserves – Schools 28,091 31,112
General Fund Balances 19,848 19,848
TOTAL REVENUE RESERVES 142,712 157,826
Earmarked reserves non schools have increased to £106.87 million, which includes the recommended transfers to reserves for 2015/16.
General Reserves totalled £19.85 million at the end of 2015/16, 4.7% of the net revenue budget for 2015/16, within the target range of between 4% and 6% of the net budget. This level of reserves equates to only six working days of average gross expenditure, or twelve working days based on net expenditure.
10
Page 174 In additional Capital Reserves used to support the approved capital programme are as follows:
Type of Capital Reserves Balance at Balance at 1st April 2015 31st March 2016 £000 £000
Total Capital Reserves 51,823 65,526
C. Business Rates Pooling
The Council entered into a pooling agreement with all six district councils in the county in 2013/14. The reason for this was to retain additional income within the county from paying a lower levy on growth, above the baseline, to central government.
Final pooling outturn figures show a £877,948 benefit to Gloucestershire from pooling. As a result of the deficit in 2014/15, the surplus from 2015/16 has been distributed pro rata against the deficit. The share that the Council will receive is £175,589.73. This will be transferred into the Business Rate Retention Reserve to part offset against last year’s deficit.
D. Schools
Details of maintained school balances movements are provided in annex 2.
The Schools Fair Funding scheme allows schools to carry forward, from one financial year to the next, any surplus or shortfall in expenditure, relative to the school’s budget share for the year, plus/minus any balance brought forward from the previous year.
Total Maintained School Balances increased by £3.61 million (17.9%) made up of: Revenue Balance increases of £3.75 million (19.5%) Capital Balance decreases of -£0.02 million (-1.8%) Removal of £0.12 million of balances relating to 3 academy conversions.
The number of schools with a revenue surplus or deficit at the end of March 2016 is summarised below.
Revenue Balances 31 March 2016 by School Numbers Alternative Primary Secondary Special Provision Overall Schools 205 6 9 3 223 In Surplus 197 5 9 3 214 In Deficit 8 1 0 0 9
11
Page 175 The number of schools in deficit at 31st March 2016 is 9 schools, compared to 13 at 31st March 2015.
All of the schools information has been presented to, and agreed, by the Gloucestershire Schools Forum.
E. Debt Write-offs
During 2015/16 debts totalling £633,952 were written off. A detailed analysis of debts written off during 2015/16 is provided at Annex 3. The cost of write offs is included in the outturn expenditure. Debts are only written off if they are irrecoverable and all reasonable steps have been taken to recover the money owing, including legal action.
The level of Adult debt written-off has increased in 2015/16 due to the implementation of the Care Act 2014, which has limited an authority’s ability to chase and recover debt raised under previous legislation (HASSASSA – Health & Social Services & Social Security Adjudications Act 1983).
The Service has reviewed all debts, taken Legal advice and where necessary produced the relevant documentation to write off the debt in accordance with the Council’s debt policy.
F. Overdue Invoices
Annex 4 provides a summary of overdue (more than 30 days old) debt as at 31st March 2016.
12
Page 176 Capital Expenditure 2015/16
G. Capital Outturn
The capital budget for 2015/16 totalled £77.40 million. Actual spend during the year was £67.77 million giving an in year under-spend compared with planned spend of £9.63 million. This is purely in year slippage which will mainly be spent in 2016/17. Variances are summarised in the table below, with detailed narrative provided to explain the main variances in section I.
Reprofiled Outturn Year-end Budget Spend Spend % Variance Service Area 2015/16 2015/16 £000 £000 £000 % Capital Receipts Works Before Sale 180 180 0 100 Adults 1,212 746 -466 62 Children & Families 27,665 27,641 -24 100 Other: Infrastructure 36,592 30,765 -5,827 84 Business Support - Property 4,315 1,628 -2,687 38 Business Support - ICT 5,857 5,850 -7 100 Libraries & Archives 442 291 -151 66 Safety 1,133 662 -471 58 Total 77,396 67,763 -9,633 88
H. Financing of Capital Expenditure 2015/16
£000
Financing applied to the £67.763 million capital spend: GCC Revenue Contributions 7,959
Capital Receipts 1,231 Capital Fund 3,264 Reserves 3,304 Grants 48,884 External Contributions e.g. developers 3,121
Total 67,763
The Government financial regulations require local authorities to charge a Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) each year as a proxy for capital repayments. For 2015/16, the MRP for the Council was £8.737 million.
13
Page 177 Debt redemption remains a priority of the Council. Debt outstanding at the end of 2015/16 was £317.593 million, a reduction of £8.737 million compared with the position at the end of 2015/16.
I. Capital Outturn 2015/16: Reasons for the major under and over spends.
Adults Capital Programme 2015/16
The outturn for the Adults capital programme for 2015/16 was £0.74 million against a budget of £1.21 million, giving an under-spend of £0.47 million. This under-spend is due to delays in implementation of the Cold Harbour ICT planning system. The scheme was due for completion by the end of March 2016 but delays in signing contracts have meant completion will now be in 2016/17.
Children and Families Capital Programme 2015/16
The outturn for the Children and Families capital programme for 2015/16 was £27.64 million against a budget of £27.66 million, giving a small under-spend of £0.02 million.
Communities and Infrastructure Capital Programme 2015/16
Infrastructure
The outturn for the Infrastructure capital programme for 2015/16 was £30.76 million against a budget of £36.59 million, giving an under-spend of £5.83 million.
The main reasons for the under-spend were the result of minor delays in complex projects resulting in anticipated spending profiles being pushed back across the year-end, causing in-year underspends. The issues are summarised below:
The Council’s funding for the Broadband Fastershire scheme is not required until all Central Government funding has been utilised. This scheme is a complex and challenging project, which means that current expenditure on the project has only required £1.60 million of the £3.05 million of Council funding earmarked for use in 2015/16. However the remaining £1.45 million will be required in future years.
Delays affected a number of schemes including Cinderford Northern Quarter Spine Road, Stroud Town Centre footway improvements and Elmbridge Roundabout, amounting to slippage of £1.7 million. As previously reported, a number of Highways Local schemes, involving Traffic Regulation Orders, are longer term in nature and account for further slippage of £0.29 million.
14
Page 178 For a variety of reasons Districts Councils have had mixed success delivering a number of complex flood alleviation schemes that were forecast for this financial year, resulting in a £0.30 million underspend, and there have been some delays to a small number of road safety schemes, where redesign works have been required, giving an underspend of £0.29 million.
Business Support - Property
The outturn for the Property capital programme for 2015/16 was £1.63 million against a budget of £4.32 million due to scheme slippage.The main reason was delay in securing planning permission for the wide scale refurbishment of Shire Hall and regeneration of Quayside and Blackfriars. This has resulted in significant delays to many other planned projects in Shire Hall. However the total budget required for each scheme remains the same and spend is now forecast for future years.
Business Support - ICT
The outturn for the ICT capital programme for 2015/16 was £5.85 million, in line with the budget.
Libraries & Archives
The outturn for the Libraries & Archives capital programme for 2015/16 was £0.29 million against a budget of £0.44 million, giving an under-spend of £0.15 million.
This underspend is due to delays in planned refurbishment and improvement to customer access at Cirencester Library and lower than anticipated spend on stock.
Safety
The outturn for the Safety capital programme for 2015/16 was £0.66 million against a budget of £1.13 million, giving an under-spend of £0.47 million.
This under-spend is due to a delay in the tendering process for the Incident Command and Control system, resulting in slippage on this scheme (£0.12 million) and the delay to the start of the new Breathing Apparatus scheme (£0.35 million) until 2016/17.
15
Page 179 Annex 1 Earmarked Revenue Reserves Restated Transfers Out Transfers Balance at Notes Balance at 2015/16 In 3 1 st March 31st March 2015/16 2016 2015
£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Contractual Commitments Strategic Waste Reserve 15,577 0 18,335 33,912 The contribution made to the EFW project in 2015/16 was £8.927 million. It has been shown as a debit in the prepayment balance sheet, as opposed to a drawdown on the reserve, following technical accounting advice received. This reflects the fact that the contribution is amortised in the accounts over the life of the contract. An additional £0.335 million contribution was made from the revenue budget of the Residual waste to cover future liabilities and this has resulted in a closing balance of £33.912 million, which is fully committed to the contract.
Fire Joint Training Centre This is a smoothing reserve relating to the full life contract for the Fire Training Centre, which is fully committed. 1,169 -13 0 1,156 Fire PFI Reserve- GRFS This is a smoothing reserve relating to the full life contract for the Fire Stations PFI, which is fully committed. 2,489 0 268 2,757 Insurance Fund 10,283 -6,636 7,176 10,823 Insurance Fund levels are based on external professional actuarial review and advice to mitigate GCC's insurance liability.
Capital Fund 22,849 -23,301 10,130 9,678 This reserve is used for capital financing and is fully committed to fund schemes approved under the Council's Capital Programme. The balance remaining on this reserve is more than expected in the MTFS and reflects slippage on the capital programme and unspent approved revenue contributions that will be needed to fund future capital expenditure. Transformation Reserve 6,912 -235 279 6,956 Transformational budget support was provided in 2015/16 totalling £0.235 million. In addition transfers into the reserve totalled £0.280 million which related to Organisational Structure Savings. Page 180 Page Technical Funding Reserves County Elections 414 0 200 614 This reserve is to smooth the cost of funding the council elections. Vehicle & Plant Replacement 110 0 0 110 This reserve is to support the purchase vehicle and plant. Fire Service Pensions 127 0 0 127 The reserve is to support any potential liabilities under the Fire Service pension schemes.
Active Communities 1,230 0 0 1,230 This reserve has been established to meet the Council's strategy to provide support for people to do more for themselves, their families and communities without the Council having to intervene. It was funded from transferring monies from the Supporting People Reserve.( £1.23 million in March 2015)
Invest to Save 4,517 -1,841 499 3,175 This reserve is fully committed as follows:- to support Salix loan grants initiative for energy saving projects (£0.15 million); Contribution towards the provision of Photovolaic PV panels for Shire Hall (£0.90 million);ICT improvements (£0.7 million); Transformational Support (£1.43 million). Transfers out during 2015-16 including a contribution to capital programme unding next generation desktop rationalisation scheme (£1.30 million) and Salix loans (£0.54 million) offset by transfers from Salix loan repayments received in year (£0.5 million).
Education Funding Risk Reserve 500 0 0 500 This reserve was established to smooth the impact from schools becoming academies.
Adoption Reserve 762 -367 0 395 This reserve was established to fund a package of measures relating to adoptions over a number of years. Monies drawn down during 2015-16 have been used to fund these measures. Economic Stimulus Reserve 10,296 -1,826 0 8,470 The Economic Stimulus Reserve is fully committed as follows: Rural Broadband (£7.80 million); Apprentices (£0.33 million): Grow Gloucestershire ( £0.34 million). Transfers out during 2015-16 included: contribution towards broadband project (£1.6 million);Apprenticeships (£0.14 million);Community Grants (£0.02 million); Grow Gloucestershire (£0.06 million)
Pubic Health 4,513 83 4,596 Public Health is a ring fenced funding stream, and this reserve was established in accordance with grant conditions to hold any unspent balances from the annual grant received from Government.
Vulnerable Children Reserve 2,585 -931 916 2,570 The reserve includes £1.922 million of funding to offset demand-led pressures in children's services 2016/17 and £0.648 million of unused funding for one-off projects (mental health, archives, safeguarding training, reunification) which will be used for these approved projects.
16 Annex 1 cont Earmarked Revenue Reserves Restated Transfers Out Transfers Balance at Notes Balance at 2015/16 In 3 1 st March 31st March 2015/16 2016 2015
£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Adult Care Reserve 654 0 1000 1,654 The £1.654 million provides funding to mitigate demand risk in Adult Social Care, given given the continuing concern about the volatility in demand and the pressure across the health and social care economy.
Home to School Transport Reserve 400 0 272 672 This reserve is to smooth the impact changes in schools days year to year on home to school transport.
A417 Missing Link Reserve 309 -45 1,000 1,264 This reserve has been established to support pre development work on the A417 project to be undertaken.
Rates Retention Reserve 1,660 0 175 1,835 This reserve was established to cover the Council against a potential funding shortfall in business rate income. The scheme is still in its infancy and the full impact remains uncertain. The situation will continue to be monitored closely. Part of the reserve is ring fenced for economic development provjects across the County and part is a ring fenced contingency for smoothing any future pool losses as per the pool guidance arrangements.
Revenue Grant Reserves 6,981 -5,095 9,865 11,751 The Revenue Grants Reserve is a technical reserve for specific unapplied revenue grants and contributions, where conditions related to the monies have been met but expenditure has not been incurred. The monies remained ring fenced and fully committed. This reserve is prepared in accordance with the Accounting Code of Practice issued annually by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which the Council is legally required to follow. Communities & Infrastructure 0 0 1,476 1,476 A new reserve has been established to carryforward specific budget under spends and invest a further £1 million into Highways. Reserve
Traded Services Reserve 0 0 67 67 A new reserve has been established to invest in Traded Services to mitigate against any loss in traded income. Page 181 Page
LED Renewables Reserve 0 0 223 223 A new reserve established to provide budget support for the LED renewables project.
Services to Families with Young 0 0 300 300 A new reserve established to provide budget support to Services to Families with Young Children. Children Reserve Other Reserves 436 -9 128 555 Total Earmarked Reserves 94,773 -40,299 52,392 106,866 Schools Related School Balances 20,220 -20,220 23,824 23,824 This reserve represents balances held by individual schools carried forward to support future years expecditure.
Other Schools Related 7,871 -7,871 7,288 7,288 This represents a number of specific ring fenced school related reserves, including balances carryforward for the Dedicated Schools Grant.
28,091 -28,091 31,112 31,112 Total 122,864 -68,390 83,504 137,978 General Fund Balances 19,848 0 0 19,848
Total Revenue Reserves 142,712 -68,390 83,504 157,826
Earmarked Capital Reserves Restated Transfers Out Transfers Balance at Notes Balance at 2015/16 In 3 1 st March 31st March 2015/16 2016 2015
£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000
Capital Grant Reserves 51,823 -104,496 96,824 44,151 This technical reserve relates to unspent capital grants and contributions, which are fully committed to funding the Council's approved Capital Programme. Capital Receipts Unapplied 0 -1,231 22,606 21,375 This reserve reflects capital receipts, which are fully committed to funding the approaced capital programme. Reserves Total Capital Reserves 51,823 -105,727 119,430 65,526
17 Annex 2
18
Page 182 Annex 2 cont.
19
Page 183 Annex 3 Summary of Debts Written Off - April 2015 to March 2016
As required by Financial Regulations, this is the annual summary of debts written off during the previous financial year.
Debts are only put forward for write off if the debt is deemed irrecoverable and after all reasonable steps have been taken to recover the money owing, including legal action.
The table below shows the number and value of debts written off during 2015/16, which represents 4.2% of the total outstanding debt at 31st March 2016.
Page 184 Page Write off Summary 2015/16
£1 - £4,999 £5,000 - £9,999 Over £10,000 Total
No of No of No of No of Debtors £ Debtors £ Debtors £ Debtors £
Adult Commissioning 130 94,326 34 222,485 12 289,528 176 606,339 Public Health 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Children & Families Commissioning 27 1,943 0 0 0 0 27 1,943 Communities & Infrastructure 77 21,805 0 0 0 0 77 21,805 Business Support Services 16 3,610 0 0 0 0 16 3,610 Other 8 255 0 0 0 0 8 255
Totals 258 121,939 34 222,485 12 289,528 304 633,952 (excludes VAT)
20 Annex 4
Summary of Overdue Debt as at 31st March 2016
Aged Debt Summary as at 31/03/2016 - Management Structure
No. of Days Total Not due 0 - 30 31 - 60 61 - 90 91 - 180 181 - 365 More than 365 £. £. £. £. £. £. £. £.
Adult Commissioning 8,613,831 0 4,890,295 374,564 231,108 905,135 523,964 1,688,765 Page 185 Page Public Health 1,185,786 0 0 1,154,786 0 0 31,000 0
Children & Families Commissioning 1,456,831 0 863,459 364,790 1,951 24,486 36,068 166,076
Communities & Infrastructure 1,835,425 0 819,837 282,281 13,491 467,721 88,583 163,511
Business Support Services 1,459,631 0 691,972 60,771 61,807 67,664 371,574 205,842
Other 447,020 0 314,540 7,488 1,071 0 (404) 124,325
Totals 14,998,524 0 7,580,104 2,244,681 309,428 1,465,006 1,050,785 2,348,520
21 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13
QUARTERLY STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE REPORT 2015/16: QUARTER 4
Cabinet Date 8 June 2016
Leader of the Council Cllr Mark Hawthorne
Key Decision No
Background Papers Meeting the Challenge 2 – Together We Can: Gloucestershire County Council’s Strategy 2015-18
Location/Contact for Background http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/councilstrategy Documents
Main Consultees Cabinet Members, CoMT, Lead Commissioners
Planned Dates Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee – 27 May 2016
Divisional Councillor Not applicable
Officer Jane Burns, Director: Strategy and Challenge Tel: 01452 328472 Email: [email protected]
To provide Cabinet with strategic oversight of the Council’s performance Purpose of Report during 2015/16.
I. to endorse the performance report; Recommendations II. note the progress made in tracking council priority outcomes; and III. support the actions being taken to address areas of concern
Reasons for The Council’s priorities are set out in the Council Strategy - “Meeting Recommendations the Challenge 2: Together We Can”. Failure to make good progress against these priorities could affect outcomes for service users as well as being damaging for the Council’s reputation. Good corporate governance requires that risk management is embedded into the culture of the organisation and is seen by Members and Managers as part of their job. The Council’s failure to identify, evaluate and control risks could adversely affect the council’s ability to achieve its objectives and to successfully execute its strategies. Resource This report provides monitoring information. There are no additional Implications resource implications
Page 187 Cabinet Strategic Performance Report: Year end 2015/16
This report has been produced to allow Cabinet to consider our performance against the 2015-2018 Council Strategy, ‘Meeting the Challenge 2 – Together We Can’. It draws on a range of evidence including the Core Dataset Performance Indicators (see Annex), Meeting the Challenge 2 (MtC2) projects and programmes, risks and budget monitoring information.
Performance is reported against each Cabinet Member’s responsibilities. Key:
Better than target Performance: are we achieving our aims? Page 188 Page On target overall Time: are we meeting key project milestones?
Mixed performance (some ahead of target, some behind) £ Cost: are we keeping within budget?
Worse than target
£ The graph below shows progress against our strategic outcomes using the core dataset from our Council Strategy. We have set ourselves ambitious targets to ensure we maintain a focus on what really matters to people living in Gloucestershire. Overall, 60.4% of the indicators identified for tracking progress against our Council Strategy are on or ahead of target at the end of this quarter.
Cllr Mark Hawthorne Leader of the
Page 189 Page Council
This is better than at quarter 3 as a number of indicators which were behind target improved: - More children in care have had their needs reviewed on time. - Placements for children who have been in care for a long time have been more stable, with more lasting for 2 years or more. - There has been an increase in the number of adults accessing community based support services to help them to live settled, secure and safe lives - More overnight breaks for children with disabilities have been provided in a family setting, rather than a residential institution. - The number of trading standards enquiries resulting in a positive outcome has increased. - A higher percentage of emergency repairs to highways were completed within 2 hours. - Council carbon emissions have continued to reduce. - The number of multi-functional devices (printer/scanners) in service across the Council estate has reduced, helping to reduce the Council’s overheads.
Page 190 Page There are also five indicators that have fallen behind target this quarter as follows: - The rate of 18-64 year olds admitted to residential and nursing homes has increased. - A lower percentage of ‘28-day defects’ on the county’s roads were repaired or made safe within the target response time. - The number of days lost to sickness per (FTE) has increased, albeit against a challenging stretch target - Although the number of people borrowing items from libraries has increased since quarter 3, overall numbers are not as high as expected, reflecting a gradual move away from traditional library use. - A lower percentage of children in care achieved at least 5 A*-C GCSEs (including English and Maths).
Our focus continues to be on safeguarding vulnerable children and young people in the face of growing demand both locally and nationally. Across the year, and in response to some of the actions we have taken, we have seen a reduction in the number of referrals received, and in the number leading to no further action. Despite this, there has been a significant increase in the numbers of children and families who need our support. Our additional investment in social care, along with the effectiveness of our recruitment and retention strategy, is beginning to reduce the caseload of social workers, though we are still using more agency staff and managers than we would like. We have had particular success in Gloucester, where the introduction of the ‘pods’ model has resulted in improvements in staff satisfaction and a reduction in turnover.
We now need to focus on ensuring that this increased workforce stability translates into an improvement Cllr Paul in the quality of our response and the effectiveness of our interventions. Over the year, the number of McLain children being re-referred into safeguarding services has increased, as the number of children being Cabinet taken into care for a second or subsequent time remains high. While this follows the national trend, it Member for does concern us and we are working hard to understand what we need to do to make sure our Children & interventions make a lasting difference, and that appropriate support remains in place for children and
Page 191 Page Young People families when the immediate safeguarding concerns have been addressed. and Strategic Commissioning In line with our strategy, more children with disabilities are receiving short breaks in a family setting, rather than in more institutional residential settings. We actively use customer feedback to help shape and improve our services and it is encouraging to note that the number of complaints received has reduced slightly, but more importantly, so has the percentage of those complaints that have been upheld. The number of compliments has also increased for the second year running, and exceeded the number of complaints received. We can celebrate the fact that most Gloucestershire children continue to benefit from an excellent standard of education, with over 90% of pupils attending a good or outstanding school. At the same time, we are concerned about outcomes for pupils in those schools that have been judged as inadequate, particularly in the Forest of Dean, where there appears to be particular challenges, and we welcome the work that scrutiny will be doing in this area. Our excellent track record on keeping young people in education, employment and training has continued with the highest levels of participation in four years, though it is concerning that young people who have been in care are much more likely to end up not in education, employment or training.
We reported last quarter that capacity issues were affecting our ability to improve frontline practice. Since then, we have agreed to use some of the national adult social care levy to relieve that pressure and are in the process of bringing in additional resources which we expect to gradually reduce delays to assessments and reviews over the course of the year.
There have been high levels of demand, particularly arising from people being discharged from hospital. Despite this, we have continued to reduce delays and remain significantly better than the average for England in preventing delays to transfers of care. We have struggled to make a significant reduction in the number of people admitted to residential and nursing care, though there has been an overall reduction year-on-year in the numbers receiving adult social care. However, this is against the backdrop of growing
need in the wider population, and at the same time as reducing numbers, we are seeing a gradual Cllr Dorcas increase in the level of support that people require as the result of increasingly complex needs. We have Binns continued to expand and extend the use of self-directed support and personal budgets, with 95.4% of Cabinet services users benefitting. This represents a significant improvement on last year. Member for
Page 192 Page Older People Fewer people have received Reablement support than in the previous year. Nevertheless we have begun
to see an increase in the overall productivity of the Reablement service. Staff are spending more of their time working directly with service users, though still below where we need it to be. We also want to increase the effectiveness of this service, in particular, by making sure that it is targeted at the people who will benefit most. In particular, we want to commission specialist services for people with dementia who represent an increasing proportion of service users.
We are pleased with the contribution we are making to positive outcomes for adults with mental health problems and those with learning disabilities. We have exceeded our targets for supporting service users to remain in settled accommodation and in employment and improved on last year’s performance.
We are continuing to implement the requirements of the Care Act in order to make sure that we are Cllr Kathy providing effective support to carers. We have increased the number of carers receiving support, Williams recognising the vital role they play. Cabinet
Member for Over the course of the year, the number of complaints received has increased marginally, but there has Long-Term Care been a significant reduction in those upheld. We have also received more compliments than last year.
Health outcomes have continued to be good for most Gloucestershire residents with our efforts and interventions targeted on those groups for whom that is not the case.
As expected (and reported last time), working with our service provider, we have continued to improve the effectiveness of treatment for Opiate users. In general, and across almost all categories of drug user, our results are similar to or better than other similar authorities.
Current performance on supporting the recovery of opiate users remains below target, but is improving steadily and is above the national average. Commissioners continue to work with Turning Point to identify ways to improve the rate of success and we anticipate continued improvements over the year.
Cllr Andrew Performance on non opiate users remains below target and has shown very little improvement. We Gravells continue to work with the provider to improve performance - an increase of 25 service users completing Cabinet treatment would bring our performance above national average. Member for Public Health & We are involved in a number of projects intended to significantly remodel and refocus service delivery Page 193 Page Communities according to our latest understanding of needs. For example, there has been a significant reduction in the need and demand for community detoxification for alcohol misusers. Similarly, there has been a national change in the way that people seek support in quitting smoking, with fewer choosing to make use of NHS services.
We are reporting reduced performance in the roll-out of NHS health checks, but believe this will be rectified when we receive the final data from the NHS. Nevertheless, this is an area where national research is causing us to review our strategy in order to ensure that it represents an effective intervention.
The pattern of use of our libraries is also changing, with more people using e-books and other forms of digital media. The rollout of free WiFi access to all 31 libraries was completed in Q4 providing greater access for communities to digital information and services. Overall, we are seeing more people benefitting from using library services (both traditional and new) and reducing the unit cost of providing those services.
Performance against most indicators was ahead of target at the end of the year. 100% of 2-hour emergency repairs were completed on time. The only indicator to miss its target was for the percentage of 28-day (i.e. non urgent) repairs made on time where, during January and February, some teams were redeployed from repairing defects to carrying out early morning gritting. This was because of a change in national guidance which changed the times within which gritting needs to take place.
We also exceeded our targets for the number of potholes filled and for reducing the percentage of roads requiring maintenance. For 2016/17, Gloucestershire has been allocated £1m from the Pothole Fund. Officers anticipate combining this funding with other capital funding to create a large programme of Cllr Vernon patching works. The patching programme will be focused on main roads where we will be targeting Smith sections of road that have had clusters of pothole repairs over the last 12 months. This should give our Cabinet Member for main roads more resilience going into next winter.
Page 194 Page Highways and Flood The LED Replacement programme to replace 54,500 street lights was started by Skanska in mid November 2015 with a target of 6,100 units to complete in Gloucester residential areas by the 31st March 2016. This was exceeded by 512 units and work to replace the remaining street lighting with LED in Gloucester residential areas will be complete by the end of May 2016. The 2016/17 programme will see a minimum of a further 15,500 units replaced and will include residential areas of Cheltenham, Tewkesbury, Stroud and the Forest of Dean. Traffic route replacements for all areas will be completed in the final year of the programme in 2018/2019.
We are continuing to increase the county’s resilience to flooding. We are delivering a partnership scheme to reduce blockages and overgrowth for residents and businesses in Tewkesbury and have recently agreed an extra £50k of funding to complete flood alleviation works in Moreton-in-Marsh.
We have increased the number of home safety visits carried out, and are increasingly targeting our approach on those communities and individuals who are most vulnerable. The long-term work we are doing to reduce risk and prevent emergencies occurring has resulted in a further significant reduction to the number of incidents attended during the year.
The number of deliberate dwelling fires has continued to go down, and the number of such incidents occurring in 15/16 was over 65% lower than just 3 years ago. In the first half of the year, there was an increase in the number of accidental dwelling fires, which means that we missed our target. However, for the second half of the year, the rate returned to the expected levels, and overall, there remains a significant reduction over the medium-term.
Cllr Nigel Moor We have comfortably exceeded our targets for responding to dwelling fires promptly. Cabinet Member for We always set ourselves exceedingly ambitious targets for road safety. However, for 15/16, we have not Fire, Planning & managed to achieve these targets. The rate of casualties amongst adults aged 16-59 continues to follow Infrastructure a downward trend, but there has been an increase in the number of casualties amongst older road users. Page 195 Page This reflects two factors – the significantly increasing number of older people who hold driving licenses, and the fact that increased frailty means that they are more likely to sustain serious injuries if an accident occurs. Nevertheless, we will continue to strive to increase road safety amongst older road users, and have increased the number of people benefitting from our SAGE (Safer Driving with Age) programme by 50%.
It has been a busy year for our registration service, with a marked increase in the number of marriage and civil partnership ceremonies conducted. High levels of long-term sickness amongst staff has affected the timeliness with which we have been able to register deaths, but contingency plans have been put in place, and we expect to see performance returning to acceptable levels.
Our Trading Standards department has exceeded its key performance target, with 92% of activities achieving a positive result.
Despite the pressure of increased demand on key services and the need to achieve significant savings, the Council has kept within its budget for 2015/16. We have saved around £21.5 million in 15/16 against a very challenging target of £26m. The biggest shortfall is in the area of adult social care where, broadly speaking, we are managing to maintain demand at existing levels and achieve some reductions in cost, but not seeing demand reduce significantly as a result of our preventative work. Plans for this, and other areas, are being reviewed and revised in order to ensure that we continue to address the anticipated shortfall and live within our means.
Working closely with other public sector partners, we have continued to rationalise the Council’s estate Cllr Ray and reduce the number of separate offices in use. During the year, we have taken back into our Theodoulou management those areas of the Shire Hall complex previously occupied by the Police and agreed Cabinet embarked on an ambitious programme of renovation that will also enable the regeneration of this part of Member for the City. We have also updated the Council’s Information and Communication Technology to make it Finance and more resilient and suited to flexible, modern working arrangements. Page 196 Page Change Although we missed our target for sickness/absence, overall levels are lower than for last year, and long- term absence remains the same. Absences resulting from stress have increased slightly and targeted interventions are in place for those teams where levels are high. We will continue to monitor this closely over the coming year to make sure that these are working.
Having seen a steady, long-term reduction in the amount of residual waste generated across the County, we are now struggling to bring it down further. Waste arisings, recycling rates and the percentage of waste sent to landfill are all at similar levels to last year, though we do expect to see a step change reduction in waste sent to landfill once the Javelin Park Energy from Waste Facility comes online.
Budget Overview – Outturn Forecast 2015/16
The financial out-turn was not available at the time of completing this report, but is covered in a separate report on the Cabinet agenda.
High Strategic Risks & Emerging Risks
Detailed information on our strategic risks is provided in the annex that accompanies this report. At the end of the year, the following risks are rated as high: The risk that changes to future funding make it impossible to set a robust and deliverable budget without impacting significantly on Core Services. This risk has reduced as a result of having received the 2016/17 settlement and estimated tax base figures. However, there remains a risk in relation to the position for 2017/18 and beyond. The risk of failure to protect the Council’s key information and data as a result of a malicious attack exploiting technological vulnerabilities. In light of the recent cyber attack on Lincolnshire County Council, we have reviewed our arrangements robustly. Whilst the precise circumstance of the Lincolnshire attack could not be replicated here, we need to remain vigilant to other attacks Page 197 Page The risk of ICT technology failure impairing the Council’s ability to communicate. The ‘next generation desktop’ roll out mitigates this risk, with further plans in place to complete the migration of email accounts. The risk of failure to protect Children and Young People from abuse or neglect that could have been prevented or predicted and the risk of failure to meet service standards for children’s services resulting in poor inspection results, and in turn, reputational damage. We are focussing on strengthening the front door arrangements, and improving planning and interventions for children in need. However, continuing high demand for safeguarding services means that this risk remains high. The risk of failure to deliver the ‘Prevent’ strategy (for preventing violent extremism) impacting on residents, businesses or the media. Plans for the implementation of the strategy are progressing, with partners actively exploring the option to employ a prevent co-ordinator. The risk of failure to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. The Council continues to monitor and incidents and breaches closely. One risk has reduced since last quarter from ‘high’ to ‘moderate’. As Planning Conditions have been approved for the Energy from Waste Facility, the risk to achieving the planned benefits has reduced. One risk has increased since last quarter from ‘low’ to ‘moderate’. This is as the result of a shortfall in MTC2 savings delivered. The in-year impact is mitigated by underspends elsewhere, and project plans are being developed to either bring existing savings back on track or to identify other options.
Key Achievements
Despite the financial pressures of dealing with rising demand in social care throughout the year, the Council has managed its expenditure within its approved budget. Our Learning Disability team has been shortlisted for two MJ awards Joint working between Gloucestershire County Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and the Environment Agency is helping to make Tewkesbury more resilient to flooding by removing overgrowth and blockages from water courses and ditches. 32 community groups have been awarded Community Chest grants of between £500 and £5,000 (totalling £100,000) in support of local projects and the Council’s Active Communities strategy. We have set up a new autism support team for children and young people to promote their inclusion in Gloucestershire schools and help them achieve positive outcomes With Gloucester City Council, we have announced plans for a significant redevelopment of Gloucester bus station. Page 198 Page Worked with the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group to transform the Coombe End residential home into a new Supported Living facility for people with severe learning disabilities and behaviour challenges.
Emerging Issues
We are: continuing to discuss and develop our Devolution proposals with central Government working within the Council and with local schools to understand and prepare for the proposals set out in the Government’s education white paper developing the five-year Sustainability and Transformation Plan for Gloucestershire with the Clinical Commissioning Group. The plan will show how we intend to make sure that local services are sustainable over the next 5 years.
Quarterly Strategic Performance Monitoring Report - Annex A
Year End 2015/16
Purpose of the Report
To provide a strategic overview of the Council's performance for End of Year 2015/16.
The following scorecards are enclosed:
Page no. Key to Symbols 2 Vulnerable Families 3 Long Term Support 5 Page 199 Page Health & Wellbeing 6 Communities 7 Schools, Education & Skills 9 Planning, Economy & Environment 11 Finance & Change 12 Strategic Risk Register Summary 15 Meeting the Challenge Savings Overview 19
Prepared by the Performance and Improvement Team Key to Symbols Reporting Basis Performance better than tolerance Performance within tolerance Year to Date Performance accumulated over the year Performance worse than tolerance Rolling Year Average performance over a 12 month No information period Annual Performance measured once a year Missing target No value Latest Quarter Performance this quarter Value Increasing (Smaller is Better) Snapshot Performance at a particular point in Value Decreasing (Smaller is Better) time Forecast Predicted position at the end of the Value Increasing (Bigger is Better) year Value Decreasing (Bigger is Better) No change Bigger is better A bigger value for this measure is good Smaller is better A smaller value for this measure is good
Page 200 Page Plan is best Where it is best for performance to be on target rather than above or below
Key to Symbols - Risk The Gloucestershire Risk Matrix Risk Rating Risk Impact/Consequence 1 2 3 4 5 (calculated by multiplying the Likelihood Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Critical Impact with the Likelihood of each Almost risk) certain 510152025 Level of (5) Score Likely Risk 4 8 12 16 20 (4) Low 1 - 6 Moderate 7 – 12 Probable 3691215 High 13 – 25 (3) Possible 246810 (2) Rare 12345 (1)
2 Vulnerable Families Vulnerable Children and Adults are safe from injury, exploitation and harm
Youth Support & Families First
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target (2 Quarters In Arrears) Good Reporting Performance Q2 (2013/14) Q2 (2014/15) Q2 (2015/16) Comments Q2 (2015/16) Basis High/Low YJ1 Rate of first time entrants to the Youth Justice Smaller is For the latest period reported by the Youth Justice Board, October 2014 - September 2015, Rolling Year 399 377 282 system (per 100K pop 10-17yrs) in prev 12months Better Gloucestershire's rate of 282. This compares to the rate of 306 reported in Quarter 1. Quarterly In Year Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance Q1 (2015/16) Q2 (2015/16) Q3 (2015/16) Q4 (2015/16) Comments Q4 (2015/16) Basis High/Low FF6 No. of families engaged with the Bigger is Snapshot 250 330 460 660 Families First Programme (Phase 2) Better
Children's Safeguarding & Assessment Page 201 Page Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low Children's Social Care are piloting new decision making processes at the front door and this may CYPOBP331 Rate of referrals to Social Plan is Best Rolling Year 417.6 426.0 492.5 438.1 be a possible reason for the reduction in conversion rates. The Front door project is overseeing Care per 10,000 U18 population these developments and impacts will be monitored under the Vulnerable Children's Programme. CYPOA4 Rate of Children in Need per Smaller is 10,000 U18 pop (exc. Child Protection and Snapshot 154.6 147.0 165.1 163.3 Better Children in Care) CYPOBP290 No. of children on Child Smaller is Snapshot 5 12 4 7 Protection Plans for 2 years or more Better Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low Since 2011 the trend line is slightly upwards in this area, though Gloucestershire has seen a fairly stable rolling year position for the last 12-18 CYP83 % of referrals to Social Care that months of around 25%. Latest published comparator data for 2014/15 shows Smaller is are re-referrals within 12months for the Rolling Year 26.1 % 25.5 % 24.0 % 25.4 % 22.0 % a steady increase in this area nationally, which brings our performance now Better same reason more in-line with other areas. Statistical neighbours have risen to 24.1%, from 20.8%, south west to 25.0% from 23.3%, and national to 24.0% from 23.4% 4845 Single Assessments were completed within 45 days out of a total of CYP85 % of (single) assessments Bigger is 6062. Although this is below the 90% target it remains above latest Rolling Year 79.9 % 90.0 % completed within 45 working days Better (2014/15) statistical neighbour (78.8%) and south west (79.3%) but is below national (81.5%). CYP33 Rate of children and young people Smaller is Snapshot 33.8 35.9 35.0 46.8 37.0 per 10,000 subject to Child Protection plan Better Rolling year to end March 2016 is 25.9% (down on 26.3% for February), which relates to 165 children. The trend line over time is upwards, the figures NI065 % of children becoming the subject Smaller is have dropped slightly since 27.5% in January. This also remains high of a Child Protection Plan for a 2nd or Rolling Year 15.0 % 19.0 % 24.0 % 25.9 % 17.0 % Better compared to latest (2014/15) statistical neighbours at 19.3% (a rise from subsequent time 16.7% in 2013/14), south west at 19.4% (up on 17.0%) and a national figure of 16.6% (up on 15.8%).
3 Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low The continued provision of locum Child Protection Chair cover is enabling the NI067 % of Child Protection cases which Bigger is Rolling Year 88.5 % 88.0 % 97.0 % 91.7 % 90.0 % team to meet the significant demand for child protection conferences and the were reviewed within required timescales Better figure for this quarter reflects this.
Children in Care
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target (In Arrears) Good Reporting Performance 2013/14 2014/15 Comments 2014/15 Basis High/Low CIC47 % of young people aged 19 who were looked after aged 16 who Bigger is Annual 86.0 % 81.3 % were in suitable accommodation Better Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low CYP89 No. of Children in Care in a Smaller is Snapshot 44 Snapshot at end March 2016. residential setting (exc. Remands) Better CIC02 Average weekly cost of external Smaller is Latest Quarter £820 £827 £833 £891 foster placements Better Page 202 Page CIC03 Average weekly cost of internal Smaller is Latest Quarter £537 £560 £556 £575 foster placements Better FOS01 No. of children becoming subject to special guardianship order or child Plan is Best Latest Quarter 35 87 arrangement order Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low Nationally the rate of CiC is 60 per 10,000, our Statistical Neighbours are at a CYPOBP608 Rate of Children in Care Per Smaller is rate of 44.4 and the South West figure is published at 52, so our rate is not Snapshot 43.3 39.8 42.5 45.3 42.5 10,000 U18 population Better high comparatively. It is slightly higher than statistical neighbours but we don't have up to date figures for these and numbers nationally are rising. NI066 % of Children in care cases which Bigger is 505 out of 530 children had all their reviews completed on time during the Rolling Year 91.0 % 93.0 % 91.1 % 95.2 % 95.0 % were reviewed within required timescales Better year -resulting in a performance for the 12 months of 95.2% In the 12 months to the end of March, 66 children moved placement 3 or more times. This gives a performance percentage of 11.8%, similar to NI062 Stability of placements of children Smaller is February, following a steady decrease of the previous 3 months. The trend line Snapshot 14.4 % 13.8 % 9.7 % 11.8 % 9.7 % in care: number of moves Better is now static over time, and current performance places Gloucestershire broadly in-line with statistical neighbour (12.0%) and national (11.0%) averages published for the 2013/14 financial year. Of all children in care for at least 2.5 years (142 children), 65.5% (93) have been in the same placement for at least two years as at the end of March. This is a slightly higher percentage than February (62.9% / 90 children), and NI063 Stability of placements of children Bigger is Snapshot 62.4 % 60.9 % 65.4 % 65.5 % 65.4 % maintains a slightly downward trend line since 2011, albeit with noticeable in care: length of placement Better variability month to month. Current performance places us below statistical neighbours (65.9%) and national (67.0%) comparative figures from 2013/14 (latest published for Children in Care).
4 Long Term Support People with a disability or limiting long term illness live as independently as possible
Disabled Children and Young People
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low DCYP22 Total no. of disabled children receiving a service with a Smaller is Snapshot 329 443 personal budget Better
Adult Social Care
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low BOC2 Number of Adults in Community Care Plan is Best Snapshot 3,885 3,580 3,249 Smaller is BOC3 Number of Adults in Residential Care Snapshot 1,589 1,471 1,370 Better Smaller is BOC4 Number of Adults in Nursing Care Snapshot 951 833 713 Better Page 203 Page Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low ASCOF 1C pt1 Social care clients Bigger is Snapshot 57.3 % 85.4 % 88.4 % 95.4 % 90.0 % receiving self directed support Better
Carers
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low Bigger is ASC2 Total number of Carers provided with support Latest Quarter 8,570 9,043 Better
5 Health & Wellbeing People live healthy lives as free as possible from disability or limiting long-term illness
Adult Social Care
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low Bigger is BOC1 Number of Adults in Reablement/Enablement Snapshot 509 425 390 Better Bigger is BOC5 Number of Adults in Other care (i.e Preventative) Snapshot 403 262 281 Better
Public Health
Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low Current performance remains below target, but is improving steadily now Page 204 Page PH4 Proportion of all Opiate Users left treatment Bigger is being greater than the National Average of 6.9%. We continue to work with Latest Quarter 6.6 % 5.5 % 7.7 % 11.5 % successfully not representing in six months Better the provider regarding this indicator and continued improvements will be seen in coming quarters Current performance remains below target and has shown little movement PH46 Proportion of all Non-Opiate Users in treatment, Bigger is Latest Quarter 26.4 % 33.5 % 32.7 % 37.4 % since the last quarter. We continue to work with the provider to gain not representing 6 months after completion Better improvement, but we do not anticipate significant change in the near term. Bigger is PH78 Effective engagement rate of Opiate Users Latest Quarter 94.0 % 95.2 % 85.0 % Better Bigger is PH79 Effective engagement of Non-Opiate Users Latest Quarter 86.0 % 86.4 % 55.0 % Better PH80 Percentage of clients waiting under 3 weeks for Bigger is Latest Quarter 99.0 % 100.0 % 90.0 % drug treatment intervention Better PH81 Percentage of clients waiting under 3 weeks for Bigger is Latest Quarter 99.0 % 98.5 % 90.0 % alcohol treatment intervention Better Quarterly Trend Analysis - Against a Target (1 Quarter In Arrears) Good Reporting Q3 Target Performance Q3 (2013/14) Q3 (2014/15) Q3 (2015/16) Comments Q3 (2015/16) Basis (2015/16) High/Low PH1 Total number of pregnant smokers that have Bigger is Year to Date 90 92 96 92 achieved a successful 4 week quit Better The footfall through the service continues to be lower than the previous year PH2 Total number of smokers that have achieved a Bigger is Year to Date 2,351 1,795 1,419 1,700 (in line with national trends) making the overall target a significant challenge successful 4 week quit Better for the provider to achieve Reporting for Q3 15/16. Both invitations and completed checks continue to PH3 The percentage of eligible patients offered a NHS Bigger is increase. A number of data errors have been identified in relation to both Latest Quarter 5.6 % 6.7 % 2.9 % 5.0 % health check Better invitation and completion of tests. These errors will be updated in May and reflected in the full year data release for NHS Health Checks on June 15th.
6 Communities People and communities are active, resilient and able to prevent accidents, injury, crime and respond to emergency, disaster and long term environmental change
Fire & Rescue
Quarterly In Year Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Q4 Target Performance Q1 (2015/16) Q2 (2015/16) Q3 (2015/16) Q4 (2015/16) Comments Q4 (2015/16) Basis (2015/16) High/Low CSD174 % of incidents of dwelling fires Bigger is Latest Quarter 91.7 % 80.0 % 97.0 % 87.0 % 80.0 % attended within 8 minutes - Risk Category 1 Better CSD175 % of incidents of dwelling fires Bigger is attended within 14 minutes - Risk Category Latest Quarter 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 80.0 % Better 2 CSD176 % of incidents of dwelling fires Bigger is attended within 14 minutes - Risk Category Latest Quarter 94.0 % 98.0 % 97.0 % 90.0 % 80.0 % Better 3 Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low The first two quarters of 2015/16 saw a slight increase in the number of Number of Accidental dwelling fires Smaller is fires. In Quarter 3 and 4 the number has reduced to the same level as in Year to Date 715 725 290 322 275 (CSD01) Better 2014/15. There is no clear reason for this slight rise in the earlier part of the year. Number of Deliberate dwelling fires Smaller is Page 205 Page Year to Date 58 63 24 19 23 (CSD03) Better
Coroners
Coroners - Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low Smaller is COR01 Cost of Coroners Service per head of population Annual £1.98 £1.85 £1.85 Better
Highways & Floods
Highways - Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low Number of potholes repaired (including Bigger is both 'Safety' and 'Non Safety' defects) Year to Date 60,690 50,000 Better (HIG16) NI 168 % of the local authority's principal Smaller is roads where maintenance should be Annual 3 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 4 % Better considered NI169 % of Non-principal classified roads Smaller is Annual 8 % 7 % 6 % 4 % 7 % where maintenance should be considered Better
7 Highways - Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low BV224b.05 % of the unclassified road Smaller is network where structural maintenance Annual 16 % 14 % 15 % 13 % 15 % Better should be considered Highways - Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target (In Arrears) Good Reporting Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Comments 2014/15 Basis High/Low Smaller is Cost of structural maintenance per km of road (HIG04) Annual £51,113 £60,080 £62,257 Better Floods - Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low Percentage delivery of the annual gulley Bigger is emptying programme (as published on the Latest Quarter 100.0 % 100.0 % 85.0 % 100.0 % 85.0 % Better website) (ENV O25)
Road Safety
Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target (Calendar Year) Good
Page 206 Page Reporting Performance 2012 2013 2014 2015 Target 2015 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low There are no fatalities amongst these casualties. The low number of children injured on our road means the annual KSI total has varied between 9 and 20 over recent years, with totals of 19 in 2011 and 2013. Almost half the casualties are pedestrians, a third pedal cyclists and the remainder car passengers. Nearly three quarters are aged between 9 and 15. Number of killed and seriously injured Smaller is Year to Date 11 19 16 20 15 children (ENV H99bi) Better In 2016/17, the Road Safety Partnership's aim is that every child attending either an educational or care establishment will receive at least one intervention with the focus on those within the 9 to 15 age group in addition to the Year 6 visits to SkillZONE, which includes an input on road safety,and the 'new journey' initiative. The number of older casalties has shown an increasing trend over recent years. 2005 saw the highest numbers of older car drivers, car passengers, pedestrians and motorcyclists being killed or seriously injured on our roads.
A similar increase in older casualties has also been identified nationally, the reasons behind this increase has been attributed to; increasing older Number of killed and seriously injured Smaller is Year to Date 48 38 49 63 33 population, more licence holders into older age and the increased frailty that older people (ENV H99ci) Better often comes with age.
The Road Safety Partnership will continue to promote SAGE (50% increase in clients in 2015), contribute to the Dementia Summit and will continue to work with the Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group and, with partners, will develop and action plan for Gloucestershire. This total is the sixth lowest result, the number of adults aged 16-59 killed or seriously injured is still following a downward trend over recent years. Number of killed and seriously injured Smaller is Year to Date 255 213 224 252 196 people (ENV H99ai) Better The 2016/17 Road Safety Partnership Business Plan will continue to focus attention of those ages and the modes of travel that are most highlighted in our casualty data.
8 Schools, Education & Skills Young People reach adulthood with the skills and self-confidence they need to make a positive contribution to the economy of the county Vulnerable children and young people have the basic skills and support they need to live successful lives
Young People
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target (In Arrears) Good Reporting Performance 2013/14 2014/15 Comments 2014/15 Basis High/Low CIC48 % of young people aged 19 who were looked after not in Smaller is Annual 39.6 % 40.8 % employment, education or training Better Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low CYPOBP164 Number of young people who Smaller is are not in education, employment or Snapshot 616 595 533 459 Better training (NEET) Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low NI117 % of young people aged 16 to 18 Smaller is years not in education employment or Snapshot 4.4 % 4.2 % 3.8 % 3.1 % 4.5 %
Page 207 Page Better training (NEET)
Schools
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low The following schools are judged to require special measures: St Anthony's Free School Dean Academy Smaller is Gloucester Academy EPI09 No. of schools judged as inadequate Snapshot 7 6 Better Forest High Academy Millbrook Academy
Lakers School (LA maintained) Bigger is EPI01 % of pupils attending good or outstanding primary schools Snapshot 91.6 % 93.9 % Better Bigger is EPI02 % of pupils attending good or outstanding secondary schools Snapshot 80.2 % 90.3 % Better Schools - Children in Care Academic Year Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Academic Year Academic Year Academic Year Target Performance Comments 2014/15 Basis 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2014/15 High/Low Children in care achieving 5 A*-C GCSEs (or equiv) at Bigger is Annual 15.2 % 6.7 % 11.0 % 13.0 % Figure relates to percentage of those entered for exam Key Stage 4 (inc English & Maths) NI101 Better
9 Home to School Transport
Quarterly Trend Analysis - Against a Target (1 Quarter In Arrears) Good Reporting Q3 Target Performance Q3 (2013/14) Q3 (2014/15) Q3 (2015/16) Comments Q3 (2015/16) Basis (2015/16) High/Low Smaller is CYPOBP162 No. of pupils receiving transport assistance Latest Quarter 8,009 7,648 7,058 7,900 Better HTS03 Average daily cost of home to school transport Smaller is Latest Quarter £7.40 £7.71 £8.22 £8.60 per primary school pupil Better HTS04 Average daily cost of home to school transport Smaller is Latest Quarter £4.26 £4.49 £4.71 £4.40 per secondary school pupil Better HTS06 Average daily cost of home to school transport Smaller is Latest Quarter £29.60 £27.37 £27.21 £31.00 per special school pupil Better HTS07 Total Average daily cost of home to school Smaller is Latest Quarter £7.35 £7.75 £8.41 £7.90 transport per pupil Better Page 208 Page
10 Planning, Economy & Environment Gloucestershire and its communities are attractive places to live, work and invest, now and in the future People can access training, work and essential services
Climate Change
Quarterly Trend Analysis - No Target (1 Quarter In Arrears) Good Reporting Performance Q3 (2013/14) Q3 (2014/15) Q3 (2015/16) Comments Q3 (2015/16) Basis High/Low Reduced renewable energy generation on this time last year; this is likely to be from reduced Renewable Energy Generation (kWh) from the Council Bigger is biomass use in schools for space heating, both as result of the mild winter and gas prices being Snapshot 379,902 378,114 205,023 Estate (inc schools)(CLC02a) Better significantly lower than for biomass. No GCC renewable energy is currently generated as options are being investigated. Reduced renewable energy generation on this time last year; this is likely to be from reduced Renewable Energy Generation from the Council Estate - Bigger is biomass use in schools for space heating, both as result of the mild winter and gas prices being Year to Date 0.38 % 0.46 % 0.28 % % of total energy consumption(CLC02b) Better significantly lower than for biomass. No GCC renewable energy is currently generated as options are being investigated. Quarterly Trend Analysis - Against a Target (1 Quarter In Arrears) Good Reporting Q3 Target Performance Q3 (2013/14) Q3 (2014/15) Q3 (2015/16) Comments Q3 (2015/16) Basis (2015/16) High/Low Council Carbon Emissions, buildings & transport (inc Smaller is Year to date emissions off target due to energy use in schools, despite the Year to Date 31,732 28,981 24,529 23,250 schools) - Tonnes of CO2 (CLC 03a) Better mild winter and reduced demand for space heating. Page 209 Page
Parking & Passenger Transport
Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low Number of community transport journeys Plan is Best Year to Date 216,234 183,231 155,086 152,179 152,800 (LPI ENV 62) No. of bus services in receipt of subsidy Plan is Best Year to Date 105 105 105 105 105 (PUT 02) Cost per journey (community transport Smaller is Latest Quarter £2.06 £2.71 £3.01 £2.95 £4.00 journeys) (PUT 04) Better
Planning
Quarterly In Year Trend Analysis - Against a Target (1 Quarter in Arrears) Good Reporting Q3 Target Performance Q1 (2015/16) Q2 (2015/16) Q3 (2015/16) Comments Q3 (2015/16) Basis (2015/16) High/Low SUDS01 % of Sustainable Urban Drainage responses Bigger is Latest Quarter 95.0 % 93.9 % 95.3 % 92.0 % made to Local Planning Authorities within 21 days Better
11 Finance & Change Good value for money for local citizens
Human Resources
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low Total number of staff/headcount exc Smaller is Snapshot 3,596 3,074 3,078 3,127 schools/fire (CDS HR1) Better Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low The trend continues to be a reduction in absence over the year, albeit a gradual one. A season spike in cold and flu related absence over the last Days lost to sickness per FTE (exc Smaller is Year to Date 7.56 7.61 8.08 7.80 7.30 quarter pushed us slightly over target for the year. However, HR continues schools) (HR18) Better to identify and target hotspot areas, and address underlying issues, to ensure that overall absence levels continue to decrease in the future.
Finance Page 210 Page
Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low SFOBP01 Forecast Year End Budget Smaller is Forecast £388,826 £431,668 £427,614 £420,434 £420,434 Outturn (£000) Better
Meeting the Challenge
Quarterly In Year Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Q4 Target Performance Q1 (2015/16) Q2 (2015/16) Q3 (2015/16) Q4 (2015/16) Comments Q4 (2015/16) Basis (2015/16) High/Low Total in year savings (£000) delivered The final out-turn is £21,527 (approx. £4.4m short of the target). Where Bigger is through Meeting the Challenge Projects(LPI Year to Date £6,413 £14,095 £16,023 £21,527 £25,961 projects have under-delivered in 15/16, plans have been developed to address Better CDS MTC) the shortfall in 16/17.
ICT/Property
Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low Funds raised (£000) from asset sales Bigger is Forecast £8,400 £8,713 £16,658 £22,772 £20,000 (Capital receipts) (BM2) Better
12 Legal
Yearly Trend Analysis - Against a Target Good Reporting Target Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis 2015/16 High/Low Number of complaints upheld by Local Smaller is Year to Date 0 1 0 00 Government Ombudsman (BM5) Better
Waste
Yearly Trend Analysis - Forecast Against a Target Good Target Reporting Outturn Outturn Outturn Outturn Performance Outturn Comments 2015/16 Basis 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 High/Low 2015/16 Residual waste growth has slowed this year however overall waste volumes have continued to increase. This increase is probably caused by the upturn in NI191 Residual household waste per Smaller is Forecast 502 511 531 531 457 the economy with people generating more waste. The stabilisation of residual household (kgs) Better waste is in part due to the additional recycling diverted from landfill due to the food waste project. After a decade or so of steady reduction, for the third year running we are WTE 08 Overall residual waste arisings seeing an upturn in overall waste volumes. Waste sent for disposal and Smaller is (except Household Recycling Centres) Forecast 120,424 122,518 127,286 126,582 121,507 treatment has stabilised this year rather than increasing as in the previous Better (Tonnes) two years. The stabilisation of residual waste is in part due to the additional recycling diverted from landfill due to the food waste project. The overall recycling rate has effectively flat lined for the last five years with
Page 211 Page gains in some areas cancelled out by improved light-weighting of packaging and the decline in newspaper circulation. This mirrors both national and NI 192 Percentage of household waste Bigger is Forecast 48.49 % 47.74 % 47.14 % 47.35 % 53.00 % regional trends. While marginal improvements might be made through various sent for reuse, recycling and composting Better local campaigns and service enhancements, it is unlikely that the current targets will be achieved without changes to the national policy or further significant service changes. The majority of waste not recycled or composted is sent to landfill and with static recycling and increased overall arisings the proportion has risen above NI 193 Percentage of municipal waste Smaller is Forecast 53.66 % 54.04 % 53.99 % 52.19 % 50.00 % target. The authority aspires to move away from landfill as a principle landfilled Better disposal solution and is progressing its plans to develop the Javelin Park Energy from Waste Facility. WTE 01 Average cost to dispose of 1 Smaller is Forecast £97.21 £104.80 £109.95 £111.64 £115.90 tonne of residual waste (£ per tonne) Better
Libraries
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low Smaller is LIB28 Cost per physical library visit Annual £1.86 £1.73 £1.66 £1.46 Better
13 Customer Services
Yearly Trend Analysis - No Target Good Reporting Performance 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comments 2015/16 Basis High/Low Number of Customer Services contacts: Total (LPI AS Plan is Best Year to Date 79,044 293,986 286,993 226) Smaller is CSVS29 Average cost per Contact Centre transaction Latest Quarter £2.53 Headcount has remained consistent but there has been a significant increase in contact volumes. Better Page 212 Page
14 Strategic Risk Register Summary
Strategic Risk 1: Corporate Governance Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Failure in corporate governance which leads to service, financial SR1.1 Bungard, Pete High 15 Moderate 8 Moderate 8 Moderate 8 Moderate 8 or reputational damage or failure. Failure to effectively understand, inform, consult or engage SR1.2 Burns, Jane High 20 Low 6 Low 6 Low 6 Low 6 customers, resulting in dissatisfaction, criticism or challenge. Strategic Risk 2: Financial Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel The cumulative impact of service pressures, particularly increased demand in relation to the care of vulnerable Children SR2.2 and Adults, and the under delivery of savings plans designed to Walker, Jo High 25 High 16 High 16 Moderate 8 Moderate 8 address the inherent over-spend positions, result in a major over-spend in 2015/16. Breakdown in Treasury Management arrangement leading to a SR2.3 Walker, Jo High 20 Low 4 Low 4 Low 4 Low 4 significant loss in investment balances Reductions and changes to future funding in 2016/17 and 2017/18, together with the late notification of such changes and The risk in relation to 2016/17 has reduced following the settlement SR2.4 the uncertanties relating to NHS funding make it impossible to Walker, Jo High 25 High 15 High 15 High 15 High 15 and receipt of estimated tax base figures. The 2017/18 position set a robust and deliverable budget without impacting remains high risk. significantly on Core Services. Strategic Risk 3: Infrastructure Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Failure to ensure that the council's technological environment as Edgar, SR3.1 managed by the ICT Service remains fit for purpose in alignment High 25 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Moderate 10
Page 213 Page Stewart with the business strategy.
15 Strategic Risk 3: Infrastructure Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel In light of the recent cyber attack on Lincolnshire County Council, we would like to provide GCC with assurances regarding the defences the ICT Service has implemented to help protect council data & information systems against malicious attacks: Sophos Endpoint Security & Control is installed & operational on all council PC's & laptops to detect for malware & viruses; Websense email filtering solution scans emails for malicious content & blocks any suspect attachments before delivery to users; the Exchange email messaging solution was recently updated to better detect & block SPAM email; a number of key council systems & applications have been upgraded to minimise the impact of vulnerabilities inherent in end of life software. Protective monitoring tools have been implemented & the Sopra Steria Cyber Centre proactively monitors all alerts created & Failure to protect the council's key information and data as a Edgar, responds accordingly; all council systems are regularly patched & SR3.2 result of exploited technological vulnerabilities facilitated High 25 High 15 High 15 High 15 High 15 Stewart updated during scheduled essential maintenance weekends; the through malicious attack (internal or external) number of staff in the council with elevated user access rights have also been steadily reduced over the years to minimise the impact a cyber attack would have. Independent ICT Health Checks are regularly conducted to expose any vulnerabilities & Sopra Steria deal with these within a targeted remediation program.
However, technological controls are not enough and user education and awareness is also critical to achieving all round security. At Lincolnshire, the council was locked out of its systems after an email containing the malware was opened by one of its staff. A co- ordinated communications campaign of user awareness should be initiated that advises and encourages staff to be extra vigilant when using ICT at the council. The Next Generation Desktop rollout and replacement of end-of-life end user devices (Windows XP) within the Worksmart programme Page 214 Page has now completed - over 4000 Windows XP devices have been decommissioned and along with the risk of attack, now removed from the council network
The migration of council email accounts from the ageing Exchange 2007 to Exchange version 2013 has begun and is currently scheduled Failure of technology managed by the ICT Service impairing the Edgar, to complete in June 2016. SR3.3 High 25 High 15 High 15 High 15 High 15 council's ability to communicate. Stewart A resilient internet connection has now been installed at the council's new data centre in Corsham and work to configure the complex connectivity solutions is ongoing.
The interim ICT Service management team is planning the 2016/17 ICT strategic transformation programme to continue addressing the areas of under-investment in ICT that present the most risk to the council.
16 Strategic Risk 4: Waste Management Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Failure to deliver expected benefits/outcomes from the Residual SR4.1 Walker, Jo High 25 High 20 Moderate 12 High 15 Moderate 10 Planning Conditions approved waste project impacting on future budgets and the environment. Strategic Risk 5: Organisational Change Programmes Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Failure to manage the Meeting the Challenge Portfolio A number of MTC2 projects are at risk of not delivering their savings SR5.1 effectively, impacting on service outcomes, customer Walker, Jo Moderate 12 Low 6 Low 6 Low 6 Moderate 9 targets. See detailed MTC2 report. satisfaction, finance and reputation. Failure to secure effective service delivery, impacting on our SR5.2 Burns, Jane High 15 Low 6 Low 6 Low 6 Low 6 ability to meet statutory and local requirements. Failure to commission services resulting in the council effectively SR5.3 Uren, Linda High 25Low 5Low 5Low 5 ? being unable to deliver its strategic objectives Strategic Risk 6: Collaborative Working Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Failure to maintain effective relationships with key partners and SR6.1 organisations impacting on our ability to meet statutory and Bungard, Pete High 20 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 local requirements. Strategic Risk 7: Safeguarding Children & Young People and Adults Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Failure to protect vulnerable adults in Gloucestershire from Willcox, SR7.1 abuse neglect in situations that potentially could have been High 20 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Margaret predicted and prevented. Failure of GCC to protect CYP from abuse or neglect in situations Based on the monitoring of the operational risks, this strategic risk SR7.2 Uren, Linda High 20 High 15 High 15 High 15 High 15 that could have been predicted or prevented. remain high due to its inherent nature. The risk remains high due to continued demand and a relatively Failure to meet service standards for children's services results inexperienced workforce but recruitment and retention continue to
Page 215 Page SR7.3 in poor inspection results, impacting on ability to meet statutory Uren, Linda Moderate 12 Moderate 12 High 16 High 16 High 16 improve. We mitigate this risk through oversight meetings for key requirements, reputation and intervention. inspection areas, regular case tracking and by encouraging practice learning. Educational outcomes for vulnerable groups of Children & Young People worsen and the gap widens because of Schools and SR7.4 Grills, Jo High 16 Moderate 12 Moderate 12 Moderate 12 Moderate 12 Academies not meeting their responsibilities to vulnerable groups and the accelerating costs of specialist provision. Implications of the implementation of the Care Act 2014 (Parts 1 & 2) - timeframe constraints; - capacity to meet increased demand; Willcox, SR7.6 Moderate 10 Low 3 Low 3 Low 3 ? This risk is currently under review. - financing of the implementation; and Margaret - any changes in the political landscape, after the May 2015 General Election, with regards to requirements of Part 2 of the Act going forward. Strategic Risk 8: Workforce Planning & Employee Relations Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Workforce skills and capacity gaps/challenges impacting on SR8.1 reduced performance, increased sickness and staff turnover and Walker, Jo High 20 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Low 6 Low 6 the reduction in the quality of service provision Poor employee relations cause a disruption to services, lost SR8.2 Walker, Jo High 20 Moderate 12 Moderate 12 Moderate 8 Moderate 8 productivity and increased costs Strategic Risk 9: Gloucestershire Prevent Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel The group are exploring the idea of pooling together monies provided Failure to deliver outcomes of the Prevent Strategy impacting on Edgar, by Government to districts in order to employ a Prevent Co- SR9.1 High 20 High 15 High 15 High 15 High 15 the residents and businesses of Gloucestershire Stewart Ordinator. Discussions around Prevent Training being incorporated into the Council's Safeguarding Training are still ongoing. Failure to deliver outcomes of the Prevent Strategy impacting on Edgar, The multi-agency Prevent Board has a new Chairman who has SR9.2 High 25 High 15 High 15 High 15 High 15 the council's reputation due to exposure in national media Stewart reviewed the Strategy and identified leads for each agency. Strategic Risk 10: Emergency Response & Business Continuity Threats Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Inability of the Council or a key partner to effectively respond to an incident or event external to the council that results in Edgar, SR10.1 High 15 Moderate 9 Moderate 9 Moderate 9 Moderate 9 community disruption and failure to return to normal, within Stewart required timescales. 17 Strategic Risk 10: Emergency Response & Business Continuity Threats Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Inability of the Council or a key partner to effectively respond to an incident or event that results in significant service disruption Edgar, SR10.2 Moderate 12 Moderate 9Moderate 9Moderate 9Moderate 9 and failure to return to business as normal, within required Stewart timescales. Strategic Risk 11: Information Governance Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Failure to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information resulting in inefficient/ineffective service delivery by SR11.1 Burns, Jane High 20 High 16 High 16 High 16 High 16 the Council and its partners, service interruption, harm to individuals, reputational damage, legal action or fines Strategic Risk 12: Climate Change Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel Failure of the Council/Gloucestershire to adapt to a more volatile climate, with rising temperatures, continually high and SR12.1 Riglar, Nigel High 25 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 Moderate 10 increasing energy prices and the increasing need to reduce carbon emissions. Strategic Risk 13: Community Infrastructure Levy Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Residual Risk Direction of Ref. Risk Owner Inherent Risk Mitigating Actions for High or Changed Residual Risks Q1 15/16 Q2 15/16 Q3 15/16 Q4 15/16 Travel The District Councils continue to seek to introduce CILs. The JCS authorities are most progressed and have already had two SR14.1 Emergence of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Riglar, Nigel High 20 High 15 High 15 High 15 High 15 consultation exercises. GCC officers will continue to engage with the District Councils to attempt to assure that GCC's views and requirements are known. Page 216 Page
18 Meeting the Challenge 2 Overview - End of Year 2015/16
2015/16 Actual 2015/16 Savings Project Sponsor Manager Savings £000 Target £000
Programme Sponsor: Linda Programme Director: Chris Building Better Lives Programme Uren/ Margaret Willcox Haynes
Electronic Call Monitoring Chris Haynes Jane Reid 647 1,500 Brandon Trust Recommissioning Chris Haynes Jane Reid 4,148 1,500 Outcome Based Commissioning (including Brokerage) Chris Haynes Jane Reid 0 1,000 Reshaping Delivery Function (all age, all disability) Chris Haynes Agy Pasek 170 650 Community Enablement & Inclusion Chris Haynes Agy Pasek 0 833 Complex & Challenging Behaviour all age Chris Haynes Agy Pasek 0 200 Short Break Review Simon Bilous Alison Cathles 50 50 Total 5,015 5,733 Page 217 Page Programme Sponsor: Programme Manager: Steve Older People & Vulnerable Adults Programme (Single Programme) Margaret Willcox Williams & Louise Holder
Reassessments Margaret Willcox Kit Whitehead 521 1,460 Reduction in Care Home Admissions Margaret Willcox Patrick Graham 65 670 Direct Payments Margaret Willcox Deborah Greig 102 300 Review of Urgent Support Plan Usage Margaret Willcox Carol Wood 504 390 MD Panel 186 50 Reablement Margaret Willcox Donna Miles 1195 1500
Referral Centres Mark Branton Iain Cockley-Adams 0 60
Strategic Telecare Mark Branton Donna Miles 101 30 Support to Care Home Sector Margaret Willcox Debbie Clarke 100 100 Bed Based Care (MtC1&2) Margaret Willcox Mark Branton 1906 2300 Integrated Social Care Margaret Willcox Dawn Porter 0 1250 Care Act changes/funding (one-off 15/16) 890 890 Domiciliary Care & ECM Mark Branton Gillian Leake & Jane Reid 90 90 Total 5,660 9,090
19 Meeting the Challenge 2 Overview - End of Year 2015/16
2015/16 Actual 2015/16 Savings Project Sponsor Manager Savings £000 Target £000
Programme Manager: Programme Sponsor: Linda Eugene O'Kane/Clarisse Vulnerable Children & Families Programme Uren Forgues Commissioning saving Linda Uren Sue Hall 446 446 Total 446 446 Programme Sponsor: Nigel Programme Manager: Becky Customer Programme Riglar Ledger Customer Access Nigel Riglar Becky Ledger 570 570 Area Based Review Neil Corbett Chris Corrigan 2,328 2,400 Registration income 30 30 Total 2,928 3,000 Page 218 Page Programme Sponsor: Jo Programme Manager: Alan Transport programme Grills Bently
Home to School Transport Alan Bently Charlotte Jones 226 150 Staff Travel & fleet Alan Bently Lee Bardsley-Taylor 165 170 Social Care Transport Alan Bently Wendy McEvoy 21 20 Public & Community Transport Alan Bently Alan Barrett 182 300 Total 594 640 Programme Sponsor: Stewart Community Services Programme Edgar
Dave Hornibrook/Carole Fire and Rescue redesign (MTC2 savings) Stewart Edgar 871 871 Pittaway Road safety redesign Stewart Edgar Maria Boon 229 300 Trading Standards Efficiency or repositioning Stewart Edgar Eddie Coventry 180 180 Total 1,280 1,351 Programme Sponsor: Nigel Programme Manager: Peter Highways Programme Riglar Wiggins
Contract Efficiencies Nigel Riglar Scott Tompkins 250 250 Additional Income Nigel Riglar Scott Tompkins 40 40 Minor Works Revenue Review Nigel Riglar Scott Tompkins 1,300 1,300 Total 1,590 1,590
20 Meeting the Challenge 2 Overview - End of Year 2015/16
2015/16 Actual 2015/16 Savings Project Sponsor Manager Savings £000 Target £000
Infrastructure & Economic Growth Programme
Decommission Sustainability and Planning Nigel Riglar Simon Excell 166 166 Reshape minerals and waste team Nigel Riglar Simon Excell 30 30 Total 196 196 Supporting People Supporting People Linda Uren Kath Rees 688 688 Total 688 688 Other Projects Adult Mental Health Service Review Margaret Willcox Karl Gluck 160 264
Refocus QA function Margaret Willcox Louise Brill 100 77 Page 219 Page Education Linda Uren Stewart King 742 757
Libraries efficiency programme Nigel Riglar Jane Everiss 30 30
Countryside and Traveller Sites Nigel Riglar Alan Bently 5 5
Communications Nigel Riglar Lisa McCredie 200 200
Strategic Finance Jo Walker Mark Spilsbury 179 179
People Services 15/16 onwards Dilys Wynn Rodney Semple 215 215
ICT Stewart Edgar Andy Gilbert 250 250
Property Jo Walker Neil Corbett 800 800
Legal Jane Burns Gillian Parkinson 150 150
Strategy and Challenge (incl Archives) Jane Burns Chris Stock 300 300 Total 3,131 3,227 Grand Total 21,527 25,961
Data Source: Verto May 2016
21 This page is intentionally left blank