Staffing cost ‘blunder’ hitting social work clients, claims councillor

It will cost Scottish Borders Council £1.3million this year to keep nine local children in safe accommodation outwith the region.

Councillors heard last week that the number of out-of-area placements of children in care had increased by seven compared to the last financial year, with the annual cost ranging from £22,000 to a massive £163,000 per child.

Councillor Frances Renton, executive member for social work, also revealed that between December last year and this September, the number of children looked after away from their own homes had risen from 173 to 223, with 83 of these subject to supervision requirements.

“Our nine most expensive accommodated children cost us just over £1.3million,” said Mrs Renton, adding: “This rise in demand in part reflects a general upward trend in Scotland and in part is linked to the opening of five locality access points in the region for the public and professionals.”

Mrs Renton was in the firing line at Thursday’s full council meeting over the recent revelation that her department was facing a projected £2.1million budget overspend in the current financial year.

SBC’s executive has already sanctioned a number of controversial measures to bridge the funding gap, agreeing last month to £1.68million of social work cuts in the current financial year, including the reduction of home care hours provided by the council by 8 per cent and the progressive withdrawal of care home beds.

The £470,000 balance of the projected deficit will come from education, via managed cuts including the non-filling of community learning vacancies.

Councillor Nicholas Watson (Borders Party) acknowledged the increase in children requiring to be placed in care, but noted that a report had already conceded that £748,000 of the projected overspend was down to “further difficulties emerging from the staffing budget of the new Integrated Children’s Service (ICS)”.

“Why did it take so long for the projected overspend in the ICS staffing budget to be identified, what was its cause and what measures have been put in place to ensure this sort of mistake should not be made again?,” he asked Mrs Renton.

She said that the costs of the new ICS structure, implemented in February, were “higher than available resources”.

“Some posts that were not costed into the structure continued into the new services,” she stated. “The costs of preserved and conserved posts is higher than anticipated and posts were costed at the mid point of the salary scale … while the actual posts were occupied by a large majority of staff at or near the top of their grade.”

She added that, in co-operation with education, her department was reviewing ICS’s management and staffing structure to ensure it was affordable and sustainable by April 1 next year.”

TheSouthern understands many specialist teachers who were formerly employed by the education department, but who now come under the social work-run ICS structure, have received letters telling them the review would “have a direct impact on some staff or groups of staff” and that those affected will know their fate by Christmas.

Mr Watson said it was sad Mrs Renton was insisting there was no social work overspend when the council’s executive had been told of “major variances between projected out-turn expenditure and the current approved budget”.

“The council has been clever in hiding behind the pressure of increasing numbers of children being taken into care when the real story here is the staffing blunder,” said Mr Watson.

“The truth is that much of the budget pressure comes because nine posts which should have only featured in the ICS budget also appeared in the education budget. This means that not only are we now paying for extra posts, but I understand it will also take a while to slim down the ICS management because staff in posts have rights and cannot be moved on.

“So savings have to be found elsewhere and a large chunk of the hit is being borne by old and vulnerable social work clients.

“The combined cost of this mistake and the pressure of more children going into care is over £2million: money which could have been invested in setting up a unit in the Borders to provide for children with severe needs who are currently being looked after outside the region.

“We could then have saved huge sums as well as providing a service to youngsters without removing them so far from their homes.”

While learning support and other specialist teachers dealing with additional needs pupils face an anxious wait, an increase in existing social work charges and the levying of new fees, unconnected to the projected overspend, have been implemented this week.

Mrs Renton has defended the charges, which will bring in £140,000 a year, claiming they are “fair and equitable”.

But the father of a young man with learning difficulties who attends the Reiver Industries project in Tweedbank, has contacted TheSouthern to say the new day service fees will cost his son an extra £124 a month.

“Attending the Reiver scheme has transformed my son’s quality of life for the better, giving him stimulation, friends and a sense of purpose,” said the man, who did not wish to be named.

“Fortunately, our family can afford to pay the new £2 daily attendance fee, the £1 transport charge and £3.20 for a hot meal, but I am really worried that other vulnerable people will stop using the services and that would be a tragedy.”

A council spokesperson said an appeals procedure was in place for affected clients. Those concerned about the charges are advised to call 01835 825080.

Meanwhile, former SBC leader Drew Tulley has compared the projected social work overspend to the £3.9million black hole discovered in the education budget in 2001: a crisis which saw him forced from office.

“There’s no way there was a sudden increase in people with special needs since the budget was set six months ago,” he told last month’s meeting of Galashiels Community Council. “This is the equivalent of what happened with education almost 10 years ago and I think it’s appalling.”