Government leaves children’s chiefs to decide ‘savage’ cuts

Children’s services leaders have been left to agonise over where the axe should fall after the Department for Education (DfE) confirmed councils must decide how to distribute the £311m cuts to the overall area-based grant, leaving school support and Connexions services at risk.

The area-based grant funds teenage pregnancy work, Care Matters and positive activities among others.

Birmingham, one of the larger authorities, is facing a £7.5m cut from the DfE area-based grant, while Essex Council is losing more than £6m. Smaller authority Westminster Council in London is facing a £1.5m cut.

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, leader of the Labour group in Westminster, said his authority could not afford to lose £1.5m without damaging frontline services.

“The [government] said these initial cuts would be about reducing waste,” he said. “But now we find out they have targeted children for the most savage cuts.”

Andrew Cozens, strategic adviser for children’s services at the Improvement and Development Agency, warned that the most efficient councils would be worst hit, as they have less scope to cut waste.

“It is quite easy for government to make statements about reducing bureaucracy but then leave it to councils to work out the detail,” he said.

Kim Bromley-Derry, former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS), said removing ringfences on the grants would free up resources for local authorities. But warned that directors of children’s services would have to examine benefit and cost. “It is important these decisions are evidence-based as there are too few resources to waste on interventions that do not have the expected impact,” he said.

Christine Davies, director of the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children’s Services (C4EO), said she would be working closely with ADCS to help councils establish which services to protect and which to cut. She added that C4EO and ADCS are in the process of creating a tool to assist councils in calculating the cost effectiveness of service interventions.

“As resources get tighter we are going to have to be as clear as possible about which interventions are the most effective,” Davies explained.

A DfE spokesman argued that the reductions in the area-based grant would cut waste, while protecting essential frontline services.

“We expect local authorities to now reassess funding to ensure reductions don’t impact on frontline services,” he said. “This is about sensible overall reductions across all local authority spending.”