The Vulnerable At Risk
An exercise in robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is one way to interpret figures, obtained by The Herald, which show money is being taken from one part of the social work budget of Scottish local authorities to shore up another section. The cash involved might not be substantial compared with the overall annual budget – perhaps £50m out of a total of more than £2bn – but the transfer is representative of a bigger problem afflicting at least one of the core areas of responsibility of councils. This is the care of children at risk.
It is already known that a key component in dealing with children at risk, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA), is buckling under the pressure of having to handle a record number of referrals with standstill funding. Reforms introduced under the Children (Scotland) Act of 1995 were, paradoxically, intended to reduce the number of referrals to the panel system. However, for a variety of reasons, these have gone up, at a cost in workload and budget stresses not just to the SCRA but also to core children’s social work services.
To establish the true cost of handling a growing caseload, and what failing to provide adequate resources would entail for future provision, the Association of Directors of Social Work commissioned Professor Arthur Midwinter, an expert on local government and its financing, to come up with some answers. His findings make grim reading, especially, perhaps, for the Scottish Executive. He has found that money needed to provide children’s social work services in the current financial year is some £160m more than provided by the executive in grant-aided expenditure (GAE, or what ministers believe councils required to provide a standard service with average efficiency).
The figures suggest that, across Scotland, some £50m has been shifted from other parts of social work budgets to ease the pressure on children’s services. Not all councils have done this. But it appears that an underspend in the budget for elderly people has borne the brunt of the transfer exercise. Given the pressures to fund free personal care for the elderly on an equitable basis across Scotland, so that no eligible pensioner has to wait longer than warranted for the package and the current iniquitous postcode lottery is eradicated, it is surprising, to say the least, that this budget should suffer.
Although the cash was not apparently earmarked to deliver this flagship policy (the home help service was one intended beneficiary), a case could also have been made for shortening the queues for free care.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is also a symptom of the difficulties and tensions arising from the executive making policy and legislating centrally for the provision of services locally without disbursing sufficient funding to do the job properly. Professor Midwinter blames the executive for failing to provide adequate resources to implement its laws and guidance. He warns that, unless the GAE for children’s social work is increased (on current projections, it is due to fall) to take account of growing demand and the rising cost of providing services, the shortfall will be about £207m by 2010-11.
His is a warning everyone with an interest in children’s welfare, and indeed the welfare of elderly people, must wake up to. Delivering services to both is far too important to leave to a make-do-and-mend approach, with one budget being weakened to strengthen another, dependent on how annual expenditure allocations pan out. Equally, Professor Midwinter’s report is much too important to be kept behind closed doors. It should be published so there can be a full and proper debate on the best, and most sustainable, way to provide proper services to our most vulnerable groups.
