Agenda item

As part of this item a presentation will be given on the risks associated with the costs of Special Educational Needs placements.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources, the purpose of which was to provide an overview of key risk areas and the measures being taken to address them. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8, is filed with these minutes.

The Committee also received a presentation on the risks associated with the costs of Special Educational Needs (SEN) placements as per risk 1.6 on the Corporate Risk Register. A copy of the slides forming the presentation is filed with these minutes.

Presentation – SEN placements

Arising from the presentation the following points were noted:

(i)            In response to concerns from Members that this was a high cost service with little control over demand, reassurance was given that all attempts would be made to maintain the quality of service whilst investing financial resources in local provision which should produce savings. Improvements needed to be made with transition planning and therefore additional staff had been allocated to this area. Savings could also potentially be made in the post 19 age group.

(ii)          In answer to a question about the breakdown of the £19.5 million spent on 366 pupils and whether the bulk of this was due to a minority of those pupils with especially high needs, Members were informed that placements varied from between £40,000 and £100,000. The overall cost of a placement could vary dramatically depending on transport costs, though transport costs were not included in these figures. Members stated that it would be helpful if the transport costs were included in the figures. The Director of Corporate Resources confirmed that a decision had been taken to combine the transport budget for SEN placements with the overall transport budget because if the transport budgets were separate the Council would lose the economies of scale.

(iii)         Concerns were raised by Members that the Governance structure of the High Needs Project Group was over elaborate. In response reassurance was given that the Boards which were in place were essential and did not meet more often than was necessary. It was noted that as the High Needs Project Group was established by the Transformation Unit it needed to report back to the Transformation Board, and it also needed to report to the Schools Forum as that was the body that decided how funding was allocated.

(iv)         Clarification was given regarding the phrase ‘Out of County Placements’ which referred to independent schools not in the control of the County Council rather than schools out of the geographical County of Leicestershire.

Corporate Risk Register

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)            If members perceived that there was a risk which should be recorded on the Risk Register then they could raise this with the relevant Departmental Director.

(ii)          Confirmation was given that Risk 2.4 Help to Live at Home was expected to move to medium/amber because the re-procurement exercise for providers was close to being complete. The providers already in place were being monitored and a report on this would be considered by the Adults and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 20 June 2017.

(iii)         With regard to risk category 3 on the subject of ICT and Information Security an update was provided on the world-wide cyber-attack which took place on 12 May 2017. Confirmation was given that there had been no attacks from this particular ransomware on Leicestershire County Council systems and no major issues had been reported by departments, key suppliers or by partners. Members were reassured that the County Council did not use Windows XP software and that there was a robust maintenance schedule which ensured that all infrastructure equipment was updated regularly. The Council’s Resilience Planning Group had met to co-ordinate the Council’s business continuity response and a review was taking place to establish if there were any lessons that could be learnt.

(iv)         With regard to the requirement to publish annually summary details of fraud investigations undertaken by local authorities Members asked for the figures for Leicestershire County Council and it was agreed that this information would be circulated to Members after the meeting.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the contents of the report and presentation be noted;

(b)  That the current status of the strategic risks and emerging risks facing the Council, as detailed in the report and the Corporate Risk Register, be noted;

(c)  That the updated Corporate Risk Register be approved;

(d)  That a presentation be provided at the next meeting of the Committee on the risk that Leicestershire County Council and partners do not have the capacity to meet expected increase in demand caused by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, as detailed in the Corporate Risk Register (Risk 2.3).