Agenda item

Adult Social Care Budget Presentation

The Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee will receive a Budget Awareness presentation as part of the enhanced scrutiny engagement for the 2025/26 budget.

The presentation will cover budget, pressures, assumed savings for those areas within the remit of the Committee. The Committee will have the opportunity to ask questions around the budget and is also asked to consider how it wishes to engage further with the development of the 2025/26 budget.

Minutes:

The Overview and Scrutiny Specialist introduced the purpose of the item and invited the Corporate Director for Wellbeing and the Director of Public Health to present to the Committee.

 

The Corporate Director for Wellbeing’s presentation highlighted the following:

 

  • Wellbeing Directorate – Overview
  • Total wellbeing budget 2024/25 – including a breakdown of gross expenditure
  • Where the money is spent: 2024-25 BCP ASC/Commissioning Gross expenditure
  • Budget narrative
  • 2024/25 projected outturn
  • Wellbeing MTFP – pressures
  • Wellbeing MTFP – one off and transformation savings
  • Wellbeing – ASC Transformation (Fulfilled Lives Programme): Investment per scheme, £ and % of total programme
  • Wellbeing – ASC Transformation (Fulfilled Lives Programme): Programme Investment and Savings Schedule.

 

The Director of Adult Social Care highlighted the £5.1 million virement to Children’s Services and explained that the budget had been set using assumptions on levels of care which, due to changes in circumstances, may no longer be required.

 

The Committee discussed the presentations, including:

 

  • The Chair highlighted the slides detailed how the £3.5 million savings were going to be achieved.
  • Following a query, clarification was given over the different ways the pie charts cut the budget
  • In response to a query about consideration given to bringing services back in house as part of the transformation programme, the reasons why this had not been considered was provided including the large number of providers ASC commissioned.  The Committee was advised that consideration had been given to how best to maximise the potential of the services commissioned, to ensure efficient services at the best value and ensuring there was no gaps within the provision.
  • The Committee was reassured that Adult Social Care were a major player in the local market, who also commissioned on behalf of health partners and could use its influence as a positive.
  • In response to concerns regarding the virement to Children’s Services, the Committee was advised that the anticipated budget for some complex cases was not required and in order to balance budgets where possible, the virement was processed.
  • In response to queries regarding waiting times within the service including for reviews and assessments, the Director of Adult Social Care suggested this could be a good area to focus on within the deep dive working group.
  • In response to a query regarding the £10 million variance detailed, the Committee was given the reasons for that which included an increase in income generated, transferring users or sharing costs with health partners and changes in circumstances.  It was noted that there was a breakdown of the variance which could be shared with the Committee.

 

The Director of Public Health’s presentation highlighted the following:

 

  • 24/25 Public Health arrangements
  • 24/25 forecast
  • Transition to 25/26 new arrangements
  • 25/26 budget proposals
  • Implications of agreements to date
  • Risks, issues and uncertainties.

 

The Committee discussed the presentations, including:

 

  • In response to a query regarding the cost and impact on residents of splitting the Public Health function, the Committee was advised that there would still be a lot of collaboration between the Directors of Public Health and their teams and that the split could enable the authorities to commission more targeted support to its population increasing responsiveness and flexibility.  How each of the authorities would manage the cost of splitting the role was detailed.
  • In response to a query regarding the activities and outcomes of the Live Well Dorset programme, the Committee was advised that it had managed to reach those living in the most deprived areas of BCP and that access could potentially be provided to the dashboard for the Committee to see the output.  ACTION.
  • In response to a query regarding the contracts currently retained in Dorset, the Committee was provided with details of the mix of contracts including those provided through a quality framework agreement.  It was advised that there were some very complex contracts which would require time to retender as opposed to some of the smaller contracts which could be completed in a shorter timescale.  It was noted that each contract would be considered and where appropriate, pan Dorset contracts would continue.
  • In response to a query regarding the potential of redundancies, the Committee was advised that an HR process was currently being finalised and it would not be appropriate to discuss this at this time.
  • A Committee Member requested the positives of the separation of the Public Health function be reported back to Committee at an appropriate time.  ADD TO WORK PLAN.