Agenda item

Issues Raised by the Committee:

Responses Received from Officers and Cabinet Members:

What was PCAN?

PCAN ‘Powys Can’ was a commissioned service by Powys County Council through which Action for Children provided one-to-one support for young people within the community with profound disability.

The Committee asked for clarification regarding the acronym IDS.

IDS was the abbreviation given to the Integrated Disability Service; it was the name of the social work team that supported children with disabilities and additional needs.

Was the service reliant upon grants?

The service utilised charitable organisations and had accessed some support from health colleagues with specific training for some staff.

All the money for the project came out of the base budget. Grants previously used were additional grants that related to specific families.

It was asked who applied for the grants?

Families were encouraged to apply for the grants themselves, but IDS could provide support.

 Did the Powys Teaching Health Board (PTHB) contribute towards costs?

The PTHB did not generally contribute towards costs.

Was the funding and work relationship monitored to ensure it was effective for continuing care?

Assurance was given that there was a fortnightly triage where teams met and discussed individual cases.

As well as a bimonthly meeting held for senior managers to discuss further cases with teams.

The financial statement was requested.

ACTION

It was mentioned that over the last 12 months there had been an increase in children moving into the county. A graph from previous years was requested to provide more detailed information.

ACTION

Officers would provide information and acknowledged that the cost impact could be significant.

The cost analysis data could be provided after a consultation period in autumn, subject to confidentiality.

This data could be shared with education colleagues as it would also impact schools.

Had the number of children moving into the county previously discussed included unaccompanied child refugees? Were their costs included in this figure?

The data provided did not include unaccompanied child refugees.

In the presentation slides, where it says, ‘Not good value’, does that mean the past provision was not good value? How long had that contract been in place and what scrutiny of that contract had taken place during the contractual period?

It was explained that it was the new proposal which was considered ‘not good value’. It was a very different model that did not fit the needs of the children. 

Changes to delivery models could be disruptive to families, how much notice would be given and what were the concerns regarding the transition to a new provision.

A consultation period provided awareness to families regarding the contract renewal. 

Every family was spoken to, and letters were sent out for assessments to be made in advance.

Plans were put in place to support families, and the next steps of provision were available for those who had difficulty with the transition.

ACTION – Officers would provide a written update on the consultation later in the year.

It was suggested that if the project rolled over into cost efficiency for the next year’s budget, the creativity explored in this project could be showcased in further impact assessments.