(1)

Collaborative Enforcement is included on the Working Plymouth Panel’s work programme;

(2)

progress updates relating to the GAME Transformation Programme will be scrutinised by the Working Plymouth Panel; (as these items are included within the Your Plymouth Panel’s terms of reference, the Panel will receive updates by email).

?

review and prioritisation of the capital programme;

?

collaborative enforcement, shard problems, shared solutions;

?

Cities of Service;

?

new Community Economic Development Trust;

?

future delivery of Highways Services;

?

parking IT and PCN processing contract;

?

Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry Joint Committee – bridge office development;

?

transition support for young people into education, employment and training – tender of contract;

?

residential and nursing care home fair price for care;

?

contract award for community service equipment;

?

implementing the Care Act 2014.

(a)

child poverty was essentially a result of poverty in families; child poverty matters because it meant that children were suffering now and their future lives could be blighted;

(b)

in 1999, the Government made a commitment to end child poverty by 2020; the Child Poverty Act was published in 2010 in order to deliver this and also placed a number of duties on local authorities and other local delivery partners to work together to tackle child poverty;

(c)

Plymouth shaped its own response to child poverty based on its understanding of child poverty as the outcome of economic, environmental and social factors that could damage a child’s development and limit or prevent children and young people from having many of the experiences and opportunities that others took for granted;

(d)

‘Child Poverty Matters – the Child Poverty Strategy’ for Plymouth 2013-2016 was endorsed at Full Council in June 2013;

(e)

the child poverty cross party working group was established in June 2014 and included three Labour and three Conservative councillors, including the Cabinet Member with responsibilities for child poverty;

(f)

the update on the Child Poverty Action Plan had been provided to the child poverty working group over the past 12 months and provided updates on the following areas –

?

financial support and independence;

?

family life and children’s life chances;

?

communities and neighbourhoods;

(g)

the ‘conversation’ about child poverty in Plymouth, had been led by Father Sam Philpott and had taken place on 16 July 2014 with around 30 stakeholders from across the city; there were a number of key themes that emerged from the conversation which included –

?

the need for active leadership to ensure intolerance of children living in poverty in the city;

?

the requirement for a holistic service planning and delivery approach.

(h)

the figures provided within the scorecard were based on the latest available data; the information highlighted how the performance had changed since 2010 against current performance also the national position;

(i)

Plymouth had a low income economy and had witnessed over the last three years  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

(a)

the council was facing significant financial challenges as its Government funding was being reduced, whilst demand on its key services was increasing and the cost of providing services, such as Adult Social Care was rising; following analysis of the council’s financial position for the next three years it had projected a reduction in spending of £64.5m;

(b)

the council was committed to avoiding large scale cuts in services that would be required in order to deliver savings on this scale and had embarked on an ambitious, large-scale transformation programme, the aim being to reduce costs by fundamentally changing the way services were delivered rather than simply stopping services;

(c)

the savings would be derived from a series of outline business cases from the five transformation programmes -

?

Co-operative Centre of Operations (CCO)

?

Customer Service Transformation (CST)

?

Growth, Asset and Municipal Enterprise (GAME) 

?

People and Organisational Development (POD)

?

Integrated Health and Wellbeing (IHWB)

(d)

the five transformation programmes planned to deliver £6.5m savings for the council in 2014/15; it would not be possible to deliver this scale of change as part of the council’s day to day business and in addition, the scale and timescales required to implement the changes required skills and planning not previously deployed by the council;

(e)

the Transformation Portfolio Office has run from August 2013 to date; it was established to oversee the change and to transfer new and specialist skills to the rest of the organisation; the total investment for 2014/15 in skills and capacity was £5.3m;

(f)

due to the ambitious scale of the programme, the council commissioned Deloitte to undertake an independent assurance of the transformation scope to assess whether it had been appropriately set up to deliver the programme plans;

(g)

the review had identified a number of strengths and advantages to the council’s approach to transformation, which included –

?

strong programme management capacity, capability and tools;

?

strong governance arrangements with project and programme boards;

?

provided focus and accountability;

?

provided expertise and subject matter knowledge;

(h)

a series of overarching recommendations for improvement had also been identified in three areas -

?

business cases;

?

pace;

?

transfer of skills;

(i)

in addition a number of specific recommendations had been identified for each of the transformation programmes;

(j)

a presentation was provided on the transformation capability maturity model and improvement plan, which included -

?

the journey so far;

?

what is a capability maturity model?

?

why develop our capabilities? OGC common causes of programme failure;

?

evidence statements;

?

the capabilities in the transformation capability maturity model;

?

how this model would be used to measure the maturing ability to deliver transformational change;

?

what capability maturity would look like by Spring 2015?

(a)

the estimated revenue overspend was £4.607m as at July 2014; the overall net spend equated to £209.387m against a budget of £204.680m which was a variance of 2.25 percent;

(b)

these figures needed to be taken within the context of setting £16m of management and net transformation savings in 2014/15; on the back of balancing the 2013/14 revenue budget where £17.8m of net revenue reductions were successfully delivered;

(c)

the key pressure points remained in Adult Social Care, where although client numbers were broadly in line with the set budget, the average cost per care package, per client was significantly higher (which reflected the more complex needs of clients that were being supported);

(d)

in addition the number of children within the council’s care was approximately 40 more than the set budget which equated to a projected overspend of £1.45m; a thorough review of all high cost placements was being undertaken and a number of additional actions had been put in place to contain the spend on social care in the current year;

(e)

the projected council overspend had improved b £1.072m from the position reported at the end of May 2014;

(f)

the latest capital programme 2013/14 to 2016/17 stood at £207.670m which had been approved at Full Council on 24 February 2014 (including the Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry at £7.445m);

(g)

following the approval of new schemes, re-profiling, variations and the inclusion of future years’ Government grants and other identified income streams (such as increased developer contributions); the revised capital programme for 2013/14 to 2016/17 was £216.398m (an increase of £8.738m).

(h)

following the completion of the high cost placements review, an analysis of the information would be undertaken to ensure that the service was being provided efficiently; once this work had been undertaken decisions could be made on whether further reductions in other service areas would be required;

(i)

the savings identified from the integrated health and adult social care of £1.6m by 2014/15 had been included in the overall figures;

(j)

the delay with the Energy from Waste (EfW) plant had caused a timing delay in the receipt of PFI credits; in addition, the procurement of Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) had resulted in net costs of £720,000;

(k)

an improvement in the overspend had been reported which was currently under £4m.