Agenda item

Jane Rodgers introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Cabinet Member Ian Chandler, Diane Corrister and Jenny Jenkins:

• 74% of care leavers in employment, education, or training, means there are 26% who are not – is this typical or a cause for concern? 

Officers explained that the actual numbers are small, percentages can be skewed, and there are legitimate reasons (such as parenting or health issues) for some not being engaged. They emphasised ongoing support and tracking for all care leavers, with some entering employment or education later.

• Why is the number of adults using direct payments not increasing, given their perceived benefits? 

While direct payments are encouraged, they are not suitable for everyone due to the responsibilities involved. Some people explore the option but decide against it, and there is expected to be an increase in uptake due to recent changes in domiciliary care commissioning. 

• Where is “staff churn” greatest, is it among professionally qualified staff or other roles? 

Most turnover occurs in direct services (domiciliary care, reablement, residential), while professionally qualified and leadership roles are harder to recruit for but have less “churn”. Each area faces different recruitment and retention challenges. 

• How are people supported in managing direct payments, and how do we mitigate against potential risks such as coercive control or fraud? What about monitoring, payroll, and safeguarding for vulnerable recipients? 

The council retains responsibility for reviewing care and support needs, offers managed bank accounts and payroll services to handle tax and National Insurance, and provides dedicated direct payment advisors. Social workers continue oversight, and mechanisms are in place to minimise the administrative burden and protect recipients. 

• Why is positive feedback from adult social care surveys lower than during or before COVID, and is there any understanding of this trend? 

Officers explained that satisfaction can be influenced by various factors (e.g., waiting times, changes in workers, unmet expectations), and while disappointing, the service focusses on workforce training, communication, and quality assurance to address these issues. 

• Is learning from the recent changes in domiciliary care commissioning in the South being applied to the North and Central areas?

A full review with partners is pending, but interim lessons include improving communication with providers and residents, and adapting approaches to local provider landscapes. Officers emphasised the importance of engaging providers and supporting operational teams. 

• What is the general learning from the significant number of complaints, and have there been any resulting changes? 

Officers noted that complaints provide detailed insights, with communication being a recurring theme. The service is working to improve communication, especially around financial advice and legal processes, and ensures staff are trained to handle complex interactions. 

• A discrepancy in the reported numbers of looked after children was noted. 

The observation was acknowledged and officers committed to checking and correcting the figures. 

• A member suggested ensuring social worker support is in place before major changes and involving local councillors as advocates for isolated residents. 

The Chief Officer agreed to consider these points. 

• What will be the impact of Monmouthshire’s growing older population and declining working-age population on future adult services demand? Should we be concerned about our ability to meet this demand? Does the replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) make sufficient provision to address demographic imbalance? 

Officers acknowledged the challenge, explaining that service redesign focuses on prevention, early intervention, and reablement to manage increased demand. They noted the importance of housing strategy and attracting younger people and care workers, but emphasised that shifting demographics is a long-term issue. The RLDP aims to create more affordable housing to retain younger residents and care workers, but this is a gradual process. 

• The Chair highlighted discrepancies in reported workforce numbers between infographics and the main report, requesting clarification. He emphasised the importance of workforce grants and expressed concern about the potential risk of future grant cuts. Referencing recent national figures on the cost of looked after children, he noted that Monmouthshire’s per-child cost appears lower, and asked for clarification on average costs. He commended improvements in children’s services response times and adult social care metrics, such as reduced waiting lists and unfilled care hours, and thanked the team for these achievements. 

Chair’s Summary: 

The Chair expressed appreciation for the extensive and excellent work carried out daily by social care colleagues across the county, noting that most are working in the community rather than in the council building. He emphasised the high value and gratitude felt by the committee for both frontline staff and officers, acknowledging that this may not always be apparent during scrutiny sessions. He highlighted the usefulness of including case studies and graphical data in the report, making the service more accessible and understandable for councillors and residents. He encouraged wider sharing of the report to help residents understand how council tax funds are spent and to raise awareness of the positive impact of social care services. He recognised the significant effort involved in producing the report and thanked the officers. The report was moved.