Agenda item

The Forum considered a report (Agenda Item 9). Ian Pearson advised that the report title was not correct as it was not putting forward budget proposals for 2016/17 but set out the 2015/16 High Needs budgets, the forecast for the current year, and the latest estimates for 2016/17.

There was likely to be a significant shortfall in funding in the High Needs Block (HNB) in 2016/17 of approximately £2m, mainly due to the following factors:

·                No increase in funding expected for this block (other than the full year neutral effect of changing from residency to location basis for place funding).

·                The carry forward in funding from previous years which had supported the budget in the current year had been used up.

·                There was likely to be an overspend in 2015/16 which would need to be funded from the 2016/17 HNB allocation.

·                Continuing increase in numbers and level of support required for high needs pupils.

Table 1 summarised the position on the HNB. The current forecast for 2015/16 was a shortfall of circa £695,780 which would need to be funded in 2016/17. The estimates for 2016/17 were based on all services continuing and at current staffing levels/contract costs, and funding rates for top ups remaining the same for the current and/or known number and funding level of pupils.

Place Funding

Table 2 on pages 82 and 83 of the agenda pack currently showed no increase to special school planned places, as there was no additional planned place funding to allocate unless there was surplus planned place funding in other institutions which could be reallocated. This information related to Agenda Item 8.

Top-Up Funding

Table 3 on page 84 showed the budget and forecast for 2015/16 – the forecast was a £432k overspend. The forecast for top up funding in 2015/16 was based on pupils receiving this funding in the Autumn term 2015/16 and assumes no change in numbers to the end of that financial year.

The main areas of pressure in the top up budgets were non West Berkshire special schools, West Berkshire maintained special schools and non West Berkshire resourced units.

Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) and Home Tuition

David Ramsden stated that the pressure was primarily caused by non West Berkshire special schools; Ian Pearson corrected that top ups to Pupil Referral Units were also causing significant pressure.

David Ramsden commented that Table 4 on pages 84 and 85 was interesting; usually the budget for the next financial year was identical on the Month 7 forecasting. Claire White advised that the 2016/17 budget was based on the current numbers of pupils.

Ian Pearson commented that Schools Forum would need to evaluate whether a single top-up for PRUs would be appropriate. The top-up was causing a problem in one of the PRU services. The matter had been previously considered by the Schools Forum and they might need to consider making an in-year adjustment in January 2016 to be applied across February and March 2016.

Other Statutory Services

Table 7 detailed the changes made to statutory services budgets between 2014/15 and 2015/16 and the latest forecast. The main change between 2014/15 and 2015/16 was recognising therapy services needed to be funded by the HNB. The pressure in the current year was mainly due to hospital tuition placements.

Stacey Hunter noted that hospital tuition had no set budget in 2015/16 and enquired if it was known that the service needed to be paid for. Ian Pearson explained that the service had not previously been charged and the Local Authority had received an invoice from a third party. The matter was being investigated but it did appear that there was a statutory obligation to fund this service. At present, the legislation required that any child of statutory school age receive tuition between the dates of admission and discharge. West Berkshire Council were seeking to be informed of a child in hospital within two days of admission and further details to allow scrutiny of other factors as it was suspected that the council was being charged for more tuition than the child was receiving.

Ian Pearson outlined that the position relating to non-statutory services funded within the HNB were outlined in the report.

Peter Hudson expressed that it might be considered the Schools Forum set the budget too low for the HNB. Ian Pearson replied that at the beginning of the financial year assumptions had to be made regarding the number of pupils with High Needs and their respective levels of need. During 2015/16, there were more pupils than expected and the levels of need were greater. There had also been some unanticipated costs such as the hospital tuition. The Schools Forum had decided when setting the budget for 2015/16 not to move money between each of the three blocks in order to mitigate any overspend that might occur in the HNB. Most of the overspend had not been predicted. One lesson might be that more money was required to be allocated to the HNB in the 2016/17 budget but if the Schools Forum continued to take its current approach the situation would worsen. A higher percentage of statemented/EHC children were now placed in specialist settings.

Reverend Bennett asked if officers had compared the position of West Berkshire with other Local Authorities. If the problem in the HNB persisted, a structural solution would need to be found. Reverend Bennett asked if other Local Authorities could be approached for a joint provision of some services in order to achieve economies of scale.

Ian Pearson responded that the ability to address the overspend in part was determined by the available resources in the local area. For example, a significant cost was incurred by non west Berkshire school places for pupils with behavioural difficulties and severe autism spectrum disorder (ASD) because there was no appropriate provision within the local authority area. Some local authorities do have local provision and the action to be taken to address this would depend on the pattern of provision. Seven years ago there was no in-authority ASD resource and it was a low incidence- high cost issue so places outside the area would be bought. However, two ASD resources at Theale Primary and Theale Secondary Schools enabled pupils with ASD to be educated at a lower cost than previously. Strategically, the next step would be to create two new ASD resources in the west of West Berkshire. One is already open  at Trinity School. It could also be considered that current resources such as the Castle School could be expanded and might be offered additional funding to provide more places but at an overall lower cost than the cost of placements at non West Berkshire special schools.

Ian Pearson further added that the local authority did benchmark spending against comparator local authorities; this information would be discussed later on the agenda. The data which had been collected demonstrated that all Local Authorities were overspending on their HNB which would indicate that nationally the funding system was flawed. In the longer term, investment in services would be required to help them grow.

Taking the example of Westwood Farm, Ian Pearson went on to add that previously, places had been ‘sold’ to Reading to raise income for the authority, however this was no longer enough to make the provision viable. There would be a need to look beyond West Berkshire’s border for opportunities to improve service provision and the situation was not unique to West Berkshire.

Non-Statutory Services

Returning to the report, Ian Pearson reminded the members of the Forum that £202k savings were agreed by the Schools’ Forum in 2014/15 and the forecast was that in the majority of cases these budgets should be on-line.

Regarding Language and Literacy Centres, the Schools Forum had been presented with the option to close one or both of the Centres in order to alleviate pressure on the HNB but this did not find favour.

The Specialist Inclusion Support Service budget was reduced by £36k in 2015/16 with the special schools providing the service absorbing the cost.

The Cognition and Learning Team had received a reduction in its 2015/16 budget and was now charging schools for some of its services to generate income.

The Pre School Teacher Counselling Service (PSTCS) was funded by the central education budget rather than the DSG. West Berkshire Council, in setting its revenue budget for 2016/17, was consulting on proposals to reduce spending on the PSTCS.

The Heads Funding Group had acknowledged that they would like the Learning Independence for Travel (LIFT) service to be retained, however did not feel that the service could be funded from the HNB given its current position. David Ramsden agreed that money from the HNB should not be spent on additional services when savings were needed.

Ian Pearson advised that further work on the above would be carried out before the January 2016 meeting.

Peter Hudson opined that he hoped the Schools Forum would reflect on the issues and consider what lessons they had learnt from 2015/16 for setting the budget in future financial years.

Ian Pearson commented that if the Schools Forum knew then what they know now, some different decisions might have been made but there would have been different implications. For example, Early Years Providers had been clear that without the maintenance of the funding rates, some providers might have gone out of business.

Keith Watts left at 6.24pm

Suzanne Taylor expressed the view that if services continued to be provided in the same way they would only become more expensive and West Berkshire should consider combined contracts with other Local Authorities to deliver its services. She noted that other authorities delivered services such as the PSTCS in other ways.

David Ramsden agreed that all Forum members would consider their areas to be the most important priority for funding, however a strategic review was required.

Julia Bond agreed there was a need to deliver services in different ways and thanked Ian Pearson for his useful explanation of the issues outlined in the report.

Peter Hudson asked if mitigation plans could be written which would be enacted should a budget reach a particular level and be forecasted to overspend.

Ian Pearson responded that the biggest problem was that the demand on the budget was need-led. Some of the services provided in West Berkshire were attractive to parents in other local authority areas and they had been moving into the area to access them, which increased pressure on the services. Officers had sought to reconfigure provision to be delivered more economically.

David Ramsden voiced his dissatisfaction that the Schools Forum would need to make a decision on the Schools Block budget in January 2016 because they might regret some of the choices made; Claire White explained that this was due to a deadline set by the Department for Education. Ian Pearson reminded the Forum that it could choose not to allocate any anticipated surplus so as to potentially support the pressures in the HNB.

Julia Bond summated that a £2m overspend was not sustainable and there needed to be a process to resolve it.

Ian Pearson concluded that between this meeting and the meetings of the Heads Funding Group and Schools Forum in January 2016 there would be a series of discussions between Headteachers and officers to consider what savings could be made in services and what services could be delivered in a different way.

John Tyzack thanked Ian Pearson for explaining the report in a detailed manner.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.