Agenda item

The Forum considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which provided an update on the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding for 2016/17 and an overview of the total current budget position. Other reports on the agenda went into further detail on the high needs and early years’ blocks. The 2016/17 budgets for these blocks would need to be agreed at this meeting.

The Department for Education (DfE) announced the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) settlement for 2016/17 on 17^th December 2015. DSG funding is split into 3 funding blocks – schools, early years and high needs, each calculated in a different way. There was no increase to the funding rates for the schools block and early years block, but there was a small increase to the high needs block allocation.

The 2016/17 budget estimates had been revised since the last meeting based on the most up to date information. The current overall position was shown in Table 2, with a more detailed breakdown by cost centre shown in Appendix B to the report.

TABLE 2

Schools Block

In order to meet DfE deadlines, this block was decided at the last meeting of the Schools’ Forum and was now balanced and set for 2016/17. Headroom available in this block was transferred to the high needs block (total transfer of funding £848k). No further changes could be made.

Early Years Block

Early years funding for 2016/17 would be based 5/12 on the January 2016 census and 7/12 on the January 2017 census. For the purpose of setting the budget for 2016/17 the figures from the January 2016 census only had been used. This assumed that the numbers of children accessing the free entitlement would not be significantly different next January.

The funding figures included an estimated net carry forward from 2015/16 of £577k. The actual should not differ significantly from this as most payments for the year had been made.

The budget estimate for 2016/17 assumed the same level of take up as in 2015/16, and maintaining the same hourly rates. On this basis part of the under spend from 2015/16 would be required, but this still would leave £203k available as one-off funding. The proposals for this block were set out in another report on this agenda.

High Needs Block

The significant shortfall in funding in the high needs block for 2016/17 (£2.2m reduced to £1.4m after transfer from the schools block), was due mainly to the following factors:

·         A significant over spend of £731k in the current year high needs block which will need to be met from next year’s DSG.

·         Carry forward of under spend from previous years in the high needs block have been used up in the current year (£345k in 2015/16).

·         Pupil numbers and needs in the high needs block continue to rise without a corresponding increase in funding.

·         Only a minor increase (£284k) to our funding allocation to go towards increasing numbers and demands.

Another report on the agenda set out the proposals for balancing the high needs block over a two year period.

Although the over spend in the current year’s high needs block required a one off saving (being met from the schools block in 2016/17), there was still a significant ongoing shortfall of £1.5m in the high needs block which needed to be addressed and which could only be met by a reduction in funding rates, reduction in services, and by increases in charges to schools.

Reverend Mark Bennett questioned whether the forecasting assumptions regarding the number of places in the Early Years Block meant that there was no ambition to increase take-up of early years places, particularly among hard-to-reach families. Avril Allenby advised that the number of places was usually consistent with the new settings opening as others closed. Take up of places for two year olds had increased but not to the level that had been hoped .

Councillor Dominic Boeck asked what risk there would be to carry forward a deficit in the High Needs Block into 2016/17. Claire White advised that the risk would be minimal as there was a proposal to balance the budget over two years. Councillor Boeck referred to the deficit at John O’Gaunt school and enquired whether there would be similar risks to the local authority if a deficit budget was set in the High Needs Block (HNB). Claire White confirmed that the only risk of setting a deficit HNB budget would be to the DSG and not to the Council.

Bruce Steiner commented that there was always a risk in setting a budget where one did not know what the available funding would be. Claire White agreed that this was the case for the Early Years budget. The HNB budget was the more unpredictable budget.

Peter Hudson posited that there was a risk in moving funding from the Schools Block to the HNB because individual schools might find it difficult to set a balanced budget or to keep to their budget, and that the local authority might become liable for their deficits. Claire White explained that schools were responsible for their own budgets and any resultant deficit. There was a Schools in Financial Difficulty Fund but there was a long period of intervention and support between the local authority and the school before they became eligible to apply for that fund. John Tyzack commented that the Schools Forum no longer dealt with as many applications for the Schools in Financial Difficulty Fund as it once had.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.