Agenda item

Claire White presented the outturn from 2015/16’s Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).

Table 1 summarised the overall year end position for each DSG block, also comparing to the month 10 forecast which was used when setting the budget for 2016/17. The final position was an underspend of £253k.

The DSG grant variance for 2016/17 would be made up of £127k planned overspend in the high needs block, and £246k in relation to the early years block. This block could not be accurately estimated until towards the end of the financial year because it was partly based on the in-year January census, unlike the other two blocks which were confirmed prior to the start of the financial year.

Schools Block

No carry forward was assumed when setting the 2016/17 budget, so the total underspend of £373k would be available for allocation in 2016/17.

During 2015/16 there was only one school receiving funding from the schools in financial difficulty de-delegated fund. It was highly likely that there would be several bids for funding during 2016/17, and it was proposed to add the carry forward to the funding available in 2016/17 – this would provide a total budget of £332,600 for 2016/17.

For this and all other de-delegated services, the only other option was to hold the carry forward in the current year’s budget for each specific service, and use to reduce the cost of that de-delegated service to schools in the following year (in other words, to benefit only those schools that have pooled their budgets). This was the proposal for the other de-delegated services – the virtual school service £3k, and behaviour support service £11k.

The overspend on maintained school delegations was due to actual business rates being higher than originally budgeted for in the school formula. For maintained schools the adjustment was carried out in year, whereas for Academies the DSG was adjusted in the following year.

There were several schools benefitting from growth funding in 2015/16. No schools qualified for falling rolls funding. It was proposed that the underspend (net of the overspend on business rate delegations and underspend on the other centrally retained services) was added to the 2016/17 budget – this would provide a total budget of £433,920. In the Government’s consultation on 2017/18 school funding it was being proposed that growth funding would become part of the school formula, but until this was confirmed and the details were known it would be prudent to hold these funds for future growth, including the new primary school due to open in Newbury in September 2017.

Paul Dick encouraged the Schools Forum to be brave regarding holding money in contingency funds, expressing the point that this might not be getting best value from the funds.

Claire White explained that although in the Government’s consultation on 2017/18 school funding it was being proposed that growth funding would become part of the school formula, the current proposal is that it would be based on historical costs and this would not cover the costs of  future growth, including the new primary school due to open in Newbury in September 2017.

Early Years Block

The actual numbers of hours of provision for 2, 3, and 4 year olds remained much the same in 2015/16 as in 2014/15 and did not see the level of increase that had been experienced in previous years and had been budgeted for. It had also been predicted that the DSG would be uplifted based on this increase being recorded in the January 2016 census. Only a minimal increase to the DSG for early years in relation to 2015/16 was expected (in June 2016), and the budget for this would be adjusted accordingly when the amount was notified.

The uptake of pupil premium grant had also been extremely low, and the DfE was not clawing back any funding given for this.

Month 10 forecast was for a net underspend of £577k, and this figure was assumed as funding available in setting the 2016/17 early years block budget. The actual was £516k, which was £61k lower. It was proposed to reduce the available funding in the early years block budget accordingly (i.e. to reduce the assumed carry forward of DSG underspend at the end of 2016/17 from £148k to £87k).

Keith Watts enquired what the reason for low take up of Pupil Premium Funding was. Ian Pearson explained that it had not long been introduced and agreed that there was a need to improve take up, particularly among two year olds. Brian Jenkins supposed that the affluence of the Thames Valley could be a reason for the low take up.

Reverend Bennet noted the large underspend in this block and sought assurance that the Local Authority was delivering the service it was supposed to. He asked what practical action could be taken to improve take up. Ian Pearson described a number of actions already being taken to improve take up of places, including engaging with Health Visitors and General Practitioners. One of the challenges was to encourage the providers to offer the places.

Paul Dick stated that the low take up of these places was disastrous because the money could have a huge impact on peoples lives. He challenged the Local Authority to set an ambitious target.

Brian Jenkins explained that one of the limitations to providers offering the places was that currently, providers were being underfunded for the 15 hour place provision and this would be exacerbated if an additional 15 hours was offered. There were national inconsistencies in the rates paid to early years providers and further information form the governments was awaited.

Keith Watts stated that early intervention improved children’s life chances. There was a dual issue that the parents of these children did not know they were entitled to the service and also the parents were difficult to engage. Ian Pearson noted that financial support was only available to a working parent. The government’s motive was to create childcare to enable more people to work, whereas the motive of the School Forum partners would be to support the children.

Brian Jenkins concluded that many providers were at risk of going out of business should they provide the places to two year olds under the current funding rates.

High Needs Block

The main overspends in the high needs budget were in relation to top ups, mainly for placements in specialist settings. This had been documented in reports throughout 2015/16, the main variances being placements in non WBC schools (particularly Thames Valley Free School) and PRUs.

The month 10 forecast was for a net overspend of £731k, and this figure was assumed as needing to be met from the 2016/17 high needs block budget. The actual was £635k, which was £96k lower. As the 2016/17 high needs budget had been set with a £889k overspend, it was proposed to reduce this budgeted overspend accordingly (i.e. to reduce the assumed DSG carry forward of overspend at the end of 2016/17 to £793k).

In addition to the main accounts, the local authority operated a holding account which received funding deducted from schools for pupils they exclude, and paid this funding out to schools receiving the excluded pupils or towards the cost of placements in PRUs for these pupils. There was a balance in this account of £40k, mainly due to pupils moving out of the authority and the other authority claiming a lower sum or not claiming the funding at all. For some authorities there was a reciprocal agreement not to do so. It was proposed that these funds were added to the vulnerable children fund and used to help prevent exclusions from our schools. 

RESOLVED that the Schools Forum approve the utilisation of the DSG funds being carried forward from 2015/16 to 2016/17 as set out in section 8 of the report.