Agenda item

Claire White introduced the report which set out the actual deployment of the Dedicated School Grant (DSG) in 2016/17 and explained the main variances. The report also proposed the amounts to be carried forward to 2017/18.

Claire White highlighted that Members would need to approve the overall carry forward and the utilisation of the unspent DSG funding being carried forward from 2016/17 to 2017/18, as set out in section eight of the report.

Claire White drew attention to Table 1 on page 32 of the report, which summarised the overall year end position for each DSG block and also compared to the month 10 forecast, which was used when setting the budget for 2017/18. The planned overspend had been £1,001m however, had actually only amounted to £345k so was £656k better than anticipated and £362k less of an overspend than the month 10 forecast.

Table 2 showed the impact upon each block. Positively the High Needs Block was £306k better off than anticipated.

Schools Block

Table 3 detailed a breakdown of the variances in the schools block. During 2016/17, only two schools received funding from the Primary Schools in Financial difficulty de-delegated fund. The Schools Forum had a decision to make regarding the unspent funds:

1)    It could be added to the 2017/18 budget (bids from schools would be required), or:

2)    It could be held in the current years budget (as per all other de-delegated services ) and used to reduce the cost of that de-delegated service to schools in the following year.

 John Chishick queried how many primary schools would be in deficit entering 2017/18 and it was confirmed that there would be 11. More information regarding the total deficit would be brought to the Schools’ Forum meeting in July.

Keith Watts noted that many schools were undergoing re-structuring and might require the extra funds. John Chishick felt that it was now sensible to have a budget that was over funded. Ian Pearson added that decisions to allocate the fund had been taken by Head Teachers at Schools’ Forum meetings.

Paul Dick was of the opinion that it was best to leave the decision making regarding the funding for as long as possible.

Claire White confirmed that other de-delegated services included, behaviour support and English as an additional language. Costs to schools for these services could be reduced by leaving the money where it was. Under regulations the local authority could not hand the money back to schools.

Claire White referred to paragraph 5.5 of the report which stated that when setting the 2017/18 budget it was assumed there would be an under-spend of £300k on the growth/falling rolls fund, and this was allocated out to schools in the 2017/18 formula. Although this budget had under spent by an additional £33k, the other budgets accumulated to a net over spend of £60k. It was therefore proposed that the net deficit of £27k on the schools block should be carried forward.

David Ramsden felt that the Forum should hold back on making any decisions at the present time.

Early Years Block

Claire White reported that due to uncertainty in the area, the funding for Early Years was demand led, with providers claiming funding for actual hours of provision (up to 1 5 hours per child) at the hourly rate that had been set for the year.

Funding through the DSG was based on the January census count for 2016 and 2017. Both expenditure and funding were therefore difficult to predict due to variability.

The actual numbers of hours of provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds was greater than the budget, but it would not be matched by an increase in DSG funding, hence the £389k overspend, which was £182k greater than the forecast overspend.

Claire White reported that the increased net overspend of £182k was mainly due to the fact that funding was based on the January census. This had not represented the actual ‘average’ count for the year, where summer numbers were significantly higher than the January average. This could also be due to higher hours of provision at the higher funding rate rather than the average (budgeted) funding rate. The £207k budgeted shortfall in DSG grant was due to the claw back of 2015/16 funding.

Suzanne Taylor felt that the impact of the 30 hour provision was extremely concerning. Claire White confirmed that this would be dependent on the January 2018 census.

John Chishick asked if the increase in summer numbers was a national dilemma and Claire White confirmed that it was because children were eligible for the funding from the term after their third birthday. From September the numbers gradually increase peaking in the summer term. .

 Brian Jenkins stated that the variation across the block was huge and the Chairman expressed his concern for the area.

High Needs Block

Table 5 summarised the outturn of the high needs block, listing separately both high cost and demand led/unpredictable services.

The original budget set an overspend of £795k. At month 10 a net overspend of £610k was forecast and it was assumed that this figure would need to be met from the 2017/18 high needs block grant. The actual was £489k, which was £121k lower.

Top up funding had under-spent by £240k however, this was counteracted by the PRU spend.

Ian Pearson stated that the Schools’ Forum had given a great deal of attention to the High Needs Block in 2016/17 as it was aware it would be in a difficult position. A range of issues were happening in PRUs that had caused added cost to the area, including a number of pupils staying on longer (when schools would cease  to contribute to the  costs); there had been a higher than expected number of post 16 students and a number of students had required additional funding to be applied to them.

 Reverend Mark Bennett was concerned that cut backs to the area would compromise the quality of support to students with high needs. Ian Pearson reassured members of the Schools’ Forum that both services in the area had been rated as ‘Good’ by Ofsted and both actively worked to reduce the number of NEET. Jacquie Davies was committed to providing a good level of provision for students and to ensuring they achieved good outcomes.

John Chishick noted that top up funding for PRUs was over budget whereas top up funding for schools was under budget and queried if PRUs were holding onto funding. Ian Pearson confirmed that there was no such relationship between the two areas.

Keith Watts asked why there was a significant under-spend for Vulnerable Children Funding (VCF). Ian Pearson confirmed that a report on the VCF, which would elaborate on the under-spend would be brought to the next meeting of the Schools’ Forum in July. Claire White added that one reason for the under-spend was because the amount of funding available to spend in 2016//17 increased to £98k due to carry forward from 2015/16 of £38k in exclusion savings. It had been agreed that this money should be added to the VCF. Due to this it was being requested that the underspend on the VCF be carried forward.

Claire White reported that section 8 of the report detailed a summary of carry forward proposals. Table 6 detailed the 2017/18 budget virements to reflect the net  change in DSG resources to be carried forward to 2017/18. For the three blocks this resulted in an overall budgeted overspend of £764k reduced from £844k, split  as follows:

·          Schools Block - £25,910

·         Early Years Block - £251,270

·         High Needs Block - £486, 870

Due to overestimating by £363k the overspend to be carried forward, the effect on the DSG budget if the proposals were agreed would be an increase of £283k in various service budgets. There would be an overall reduction of £80k in the budgeted overspend of grant at the end of 2017/18.

Claire White stated that the Schools’ Forum needed to agree the overall carry forward amount. John Chishick expressed his confusion because many schools were experiencing financial difficulty at that point in time. Clare White highlighted details on the Primary Schools in Financial Difficulty budget on page 26 of the report, which amounted to a total of £314k. Claire White stressed that regulations did not allow the money to be handed back to schools in the current financial year.

Graham Spellman proposed that the service specific carry forwards be agreed and that the remaining £80k be carried forward to offset the 2017/18 overspend and this was seconded by Chris Davis.

RESOLVED that the overall carry forward amount from 2016/17 to 2017/18 be utilised as set out in the report.