Agenda item

Ian Pearson introduced the report, which set out the current financial position of the high needs budget for 2017/18 and the position known so far for 2018//19.

Ian Pearson reflected that at previous meetings of the Schools’ Forum a lot of time had been spent trying to deal with pressures on the High Needs Block for the next two to three years, through the management of a long term plan.

Ian Pearson reported that pressures on the block were now suggesting that the original long term plan was no longer viable and the deficit was set to grow. Officers and the Heads Funding Group had considered a range of options as ways to reduce the deficit and some of these options were more palatable than others.

Ian Pearson drew attention to the report which aimed to set out the key pressures within the High Needs Block. In essence these pressures included that there were more children entering the system; the way Local Authorities were funded regarding place funding and that there was increasing numbers of children with increased needs and a shortage of resources able to meet their needs. Ian Pearson added that until recently the High Needs Block had not been responsible for young people up to the age of 25, so it was now responsible for a new cohort of pupils.

Ian Pearson drew attention to paragraph 3.4, which stated that in 2017/18 several savings were made in the High Needs Budget, and a deficit of £584k was set. Some of these savings had impacted negatively upon schools. Ian Pearson stressed that the issues being faced were not isolated to West Berkshire.

Paragraph 3.7 gave an indication of the position in 2018/19. The estimated shortfall was £978,400, which included a carry forward overspend of £499,510. Ian Pearson highlighted that paragraph 3.8 set out why the overspend had risen.

Ian Pearson referred to paragraph 3.9, which stated that it should also be noted that the shortfall figure did not include another newly identified pressure of £50k or £100k for West Berkshire maintained special schools. Currently these were funded at £5k per additional planned place rather than the full £10k planned place value.  If planned places at the special schools were funded at £10k per place, this represented an additional pressure £100k and if they were funded at £7.5k (a recommended mid-point) per place this represented an additional pressure of £50k.

Ian Pearson highlighted that the bottom line of Table one showed the cumulative position if no action was taken to resolve the shortfall. The Heads Funding Group, at its meeting on the 10^th January 2018, had been tasked with forming a menu of possible savings that were detailed within the table under Appendix C. 

Councillor Lynne Doherty stated that she had met with Members of the south east along with Directors of Children’s’ Services and all had concurred regarding issues facing the High Needs Block. Councillor Doherty would be pursuing the issue with the Local Government Association and was also forming a lobbying process with the local Member of Parliament.

Regarding place funding, Ian Pearson referred to paragraph 1.3 of Appendix A, which reported that there was only funding for 675 places, which was extremely frustrating as it did not reflect the number of pupils requiring places (736). Schools only received an increase in place funding if they incurred a 10% increase in pupil numbers and it was stated that few schools grew to this extent in a single year. 

Ian Pearson further explained that there were an increasing number of children being diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). There was less pressure for external ASD Placements since the Trinity and Fir Tree ASD resources were available. This was much more cost effective than out of county settings.

Ian Pearson moved on to talk about Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) top ups. The budget in this area for 2016/17 was just over £1 million however, nearly £1.3million had been spent. It was likely that the 2017/18 budget was going to overspend due to the number and length or placements. The proposal for schools to pay for their places in full from 2018/19 was being challenged. 

Ian Pearson added that there were other statutory services, which were critical in preventing the needs of pupils escalating. These services were detailed under section four of the report. Non statutory services were detailed under section five of the report. There was more potential to make savings on these services, although a reduction in any of these budgets would likely cause an increase in pressure on statutory budgets.

Appendix B to the report listed a number of High Needs Block saving options. The Heads Funding Group at its meeting on the 10^th January 2018 had considered the full list of savings set out in Appendix B and proposed that the list of savings detailed in Appendix C should be considered by the Schools’ Forum for implementation. Ian Pearson highlighted that the Schools’ Forum did not need to make a final decision right away however, would need to take a view on which savings could be explored further. A final decision by the Schools’ Forum would be required at the meeting on 12^th March 2018.

Keith Watts stated that he had sat of the Schools’ Forum for many years and much of its work consisted of looking at decreasing the costs of the High Needs Block Budget. Keith Watts recalled the cuts that had been made for 2017/18 and was curious how much these had contributed to increasing costs. He expressed his support for early intervention as later intervention was much more costly. He was concerned that schools might chose not to offer particular services as a result and face huge costs at appeal.

Ian Pearson sympathised with Keith Watts’ concerns regarding cuts to preventative services. Effort had been made to invest to save however, the issue was that there was little money available to invest. As a result of the situation that West Berkshire was in, representations were being made to the Department for Education. Keith Harvey agreed that the savings were very unpalatable and even if all the cuts were made, the deficit would still increase year on year. 

David Ramsden felt that cuts had not been made hard enough or early enough. He noted that a recovery plan had been mentioned however, he could not see a five year recovery plan within the paperwork to the report. David Ramsden concurred with the points made by both Keith Watts and Keith Harvey. Ian Pearson reported that there had been a three year recovery plan however, a new plan was now required to tackle increased pressures. The issue needed to be resolved collectively. David Ramsden agreed and stressed that any future recovery plan must be reviewed on a regular basis. He expressed his sympathy for Jane Seymour who worked relentlessly within the SEND Team. David Ramsden queried if a recovery plan would be brought the March Schools’ Forum Meeting. Ian Pearson felt it would be unlikely that the plan would be ready for the March meeting however, there would definitely need to be discussions at the March meeting about the commencement of a recovery plan.

The Chairman expressed his astonishment that funding was based on historical figures, which bared no relation to actual figures.

Patrick Mitchell stated that the situation was critical and money for investment needed to be found. He stressed that the current system was not sustainable. Money from elsewhere needed to be made available as it was unlikely there would be a change in the way the funding was allocated. Ian Pearson referred to the sum of £500k provided by the Government for the purpose of improving facilities. It was confirmed that this money had been invested in iCollege for an additional six places. If the services had needed to seek these places elsewhere they would have cost much more.

Councillor Doherty highlighted that most of the £70k referenced in paragraph 3.12 for a review of High Needs Block expenditure, would be used to fund a full time SEND Strategy Officer, who had recently been recruited on a fixed term 12 month contract. The remainder of the money would be used to support the review.

Keith Watts felt that this was a sensible position to have as someone needed to plan for the area. There was little control currently over what money was being spent on. It was a difficult issue for the Local Authority/Schools’ Forum to resolve.

The Chairman referred to the recommendation within the report which was asking the Schools’ Forum to take a view on the implementation of some or all of the savings proposed by the Heads Funding Group in Appendix C. David Ramsden felt that it was difficult to cut services until a plan was available.

Ian Pearson referred to Appendix B and stated that the first two options were not viable options and therefore options three to 14 needed consideration. The Schools’ Forum could either go through each option individually or consider the table in Appendix C as a whole, which contained recommendations by the Heads Funding Group.

Jonathan Chishick asked why more effort was not being made to transfer money across blocks. Ian Pearson stated that this was not an option in the current year as the schools block had already been agreed by the Schools’ Forum at a past meeting. Ian Pearson stated that the Schools’ Forum might wish to look at transferring money from the Schools Block in to the High Needs in 2019/20. Jonathan Chishick felt that given that the deficit in the Schools Block was only small that schools could be asked to fund children’s needs in a ‘money follows the child’ scenario.

Chris Davis recalled that in the past money had been moved from the DSG block into the High Needs Block and he felt that a repeat of this was inevitable for the 2019/20 financial year. He felt that an in-depth review was required rather than simply snipping away at budgets.

David Ramsden stated that he would resist a transfer of money from the Schools Block as there was already a huge amount of pressure on schools. He referred to Appendix C and stated that each option had been discussed to great lengths and that this approach needed to be pursued until a long term plan was in place as there was no other choice. It was difficult to judge which children in which institutes would be most immediately affected. David Ramsden stated that Jane Seymour had tried to demonstrate a methodical impact for each of the options. He felt that it would be a bad decision not to proceed.

Chris Davis stated that the Heads Funding Group had recommended the cuts with the hope that the services would continue.

The Chairman invited the Schools Forum to take a view on whether all the savings should be implemented as set out in Appendix C. A final decision would be taken on this on the 12^th March 2018.

David Ramsden proposed that the Schools Forum agree that the options outlined in Appendix C should be explored further. This was seconded by Chris Davis.

RESOLVED that the Schools Forum were supportive of the implementation of the savings contained with Appendix C. A final decision on this would be required at the meeting of the Schools’ Forum on 12^th March 2018.