Agenda item

(It was decided that item 11 would be discussed prior to item 10)

Jane Seymour introduced the report (Agenda Item 11) which set out the current financial position of the High Needs Block (HNB) Budget for 2019/20 and the position known so far for 2020/21, including the likely short fall.

Jane Seymour drew attention to section 3.6 of the report, which stated that in 2020/21 the Government had increased the Local Authorities HNB budget. In West Berkshire’s case, the HNB budget would increase from £20,070,067 to £21,595,616, which was an increase of £1,525,616 or 7.6%. There would also be an in year import / export adjustment, which was difficult to estimate at this stage.

Section 3.7 of the report highlighted the net shortfall in the 2020/21 HNB, which was £3,158,616. This included a predicted overspend for 2019/20 of £2,050,052. Table One on page 115 of the agenda showed a breakdown of the pressure on the HNB and highlighted the latest estimate of expenditure in the HNB budget for both 2019/20 and 2020/21.  Currently an overspend of £1.5m was predicted. Jane Seymour explained that this overspend had been planned as a planned deficit of £1.6m had been set.

The current in year pressure was £1.1m and Appendix A set out the areas where pressures on the HNB could be seen and the reasons for the pressure on the 2020-21 HNB budget.

Top Up Funding

The largest area of pressure was Top Up Funding, detailed on page 117 of the report, with a pressure of £540,780 being placed on the HNB. Positively a lot of spend in this area would go in to provision provided by West Berkshire Council. Mainstream maintained and mainstream academies were causing an increased pressure of nearly £170k. The pressure in this area reflected the increase in Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) within mainstream schools. Positively the pressure from Independent Special Schools had reduced by £136k.

Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)

The next significant pressure on the HNB was PRUs and this was detailed on page 120 of the report. This was because of the increase number of EHCPs. Placements at a PRU were more cost effective then placing pupils at mainstream or special schools.

Non Statutory Services

The cost in this area would remain however, some invest to save proposals had been added.

Non statutory services had been used to create savings over recent years however, some of these savings had impacted negatively on other areas of the system. For example, charges for Language and Literacy Centres (LALs) were introduced in 2018/19 at 50% of the placement cost. As a result the take up of placements had fallen. It was therefore proposed that the Schools’ Forum might wish to consider restoring the LAL budget to its original figure of £116,200 and removing charging.

There was also a proposal included to increase the Vulnerable Children’s Grant (VCG), which had been gradually reduced from £120k over the past years. Schools making calls on the fund were often finding it was depleted before year end. It was therefore proposed that £60k was added to the fund in 2020/21 to increase the budget to £110k.

Finally, there was also a proposal included on page 126 of the report to fund a Therapeutic Thinking Officer.  Without this post there was a serious risk that the potential of the Therapeutic Thinking to realise savings in the HNB would not be realised.

Jane Seymour reported that all of the proposals for invest to save would be up for discussion by the Heads’ Funding Group (HFG) and Schools’ Forum. No savings proposals had yet been formed however, savings could only be made to non-statutory services and as seen in the past savings in this area often impacted negatively on statutory services.

Jane Seymour highlighted that a transfer of funding from the Schools Block to the HNB was proposed as part of agenda item 10.

Keith Harvey commented that even if the maximum amount was transferred from the Schools Block to the HNB and all statutory services were cut, the deficit would continue to rise. Ian Person commented that a cash injection had been received from the Government however, it had not had the desired impact as the deficit had continued to grow. A proposal was included under agenda item 10 that sought views from schools regarding a transfer of funds from the Schools Block to the HNB. Schools would need to consider if they were willing to contribute to help tackle the issue being faced. In order to tackle strategic issues in a structural way, consideration needed to be given to what should be invested in.

Ian Pearson explained that a second section to the consultation document showed how any budget transfer from schools could be used and that it would not be used to simply reduce the deficit.

Gemma Piper referred to pupil numbers and felt it would be helpful to see the pressures broken down by pupil numbers. Jane Seymour commented that this had been carried out as part of the SEN Strategy. There had been a 33% rise in EHCPs. Until recently this rise had only been amongst the 19-25 age group however increases were also now being seen in younger age groups. More cost effective placements were required for students and it was about putting funding into schools to help them support the needs of their pupils.

Gemma Piper further queried the figures under Table Four with regards to home tuition. Ian Pearson stated the figure for home tuition was the result of the conflation of two figures due to the service being brought in house. This had reduced the cost by £40k as a savings contribution to the HNB.

Ian Pearson concluded the report was for information at this stage however, further discussion would take place under agenda item 10 regarding the proposal to transfer funding.

RESOLVED that the Schools’ Forum noted the report.