To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

High Needs Block - Deficit Recovery Plan (Jane Seymour)

Minutes:

Jane Seymour introduced the report (Agenda Item 10), which proposed a draft 6 year HNB deficit recovery strategy for consideration by the Schools Forum.

The HNB budget would be almost £6 million overspent by the end of 2022/23 and a large proportion of increasing costs could be attributed to increases in the number of children requiring Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) across all settings and age groups from 0 to 25. The main areas of pressure were set out in section 3.3 of the report.

Jane Seymour stressed that there were robust systems in place in West Berkshire for managing demand however, there had been an overall increase in EHCPs in West Berkshire of 41% since the Children and Families Act came in in 2014, which had placed pressure on the HNB.

Jane Seymour reiterated that the budget required for 2022/23 would exceed the current budget by £2.14m. Jane Seymour reported that her report attempted to model the changes in placement patterns, which would be needed in order to achieve expenditure within budget. The focus of the recovery strategy was on reducing expenditure on independent, non-maintained and free special school placements and also on I-College placements, as these placements had the potential to be reduced through earlier intervention. Jane Seymour stressed that it was not about denying children placements who needed them but was about ensuring that the additional support put in place was enabling the Local Authority to cater for more children’s needs in mainstream schools so that fewer requires specialist placements.

Jane Seymour highlighted that section four of the report set out the invest to save initiatives 2020-22 and the intentions of the SEND Strategy. It detailed that the aim was to create good quality provision for children locally, whilst looking at how to do this in a cost effective and sustainable way.

Jane Seymour explained that the report set out how placements patterns would need to change in order to meet the required savings. Table one on page four of the report showed savings required by cost centre if apportioned in line with 2022/23 estimated spend.

Section six of the report detailed savings on independent, non-maintained and free special schools by 2028/29. Jane Seymour reported that in order to achieve the savings required in this budget, the total number of children placed would need to reduce as shown in Table three on page 65 of the report.

Section seven of the report detailed savings on I-College by 2028/29 and in order to achieve the savings required in the budget, the total number of children would need to reduce as shown in Table four on page 66 of the report.

Jane Seymour concluded by drawing attention to section eight of the report which detailed factors for consideration, this also included factors that were outside of the Local Authority’s control. If other cost centres in the HNB increased in future years by more than inflation, additional savings would be needed to achieve expenditure in line with the budget. Jane Seymour reported that the strategy also only addressed in year costs and not cumulative overspends. The Local Authority needed to work closely with schools in the area to ensure that they were aware of and accessing the support available to help reduce exclusions and avoid external placements.

Keith Harvey noted that the overspend in the budget had started to occur when the age range for EHCPs was increased from 19 to 25 without any additional budget provided. Keith Harvey stated that he would be interested to know if there would still be an overspend if the age had remained at 19 years old. He asked if an answer on this could be brought to a future meeting. Secondly Keith Harvey stated that he felt that the deficit recovery strategy was very ambitious and although he understood the reason for this, he queried how likely it would be that the reduced suggested numbers could be achieved. He was concerned that realistically it might not be possible. 

In response to Keith Harvey’s first comment, Jane Seymour confirmed that she would look in to data regarding this. Regarding Keith Harvey’s second question, Jane Seymour agreed that the deficit recovery strategy was ambitious. There were increasing numbers however, success was being seen through the different strategies set out in the SEND Strategy including through the invest to save initiatives. It was difficult to estimate to what extent the success would continue and the success of the strategy very much depended on the ongoing funding of the different initiatives. It might need to be considered if more investment was required for preventative work in order to achieve what had been set out.

Ian Pearson stated that he concurred with the comments by Jane Seymour that the deficit recovery strategy was ambitious. Ian Pearson drew attention to the detail on the invest to save initiatives under the previous agenda item (Item 9) and stated that the figures presented indicated that if these initiatives had not been put in place then spending would be £1m higher. It was therefore possible to invest in areas that would save money over time.

Ian Pearson referred to the large figures that had been discussed, which as reported by Jane Seymour depended on expenditure overtime, inflation and how many cases were coming forward for more expensive placements. Part of this would form an element of the current SEND Review being undertaken by the Government together with how it wished to utilise the additional money for schools that was voted for in the recent spending review. It was anticipated that the SEND Review would be completed by March 2022 and the Government were then proposing to prepare a Green Paper. Ian Pearson felt it would be interesting to see what part the Government were going to play in supporting local authorities more broadly in addressing the issue of provision for SEND children and the associated costs.    

RESOLVED that:

  • Jane Seymour would look in to whether there still would have been an overspend in the HNB if the age range for EHCPs had not been increased to 25.
  • The Schools’ Forum noted the report.   

Supporting documents: