Agenda item

Jane Seymour introduced the report that set out the current financial position of the high needs budget for 2020/21, the position as far as it can predicted for 2021/22, including likely shortfall, together with recommendation on Invest to Save Projects and a prediction of potential future High Needs Block (HNB) spend and savings.

At the last meeting of the Forum it had been agreed that the invest to save proposals agreed in 2020/21 should continue in to 2021/22. A request had also been made for further invest to save proposals for consideration, to be funded through a further 0.25% of the Schools’ Block. The proposals set out under section seven of the report had been discussed at the last meeting of the Heads’ Funding Group (HFG) and it was proposed that authority be delegated to the Head of Education Services to determine which invest to save projects would be funded and the level of funding for each project following consultation with the HFG at the 23^rd March 2021 meeting.

Jane Seymour drew attention to section 3.8 of the report, which detailed that the net shortfall in the 2021-22 HNB was £4,086,306. This included a predicted 2020/21 overspend of £980,686 and carried forward overspends of £1,279,122 in 2019/20 and of £521,000 in 2018/19. Total carried overspend of £2,780,808). Without the carried forward overspends the shortfall in 2021/22 would be £1,305,498.

Regarding the additional invest to save proposals under section seven of the report, Jane Seymour reported these would be discussed further at the HFG if agreed by the Forum. The main focus of the proposals was children with Autism or Social and Emotional, Mental Health (SEMH) difficulties as these were the areas where expenditure was highest for external placements. It had also been identified that specialist placements had needed to be provided for children with Autism or SEMH who had become Emotionally Based School Avoiders (EBSA).  A range of possible projects were proposed to provide earlier intervention for these cases and achieve better outcomes, whilst reducing spend in the long term. More detail was required regarding the numbers of children and potential savings so this information would be submitted to the HFG on 23^rd March.

Jonathon Chishick queried what ‘EP’ stood for and Jane Seymour confirmed that this stood for ‘Educational Psychologist’.

Gemma Piper queried the timescales for when savings could be expected and asked what early tracking to assess impact would take place.  Secondly regarding success criteria of the current invest to save proposals, Gemma Piper noted that there was no detail in relation to money contained within the report and queried if financial goals could be added, particularly in relation to areas such as 6.1.3 which involved the recruitment of a Therapeutic Thinking Officer. In response to this query, Jane Seymour report that evaluation had already started for the current invest to save projects listed under section six of Appendix A of the report. Some of this evaluation work had been delayed due to Covid-19. It was envisaged that a report would be brought to the Forum in the summer to update on each of the projects and impact. A report would also be brought to the Forum at the end of the financial year. Jane Seymour agreed that financial details needed to be added to the success criteria for each project. Many of the invest to save projects under section seven of the report involved appointments to posts. Impact in these areas could not be monitored until the roles had been recruited to. Draft success criteria including financial success criteria would be added to each proposal under section seven in time for the HFG on 23^rd March 2021. 

The Chairman drew attention to section two of the report and asked for clarification on each recommendation, particularly recommendation 2.3. Ian Pearson explained that the decision to transfer a further 0.25% to the High Needs Block had been taken at a late stage in the financial year. This had not provided the HFG with much time to consider the proposals and had resulted in the group not reaching a conclusion. It had been felt that further detail was required on each of the areas set out under section seven of the report. It was therefore suggested by the HFG that the Forum could agree in principle to apply the funding to the range of areas listed in section seven of the report, with the detail of the proposals discussed further at a special meeting of the HFG. As the HFG was not a decision making body it was proposed that the decision be delegated to the Head of Education Services following consultation with the HFG at a meeting on 23^rd March 2021. This was in line with the Local Authorities constitutional arrangements.

Keith Harvey felt that the deficit in the block of £4m needed to be highlighted before any of the recommendations within the report were considered. He acknowledged that this had been discussed previously and that the necessary plans were in plan such as the SEND Strategy to bring the block back in to balance overtime. Ian Pearson suggested that the Forum might wish to consider agenda items eight, nine and twelve prior to taking a vote on the recommendations set out in the report.

Gemma Piper drew attention to page 36 of the report regarding projected expenditure and income. According to current consultation being conducted by the DfE, there could be a funding shock for the local area and she queried what would happen if this was the case and raised her concern regarding a further funding shock for the HNB. Secondly Gemma Piper referred to point seven on the table featured on page 38 and noted that this related to FE however, this was not shown on the graph. Gemma Piper was concerned that an important piece of data was missing as this accounted for the largest rise.

In response to Gemma Piper’s query Lisa Potts confirmed that the data had been pulled together to help show what might happen in the future. It was not yet known what the likely increase in income would be overtime. Lisa Potts reported that the predictions for 2022/23 had been based on the increases that had been awarded in earlier years. Beyond 2022/23 it was anticipated that income could reduce further. Gemma Piper queried if there was a need for the Forum to respond to the DfE’s consultation that was currently live. Lisa Potts reported that a response for the wider group could be included. The deadline for responses to the consultation was 24^th March 2021.

In response to Gemma Piper’s query regarding increases in EHCPs at FE provision, Jane Seymour reported that a footnote should have been added to this section of the report as the figures were slightly misleading. The figures rose from 55 in 2015 to over 100 in 2020, which looked like a significant increase in the number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) however, this was due to a transfer of responsibility for children with high needs from the Learning and Skills Council to the Local Authority and represented a transitional stage. These numbers did not place as large a pressure on expenditure as it seemed as there had been funding transferred for these young people. Other areas were causing a much larger pressure including young people placed in specialist placements and special schools.

Regarding the consultation referred to be Gemma Piper, Ian Pearson reported that a collective response would be very helpful. Ian Pearson explained that they were still within the time period where the Government had committed £14bn of additional expenditure, which had equated to about £2m of additional funding in West Berkshire.  Despite this injection of funding, it had still not been possible to balance the HNB Block budget. The DfE was undertaking conversations with authorities with the highest deficits. Ian Pearson added that this was calculated by looking at a local authority’s deficit as a percentage of the overall budget. In West Berkshire the deficit within the HNB was at about £4m against an overall budget of about £25m.

Reverend Mark Bennet asked where the £4m deficit sat and whether this was sustainable in the medium term. Reverend Bennet also noted that it had been suggested that the vote on the item be deferred until other items concerning the HNB had been considered and he stated that he supported this approach. Ian Pearson confirmed that the deficit was currently sitting on the balances. It was agreed that the vote on the item should be deferred until later on the agenda. 

(The vote on this item was taken after the Forum had considered agenda items 8, 9 and 12, which also related to the HNB)

The Chairman invited the Forum to consider the recommendations under section two of the report:

• To agree the overall HNB budget for 2021-22. This included a 0.25% schools block transfer to fund the invest to save projects set out in Section 6 of Appendix A of the report.
• 2.2 To agree to invest a further 0.25% schools block transfer in the Invest to Save projects detailed in Section 7 of Appendix A of the report.
• 2.3 To delegate authority to the Head of Education Services to determine which invest to save projects would be funded and the level of funding for each project following consultation with the Heads Funding Group at the 23 March 2021 meeting.

Jonathon Chishick proposed that recommendations 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 above be approved by the Forum and this was seconded by Jon Hewitt. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that:

·         Reporting on invest to save projects to be added to the work programme for the cycle of meetings during the summer 2021 and at the end of the financial year. This would need to include financial success criteria for each area.

·         Jane Seymour and Lisa Potts to include a view from the Forum in the response to the DfE’s consultation that was currently live.

·         The Forum agreed the recommendations set out in section two of the report (as detailed above).