Agenda item

The report of Marie Taylor (Interim Head of Finance – Care) which is to follow will provide update on the High Needs Block Working Group.

Marie Taylor (Interim Head of Finance – Children’s Services) referred to the update report from the High Needs Working Group which was circulated with the Agenda.  Marie highlighted the following:

 

·       That the working group had met regularly since September 2018 to take action to identify contributing factors and make proposals to reduce the cost pressure on the high needs block.  The monitoring report as at 31 August 2018 identified a £1.2m overspend in the high needs block and this had now risen to £4.125m;

 

·       Wiltshire’s financial position reflects the national funding position but is heightened by Wiltshire’s position in the funding tables of being the seventh lowest funded local authority in the Country for Education (based upon work undertaken by the F40 Group); and

 

·       The High Needs Block expenditure has exceeded the Block allocation for a number of years as the table on page 31 of the Agenda showed.  The previous forecast did not take into account the planned starters, transitional moves and increases in EHCPs which took place in the new academic year.

 

Marie reported that the Working Group had suggested a number of drivers for the financial pressure and these were explained to the Forum.  Marie gave details of what actions have been taken to date as listed within the report.

 

Marie referred to the appendix 4 results from the schools’ consultation survey.  The responses were at a disappointing level and so further discussions took place at the meeting of Primary Heads Forum on 22 November 2018.

 

In the consultation survey, schools were asked if they supported a transfer of funding from the School Block to the High Needs Block.  Two Heads supported this and five did not.  Those who did not support a transfer between the two blocks where then asked if they would accept that if this did not take place that all top-up and Named Pupil Allowance funding levels would have to be reduced to keep the High Needs Block within budget.  Three Heads said yes, two said no and one neither agreed or disagreed.  Marie reported that realistically both actions could well need to be carried out to manage the overspend.  

 

The Heads consultation survey comments were valued and thematically referenced the national funding levels for schools and High Needs Block which was misaligned with the increase in EHCPs and extended age range to 0-25 years, following the introduction of the Children & Families Act 2014.

 

The Working Group had also come up with a wide ranging selection of transformational change proposals which would need to be examined further by the Director – Families and Children’s Services with regard to risk, equality, financial viability and best value.

 

A Forum member noted that EHCPs are generally more about health and care plan needs and not primarily education based – could that be a reason for an increase in costs?  For example, do the Health Services make a contribution to someone who needs physiotherapy as part of their EHCP?  How is this challenged?

 

Judith Westcott (Acting Head of Commissioning and Joint Planning) confirmed that the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) do contribute funding and it was suggested that it would be fairer to ask for contributions from all services.  Marie Taylor confirmed that all areas would be explored as part of the action plan. 

 

Marie explained the options available for consideration and what a disapplication request to the DfE would involve.

 

A Forum member asked why couldn’t the money be taken from other blocks – Marie confirmed the regulations were clear the transfer could only be from Schools Block.  Marie confirmed that Schools Forum could approval a transfer of up to 0.5% and anything above a 0.5% transfer between blocks must be approved by the Secretary of State.

 

The Forum agreed that the Minister for Education (Damian Hinds MP) should be alerted about Wiltshire’s predicament and aware of the pain felt with the budget pressures.  It was felt that Wiltshire had always been financially responsible but it just could not continue to keep on absorbing the additional financial pressures.  The Forum were referred to the letter (Appendix 5, page 43/44 of the Agenda) from the Presidents of the Treasurer Societies for County Councils and London Boroughs who have taken the unusual step of writing jointly to the Secretary of State for Education to highlight their continued concern and pressure on the High Needs Block. 

 

Marie confirmed that she had requested that the Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Skills (Cllr Laura Mayes) write to Wiltshire MPs to request support at both local and national level.

 

A Forum member noted that Government legislation insists that we support children via EHCP’s but do not then give us adequate funding to be able to provide these services.

 

Marie referred to paragraph 50 of the report which was asking the Forum to consider agreement to the transfer of a percentage between blocks to limit the need to reduce bandings or high needs rates.  The report had suggested 0.5% but she would suggest that up to 1% of transfer could be considered (although anything over 0.5% would mean that the authority would have to submit a disapplication request to the Secretary of State, seeking permission).

 

Forum members discussed this – it was noted that a transfer from Schools Block to the High Needs Block was not supported by WASSH.  A Forum member noted that she had carried out the costings for her school and if both options were taken forward that this would have a double impact at her school and that she would have to reduce the number of places that could be offered, in turn putting more pressure on the High Needs Block.

 

Marie confirmed that Local Authorities are being consulted on the size of DSG deficits as a % of their overall funding.  The DfE are proposing that where the deficit is greater than 1% of the overall DSG then a Full Recovery Plan will be required and that she and Grant would need to respond to the consultation about this by 7 December.

 

Grant Davis explained what would be happening regarding school funding moving forward and expected levels of per pupil funding.  The DSG allocation for 2019/20 had not yet been confirmed and it was not likely that this would be known until late December, but it was expected that there would be a minimum of a 0.5% increase in DSG funding.  Grant explained that a decision on the transfer could be delayed until the DSG funding is known but it was felt that this would cause more uncertainty and that the principle needed to be confirmed in particular if a disapplication request was to be submitted.

 

A Forum member asked if the recovery route was agreed, would there be a guarantee that this would not affect the Named Pupil Allowance?  Marie reported that this guarantee or reassurance could not be given.

 

Nick Breakwell (Head of SEND Service) reported that £7m is spent on out of county placements which is not at all preferable.  He would love all children to be placed in Wiltshire.  Four children were currently in £250k placements which saw £1m being spent collectively.

 

A Forum member asked if there was a rigour/control over which EHCP’s were granted?  Judith Westcott confirmed that there was a strong approval process in place.

 

The Chairman felt that through discussions he was picking up that the Forum felt it was hard to agree to a transfer between blocks without knowing what else could be considered.

 

Grant Davis reported that he and Marie had pulled together an initial list of options for funding a transfer and these were:

 

·        Straight top-slice

 

·        Use the “Little extras” expected funding of £2m which was due to be confirmed in December.  It was anticipated that this would be in the region of £50k for secondary schools and £10k for primary schools.  Although the intention was that this was to be used for capital spend – it could be badged in school accounts against 18/19 capital spend or 19/20 and 20/21 future years capital; spend and therefore release uncommitted revenue.  Schools Forum felt very strongly that the message of “giving this back” would send a message back to Central Government that this is what has to be done to fund high needs in Wiltshire.

 

·        Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) set at 0% not +0.5%

 

·        Special Schools – MFG set at -1.5%

 

·        Minimum per pupil funding levels for 2019-20 – £3,500 to become £3,400 in Primary schools and £4,800 to become £4,700 in Secondary schools

 

·        Top-Ups reduction

 

·        NPA – rate reductions

 

·        Remove double funding of Depravation

 

·        Remove Sparsity funding

 

These suggested options were discussed by the Forum.

 

A Forum member who is also a member of the Dorset Schools Forum reported that they had agreed not to transfer 1.5% in Dorset and had asked what can Officers do to raise the issue politically.  They felt by rolling over and saying that they will just do it won’t raise and highlight the issues of the budget pressures there are.

 

Officers suggested that an agreement could be made in principle and that they could go away and look at ways of funding the overspend.

 

A Forum member felt that they would need detail of what the suggested options would “raise” for the pot, what and who the reductions may affect to enable them to give agreement.  It was felt that it was important to keep sending signals to the Government and Politicians about the difficulties.

 

A Forum member asked, how the remainder of the overspend might be funded?  Marie reported that this would be via a recovery plan and all spending would be looked at.  The proposals from paragraph 47 of the report highlighted what was planned next and there would have to be an acceptance that things would have to be done differently.  We would all need to be on board and look at how we can do it by working together.

 

Forum members strongly felt that the monies should not just be taken from the vulnerable groups, but the burden should be shared across all schools.

 

The Chairman summarised the views of the Forum members and suggested that there appeared to be a consensus of agreement on a number of points.  It was then

 

Resolved:

 

1.          That Schools Forum note that there are two approaches which will need to be followed, the first is around aligning spending levels to available funding.

 

2.          That the possibility of using the “little extras” funding should be further explored – including writing to the Secretary of State regarding this.

 

3.          That the local authority should be approached for a contribution to fund the overspend.

 

4.          That a transfer figure of 1% from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block be proposed to the Secretary of State via a disapplication request.

 

5.          That Officers continue to look at ways in which spending could be reduced via:

 

i)       The Director for Education and Skills having the lead for strategic SEN planning and reducing spend in the High Needs Block working closely with the Heads of Service for Children’s Commissioning, SEND and Children’s Finance to work up a costed plan with timescales and targets.  This will include a gap analysis comparing current and future need compared with current resource bases and placements across each type of SEND. 

 

ii)      Noting that in addition, options for savings to centrally managed budgets will include:

 

a)         examination of liability under the statutory duty around all SEN services to consider removal, reduction or alternative delivery models or offers linked to a central (i.e.: non-school block) saving target.

b)         Modelling around redrafting values of payments to schools to support vulnerable pupils on a temporary basis

c)         Commissioning modelling work to be carried out

d)         Establishing the affordability of ringfenced Cluster Funding (Pilot) funding which would need to me new monies identified which would be delegated to heads to control (avoid funding linked to EHCP numbers)

e)          Consideration of a future move to delegating control of centrally manged budgets such as Named Pupil Allowances (NPA) to said clusters if this model proves successful.