Minutes:
Jane Moore introduced this item and gave an in-depth overview of the
high needs budget, the spend of the budget and work undertaken trying to bring
the budget back in line. The
presentation would be circulated with the minutes.
Jane shared the most up to date financial position of the high needs
block and said that the position of this budget changes frequently as there are
a large number of variables within this budget which means it fluctuates
frequently and explained that the deficit figure for 2024/25 had changed for a
number of reasons which were highlighted.
Jane said that all the projections on budget spend are based on a
projected increase in EHCPs, a projected increase in the cost of placements
(both in terms of numbers of placements but also unit costs of placements) and
the income for the high needs block.
Jane highlighted the funding gap pre savings for the next 4 years if no
action was taken. Jane said that the
high needs block DSG the Government provide funding for local authorities to
spend on statutory services and are duty bound to pay for through the high
needs block. The High Needs Development
plan has been running for a number of years and projections have been to save
£18m by the end of the MTFS based on the initiatives in place and included in
this is the proposed transfer, demand savings and benefit of building new
provision but also making some changes in the way processes are carried
out. In terms of achieving the savings
there was still the annual gap of £9m this year, dropping next year but going
up again.
Jane said that the Government instructs local authorities what it needs
to spend on and set rules on the use of funding including carrying over the
deficit and covering it with local authority funding.
Jane said the expenditure of placements alone exceeds the High Needs
block by £8.3m and highlighted the placement costs which are provided over and
above already provided for children. In
terms of projected growth, it is assumed there will be some level of growth for
both placement numbers and cost and Jane outlined these to the meeting. Jane highlighted the different types of
placement spend and that the local authority has limited choice where children
are placed as it has a statutory duty to make a placement based on what comes
through on the EHCP. Local authorities
lose the majority of Tribunals and are instructed to place that child in a
higher cost provision. Jane went through
other high needs spend on central services and other statutory provision.
Jane talked through the High Needs Development plan savings and what
they relate to. There is also no
indication of increased grant post 2022/23.
The HNB Programme is the largest in the local authority with the largest
amount of savings against it but is the biggest risk programme the local
authority is running.
Jane outlined the initiatives taking place and the work around these to
help deliver the programme. Jane added
that work was being undertaken to look at the assessment process and have
introduced a new triage and assessment team that are looking at the thresholds
for EHCPs and whether they are met and if not what else could be done. Jane stated that in Leicestershire there was
a disproportionately high number of EHCPs and the increase for these is far
greater than that of other local authorities so are having to look in close
detail at the thresholds around EHCPs but also what else needs to be done to
support children and young people instead of having to issue an EHCP.
Jane said that work was being carried out on banding and funding by
looking at how the funding could be used fairly around high needs
children. Jane added that work was also
being carried out with health colleagues about some of the benefits that could
be realised through better use of health funding and shared funding that could
be in place for some pupils but actually some of those areas where it is purely
a health need is being funded through the local authority’s high needs block
and the authority is working with health colleagues to ensure each are funding
needs appropriately.
Jane outlined the schools that have been opened or redeveloped in terms
of the capital investment carried out and a large focus of the strategy has
been the development of resource bases as well as a number of new special
schools opened and expansion of special schools. Further work is now in progress to develop a
second phase of the HNB sufficiency programme.
In terms of the High Needs Block Jane went through the slide which
highlighted the areas of concern and what has been carried to address these
problems and whether it has worked and the next steps.
Jane had previously highlighted the savings lines that are being
projected and the first one was cost reduction savings and this is about
avoiding costs through new places, making savings through transferring pupils
and how to achieve savings through consistency and decision making.
Jane referred to the demand savings and the majority of this is through
increased inclusion and making sure children have the right support at the
right time. Jane added there was also
demand savings around consistency and decision making and how resources are
allocated. Jane highlighted the work
around preparation for adulthood and how young people are supported going into
adulthood. There are also some
additional savings for independent school use.
Jane stated that the local authority has to cover the deficit by setting
aside revenue from the local authority budget, 1% increase of council tax
equates to £3m but there was no ability to raise Council tax further and
alongside the issues of High Needs there was a significant pressure this year
in the Adult Social Care budget and continuing pressures of Children’s Social
Care. The local authority does not have
the money to cover this deficit and is being raised with the DfE and HM
Treasury to help them understand the impact across the local authority.
Alison Bradley clarified the comments around the return of those
children who are in the independent sector coming into the new developments.
Alison commented that new provision was not built without careful planning of
growth profiles but has been outstripped by demand in some circumstances.
Carolyn Lewis
commented that she was a little concerned regarding comments about thresholds
and increasing thresholds and in terms of what the laws says for undertaking an
EHCP and was important not to lose sight of the legal requirement of a statutory
assessment whether the child has or may have special educational disability
needs and whether they may need SEND provision through a EHCP. Carolyn also made the point around the amount
of funding that schools are required as the legal requirement is that local
authorities fund the £6k not schools and do not want to lose site in requesting
that schools demonstrate that they have spent this notional money before even
the local authority consider making an assessment. Carolyn stated that she appreciated these
points are more process focussed rather than finance but do not want to lose
sight of the child and school through a challenging environment.
Jane Moore stated
that she did not talk about increasing the threshold but about applying a
threshold. Jane said that the local
authority was bound by the Code of Practice and cannot depart from it so
everything around the application process and decision making for an EHCP
either assessment or plan is based on the Code of Practice. Jane said that when questions asked around
whether needs can be met, they do not just need to be met through an EHCP and
can be met through the system responsibility for the delivery of SEND. Jane reiterated that the local authority was
not increasing the threshold and said that Leicestershire has issued far more
EHCP’s than other local authorities and perhaps issued EHCPs when not needed
and other support available. Jane
commented that on the point regarding the £6k and said that the local authority
provide the £6k and are aware how many schools receive this and would be
surprised if any school would not want to demonstrate how it had been used and
have a robust system in place to constantly monitor and manage this.
Jane Dawda
commented that she was part of the consultation group a few years ago when
looking at spending the additional money to open the additional units and
although the negative financial positive is talked about but what Jane Moore
has presented is a positive way forward and should be recognised that there has
been a lot of work that has gone on in the background through a very difficult
period for everyone and the restructure of SENA will be a lot more positive.
Jane Moore
acknowledged the work of the local authority but there has also been a huge
amount of work gone on across the school system by supporting the children by
meeting their needs. Jane said the
challenge is that even with all the work carried out there was still the
deficit and there is clearly not enough money for the system which was developed. The local authority is being really clear
about that with the Secretary of State and others because the system is not
funded to deliver what the Reform is set out to do.
Martin Towers
referred to the transfer of children into the new provision which is more cost
effective but had a low transfer rate and asked if there was a way of making
this happen. Jane said that this was the
area she wished to have the biggest impact when the programme started by moving
children from £50-£70k a year placement and placing them into the new provision
and being successful. However, Jane
added that the code of practice does not easily allow for this and it is often
parental preference that dictates where placements will be. The local authority has been in contact with
parents and children to alert them to the new provision and is mentioned at
annual reviews. Martin Towers asked
about disapplication of the code of practice to make it possible. Jane said there was no ability to do this and
would be against the rules around assessment and parental choice. Jane added that the Government has not funded
SEND Reform and parents can make these choices and the local authority was duty
bound to provide certain provision, additionally school funding reform may also
be a factor in increasing demand.
Graham Bett
commented that there was a lot of agreement here that Jane and her team are
doing as best possible a job in an impossible situation. Graham commented on the improvement work
being carried out as mentioned in slide 9 but the financial problem remains the
issue. Graham commented that the current
system is not fit for purpose and that cannot be solved locally. Graham added that financially it was not
possible to solve the problem as it is a national problem and with the
appointment of a new Secretary of State this would be a good opportunity to
send a clear message to them that the issue cannot be solved locally and the
whole system has to be improved. Graham
stated that it was not the right thing to do by taking money out of schools as
it does not solve the problem but merely opens this up to further cuts to
schools in future years.
Carolyn Lewis
commented that the local authority was caught as are schools, as are children and families and it almost needs
to stop working.
Karen Allen commented that the transfer was part of that, and
previous discussions were around unless this had been carried out there would not
be an opportunity to have discussions with the DfE as they would say all
avenues have not been explored.
Jane Moore
commented that this was not solvable locally and had previously said the
transfer had to go ahead as a result
Jane stated that everything locally needs to be carried out as the DfE
would expect this and will keep pushing the financial issues back to the local
authority. Jane commented that whilst
the system needs tidying up, whilst Leicestershire has more EHCPs than anyone
else and whilst the local authority has high independent usage it means the
Government was still able to push some things back locally. The high needs plan therefore needs to carry
on making sure everything is being carried out locally. Jane stated that nationally it was being made
clear that the problem is not solvable locally.
Paula Sumner
reiterated Jane’s points about the challenges locally but said there were still
things that could be carried out to make the system more efficient which were
being worked on. However, the national
challenges are difficult and 93% of tribunals are in favour of parents. Paula said that the presentation shows how
the high needs fund would be used in future because headteachers and SENCOs are
saying that the Code of Practice was so descriptive and plans have to be so
specific and parents expect this therefore deterring the creativity and
innovation in schools that could help to meet the outcomes for the most
vulnerable children. Paula added that
this had been fed back as part of the SEN Review.
Mrs Taylor
reiterated that she had listened to all comments and although everyone has
their own priorities the main concern is what is best for the children in
Leicestershire. Mrs Taylor acknowledged
the funding issues but there was no option but to propose the transfer. Mrs Taylor would continue to press with
Government the issues the local authority is facing and how these are being
addressed and would also keep lobbying national government about the funding
and how the process works. Mrs Taylor
appreciated the supportive words for the local authority and wished to reassure
members that she was listening and is trying to support as much as she could.
Karen Allen
commented that schools have noted the difficulties experienced in SENA for the
last 18 months and the long periods to receive additional support from
Educational Psychology and those carrying out assessments due to Covid. Karen added
that during that time schools have put support in place before the local
authority had agreed anything as the support was desperately needed. Karen mentioned that Jane had said that
referrals had slowed down but asked how sure are the local authority that the
reduction in referrals has not been as a result of SENA and the difficulties
getting advice from other agencies and will therefore bounce back again in a
couple of months.
Jane Moore
acknowledged that over the last 18 months there had been significant
challenges within SENA service in terms of implementing the SEND Reform. Jane was confident the right structure was
now in place and will have the right people in place to support the
service. The Local Authority are
challenged around the Educational Psychology Service which is also a national
challenge in terms of the number of psychologists available to undertake
assessments. Jane added that work has
been carried with the Educational Psychology Service and colleagues in schools
around mitigating some of this and moving forward on this. Jane talked through the demand and the impact
of Covid and the backlog of referrals has been
processed in terms of the new EHCP working.
The projections within the budget are based on the as is picture of EHCP
growth and not based on new areas within the reduction of referrals but Covid will continue to impact on all services.
Graham Bett
referred to his previous questions raised and that the £2m should be looked at
again and going through the weakest partnership which is the schools is not a
good thing. Graham stated that the
figures are now different to originally thought and therefore you should be
asking for around £270,000 rather than the £2m.
Graham added that no amount should be asked for but noted the comments
that have been made.
Jane Moore stated
that the amount the local authority is proposing was less than what was being
asked for. The local authority actually needs to find £34m so alongside the £2m
other areas are being looked at to achieve even more savings. Jane stated that it was important that the
high needs block does not grow as something that changes the position. There are still huge amounts of money here so
hence the transfer request will still go ahead but noted Graham’s point.
Jane went through
the slide of the presentation that sets out the previous transfers from 2013 up
to 2017/18 but stopped making the transfers partly due to the amount of money
available in the DSG. Karen Allen
commented that there was headroom in the DSG in the past and so it was easy to
make a transfer without it impacting on schools as there was a carry forward. Karen said that 2018/19 would have been when
the soft formula came in and the local authority would have had to ask Schools
Forum to support that. Jenny Lawrence
agreed and said the change in 2018/19 was the year the NFF was introduced which
brought new requirements in and the 9.995m on the slide was baselined into the
high need’s settlement at that point.
Jane said that other authorities have continued to make the transfer
even past the introduction of the NFF.
Jane went through
the treatment of the proposed schools block transfer and explained the two
levels of protection that limit the impact of funding changes – Minimum Funding
Guarantee and Minimum per pupil funding level.
Jane went through the two models for transfer which are in the
consultation – the first model is reducing the AWPU by 0.5% and sets the MFG at
2% but increases a cap on gains at 2.1% which can be delivered without
Secretary of State approval if approved by Schools Forum and the second model
reduces the AWPU by 0.5% but this time adjusts the percentage of the MFG to
1.8% and introduces a cap on funding of 3.4% and reduces the Minimum Per Pupil
Funding level by 0.5%. This option would
need Secretary of State approval even if approved by Schools Forum. Jane said that both options will need
Secretary State of approval if Schools Forum do not approve.
Jane went through
the slides in terms of impact for each model on schools and as part of the
consultation are in huge detail. Jane
added that the consultation is currently running, and the results will come
back to Schools Forum for a vote and then go to Secretary of State for
approval.
Karen Allen
referred to the second model which affects all but asked if the first model had
been through any modelling as discussed before in terms of patterns being
looked at in the types of schools that were disproportionately affected. Jane highlighted the pattern from previous
who were disproportionately impacted and one of the reasons it did not progress
was that it was disproportionately affecting those schools in much lower funded
areas. Jenny said that similar modelling
has been carried out and the graphs are included within the workbook that shows
the impact across the schools. Jenny
explained the way in which DfE funding works is that there is an impact across
small primary schools because of the sparsity factor change in the NFF
nationally.
Martin Towers asked
if the transfer was still only for the one year. Jenny said that any transfer has to be
approved on an annual basis. Karen
commented that on a previous funding formula report it was mentioned that local
authorities may not be able to carry this out in the future. Jenny said that the NFF consultation is
proposing to further limit local authority flexibility in respect of school
funding.
Jane Lennie
commented that she preferred not to adopt either model but if model one was
adopted the view would be that Schools Forum is condoning the under-funding of
schools nationally. Carolyn Lewis also
made this point at the last meeting.
Karen Allen commented the point of this is to take it back to the
Secretary of State so if Schools Forum were to agree, but based on previous
discussions at this meeting doubt they will agree, and was not in our interests
to agree there is the need to demonstrate these tensions to the Secretary of
State.
Karen Allen stated
that the consultation also asks for a view on de-delegation of funding for
union facilities and asked Graham Bett if he wished to raise anything. Graham stated the consultation was out at the
moment and hoped that people will want to participate in a scheme that will
facilitate discussions between unions and schools. Graham stated he had been involved in these discussions
and they are 99% positive and helpful and reasonably creative to avoid future
problems but understand budgets are tight.
Graham said that he was not sure schools understand this request about
union facilities time, which is fully, positively and actively supported by the
two headteacher unions e.g. ASCL and NAHT.
Graham said that a solution is needed that will work for everyone and
explained the object of this is to create a ‘pot’ so no one school has to pay
for representation but to be spread amongst everyone and the total cost is
negotiable.
Karen Allen stated
that schools are open to discussion with unions but the challenge is this
mechanism would not be something that everyone
contributed to as the only schools it would impact on would be
maintained schools as it is de-delegation and obviously maintained schools form
a much reducing proportion of total schools in Leicestershire.
Graham stated that
multi-academy trusts are being approached with the same request therefore what
is needed is a geographically cohesive system therefore conversations are
taking place with multi academy trusts with the same proposal.
Karen stated that
this would be part of the next meeting’s discussion when then consultation
feedback is received.
Schools Forum noted the presentation.