Agenda item

·             Neil Hardwick, Jenny Lingrell and Mary Jarrett to report.

Neil Hardwick, Head of CYPS Finance, and Jenny Lingrell, Assistant Director, Commissioning, Performance and Inclusion, circulated a copy of the report and pointed out that nationally there were growing concerns about the level of funding within the High Needs Block.

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services had undertook a survey of financial pressures and reported that of eighty-five local authorities in 2016/17 only seventeen reported their spend was in line with the grant and that the remaining sixty-eight authorities had an aggregated overspend of £139.5 m.

Overspends were, therefore, being reported at most Councils and reporting current and estimated future high needs overspends and an expectation of reserves being fully utilised within the 2018/19 financial year.

The National Association of Head Teachers were also reporting a shift of 5% of pupils from mainstream to specialist provision between 2010 and 2017, posing a significant challenge to pupils with SEND.

In addition, an increase of 17% in SEND pupils attending independent schools between 2010 and 2017 and an increase of 46% in the number of pupils educated in alternative provision between 2013 and 2017.

The Forum noted that over the last four years there had been a rise in the number of Education Health and Care Plans.

Rotherham’s Recovery Plan would aim to show how, within a three year period, in-year budget would be balanced.

Activity would be split into short term, medium term and long term behaviour change actions.

In the short term there would be:-

·                Utilisation of all existing placements in the borough.

·                Sufficiency for children with complex needs within Special Schools- Phase 1 of Project (2018/19).

·                Review Inclusion Services offer and staffing to better meet the strategic priorities around sufficiency and inclusion.

·                Review other LA placements.

·                Review of external placements.

·                Review Top Up arrangements.

·                Review funding arrangement for additional places.

In the medium term:-

·                Children who were within the mainstream ability range, but who have an EHCP and need higher levels of support were integrated within mainstream learning settings able to differentiate for specific subjects and there is a developed offer of a range of Inclusion Units- Phase 2/3 of Project (2018/20).

•           Specific outreach teams with specialisms in Autism and SEMH at both primary and secondary level were developed to support schools and develop the graduated response- Phase 4 of Project (2019/21).

•           A range of high quality post-16 options with increased capacity for supported internships and work placements.- Phase 5 of Project (2019/21).

In the long term:-

·                Strengthen parent and carer knowledge the offer from available and suitable Rotherham provision in the early stages of the Education, Health and Care Plan process to minimise out of authority parental preference.

·                To continue to work with schools to maintain pupils in mainstream settings wherever possible.

Continue to look at efficiencies and to assess the cost of placements on a place by place basis.  It was emphasised this was not about looking to bring young people back into Rotherham, but to look forward to what Rotherham could offer with new opportunities.

Discussion ensued on the differing messages and the need to review arrangements and address any discrepancies.

In Rotherham the schools budget, which included the High Needs Block, was set at zero as it was set at the level of grant received.  The High Needs Block had been under financial pressure in recent years and moved from an overspend of £1 m in 2013/14 to an overspend of £5.1 min 2018/19.

An overview of the current provision was provided highlighting that Rotherham currently had a range of high quality provision for children with SEND. 

In terms of revenue budget projections modelling showed that through the expansion of provision and development of new provision it was possible to reduce the High Needs overspend and in time reduce expenditure to be more in line with the grant.

The Forum discussed the inherited formula for spend and noted how Post 19 provision had transferred to the High Needs Block. 

Specific information was provided on the High Needs Block recovery plan and its focused activities along with development of expanding local provision through capital investment liked to Rotherham’s Send sufficiency plans.

A headline copy of the response relating to the recovery plan would be circulated with the minutes.

Agreed:-  (1)  That the proposals set out for the High Needs Recovery Plan were supported by Schools Forum.

(2)  That the financial model within the High Needs Recovery Plan be noted.

(3)  That the arrangements for the management of the Dedicated Schools Grant deficit be noted.