Issue - meetings

Each year since 2019, BCP Council spends more on SEND provision than is available from the high needs block allocation, to deliver the services required by statute. This expenditure is not allowed to be covered by Council Tax under the relevant legislation. BCP Council’s cumulative high needs block deficit has grown to £35.8m at the end of March 2023. This pressure has arisen from a number of factors driven by the 2014 SEND reforms. The 2023-24 in-year budgeted high needs funding shortfall due to the growing demand is £27.1m, meaning that by March 2024 the deficit will have grown to £62.9m.

The DSG Management Plan will be used to submit a proposal to the DfE for the Safety Valve Programme. This plan sets out the Council’s strategy for reforming its high needs system, enabling it to function sustainably and in the best interests of children and young people in the BCP area.

The Director of Children’s Services presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'C' to these Minutes in the Minute Book. The Forum was advised that each year since 2019, BCP Council had spent more on SEND provision than available from the high needs block allocation, to deliver the services required by statute. This expenditure was not allowed to be covered by Council Tax under the relevant legislation. BCP Council’s cumulative high needs block deficit had grown to £35.8m at the end of March 2023.

It was explained that this pressure had arisen from a number of factors driven by the 2014 SEND reforms. The 2023-24 in-year budgeted high needs funding shortfall due to the growing demand totalled £27.1m, meaning that by March 2024 the deficit will have grown to £62.9m. The DSG Management Plan would be used to submit a proposal to the DfE for the Safety Valve Programme. There was a plan setting out the Council’s strategy for reforming its high needs system, enabling it to function sustainably and in the best interests of children and young people. It was noted that there would be a consultation in October and the purpose of the paper was to outline the options going forward.

In response to a question regarding funding it was noted that all agreements with other councils were different depending on different circumstances but could be accessed through the DfE website. It was noted that there wasn’t really any figures available at present as this would depend upon future conversations with government but as a minimum it was thought it would be half a percent transferred from the school block.

The main role for the Schools Forum would be consider the methodology for the transfer. It was highlighted that it would be important that the information was shared very carefully with schools and headteachers. There was already significant pressure on schools from SEN requirements and communications around this would need to be handled carefully.

Members raised the minimum funding levels for schools and explained there was already a significant challenge. It was suggested that it would be useful for comparison data for what the other local authorities had received to be shared to help inform the consultation.

In response to queries around the timing of the decision it was noted that this would need to be decided once the government had made its decision but it was expected that the Forum meeting in January could then look at the methodology. There was concern that this was looking short term which was difficult for forward planning. In response it was confirmed that this was unlikely to be a one year agreement but probably five years.

RESOLVED that the Schools Forum considered and commented on the options for a transfer from the schools block to fund the in-year deficit.