Agenda item

NH gave an update on the Safety Value programme, presenting a report largely written by NB.

The 2022-23 overspend was lower than expected and there is a projected underspend in this current financial year.  However, this does not take account of backlog SEND cases; including an average cost for these, the projected underspend for 2023-24 is £0.2m as referred to in the item on the DSG Q2 figures. Overall, it is a better position than previously;  it is not expected that the high needs block will break even year this year, but reductions are on track. NH advised that full monitoring arrangements are now in place.

JC thanked NH for the summary, confirmed that everyone has the detailed paper in the agenda pack, and asked for comments and questions. 

JR referred to page 10 of the report and the funding for alternative provision. JR noted that the top-up funding for alternative provision in Slough was lower than statistical neighbouring local authorities, typically around £6k lower with a consequent impact on Haybrook’s finances leading to a deficit budget position of £250k.  JR noted that provision mapping referred to panel typically comes back with a lower allocation that requested. For an individual student the difference is relatively small, but compounds to a significant loss of income across multiple students and means that Haybrook cannot provide the quality of education required to meet the needs of the children referred.

NH stated that there seemed to be a level of misunderstanding with schools, who had n ot been specifically told what was in the safety valve programme and what the overall aims were. Dfe had made it clear that the local authority should not be paying for non-statutory alternative provision such as preventative places, or any AP to broaden the curriculum. Such provision should be funded from the schools block and a new commissioning framework for schools and for AP should be developed. The LA has statutory duties and it's funded only for those statutory duties – if it is not a statutory duty, the LA is not funded to do it. Due to the profile of Slough schools, the majority of the students requiring AP tend to come from 6 schools. It is unrealistic to expect the AP offered by Haybrook to be funded by those six schools and if the LA was not providing this support it should come from the Schools Block, and not the High Needs block.

NH emphasised the need to look urgently at different commissioning/funding models, as there will be another cut to the number of places at Haybrook in the next financial year.  The DfE will not accept the LA saying that this is putting pressure on Haybrook’s staffing because they are saying the LA should not be paying for it, the schools should. The reality is therefore that Haybrook needs to be supported out of the Schools block and not the High Needs block, and that Schools Forum should look at a more holistic view of AP across the schools block. This would mean the use of headroom or a direct top slice of the schools block.

LB commented that the past 6 months have been very difficult for JR and for Haybrook, in terms of both funding and planning staffing. He emphasised the strength of the Haybrook provision, and the importance of funding it at the right level. NH echoed LB’s comments and said that his visit to Haybrook was inspiring and that the staff have excellent relationships with the young people.

MW endorsed LB’s comments about the value of AP and asked whether we could learn from what happens in other authorities that may have selective systems.  MW also noted that funding directly from schools block would be more transparent, less painful and less specific to individual schools, and would support the moral drive to do it properly and for all schools to value it and pay for it.

JC asked NH whether he would be advocating a further request for a block transfer for the 24/25 budget, which would need to be brought to Forum in January, or whether this was a longer term proposal. NH confirmed that the LA will be very happy to support something more immediate, but that it was important the any proposal should be driven by headteachers.

JC thanked NH for his comments and noted that the structure of that piece of work is outside the scope of Forum to organise.  Forum’s role would be to look at any financial decisions required by any proposals.

JR endorsed the suggestion about top slicing and emphasised that any proposal brought to Forum in January should include primary alternative provision as schools block is money for all schools.