Agenda item

The total DSG settlement of £67m (after academy recoupment) was noted, along with the allocations by block. The DSG before academy recoupment was £170.3m.  The projected forecast for DSG was due at the end of March 2020 and no variations were currently anticipated. No variations were currently anticipated regarding the support grants.

Schools Block: a table had been included in the report to show the breakdown of the Schools Block funding, with 0.5% allocated to the Growth Fund.  The underspend of £0.3m related to the Growth Fund and the underwriting of Grove Academy.  Therefore, £303,000 was to be rolled forward.

Early Years: It had been drawn to members’ attention that Early Years funding for 2020-21 was based on take up rates and that the January 2020 census figures would affect the actual funding received.  It was pointed out that In January 2019 the settlement had been revised downwards in line with the census.

An overspend was currently projected for the current financial year (approximately £0.1) although uptake had increased, by approximately 4.5% for the PVI sector so this amount could be reduced. 

It was noted that the majority of funding streams broke even although historically there was a projected underspend on 2-year olds.  The July data would confirm the expected small overspend in the PVI sector for which the LA was expecting some reimbursement from the ESFA.  The carry forward from 2018-19 would be just over £50,000 which would be used as contingency.

As noted, the Early Years campaign was being promoted again, with an added emphasis on disability access and those not yet diagnosed.  This became difficult when parents/carers would not disclose information.  There was also increased pressure on the Early Years sector for children with additional needs and it was queried whether some of the funding could be used for preventive work.  Michael Jarrett agreed that a small amount might be used from 2-year olds but 3 and 4-year old funding was restricted.  It was noted that parents were not taking up the 2-years offer.

Confirmation had been received from the DfE of funding for maintained nurseries in the following year although no further commitment had been made.  Strategic planning was difficult without knowing the future of funding and Michael Jarrett confirmed he had been working with Headteachers on possible options.  The potential loss of the supplementary funding stream should be considered a risk. 

High Needs: it was reiterated that the majority of LAs were experiencing financial pressures in this Block. A S215 data review had been conducted which had shown a possible cumulative national deficit between £1.2bn and £1.6bn by 2021. If the Government’s additional funding promise for 2021 of £750m materialised the national deficit could be in the region of £450m and £850m.

Slough had been one of 32 authorities requested to submit a DSG recovery plan. The High Needs block was projected to overspend by an estimated £13.2m by the end of 2019-2020, 56% of the total annual settlement. £8.3m was the cumulative deficit balance rolled forward from previous years resulting in a projected in-year overspend of £4.9m.

A table had been provided, showing the expenditure pressure points.  This included £1.3m top-up funding, which following analysis showed an increased number of pupils with EHCPs, and a rebanding at Arbour Vale resulting in approximately 127 revised pupil packages at a cost just under £1m.  The number of placements at the high end of the banding model had risen, with more learners and increased unit costs. There was also a projected overspend of £1.2m on out of Borough placements and costs had increased at post 16 with the expectation this budget would increase. £0.7m worth of invoices relating to the financial year 2018-19 were not accrued thereby increasing the 2018-2020 end of year position from £2.86m to £3.56m, and the cumulative position from £8.3m to £9m.

CSSB: there was a projected underspend, with a carry forward of £15,000.  This was due to staffing efficiencies in the Admissions Team and VAT which could be claimed against copyright licenses. This was a genuine underspend which could not be held in reserve.  The claim would be made via HMRC and reimbursement would be made to that fund.  It was added that this was subject to change due to further possible staff related expenses.

With reference to the whole DSG it was queried whether an accurate picture was being given by DfE of those LAs nationally showing a surplus.  John Wood confirmed that some LAs did carry a surplus; they tended to be large LAs within large counties and able to take up the bulk of the pressure.  However, the number of LAs going into DSG deficit was likely to increase.  Approximately 20% of LAs had been asked to submit recovery plans.  It was agreed it would be of interest to know other LAs’ High Needs Block expenditure and it was felt this information would be publicly available. John Wood suggested that Slough’s deficit was disproportionate to the size and profile, when compared against other LAs.

9.15am: Neil Wilcox left the meeting

The Chair thanked Nic Barani and his team for all their work in compiling the comprehensive report.

Schools Forum NOTED the financial position and APPROVED the deficits to be rolled forward into the new financial year.