Agenda item

Report ED17020

The Sub-Committee considered a report detailing the second quarter budget monitoring position for 2016/17 for the Education Portfolio based on activity levels up to the end of August 2016. The report also highlighted significant variations which would impact on future years.

An element of the Education budget within Education Care and Health Services (ECHS) department, classed as Schools’ budget, was funded by the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Grant conditions required that any over or under- spend should be carried forward to the next financial year.  The Schools Budget was predicted to underspend by £104,000 during 2016/17.  This would be added to the £3.7m carried forward in 2015/16. Much of this carry forward was being used to fund the costs of the refurbishment of Beacon House and to contain growth.  The rest of the Education budget within ECHS was classed as Non Schools’ budget.  This was projected to overspend by £1,087,000. 

SEN transport was the main area of concern. The number of children receiving transport services was over 800, with around 300 travelling to provision outside the borough. The overspend had increased from £600,000 when the monitoring was last reported to £1,233,000. The increase was due to a number of factors including:-

(i)  The new route schedule for September not realising any further efficiencies.

(ii)  There had been further increases in numbers as the financial year progressed especially in primary age children.

(iii)  A shift from placing children at independent boarding placements to independent day placements. Whilst this generally helped ease pressures in the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), it resulted in an increased number of journeys which had an impact on the Council’s core funding.

(iv)  Increased levels of need of children using the SEN transport service especially at the early age groups.

Action was being taken by the department including: continuing travel training, route review and rationalisation, sharing routes with other boroughs and supporting parents to take up reimbursement of parental mileage. If there were further opportunities to rationalise routes in-year these would be investigated. However, these actions were unlikely to mitigate the issue in the short term and further action would need to be taken to bring the budget back into balance.  Members recommended considering raising the parental mileage allowance to make this more attractive – this would be a simple and cost-effective measure - and mustering was another possibility for savings. 

The buses used for SEN transport and for social services transport for adults were now under one contract, but one Member commented that should still be opportunities to improve the utilisation of vehicles through better timing of journeys.  He added that there should also be more sharing of resources with other authorities. However, another Member commented that it was not always possible to expect older people to travel later to fit in with school times. Officers confirmed that these complex issues were being dealt with in great detail. The Education Portfolio Holder also commented that there was a need to look at the overall service and budget, educate parents early and provide better in-borough facilities.

A Member reported that the Governors at Riverside School were lobbying TfL for an app that would assist SEND children with using public transport, and give them and their parents more reassurance than the existing facilities and apps.  

Members requested a report on the SEN transport budget at the next meeting, including more information on children travelling independently.  

Members asked about the situation with Phoenix Pre-School services. An above inflation increase in rent was expected for the Phoenix Centre, and a move to Hawes Down had been proposed. However, an agreement had been reached with the EFA that they would use the space at Hawes Down and pay the full rental costs of the Phoenix Centre for two years in return. However, officers accepted that the cost of the Phoenix Centre was unsustainable and needed to be part of an overall review.     

It was noted that some parents were still not taking up their entitlement to Free Education for 2 year olds, with an underspend of £111k predicted. It was suggested that the nurseries might be contributing to low take-up, and an element of up-front payment was being used to assist them. Bromley’s performance on this was actually good compared to many other authorities, but there was scope for improvement.

RESOLVED: That:

(1) The latest 2016/17 budget projection for the Education Portfolio be noted.

(2) The Portfolio Holder be recommended to endorse the 2016/17 budget projection for the Education Portfolio.

(3)  A more detailed report on the SEN transport budget be made to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee.