Agenda item

SEN TRANSPORT BUDGET

Minutes:

Report ED17040

 

Members considered a report providing an update on the 2016/17 SEN Transport Budget, including information on children travelling independently.

 

In introducing the report, the SEN Transport Project Manager noted that Members of the Education Budget Sub-Committee had requested the report on the SEN Transport Budget at its meeting on 1 November 2016.  At this time SEN Transport was forecast to be overspent by £1.23m.  This forecast overspend had been significantly overstated and had subsequently been revised with the current forecast outturn position for the 2016/17 financial year representing an overspend of £653,000.  The previous £1.23m overspend was derived from a basic extrapolation of recurring cost for the remainder of the year for the volume and cost of the SEN Transport delivery costs as at July 2016.  However, this methodology had not taken into account the academic year delivery of SEN Transport, in which volume is typically at its highest at the end of the academic year but will then reduce from the commencement of the new academic year in September and then rising throughout the year.  The SEN Project Manager confirmed that future forecasts would be based on closer working between officers in the SEN Transport Operations Team and the Education Finance Team to establish a suitable methodology for future forecasting which took into account the academic year effect.

 

The SEN Transport budget overspend was in relation to the direct support costs to pupils for transport.  This included: (i) the costs of providing SEN Transport to eligible pupil which was provided through the current Transport Framework contract commencing from the 2015/16 academic year; (ii) the costs of parental mileage payments; and (iii) recoupment income from other services and local authorities purchasing transport through the framework contract.

 

The report considered by the Sub-Committee provided an overview of the budget and outturn position for the budget lines specifically related to the transport contract, mileage, and recoupment against the contract.  Members heard that the latest forecast over spend against the 2016/17 transport support costs was a continuation of an existing level of overspend that had developed in the 2015/16 financial year.  2016/17 expenditure also included the full year effect of the impact of the higher volume and cost for SEN Transport that commenced in the 2015/16 academic year.  SEN Transport support costs provided in the report showed the service moving from an underspend position to an overspend from 2015/16 onwards.  Key factors for the overspend in 2015/16 and 2016/17 were: (i) increased volume, (ii) increased contract costs, and (iii) increased support costs.  Details of the impact of these three factors were set out in the report and the SEN Project Manager highlighted that the young people becoming eligible for SEN Transport had increasingly complex needs that required different transport solutions.  In addition, the pupils were also younger, with support starting from 4 years old.

 

The SEN Transport Project Manager outlined the actions taken and the options available to manage SEN Transport costs.  These included:

 

Route Management: this was key to mitigating increasing costs.  The SEN Transport Team constantly reviewed and rationalised routes as pupils joined and left the service.  This was a pro-active ongoing process which was vital to containing costs as far as possible.

 

Transport Framework: The SEN Team was in the process of tendering for a new framework of transport providers, to run in parallel with the existing framework.  The aim of this was to broaden the provider base and increase competition for routes.  As the number of providers on routes diminished there was less completion which ultimately led to higher costs.  Increased competition would go some way to reducing costs within SEN Transport.

 

Independent Travel Training:  A pilot Independent Travel Training programme had been introduced in 2013/14 and subsequently rolled out for a three year period from the 2014/15 to the 2016/17 academic year.  This was focused on pupils at the Glebe Special School.  The SEN Transport team was currently preparing to retender this provision, subject to authorisation to proceed.  However, in retendering the provision, funding for the contract was expected to be sought from the SEN Transport budget where it had previously been funded through Invest To Save.  This would add to budget pressures in the short term.  The programme was currently funded to support 40 pupils per year.  These pupils were in receipt of SEN transport assistance with the expected outcome being that upon completion of travel training they no longer accessed SEN transport assistance.  The SEN transport team had reported that the programme had met its target of 40 funded pupils per academic year, with the provider over delivering in participation to ensure the success rate was achieved. The service confirmed that the majority of pupils completing the programme no longer accessed transport support.  A minority could revert back to transport assistance, but with further travel training support, this was usually temporary. A small minority were found to be too vulnerable to continue the training.

 

In response to a question, the SEN Transport Project Manager explained that children were travel trained for their route from home to school and therefore knew how to deal with complications such as changing buses on route.

 

Parental Mileage: It was reported that an increased take up of the parental mileage offer could reduce specialist transport support costs.  However, the mileage rate had been increased in the 2015/16 academic year to above the HMRC approved mileage rate and take up continued to be low.  In a 2015 consultation on SEN Transport policy, only 12% of respondents agreed that parents should be encouraged to transport their children to and from school.  Parents cited conflicting domestic arrangements for children at different schools and/or work commitments as constraints which prevented them from accepting this offer.  The payments for parental mileage had increased from an estimated £35,000 in 2014/15 to an estimated £55,000 in 2016/17.  The service would continue to proactively promote this option to parents – although DfE guidelines stated that parental consent was required for mileage to be agreed as a transport solution.

 

Muster Points: These were an option within the existing SEN Transport policy but had not been introduced, except on a small scale basis in relation to one specific school.  As part of the previous review, the logistics of muster points had been investigated and a business case developed.  This identified potential savings estimated at £45,000 per annum; however, it was recognised that the implementation of this policy would generate significant stakeholder opposition and was not taken forward at that time. The SEN Transport Project Manager reported that a number of boroughs had been considering to this option and in order for the SEN Transport Team in Bromley to further investigate this, direction from Members was needed.

 

Shared Service between SEN Transport and Adult Transport Service: the current arrangement in Bromley was that the Children and Adults transport arrangements were managed separately.  A previous review considered a joint service but this was not taken forward.  The Adult Transport Service operated a fleet of vehicles and further investigation as to the viability of shared use of the fleet was needed.  However, due to the fixed transport times for children, which must adhere to school attendance times, there could be a need for the Adult Transport Service to be reconfigured to allow sharing of vehicles to take place. This could present its own logistical problems or issues in relation to the practicality and reasonableness of such changes for Adult service users.

 

Managed Service Transport Contract: when retendering for the SEN Transport contract in 2015/16, an option had been available for transport to be delivered as a managed service, i.e. that an external provider take control of all SEN transport operations, including the delivery of specialist transport provision either directly or through sub-contracts.  Only one provider responded to the invitation to tender for that option at that time and as a result it was not taken forward.  A transport provider had recently contacted the Council expressing a potential interest in a managed transport solution. This could afford an opportunity to retender for a managed solution, subject to the ability of the Council to implement such a solution prior to the expiration of the current framework contracts for specialist transport assistance.  Advice would be sought from both Legal and Procurement, and a Gateway Review conducted on this option.

 

The Director of Education further reported that she was aware that another borough had been looking at the statutory element and whether this could cease at age 16 with a charge being applied for young people aged 16 years and over.  Staff within the Service were reviewing a number of options that could address the continuing overspend within SEN Transport.

 

In opening the discussion, the Chairman noted that the current contract framework was not index linked so the increased costs set out in the report were a result of factors other than inflation.

 

In relation to the actions that had been taken and the options available to address the overspend, the Chairman felt that it was worthwhile reviewing the use of muster points once again.  The Chairman also felt that a shared service for adults and children’s transport should be proactively explored.

 

The Chairman of the Education Select Committee noted that a report providing an evaluation of the review of muster points that had previously been undertaken should have been provided to what was then the Education PDS Committee.  Councillor Bennett requested that the report be provided to the Education Select Committee early in the new municipal year.

 

Action Point 1: That an evaluation of the review of muster points that had previously been undertaken be provided to the Education Select Committee early in the 2017/18 Municipal Year.

 

It was suggested that an evaluation of parental mileage should be undertaken with the specific reasons cited by parents for not taking up the offer of increased mileage payments recorded and monitored.  It could also be helpful to review what other London Boroughs did in respect of parental mileage.  In response to a question surrounding the proportion of parents that had refused parental mileage, the SEN Transport Project Manager reported that whilst she had not brought exact figures to the meeting, the majority of parents refused the payments as parental mileage was always the first offer of support that was made.  The SEN Transport Project Manager reminded Members that many parents viewed SEN Transport as an element of respite.  This time enabled them to spend time with their other children or have some valuable time to themselves.  It was clear that there were a number of reasons why parents were reluctant to accept the offer of parental mileage.

 

A Member suggested that it may also be worthwhile to look creatively at the admissions process to see if more support could be provided to parents in terms of school places offered to their other children.  If siblings were able to attend schools in the same area as the special school attended by their brother or sister this could make the school run more manageable for parents.  The importance of putting the child at the centre of thinking in terms of SEN Transport was stressed.  It was not always the best option for a child with complex needs to spend an hour on transport.  It was also highlighted that often children who used SEN Transport missed out on after school clubs and activities.  It was suggested that when parental mileage was offered the benefits to the child should be clearly highlighted, especially for children in primary settings.

 

In response to a question surrounding whether any children under 4 years old were eligible for SEN Transport or were likely to become eligible for SEN Transport in the future, the SEN Transport Project Manager reported that the legislation was currently being reviewed.  It was possible that pre-school aged children with an EHC Plan may have an eligibility but this was still unclear.  Officers would continue to review this and explore the impact that any changes in this regard may have on the Service.

 

The Director of Education noted that the Sub-Committee had given Officers direction on a number of options that would need further review and investigation.  This was likely to represent a big procurement exercise and the Director would therefore refer the comments made by the Sub-Committee to the ECHS Divisional Leadership Team for further consideration and action.

 

Action Point 2: That the Director of Education provide an update to the next meeting of the Education Budget Sub-Committee concerning the action taken by the ECHS Leadership Team in relation to the future of SEN Transport.

 

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Supporting documents: