Schools Forum 19 January 2016 2016/17 Budget

1. Schools Forum19 January 20162016/17 Budget Felicity Roe, Assistant Director, Children’s Services Andrew Minall Finance Business Partner, Children’s Services

2. Schools Budget 2015/16

3. 2015/16 Budget – key issues • No change to overall forecast • Ongoing pressures continue in: • Growth fund • High Needs Top-Up Funding • INMSS + Post-16 SPI • Final overspend will be met by reserves • Actions agreed in December to meet ongoing pressures

4. 2016/17 Schools Budget • DSG published 17 December 2015 • Initial allocation received • Early years allocation to be updated to reflect actual participation

5. 2016/17 Schools Budget • ‘Cash flat’ settlement • Grants • Pupil Premium rates protected (para 3.37) • UIFSM continuing (£2.30) • Summer school funding ceasing • Further information expected from DfE • De-delegation (3.49) and central services (3.50) budgets agreed in December • Pro-forma Tool to be returned to DfE by 21 January

6. 2016/17 Schools Budget – High Needs block • High needs block allocation not increased for 3 years • For 2016/17, DfE announced additional £92.5m nationally for growth • Hampshire allocated £2.2m, 4th highest allocation nationally • Unclear whether allocation is one-off or ongoing

7. 2016/17 Schools Budget – High Needs block • Additional funding can therefore contribute to estimated £4m pressure • Lump sum reduction for primary and secondary schools therefore deferred • Requirement reviewed as part of 2017/18 budget setting process

8. Deprivation Funding • Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) used as the measure for deprivation in schools funding formula • Also used for funding early years, special schools and resourced provisions • IDACI is calculated by the DCLG and measures in a local area the proportion of children under the age of 16 that live in low income households. • The IDACI score and rank are for the Super Output Area (SOA) in which the postcode lies.

9. Deprivation Funding - IDACI • IDACI dataset updated in 2015 as part of five yearly national exercise to update all indices of deprivation. • Measure of relative deprivation at the time • Any changes in deprivation for an area relative to changes in overall dataset • Overall levels of deprivation in Hampshire, based on index has reduced • Does not impact on level of DSG funding received

10. Deprivation Funding - IDACI

11. Deprivation Funding - IDACI

12. Deprivation Funding - IDACI • Using existing unit values, impact of changes are: • Deprivation budget reduced from £33.3m to £25.9m • MFG increasing from £3.9m (2015/16) to £9.1m • No. of schools receiving MFG increases from 95 to 229 • Schools in cap reduced by approx. 50% • As overall DSG remains unchanged, reduction in funding through pupil led factors allows for actions to be taken to mitigate turbulence

13. Actions taken to reduce turbulence • Removal of cap • Would limit effects of actions to minimise turbulence • Cap would increase due to increasing MFG costs • Would be capping new MFG not resulting from 2013 funding reform • Increase IDACI band 3 value • Only band that has an increase in pupils • Modelling shows this band is most effective in reducing turbulence • Budget adjusted to reflect increase in band 0 pupils whilst recognising the need to support pupils from deprived backgrounds

14. Turbulence – actions • Increase in AWPU value • Would provide some protection to those schools where proportion of pupils in band 0 have increase significantly • Maintains funding through pupil led factors where eligibility for other pupil factors have reduced • Not possible to fully mitigate impact • Some schools will see reduction in funding • Combination of actions has reduced impact:

15. Next steps • All possible actions have been taken to reduce the impact within limited powers available • Approach and levels of funding through all parts of formula to be reviewed for 2017/18 • Review to include: • Review of principles established in 2013 • Local understanding and approach to deprivation • High needs strategy and cost pressures • Centrally held items e.g. miscellaneous items • Assumes a level of local decision making remains

16. Examples - Impact to individual schools • Largest reduction of IDACI funding - Primary

17. Examples - Impact to individual schools • Largest reduction of IDACI funding - Primary

18. Examples - Impact to individual schools • Largest reduction of IDACI funding - Secondary

19. Examples - Impact to individual schools • Largest reduction of IDACI funding - Secondary

20. Examples - Impact to individual schools • Largest ‘gain’ from IDACI funding - Primary

21. Examples - Impact to individual schools • Largest ‘gain’ from IDACI funding - Primary

22. Examples - Impact to individual schools • Largest ‘gain’ from IDACI funding - Secondary

23. Examples - Impact to individual schools • Largest ‘gain’ from IDACI funding - Secondary