SEN Service Review Outline Business Case overview

1. SEN Service ReviewOutline Business Case overview May 2012 Version 10 – 21/05/2012

2. The legal background • Rights and duties set out in Part IV of Education Act 1996 • Described in the SEN Code of Practice 2001 (includes SENDA 2001) • Local Authorities and schools ‘…must have regard to it. They must not ignore it’ • Somerset’s SEN Framework • Equalities Act 2010

3. Statutory obligations (1) 1:11 An essential function of the LEA is to make effective arrangements for SEN by ensuring that: • _ the needs of children and young people with SEN are identified and assessed quickly and matched by appropriate provision • _ strategic planning for SEN is carried out in consultation with schools and others to: • develop systems for monitoring and accountability for SEN • _ LEA arrangements for SEN provision are kept under review as required under section315 of the Education Act 1996. 1:12 As part of their role in ensuring that needs are matched by appropriate provision: • LEAs should work with schools to evaluate the effectiveness of their school funding arrangements in supporting and raising the achievement of children with SEN. 2.16 All LAs must make arrangements for Parent Partnership Services.

4. Statutory obligations (2) 1:11 An essential function of the LEA is to make effective arrangements for SEN by ensuring that: _ • high quality support is provided for schools and early education settings – including, • through educational psychology and other support services, and arrangements for • sharing good practice in provision for children and young people with SEN • _ children and young people with SEN can benefit from co-ordinated provision – by • developing close partnerships with parents, schools, health and social services and the voluntary sector

5. SEN Funding (1) • SEN Funding is allocated through: • Individual Schools Budget (School Action and School Action Plus) • Central Schools Budget ( Support Services – includes some EPS, early intervention, management and administration, centrally managed resources – independent special schools) • Local Authority Budget (Educational Psychology Service, SEN Casework, therapies, SEN Transport, management and administration)

6. Individual Schools Budget • School Action - £8.3m Allocated by a formula, based on SENCO activities and deprivation • School Action Plus - £14m Part formula funded (£1.8m) and part individual assigned resources following audit (£12.2m) The consultation with schools identified a need for a ‘slimmed down’ process, and national funding arrangements for 2013/14 support this approach, with more of this funding delegated by a formula • Special Schools Budget - £12.1m

7. Central Schools Budget

8. Local Authority Budget

9. SEN Statistics In summary, the latest data (January 2012) shows that there are: • 1088 children and young people with Statements of SEN; • 2380 children and young people are identified at School Action Plus • 8300 children and young people are identified at School Action • 90 children and young people are placed in independent/non-maintained special schools

10. Questions for the Compact • The reduction in LA budgets over the period 2011/12 to 2013/14 has impacted on a number of LA funded SEN services. In particular, the Compact may need to consider whether to fund the reductions identified below from CSB: 2012/13 • 2 EPs £100K 2013/14 (examples include) • Further 4 EPs £186K • Contribution to Integrated Therapy Service £190K

11. Outline Business Case(1) • What services must the Local Authority provide? • Broadly those funded by the Local Authority budget • SEN Transport • Statutory assessment and monitoring of Statements of SEN (SEN Casework Team) • Statutory work carried out by Educational Psychology Service • Naming schools in Statements of SEN • Quality assurance of SEN provision across the Local Authority • Parent Partnership Service (could be outsourced)

12. Recommendation 1 • The Local Authority continues to directly provide these services, recognising that this will be within future budget constraints on the LA budget.

13. 2012/13 Budget Strategic Leadership £338K Educational Psychology £736K SEN Casework £390K Parent Partnership £125K SEN Transport £3.77m Centrally managed resources £582K Total £5.976m 2014/15 Budget QA and monitoring £235K Educational Psychology £527K SEN Casework £390K Parent Partnership Service* £125K SEN Transport £3.50m Centrally managed resources £392K Total £5.169m * could be separately tendered Actions we are takingReduce Local Authority budget spend in line with reducing available Budget over period 2014/15:

14. Outline Business Case(2) • What should the Local Authority, through the Compact arrangements, commission? • Broadly those funded through the Central Schools Budget • Non-statutory Educational Psychology • Learning Support • Physical, Medical and Sensory Support • Autism and Communication Support (not Resource Bases*) • Independent/non-maintained special school provision • *The Local Authority should work with ‘host’ schools for ASD and Language Resource Bases to fund these directly through the ISB and new High Needs pupil arrangements from 2013/14

15. Options we are considering(1) These options refer to Central Schools Budget expenditure. and depend on the Compact taking decisions to; • Commission the Local Authority to deliver the services directly; or • Commission schools/groups of schools to lead and manage the Support Services; or • Commission the Local Authority to develop a whole service externalisation; or • Commission the Local Authority to prepare the services for a whole service open Tender These options will be considered alongside other Learning and Achievement Services as a single entity.

16. Advantages Well understood processes means little change for schools/children Feedback from schools is generally positive Retains skills, expertise and knowledge of existing staff Least likely to generate anxiety and resistance No additional overhead costs e.g. SWOne Opportunity for schools to take on operational leadership of services in future Disadvantages LA retains responsibility for premises, equipment etc. Staff remain employed by LA, with consequent HR/Pensions responsibilities LA directly provided services

17. Advantages In line with CWNM strategy Feedback from schools is generally positive Retains skills, expertise and knowledge of existing staff Retains direct provision within the public sector Least likely to generate anxiety and resistance Removes risk of market failure Disadvantages Staff remain employed by LA, with consequent HR/Pensions responsibilities (unless an academy) Some Support Services would have a very small presence in areas (eg VI) Potential loss of professional dialogue in specialist teams Services led/managed by schools

18. Advantages ‘Not for profit’ structure ensures maximum expenditure on providing service Could be a phased approach, enabling LA to manage process at a pace, which ensures no break in service to schools Would provide capacity for LA to support ‘struggling’ schools Disadvantages Initially, LA would remain responsible for providing premises Reputational risks to LA if service not successful Schools could withdraw from service, raising unit costs Risks to LA at end of initial 3 year period, if company not successful in open tender Whole Service Externalisation

19. Advantages Testing of costs against open market could reduce unit costs and lead to an enhanced service for same resource (TUPE applies) Would be a ‘one step’ process, providing security for schools, children and staff Individual teams could become sub-contractors Reduction of overheads, as bidders likely to have existing infra-structure Disadvantages Concern over ‘profit’ motive, reducing service to schools and children Very complex process would require a focused conversion team There will be significant transition challenges for existing staff Reputation risks to LA if provider not successful Whole Service Open Tender

20. Recommendation 2 • The Compact Executive should commission the Local Authority to develop a full business plan to: • Commission schools/groups of schools to lead and manage the Support Services, in line with proposals introduced in Children Who Need More