Agenda item

To consider an update on Haringey’s participation in the government’s Safety Valve programme.

Jackie Difolco, Assistant Director for Early Help, Prevention and SEND, reported that the High Needs Block recovery plan had evolved into the Safety Valve programme.   Updates had previously been received on the plan, which aimed to reduce the overspend and improve outcomes for children and young people with SEND.  A report had been made to the September Cabinet meeting on proposals to enter the Safety Valve programme and these had been endorsed.  If no action was taken, there would be a deficit of £78 million by 2027/28.

There was strong support from Cabinet for the proposed programme, which included strong oversight and scrutiny.  It would be the biggest current savings programme by the Council. There were three work streams associated with the programme - Demand Management, Effective Commissioning and Leadership and Governance.   If successful, the programme would lead to a surplus of £1.6 million in 2027/28 and a reduction of the high needs deficit to £30 million.  The savings made would be £48 million over five years.   The Demand Management programme would lead to a reduction of Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans of 611, putting Haringey in line with the average for other London boroughs. 

Capital proposals had been developed that would reduce unit costs through the development of in borough provision for an additional 118 places for children and young people within mainstream education settings.  A review of bandings and top ups would also be undertaken and action would be taken ensure that there were effective commissioning arrangements.  A large number of projects were now taking an early intervention approach, supporting schools and developing a graduated response to meet demand and reduce the need for specialist support.  There would be strong partnership arrangements to create shared ownership and change the culture of the SEND system in Haringey.  Ms Difolco provided examples of some of the projects with the three workstreams as well as details of the savings that would accrue from all of them in each year.

The proposals had been submitted to the Department for Education (DfE) in October.   Feedback had now been received that the proposals might need to be revisited in the light of the announcement of the new budget settlement.  They were being reviewed with finance colleagues but it was likely that the overall proposals would still remain the same and a request that the £30 million deficit be written off following successful delivery of the programme would still be made.  Work with partners to implement the proposals had already begun.  Once approval from the DfE had been obtained, communication and engagement plans would be developed further.  Robust governance processes had been developed and the Schools Forum had agreed to the transfer of 0.5% from the Schools Block to the High Needs block to reduce the overspend.  Schools were very supportive of the programme as they knew that it would improve outcomes.  There was a Safety Valve Steering Group that had oversight of the programme including relevant Cabinet Members.

In answer to a question regarding what success would look like, she stated that primarily savings would need to be achieved and there would be quarterly finance targets that would need to be achieved.  The work being undertaken was work that the Council should, in any case, be looking to undertake.  The aim was that when the projects started to deliver, there would be an increase in in-borough provision, more early intervention and a more confident and competent multi agency work force. There would be both soft and finance outcomes.  There was a plan on a page for each project that provided detail of the savings as well as outcomes and it was agreed that a summary of these be shared with the Panel in the next stage of engagement. 

Panel Members expressed concern at the lack of school governors on the Steering Group.  Many schools were struggling at the moment and some were in serious financial deficit.  The proposed programme could have a negative impact.  In particular, schools needed EHC plans in order obtain intervention.  Parents and carers in the more deprived areas of the borough were less able to exert pressure bring about action.

Ms Difolco stated that the programme had been informed by the SEND strategy, the Written Statement of Action and responses to consultation.  In addition, a detailed report had been made to the Schools Forum.  Headteachers on the Forum had raised similar concerns to the Panel but also recognised the need to act.  A similar report had also been made to chairs of school governing bodies, where the proposals had been well received.  The programme was not just concerned with finance issues but also the need to improve outcomes.   It would have been necessary to undertake the work irrespective of the programme and it had already begun as part of the High Needs Block recovery plan.  As an example, it should not be the case that children have to wait until they have an EHC plan to obtain help with speech and language and one of the projects would involve training the multi-disciplinary work force to be able to assist at an earlier stage.  Good feedback had been received from the DfE on all of the projects and they were not dissimilar to ones being undertaken by other local authorities. 

Councillor Brabazon, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Families, stated that local authorities had been made an offer that they were unable to refuse by the government.   If school governors did not feel that they had been sufficiently well briefed on the programme, she was happy to meet with them again. There was a systemic problem that there was insufficient money for SEND and the government was incentivising local authorities to make changes and offering to write off deficits in return.  Irrespective of this, it should not be necessary for children to wait for EHC plans for interventions and the changes necessary were overdue.  For example, there needed to be a lot more universal provision for speech and language therapy.  The direction was consistent with work that was already begin done in response to the written statement of action.  The programme represented a big cultural change and a real opportunity to bring about change.  She understood concerns regarding less articulate or assertive parents not getting as much support and this was shared by those across the partnership.  It was essential for the interests of children and schools that the programme worked though. 

Ms Difolco agreed to refer the suggestion that the chair of a school governing body be added to the Safety Valve Steering Group to the group for consideration.  There were over 2600 children with an EHC plan in Haringey, which was higher than the average for other London boroughs and there was an overspend of £24 million.  She reassured Panel Members that if children needed a plan, they would receive one as this was a statutory duty.  All of the relevant background papers and reports regarding the transformation of SEND were available on the Councils SEND Local Offer website and a link to these would be shared with members.   

In answer to a question regarding the lack of speech and language therapists, Ms Difolco stated that she was aware that there was a shortage and the time frame for targets involving them had been extended in response.  In addition, one project involved the recruitment of speech and language assistants which would reduce reliance on specialist therapists.  The target of 611 for reductions in the number of EHC plans did not only relate to early intervention and would also be met by revising plans, with some being ceased where they were no longer deemed necessary.   In answer to another question regarding personal transport budgets, she reported that very few parents currently had these and this was an area that needed further development.  She recognised that the SV programme was very ambitious but it was nevertheless the right thing to do.

AGREED:

1.    That the one page summaries of each project to be undertaken as part of the Safety Valve be shared with the Panel in the next stage of engagement; and

2.      That it be recommended that school governing bodies be represented on the Safety Valve Steering Group.