Agenda item

To receive and agree the proposals for 2017-18 Early Years budgets, including the structure and values to be attributed to the Bracknell Forest Council Early Years Funding Formula (EYFF).

The Forum received a report on proposals for Early Years funding from April 2017 including the proposed structure and values to be attributed to the BF Early Years Funding Formula, taking account of comments received from providers to the local consultation.

Members were reminded that the Department for Education (DfE) required changes to current arrangements in order to deliver the national policy objective of enabling more families to work by extending the free entitlement to childcare from 15 to 30 hours per week for parents that wanted to work. New requirements were being introduced to the funding framework in relation to how money could be allocated to providers, the support that must be made available for the most vulnerable children and the amount of funds that could be centrally retained by LAs.:

At the same time as making changes to how LAs must manage Early Years funds, the DfE are also introducing new arrangements for funding LAs to deliver their Early Years provisions and services for 3 and 4 year olds The DfE had calculated the hourly funding rate for BF for 2017-18 at £4.93. This would initially be reduced to £4.66 due to 2 years of transitional funding protection where those LAs receiving the largest gains had a deduction taken in order to finance funding protection in other LAs. This translates to total estimated funding in 2017-18 of £6,414,940, although this is subject to change dependent upon take up of additional hours.

In terms of the BF EY funding consultation, this was distributed in December 2016 and two evening briefing sessions were held and well attended by 61 out of 65 providers.  Annex A in the report showed that for the vast majority of the questions posed, respondents supported the proposals with at least 50% agreeing with the recommended proposal in 25 of the 27 questions. 

Annex C of the report contained detailed comments from the providers, including:

• In respect of updating provider eligibility to hourly top up supplements, the majority of respondents preferred an annual update rather than termly.
• 8 providers commented on the Disability Access Fund (DAF); 2 supported the proposals, 5 suggested changes to the allocation – although there is a strict DfE process to follow that does not permit the changes proposed - and 1 requested that the EHCP process was accelerated.
• 7 providers made comments on the SEN Inclusion Fund; 4 supported the proposals, 1 requested more notice was provided on SEN children entering settings, 1 requested that the relevant provider attended the panel and 1 requested greater clarity, particularly around children with complex needs.
• Childminders were concerned that the funding rate to be paid was below what they currently charged and would lead to a loss of income if they moved to delivering free entitlement.
• The Quality supplement should include Ofsted ratings and leadership qualifications below level 5. However, the DfE does not allow these factors to be included.
• EAL support should be available to a wider range of languages.

Michelle Tuddenham commented that childminders were unhappy with the DfE funding forms which had to be completed 6 times per year and which they felt were complicated.   Michelle said she believed there would be a greater take up of the increased free entitlement to childcare than anticipated and that extra money would need to be found as PVI Providers would remain on the same rates whilst rents, inflation and the minimum wage rate were all increasing.   

Michelle said childminders had also expressed concern about how they would manage if they were paid half-termly instead of weekly or monthly.  Martin Gocke expressed concern that one childminder was apprehensive about being paid termly in arrears.  Paul Clark advised this would not be the case but that childminders would receive an additional payment at the start of term which would be adjusted up or down depending on their confirmed headcount towards the end of term.  Councillor Dr Gareth Barnard asked Michelle to e-mail him with specific concerns or suggestions for alternative arrangements.

(Action: Michelle Tuddenham)

The report stated that the potential failure to deliver the number of additional free hours required by parents was mitigated by the expectation that provider funding rates would increase by an average of 14.1%.  However, the report then went on to state that the majority of provision within the private, voluntary and Independent sector would only receive between 2.5% and 10%.  The Forum was advised the first figure included schools provision as well as PVI and therefore averaged out at 14.1% whilst the percentage range of 2.5% to 10% was for PVI Providers only. 

Michelle Tuddenham asked when PVI Providers would be told what was required of them in order to prepare for the extension to 30 hours from September 2017.  This information was not available at the meeting and an update would be provided at the next meeting.

(Action: Paul Clark)

The Forum NOTED:

That the vast majority of responses to the consultation proposals on the Bracknell Forest Council Early Years Funding Formula supported the proposals made by the Council.

The summary financial implications anticipated from the proposals on provider hourly funding rates.

The Forum AGREED the following recommendations made in the report:

That taking account of the responses from providers, the following items are implemented as set out in the consultation document:

a)    The Bracknell Forest Council Early Years Funding Formula for 3 and 4 year olds (as summarised at Table 1).

b)    The hourly funding rate for 2 year olds be increased to £5.46.

c)     The Early Years Special Educational Needs and Disability Living Allowance Inclusion Fund Policy should be as set out in Annex 5 of the list of Annexes document that supported the consultation.

d)    The budgets to be centrally managed by the council for:

i. SEN inclusion fund at around 1% of funds.

ii. Provider contingency at around 1.5% of funds.

iii. BFC services at around 3% of funds.

That taking account of the responses from providers, that eligibility for deprivation top up funding is assessed and updated on a termly basis, with eligibility to flexibility and quality top up funding assessed and updated once a year.

That the additional £0.034m of funds now available are added to the Provider Contingency budget.

The original Early Years budgets are set at the amounts set out in Annex B of this report, including the ring-fenced amounts for the Disability Access Fund and the Early Years Pupil Premium.

That there are appropriate arrangements in place for Early Years provision.