Agenda item

To seek agreement for the 2021-22 Early Years’ budgets, including the values to be attributed to the Bracknell Forest Council Early Years Funding Formula.

The Forum considered a report which sought agreement for the 2021-22 Early Years budgets, including the values to be attributed to the Bracknell Forest Council Early Years Funding

Formula (EYFF). 

Cherry Hall highlighted that there was to be a national increase in Early Years funding, and it was proposed that the increases should be passed on in full to providers through the EYFF base rate.  There were also proposals to make minor changes to that allocation of funding across the Early Years Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) income budget.  This was to better reflect the budget forecasts and maintain the agreed proportional distribution of funds so that money was provided to those who most needed it. 

Cherry Hall explained that the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) element was previously paid on universal and extended hours.  The proposal this year was for the IDACI just to be paid on universal hours. 

Taking account of all the budget proposals and the latest data for provider eligibility to EYFF supplement payments, it was expected that, overall, 32 providers would experience a decrease in hourly rate and 126 providers would see an increase in hourly rate. 

One concern was that the numbers on the Census would be significantly lower; however, the recent figures showed that numbers were only 3.5% lower than the usual Census.  The number of two-year-olds accessing childcare had decreased significantly. 

The Forum felt that the new formula was good in that monies would reach children experiencing the most deprivation.  The winter grant fund was incredibly beneficial to families.  One difficulty that providers had shared was to do with accessing PPE.  There was an increase in costs related to the supply of PPE and the need for additional cleaners, and childcare providers did not receive additional support in the same way as other sectors.  Cherry Hall agreed with those points.  The funding side had gone well in terms of paying providers even if children were not attending.  However, there was a difficulty in costs outside of that with which the Council had not been able to support.

The Chair highlighted that one thing the Forum was asked to agree was whether there were appropriate arrangements in place for administration of the Early Years free entitlement funding.  The Chair asked whether there was anything else apart from the comments already made that the Forum could use to make a judgement on that.  Paul Clark explained that this was something that had been included by the DfE but there was no definition on how to measure.  Paul Clark advised that BFC was not holding back any money intended for providers and suggested that the Forum reflect on whether providers and parents were getting the breadth of support needed.  The Chair expressed that he doubted anyone on the Forum would have been unhappy with what has been fed back.

RESOLVED, on consideration of the EYB budget proposals from the Council, to AGREE:

1.    that for the 2021-22 financial year the Executive Member sets:

i.      the Early Years DSG income budget at £7.74m (Table 3 of the report);

ii.     the funding rates in the Early Years Funding Formula as set out in Table 4 of the report; and

iii.    the proposed budgets as set out in Annex 1 of the report; and

iv.    that there are appropriate arrangements in place for administration of the Early Years free entitlement funding.