Scrutiny Report on Brent's forthcoming budget makes many telling points - including being honest with the public by calling a cut a cut where appropriate

The Budget Scrutiny Task Force, made up of members of both scrutiny committees, has done a thorough job, and brought up issues that have concerned observers. 

The full report is available here and will be presented to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee tonight (6pm) and be considered by the Cabinet and Full Council as part of the budget process.

The report tackles the lack of fit between the Draft Borough Plan and the Council's climate strategy (Rec.1) as well as asking for more transparency so that cuts in services are actually called that rather than 'savings' etc (2) . The likely rise in Council Tax of 4.99% brinsg a recommendation that the Council review eligibility for the Council Tax Support Scheme and the Resident Support Fund (4).  The danger of digital exclusion (6) as the Council relies more on such provision is partially addressed with a recommendation that help be provided for digital form filling. There is a call for more active lobbying of the appropriate bodies on a range of funding issues (9)  including on the reform of Council Tax.

Recommendation 1- Borough Plan 2023-27 Alignment

It is important that the proposed budget properly aligns with the strategic priorities identified in the upcoming Borough Plan 2023-27. The Task Group are concerned that the draft budget omits solid proposals to deliver on our strategic priorities around our climate commitments, including our goal to become Carbon Net Zero by 2030. There is a real opportunity for the Council to clearly communicate the relationship between its strategic priorities and budget proposals to residents, local councillors, and partners. The Council should strive to publish both the Budget and Borough Plan at the same time but the Task Group has noted that this has been challenging on this occasion due to time restraints and budget uncertainties.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council more clearly demonstrates how public money is being spent in line with the democratically agreed strategic priorities for the borough.

Recommendation 2 – Proposal Categorisations

The Task Group are concerned with how the draft budget proposals were being presented to residents. It was noted that using language such as ‘savings’ in past budget setting processes may have been acceptable; however, on this occasion this is not applicable due to the great amount that needs to be cut from the budget moving forward. Given that the Council has to continue to deliver savings over the next two years to balance the budget, there is a greater need for resident’s expectations to be managed correctly and honestly to ensure that they are prepared for the difficult changes to important services.

 

The Task Group recommend that each budget proposal is categorised as one of: Cut; Income generation; Service transformation; Efficiency; or Investment for transparency purposes. This language should also be used in Council communications in order for residents to distinguish between the proposals which are cuts/service reductions, those which are investments, and those which are efficiencies/service transformation.

Recommendation 3 – Income Generation

The Task Group welcome and are encouraged by the Council’s efforts to identify options for income generation. We would encourage officers to continue being innovative in identifying further opportunities for income generation to offset the impact that many of the proposals will have on vital council services. Specifically, around increasing parking fees/charges and generating income from our assets, such as parks. With regards to the former, we note the Chief Executive’s comments around ensuring that if we are able to increase parking fees/charges, that the messaging to residents would have to be very clear in specifying that any charges recouped from parking fees would be reinvested in highways infrastructure as is legally required. However, any fee/charge increases must adopt a balanced approach that accounts for the impact of the Cost of Living crisis on different communities.

 

We would also like to stress that utilising our parks to generate income could assist us in our legacy work as ‘Borough of Culture 2020’.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council:

• Increase parking fees/charges to a more comparable rate charged by surrounding boroughs to secure safe movement of traffic and adequate parking and;
• Utilise our parks to generate additional income – as part of this process, the Council should draw comparisons with other local authorities to learn from good practice.

Recommendation 4 – Additional Financial Support for Residents

The Task Group note the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, which gives provision for local authorities to raise Council Tax by a maximum of 4.99% without a referendum. We appreciate the Council is likely to have no other viable options but to raise Council Tax by this amount to navigate the current financial challenges. However, Council Tax is a regressive tax; should this increase happen, the Task Group is concerned that this may cause greater hardship to those residents who currently do not qualify for relief under the Council Tax Support Scheme or Resident Support Fund. Additionally, the Task Group are
concerned that in response to tax increases, along with rising energy costs and unaffordable rents, it is frequently only food which is left for residents and families to sacrifice.

 

The Task Group therefore recommend that the Council:

• Increases funding and reviews the eligibility criteria for both the Council Tax Support scheme and the Resident Support Fund, should the financial modelling process allow and;
• Explores options to provide additional support to children to tackle food poverty, such as extending universal free school meals provision.

Recommendation 5 – Additional Advice & Support for our Voluntary Sector partners

It is clear that our voluntary sector partners are also experiencing significant financial difficulty and, like the Council, have been subject to consistent budget reductions over the last 10 years. The voluntary sector provide vital support for many residents and act as a safety net for the Council by going above and beyond to offer services that are beyond their traditional remit (e.g. food aid). The Task Group are satisfied that the Council is doing the best it can to protect the voluntary sector and frontline services in its proposed budget. However, it is likely that in the future funding to the voluntary sector could be scaled back. It is important we provide the voluntary sector with its own safety net.

 

To assist in building voluntary sector resilience, the Task Group recommend that the Council develops:

• An approach to increase the value of the commissioned contracts offered to the VCS to help them navigate the current volatile economic environment. The Council could also use this as an opportunity to tighten and improve its contract monitoring process to ensure further robustness and transparency in achieving outcomes.
• A collaborative strategy with the VCS to enable these organisations to identify and secure new income streams. This should also include scope for increased opportunities to make joint bids for grant funding.

• A transparent policy for distributing Council community assets to our voluntary partners in need of space. Specifically, offering capped peppercorn rents to the sector to expand their operations.

Recommendation 6 – Equal Access for All Residents

The Task Group understands the importance of the Council taking advantage of the opportunities/benefits associated with digital transformation, especially when taking into consideration the possible savings and efficiencies they can provide. However, we are still mindful that not all automated services are fit for purpose nor accessible to all residents (e.g. those who are digitally excluded, those with disabilities etc.)

 

The Task Group recommend that:

• The proposed automated services (e.g. chat bots) are tested by residents ahead of implementation, especially by those who have accessibility needs to ensure that all residents have equal access to services and;
• Additional advice and support is provided to disabled residents and those cohorts of residents with other access needs (e.g. literacy needs/English not a first language etc.) to navigate digital-form filling so they can maximise the benefits/grants they are eligible for and entitled to.

Recommendation 7 – Improving Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs)

The Task Group noted that the Council has undertaken individual equality impact assessments (EIA) on each proposal, but improvements could be made to the current process to ensure greater transparency so EIAs are not seen as a ‘tick box’ exercise.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council:

• Include an evidence base/rationale section in the EIA for each proposal where it has been deemed that there are no potential or likely impact on service users and employees with protected characteristics (e.g. how the Council arrived at such decisions) and;
• Undertake a cumulative equality impact assessment of the budget decisions since 2018 to understand fully the medium and long-term impacts of its financial decisions. It is
recommended a cumulative EqIA is completed during financial year 2023/24 and is included in the final budget report 2024/25.

Recommendation 8- Increased Collaboration

The Task Group is not clear on how health partners will be involved in the decision-making around in agreeing step down plans into general needs accommodation (proposal AH05). This partnership is vital to ensure our most vulnerable residents have the appropriate support in place at the right time, especially considering the difficulties in recruiting and retaining high quality staff. More generally this proposal raises interest from the Task Group regarding how we can work better with the NHS and other stakeholders around hospital discharges e.g. how we collectively mitigate the risks around discharge, and how we leverage contributions from partners/agencies in providing high quality social care and support. At present we have concerns that the rising costs in Adult Social Care cannot be met by the Council alone, where there is a need for clarity on the NHS funding responsibilities.

 

To ensure a holistic approach to residents’ care, specifically ‘those with complex needs’, the Task Group recommend that:

• A collaborative mechanism is established between the Council, NHS, and other relevant stakeholders to agree discharges/step down plans. If possible, this should be considered as part of the review process currently taking place with Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (CNWL) in the Integrated Care Partnership and;
• The Council leverage sufficient financial contributions from the NHS (and other relevant anchor institutions) to improve the Health & Social Care function in Brent.

Recommendation 9 – Lobbying

 

We note that many of the challenges in the draft budget proposals are reliant on the powers and funding from central government to be resolved.

 

The Task Group therefore recommend that the Council works closely with neighbouring local authorities, London Councils, and the Local Government Association (LGA) to seek:

• Additional funding in the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), notably the High Needs Block of the DSG which is currently in deficit. Although the Task Group is pleased with the activity undertaken to manage the deficit and despite the fact that the Council will see increased funding from central government, there is still a need for additional financial support to meet rising demand.
• Powers to levy proportionate charges on parked motorcycles/mopeds. If successful, this would enable the Council to expand the parking permit system in the borough to include other forms of vehicles.
• Local Government funding reform, including reform of regressive taxes such as Council Tax.
• Changes to gambling legislation and regulations that enable local authorities to generate additional income from gambling licensing fees. This money could then be used to reinvest in vital Council services.
• The introduction of ‘Short Term Letting’ legislation that will allow local authorities to
establish licensing schemes for ‘Air B&B’ accommodation in their respective boroughs.
This would enable the Council to generate additional income from ‘Air B&B’ businesses in Brent that could then be reinvested back into  services for the benefit of residents.

Recommendation 10- Phased Reduction to Care Packages Provision

In relation to proposal CYP03, the Task Group note that the Children and Young People department has identified discrepancies between care packages and the need for clarity and consistency in regards to the eligibility criteria and presenting needs when determining the level of support to be provided. The Task Group supports the review of care packages and better aligning resources to the evidenced needs of children; however we still have concerns about the impact this proposal could have on disabled children in the borough as a whole if the cut to overall provision is made over one financial year.

 

The Task Group recommend that a proportion of the additional funding from the Local Government Finance Settlement is used to enable the Council to defer a proportion of the savings in this proposal to financial year 24/25. This is to ensure changes in provision are implemented in a phased way.

Recommendation 11- Review Areas of Focus for Town Centre Management Function

The Task Group believe the current town centre management infrastructure has made great strides in revitalising our town centres and supporting our businesses. This has been essential post-covid and in the current economic climate. We felt assured that proposal CR05 would not impact service delivery, however we believe this proposal presents an opportunity for the Council to rethink its town centre management structure to ensure more effective focus on economically deprived areas.

 

The Task Group recommend reviewing the areas of focus for the town centre management function, whereby resource can be balanced against need; and work duplication prevented.

Recommendation 12 – Mitigating the impact of reducing the library stock budget

Although proposal RS08 is likely to have a small impact in the context of the collective budget proposals, the Task Group has concerns with the potential impact that this specific proposal could have on Brent’s most vulnerable residents, and in particular children.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council explores external options to leverage additional resources for our most vulnerable residents, such as the promotion of schemes (e.g. Letterbox Club run by BookTrust) offering free books to vulnerable and disadvantaged children. This could help offset the impact of the proposal on disadvantaged residents and children; and could assist with ensuring children in Brent have equal access to a broad range of reading material.

Recommendation 13 – Mitigating the impact of reducing the Corporate Learning and Training budget

The Task Group recommend that the Council be guided by staff satisfaction surveys when deciding what training courses to discontinue as part of the reduction to the Corporate Learning and Training budget (GOV03).

 

 

Greens put forward a radical new solution to strengthen local government via a fairer funding system

This is the first of a series of guest posts by Emma Wallance, Brent  & Harrow Green Party GLA candidate.

Harrow Council have announced that they are increasing the 2021/22 council tax by the maximum legal limit amount allowed to 4.99%.  This means that the council has increased Harrow’s council tax rates by their maximum amount year on year, for the last ten years.  In 2011/12 the average council tax rate in Harrow for band D (there are 8 bands, A-H) was £1186.55, in comparison to this year’s 2020/21 rate of £1522.72 for a band D property  LINK .  That is a £336.17 or +28.33% increase in ten years.  In comparison, neighbouring boroughs Ealing and Brent current council tax rates for 2020/21 band D properties are £1239.15 and £1312.74 respectively.  If we look London wide, Harrow residents are paying the third highest council tax out of the 32 London boroughs, with only Kingston and Richmond charging more.  In addition, Sadiq Khan has announced an increase to the Greater London Authority (GLA) council tax precept by 1.99%, or £363.66 for an average Band D property LINK .  This tax is collected by the 32 London councils on behalf of the GLA and consequently means that Harrow’s Council Tax will see a total overall increase of 5.9% next year.

 

This huge increase in council tax next year will come as a devastating blow to Harrow residents, many of whom are struggling with job losses and the increased pressures brought on by the Covid19 pandemic.  

 

Withdrawal of Central Government Funding

 

The increase in council tax must be seen in relation to the withdrawal of central government funding to local authorities that the Conservative government have presided over for the last ten years, reducing funding support in London by £4 billion   LINK  .  Evidence shows that a decade of imposed austerity from central government has resulted in core funding to local authorities being cut by 63% in real terms  LINK . Harrow Council was already one of the lowest funded councils in both London and nationally, with funding being reduced from £52.1 million to £1.6 million in the last ten years – a reduction of 97%  LINK .

 

This decimation in central government funding has left the current Labour administration in Harrow council in an untenable situation, having to bridge next year’s funding gap by almost £31 million LINK .  This has resulted in ever increasing costs being pushed on to local residents, whilst the council provide fewer and fewer services.  As Councillor Adam Swersky, responsible for finance at Harrow Council has stated, council tax has effectively become a ‘national stealth tax’ “with the Government shifting responsibility to local authorities to compensate for a lack of financial support.” LINK      

Lost Local Public Services

 

We have seen savage cuts to our public services in Harrow over the last ten years, from housing, education, public health, as well as both environmental and community services.  Street cleaning has seen repeated cutbacks, with, for example £172 000 cut from its budget in 2014, reducing the frequency of our street cleaning  LINK .  The Council’s waste collection services have also diminished over the last ten years, seeing in 2015 the introduction of the very unpopular £75 garden waste charge, a service that used to be included in our council tax.  It has since been revealed as one of the highest garden waste charges in England LINK    This lack of investment in street cleaning and waste services has continued for many years, with the now infamous 2017 footage, capturing rats swarming around bin bags in a Harrow car park LINK . 

 

We have also seen the closure of four of our ten public libraries in 2015 (the Bob Lawrence, Hatch End, North Harrow and Rayners Lane libraries), cutting a local service that provided a lifeline to many who are isolated or in need of library services.  In 2018, our two local Harrow MPs debated the issue in Parliament, with Harrow West’s Labour MP Gareth Thomas highlighting the unrelenting cuts and calling for the council to be “better funded”.  Mr Thomas highlighted the rise in violent crime in the borough and how youth services had been cut by more than 75% since 2010.  Conservative Bob Blackman, MP for Harrow East, responded by accusing the council of not being business friendly enough and needing to work together to apply for additional grants. LINK

 

The Impact of Demographic Changes and Covid

 

The reduction in central government funding, can also be seen in relation to a demographic change in London over the last ten years, with Harrow’s population increasing by 7.6%  LINK . The increase in residents, coupled with an aging population, has resulted in ever greater pressures being placed on our local services.  This can be seen most acutely on our social care services, where demand has increased across all age groups.  Social care is an area which must be ring fenced by 3% in the councils’ budgets every year, with the council this year applying for an additional social care grant to help with the increased pressures on brought on by COVID-19.  Indeed, the unprecedented situation caused by the pandemic has placed a huge strain on council budgets, with increased demand on an array of services LINK  .  Whilst the Tory government assured councils’ that they should do ‘whatever it takes’ to support residents through the pandemic, promising ‘Emergency Funding’ to councils, this has not been fully realised and the amounts have not been enough to cover all costs incurred.  As a result, there is now an even bigger funding shortfall than there was before the pandemic started  LINK  .

 

Harrow Council consequently is in a situation of ongoing funding reduction from central government, changes in demographics and the resultant increased pressure on services, whilst also dealing with the impacts of Covid.  This is tragically resulting in an even bigger reduction in the services provided by the council at a time when we need them more than ever.  

 

The Green Party’s Vision for the Future

 

The pandemic has revealed how years of under investment have resulted in local communities being exposed and vulnerable to the health and social realities brought on by this crisis.   Whilst we have seen incredible local voluntary initiatives over the last year, with people coming together to help and support each other, it is not a long term sustainable solution.  Local government needs to be properly financed to ensure Harrow is a healthy and safe place for residents to live and thrive in.  The Green Party have progressive plans to invest in local communities and our vital local services, believing that Council Tax needs to be radically overhauled.  We would like to see council tax and business rates replaced with a Land Value Tax (LVT) or ‘developers’ duty’, which will capture the value of the land not the property.   The current council tax band system is out of date and unfair, based on property prices from when the tax first emerged in 1991.  It favours wealthy home owners and landlords, with costs often bypassing the owners of rented properties, passing instead to tenants.   As joint leader of the Green Party, Jonathan Bartley states, “Council tax is regressive and it’s the past”  LINK    .  The LVT will be a proportionate and locally controlled property tax – “a single tax (replacing the multiple taxes that currently exist) which will capture the real value of land, and the increased value arising from improvements to it.”  LINK    

 

Green Party Sian Berry has also just pledged to set up a People’s Land Commission if she becomes London Mayor in May, helping to restore and revive local communities.  It is local communities who best understand the areas they live in, and they are the ones who should be consulted “to transform their own high streets, plan a low carbon future, and create community infrastructure and new homes.”  Read more HERE. 

Brent Council Budget approved

 As expected the Budget and Council Tax rise was approved yesterday  by Full Council.

The Conservative amendment was lost with the 3 Conservatives voting For and Labour and the Lib Dem voting Against.

Lib Dem Cllr Anton Georgiou was allowed to move his budget proposals and he was the only vote For.

The Labour Group  budget was approved with only Conservatives and the Lib Dem Against. Labour councillor Cllr Gill abstained.

Some councillors appeared to be  missing during the roll call (recorded vote).

Only 10% of on-line respondents agree with Brent's budget proposals as Council Tax rises by 5.99%, but to be fair only 29 people responded!

 

 A key table from the on-line consultation

Tomorrow morning's Cabinet meeting will approve the budget proposals set out earlier which includes an overall Council Tax rise of 5.99% and £15.1m cuts. 

 

Council Tax

 

GLA Precept

In theory the budget is not approved until it goes to a full council meeting but in effect it will be approved tomorrow as Labour hold 94% of Brent Council seats and most Labour members won't say 'Boo to a butt.'

Usually the three person Conservative opposition fail to put forward anything like a fully costed alternative budget. This will be the first time the lone Liberal Democrat will have contibuted to a budget debate.

Often the debate turns into a fairly predictable political dogfight with initial grandstanding by the Council leader degenerating into political point scoring as if he is on the national stage - which is where he wants to be, of course.

The interests of residents get lost in the sound and fury.

 Much will be made of the fact of consultation - a Scrutiny Task Force, Audit and Standards Committee, two virtual Brent Connects Meeting and an on-0nline consultation but the Report by Minish Patel, airily states:

Having considered the various comments made, including through the consultation, scrutiny and equalities processes, officers have been instructed to proceed with the budget proposals as previously set out.

It's not entirely  clear who did the considering and who issued the instruction.

The fact that 59% of the on-line respondents disgreed with the budget proposals makes no difference and might explain why so few take part. Even if more did, the Council has things covered:

Comments and feedback on the budget consultation demonstrates a wide range of views, many common viewpoints and emphasises the fact that Brent residents are concerned over what the expenditure reductions mean not only for them but also for the wider community. 

And anyway:

All of these consultation responses are important. Members need to have regard to them, but are not obliged to follow the suggestions made. It is relevant to note that the consultees are, statistically speaking, “self-selecting” and therefore not necessarily reflective of opinion in the borough as a whole, nor are they necessarily statistically significant.

Although...

On the other hand, the people who have responded have chosen to take the time to review the Council’s proposals and to contribute their thoughts, and often their views will be representative of the views of a much larger number of people.

Notice that individual councillors and backbenchers are not mentioned in the list of consultees - that would have happened at a Labour Group meeting behind closed doors with attendees instructed not to leak to blog writers.

Concern over the plight of residents faced with another increase in their Council Tax is addressed in this paragraph:

While it is acknowledged that increasing Council Tax will be difficult for some households, it should also be recognised that the Council continues to invest in the Council Tax Support scheme, which provides over £30m of support for around 28,000 households who are financially vulnerable. In addition, the Spending Review announced £670m of new funding in recognition of the increased costs of providing local council tax support. Brent’s share of this has been confirmed as £4m and will be used to support economically vulnerable people and households in the borough.

Suggestions are made each year that the Council should use some ots reserves to fund basic services rather than increase the Council Tax. Finance Officers address the issue of reserves in this section of the report:

Brent held total reserves of £398m as at 31 March 2020. On the face of it this would appear to be a high figure, but the following analysis shows that in practice the figure for all practical purposes is substantially lower. £264m (66%) of these reserves are for the funding of the Council’s ambitious capital programme. £30m (8%) is legally ring fenced for bodies such as our maintained schools and the Housing Revenue Account. £69m (17%) of reserves have been earmarked for a specific purpose or future expenditure commitment. This includes reserves managed by departments (for example unspent government grants with ring fenced commitments set aside to meet expenditure pressures) and reserves used to smooth out expenditure that by its nature will vary considerably from year to year and avoid uncontrollable under and over spends, for example insurance claims, PFI contracts, redundancy and pension costs. £21m (5%) are reserves that are earmarked to manage the future funding risks and it was primarily set aside to manage the potential impact of the Fair Funding Review. As a result of the impact of COVID-19, this reserve may be required to manage any one off pressures arising that cannot be met through the growth built into the budget, as set out in section 5.16. Finally, £15m (4%) is a general reserve which is held as a contingency against unforeseen events (for example unexpected in-year overspends, failure to identify sufficient savings to balance the budget in-year or future funding risks) and to ensure that the Council has sufficient funds available to meet its cash flow requirements. The general reserve is relatively low when compared to other London Boroughs and is only c5% of the Council’s net budget.

The Cabinet Meeting is on Monday February 8th at 10am and can be viewed via this LINK

 Details of the savings (cuts?) and other documents can be found HERE 

Brent Council Tax and Council Rents to rise but Council says it is not as hard hit as some

 

Brent Council's Overall Financial Position
 

Next week's Cabinet will discuss proposals for the 2021-22 Council budget.  The report to Cabinet LINK lists many uncertainties caused by the pandemic and lack of clarity over government funding.  However, the report states:

The new proposals for 2021/22 and 2022/23 are designed to limit, as far as possible, service reductions and the impact on front line services particularly during these challenging times. For example, the new proposals include expected gains from re-procurement of major contracts, service transformations and efficiency savings. This does not mean that delivering these planned savings, if approved, will be managerially straightforward, or that front- line services will be entirely unaffected, or that they can be achieved without staffing reductions, but it is nonetheless the case that the new proposals set out in this report do not include the wholesale cuts to services that many Councils are considering and indeed implementing. 

Consultation on the proposals will take place between this month and February 2021. 

Features of the budget include

 A Council Tax increase of 4.99%, making a Band D Council Tax of £1,378.26 (for the Brent element). The GLA precept is unknown at this stage and is subject to their own decision making and consultation processes.

New budget savings proposals of £5.1m to be delivered between 2021/22 and 2022/23. LINK

 

An increase of Council rents of 1.5% (figures below are per week)

 

The report admits that the Council Tax rise will hit people. It refers to the Council Tax Support scheme which they expect to be used more but not all of those hit by the rise will be eligible. Similarly more people may fall into rent arrears when so many are hit by job losses and income falls because of Covid19.

 

Three possible scenarios are given for pressure on services ranging from additonal costs of £5m to £20m

 

 Officers estimate that 63% of the planned cuts are on track to be realised, while others will be realised in future years.  One cut that was due was via a review of homecare and placement packages, re-commissioning day care (£250,000).

 

The report states:

This saving is delayed because the re-commissioning of daycare has been affected by Covid-19 as daycare will have to be delivered in a different format as a result of the pandemic. It is expected that these savings will be achieved through reduced transport usage.

A disability campaigner told Wembley Matters:

Although there is very little detail it looks like the only  2 day centres left for disabled people will not reopen and all the council daycare will be in a new format.  But the. clue is they will save £250k in transport costs from the remainder of this year and another £250K next year.  That means with no daycentres, no transport is needed to pick the disabled people up, as most of them have mobility issues.

So who will speak up for the most severely disabled people in Brent, if not Wembley Matters?  It seems that nearly every London borough has an organisation representing disabled people but Brent does not have one, apart from Brent Advocacy Concerns which no longer have the resources to challenge the council anymore.

The report states that these cuts are 'technical' and therefore don't have to be consulted on.  They are included for transparency:

The Freedom Pass saving depends on the progress of Covid and a return to normality is likely to increase demand again.

Schools are funded separately though the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) calculated by the National Funding Formula. Schools have incurred increased costs because of Covid and there has been some central government financial support but this has now ended, although additional money still has to be spent on additional cleaning costs, and supply cover for staff self-isolating or on sick leave. Covid restructions means that lettings income has dropped through the floor.

However, many were already facing financial problems because of the school funding crisis and the unfunded pay increase. More are expected to fall into deficit next year. The situation will worsen because the High Needs Block of the DSG is not keeping up with demand so the  Schools Forum will be asked to take money from the Schools section of the budget to additionally fund the High Needs in the borough.

 
High needs funding is intended to provide the most appropriate support package for children and young people (from early years up to aged 25) with special educational needs and disabilities in a range of settings, taking account of parental and student choice.

The report states:

The pressure in the HNB has led to the DSG being in a £4.9 million deficit carried forward from 2019/20 and further forecast pressures of £4.2 million in 2020/21 will increase the deficit position to £9.1 million. The DfE require local authorities with an overall DSG deficit to present a plan to recover the deficit over a number of financial years. To recover the deficit in the medium to long term, options being reviewed by the task group set up by the Strategic Director of Children and Young People include;

Looking to establish more Special Educational Needs & Disability (SEND) provision in the borough as part of the School Place Planning Strategy Refresh including developing new Additionally Resourced Provisions (ARPs);

Ensuring there is full cost recovery from other local authorities that place pupils in Brent special schools including administration and other specific costs;

Review of the DSG funded SEN support services currently underway.

 One thing is clear - without any action by the Government schools face a very tough time financially in 2021-22 as will most Brent residents.