Agenda item

Report of the Director of Children’s Prevention, Family Help and Safeguarding.

This report details the proposed allocation of national free entitlement funding using Camden’s local funding formula. It seeks approval from School’s Forum for the proposed hourly rates payable to providers and for the retained element of funding used by the local authority to administer the schemes.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Children's Prevention, Family Help and Safeguarding.

Debbie Adams (Head of Early Years and Family Hubs) summarised the report which detailed the proposed allocation of national free entitlement funding using Camden’s local funding formula. Recommendations in the report sought approval for the proposed hourly rates payable to providers and for the retained element of funding used by the local authority to administer the schemes.

The Chair thanked officers for the report and invited questions and comments from the Forum. The following was discussed:

·       Members inquired about the retained budget for Early Years Entitlements, asking if Camden had a breakdown of what the funds were spent on, whether the spending was required, the range of wages, and what was covered, particularly regarding essential teams. Officers explained that the funding covered the administration of the Free Entitlement Team, including the checking of eligibility codes, and also funded equality advisors. They noted that Camden followed a mixed provider model, involving Private, Voluntary, and Independent (PVI) providers and schools. All providers in Camden had a named advisor, which not all local authorities offered, ensuring that all settings met the required standards. The funding also supported admin and support functions.

·       A member asked why Camden increased the pass-through rate to 97%, which was above the 96% requirement for local authorities. Officers explained that the aim was to pass through as much funding as possible while still managing available resources. In response to members questioning the impact on the central team, officers stated that they had not expanded the team as other local authorities had, as the new entitlement for 2-year-old working parents and, more recently, 9-month-old children of working parents, was being met by the existing workforce.

·       A member raised concerns regarding Figure 7, noting that Band D referred to 100% of a child’s nursery hours, which implied full funding, but this was not the case. They highlighted that unions were asking for Teaching Assistants (TAs) to move to a higher salary grade, which was not covered by the funding. The member stressed that the paper appeared too positive and did not reflect the true costs, which resulted in a shortfall per TA. They requested more accurate wording in the report. The member also expressed concern that parents might believe children requiring 1:1 support would be fully funded, when this was not the case. They questioned whether children needing 1:1 support could be sent home for 3 hours per week, as the funding would not cover these hours, and asked if the matter could be brought back to the Schools Forum for further discussion. Another member added that both parents and staff were misinterpreting the funding, especially for Band D children, causing confusion about the actual hours of support needed. Officers acknowledged that the wording could be clearer and explained that the intention was not to fund 100% of the additional time but to represent the potential need for full-time support in nursery. Officers to update the wording in the report in relation to figure 7, which currently implied hours were fully funded, to reflect and clarify the actual position and funding shortfalls. A new document would be recirculated and the updated wording to be reflected in a future iteration of the report.

Action By - Head of Early Years and Family Hubs

·       A member stated that the Exception Needs Grants (ENG) and Education Health and Care Plans (EHCP) were funded at the same level, while the Camden Local Inclusion Fund (CLIF) funding was substantially lower. They noted that Early Years TAs cost the same as primary TAs, and Early Years children were of the same value, highlighting equity issues. They asked why there was not the same commitment to paying the London Living Wage (LLW) for Early Years settings as there was for primary schools. Officers explained that they would like to pay more per hour, but they were applying the government allocated local funding formula to the hourly rate. The disparity arose from the higher staffing ratios in Early Years settings, and they acknowledged that the funding did not cover the full staff costs. They noted that if the hourly rate for CLIF was increased, it would reduce universal provision and affect other areas, so they were aiming to balance the funding to ensure providers could remain open in Camden. Members pointed out that schools and nurseries wanted to pay LLW, but private providers were not able to, leading to worse conditions. Some providers reported that they had to either pay staff less or turn away SEND children. Additionally, it was highlighted that shortfalls in CLIF funding were drawn from the HN block. Officers responded that they were adjusting the funding formula, either by funding fewer children or implementing a stricter application, of the supplement from the HN block. It was agreed that this issue would be beneficial for discussion in the High Needs Sub Group (HNSG). Officers also mentioned that it would be helpful to analyse the number of children and the uptake of CLIF funding across different settings. They added that they would look into the context, particularly if a higher proportion of children were transitioning into primary schools, and would consult Early Years colleagues to assess the uptake of CLIF funding. It was agreed the discussion points would be referred to the HNSG (incorporated into Recommendation B, Item 9).

·       A member asked, given the increasing financial pressures, at what point 2-year-old and nursery provisions would be forced to close due to financial unsustainability. They noted that both of their schools were supplementing nursery funding to keep them open, but as nursery education was not statutory, this would not be viable in the long term. Officers stated that they would need to review the situation. They noted that three nurseries had been closed in 2021, partly due to falling rolls, and that they would need to reassess the data. They confirmed they were open to discussions but acknowledged that it was not sustainable to maintain a large number of under-enrolled nurseries.

·       A member stated that in their view the issue was that school nurseries operated from 9am to 3pm, whereas working parents needed provision from 8am to 6pm. They emphasised that without adapting to the needs of working parents, families would opt for PVI providers instead. They urged schools to approach nursery provision as a business, considering operating hours, because many PVIs were full while school nurseries were closing. Officers noted that with the introduction of new entitlements for working parents, children starting in a school nursery at 9 months old were unlikely to transfer to a different setting at age 3. In response to the point about nursery operating hours, another member added that their nursery was open for extended hours, yet 60% of children were on Free School Meals (FSM) and came from non-working families. They highlighted that in Camden, many families did not require 8am to 6pm provision. They stated that their nursery would not close due to a lack of demand but rather due to insufficient funding.

·       Officers agreed to provide another Early Years funding update at a future School Forum meeting, following discussion at the HNSG.

Action By - Head of Early Years and Family Hubs

RESOLVED –

THAT Schools Forum agree the following hourly funding rates for 2025/26 and the retained funding required to administer the free entitlement schemes.

1.     Proposed Hourly rates for 2025/26

·       Under 2’s: £14.19

·       2-year-olds: £9.78

·       3 and 4-year olds: £7.42 2.

2.    Proposed pass-through rates which values total £774,972.00.

·       Under 2’s 96%: £144,641.00

·       2-Year-olds 97%: £119,441.00

·       3 and 4-year-olds 97%: £510,890.00