Contact: Sheila Little, ext 7545, [email protected]

1 Executive Overview and Summary

1.1 This report sets out the proposed Education revenue budget for 2004/05 and reports on the revised budget for 2003/04. This report has been prepared in consultation with the Executive Member for review by the Education Policy and Review Committee, before the budget is considered formally by the Executive Member. It will be reported to the Leader and Cabinet on 12 February 2004 to make final recommendations to County Council on 25 February 2004.

1.2 The strategy behind the budget proposals endorsed by the Schools Forum on 13 January 2004, can be summarised as maximising all grants announced by DfES and continuing the strategy of the past two years of making the best use of constrained resources to work towards the County Council's top priorities of improving educational attainment and social development particularly for vulnerable children and those at most risk of social exclusion. Alongside this there have been a number of specific issues which have influenced significantly the options available for 2004/05:

· An above inflation cost of educating children with special needs particularly in independent sector, out-county specialist provision: increases which are being experienced by many councils

· An increase in the number of pupils excluded by schools

· Responding to restrictions on funding spent on children, but outside schools' delegated budgets: whilst the increase in overall funding is welcomed the lack of flexibility for LEAs to meet local service pressures in areas such as SEN will have long term implications especially as the 2003/04 and 2004/05 budgets were supported by about £400,000 each year from a carry forward at the end of 2002/03

· Introduction by the DfES of a limit on the allowed increase in the central spend element of the Schools Block: this covers SEN and exclusions costs and an application has been submitted to the DfES, with the approval of the Schools Forum, to enable these increases to be funded.

· Maximising the use of LEA Standards Fund grant by using the flexibility available to the County Council due to its excellent rating, to maintain the funding available to the Ethnic Minority Achievement Service and Drug Advisory Response Team and to extend the Rights, Respect and Responsibilities work which help towards achieving corporate and Cabinet priorities

1.3 In planning this budget it was determined at the outset to limit consideration of growth bids. However, if the funding were available, several service pressures, such as those relating to vulnerable children and raising standards for all children would have merited consideration.

1.4 The report is structured as follows:

· Section 2 details the corporate budget strategy

· Section3 outlines the budget guidelines

· Section 4 up-dates the revised budget position for 2003/04

· Section 5 details the base budget 2004/05

· Section 6 summarises the education funding changes for 2004/05

· Section 7 details the Schools Budget proposals for 2004/05

· Section 8 details the LEA Budget proposals for 2004/05, including Standards Fund monies

· Section 9 sets out the review of charges

· Section 10 covers other expenditure

· Section 11 considers mandatory awards

· Section 12 provides some staffing statistics

· Section 13 summarises the business unit proposed budget position

1 Budget strategy

1.1 The Cabinet has confirmed its budget strategy that:

· The Schools Budget increase will be fully passported, matched by Government grant, as constrained by the Secretary of States' reserve power to require this outcome

· Social Services will have a cash increase in line with the rise in Social Services Formula Spending Share (FSS)

· Schools and Social Services will be required to meet all cost pressures, demands, contingency, new pressures and priorities within these cash limited resources

· Extra contingency provision will be made to match the commitments on waste management from new infrastructure costs, increases in volumes and effect of landfill tax on the private sector contract

· All other services have a base budget increase only and have to meet all costs and other pressures within this limit, including the redeployment of existing resources to higher priorities as necessary.

1.2 In arriving at the base budget it is assumed that:

· Income will be maximised in line with inflation

· Efficiency savings will be achieved to absorb costs not budgeted for, for example increments.

2 Budget guidelines

2.1 These are based on an overall budget increase of 5.4% against a grant increase of 5.9%, resulting in a projected council tax rise of 4.7%. This is in line with public preference put forward during the budget consultation process, adjusted for the additional Government grant announced on 11 December 2003 designed to reduce council tax increases in 2004/05.

2.2 The budget guidelines were set by the Cabinet on 15 December 2003. For this service, the provisional budget guideline for 2004/05 is £636.909m (excluding inflation). The Secretary of State for Education was notified by 31 December 2003 of the County Council's intention to passport fully the increase in the Schools budget for 2004/05 but not to `over passport' the increase by an extra burden on the council tax payer (having had to do so in 2003/04 to replace lost Government funding). Also, the Education Executive member has consulted the Schools Forum and the Secretary of State to use whatever flexibility is available within the headroom remaining above the minimum per pupil guarantee in the passported Schools budget and the constraints on central spending; to meet the additional costs of special education needs and excluded pupils; and to maximise the full use of the targeted transitional grant for schools.

2.3 This report sets out the Education Executive Member's responses to the guidelines. The report:

· Reviews the revised budget for 2003/04 (as set out in Appendices 1 and 2)

· Reviews the 2004/05 base budget which totals £651.1m including inflation (as set out in Appendix 3)

· Identifies growth of £13.3m from the passporting of an increase of £24.485m in the Schools Budget (as set out in Appendix 4)

· Identifies £219,000 of pressures and costs absorbed (as set out in Appendix 5)

· Proposes the redeployment of £35,000 of resources (as set out in Appendix 5)

· Reviews the charges made by this service (as set out in Appendix 6).

3 Revised Budget 2003/04

3.1 The cash limit for the revised budget as agreed by the Executive Member for Education on 4 December 2003 is £642.785m. The calculation is shown in Appendices 1(a) and 1(b)

3.2 A summary comparing the revised budget with the cash limit is set out in Appendices 2(a) and 2(b). This shows a projected overspend at the end of 2003/04 of £1.042m, which is made up of the following:

· Special Education Needs-mainstream school statements £550,000

This is largely due to an increase in the number of hours of teaching and learning support assistant time featuring in statements.

· Special Education Needs - out-county provision £527,000

This overspend is for three main areas: higher than expected inflation of independent school fees, on average 13%; higher than expected costs of new placements; and a few more placements.

· Education Other Than At School £240,000

The overspend on this budget reflects the increased number of permanent exclusions, the impact of full time education for excluded pupils and the impact of changes to the former pupil retention grant arrangements.

· Other £151,000

The main pressures here relate to:

o the County Council's corporate IT strategy which underlines the significant benefits of linking the whole organisation through IT2000, in particular in 2003/04 by connecting remote youth, EOTAS and early years services sites.

o The increasing numbers of new arrivals, up by 65%, placing demand on the Ethnic Minority Achievement Service.

o However, these pressures are partially offset by compensating reductions in spending in other support areas of the service following careful scrutiny of all vacancies by the Education Department Management Team.

3.3 The impact of this overspend has been minimised by using the entire general contingency provision of £247,000 and the balance of the home to school transport contingency of £120,000. The final overspend is therefore, currently projected to be £1.042m which will be the first call on the 2004/05 budget.

4 Base Budget 2004/05

4.1 A base budget has been prepared using the current financial policies of the Council, in order to provide a starting point from which decisions can be made. The base budget for this service is £651.1m at outturn prices. Appendix 3(a) and 3(b) shows the make up of the base budget.

4.2 Overall, the base budget includes a net increase in expenditure at constant prices of £10.264m as compared with the 2003/04 original budget. The main variations are as follows:

Variations with corresponding adjustments to budget limit £8.434m

4.3 The following variations are reflected in the 2004/05 base budget and the Education budget limit has been correspondingly adjusted:

Service variations in 2004/05 £1.830m

4.4 The compilation of the base budget for 2004/05 has also identified a continuing net pressure of £1.830m against the budget limit. Of this total £1.692m relates to Schools Block pressures which are discussed in more detail below. The balance is all LEA Block and is discussed in section 9.

SEN (including statements, out-county, recoupment) £1.441m

4.5 This figure represents the on-going implications of 2003/04 demands on these services. Inflation has been added at 2.5% at this stage which may be unsustainable when considered alongside the underlying assumptions made by the DfES in relation to schools budgets. The significant increase in the cost of SEN placements in 2003/04 followed a period of three years when cost pressures were met from allowed inflation. A local decision will be taken once the budget has been approved about the distribution of the allowed inflation as to whether 4% can be afforded in this area. Each 1% on inflation equates to £60,000 cost pressure.

Education Other Than At Schools (EOTAS) £243,000

4.6 The increase in the number of exclusions during recent years is projected to be going to continue during 2004/05. Each place in EOTAS provision costs approximately £11,500. The base budget for 2003/04 provided funding for 192 places. The base budget for 2004/05 provides for 213 places.

5 Education Funding changes 2004/05

5.1 The Secretary of State for Education made an announcement on 29 October 2003 outlining the funding system for 2004/05 for Education and the Schools Budget in particular. His announcement covered:

· minimum guaranteed increase in every school's budget of 4% per pupil

· additional resources to help every Local Education Authority (LEA) to support schools with additional financial difficulties

· targeted transitional support to help all schools to achieve balanced budgets.

5.2 Minimum per pupil guarantee

5.2.1 The DfES estimate of the net effect of cost pressures on the average school for 2004/05 is 3.4%. The guarantee will allow a 4% per pupil increase for each individual school with an amount of 4% in cash for fixed elements within delegated school budgets. The minimum guaranteed per pupil increase is therefore 4% over the 2003/04 budget. The consequences of this are:

· a school whose pupil numbers stay the same will be guaranteed a 4% per pupil increase in its budget

· a school whose pupil numbers will decline receive a funding increase of more than 4% per pupil to help cover fixed costs

· a school whose pupil numbers are increasing will be guaranteed at least a 4% increase for all their existing pupils and an overall per pupil increase of at least 3.4%.

5.2.2 The Secretary of State has also announced an indicative increase of at least 4% for a school with unchanged pupil numbers for 2005/06.

5.2.3 The additional cost of the guarantee above the base budget provision with 2.5% increase for pay and prices for Hampshire schools is £6.016m in 2004/05.

5.3 Education formula funding share and revenue support grant

5.3.1 A minimum (floor) increase in the Schools Formula Spending Share (SFSS) of 5% per pupil has been set for 2004/05 (with a ceiling of at least 6.5% per pupil). Hampshire receives this floor settlement. This represents a 4.8% cash increase for this Council's SFSS for 2004/05 after adjusting for falling pupil numbers and moves towards universal provision for three year olds..

5.3.2 According to the Secretary of State's announcement each authority will receive sufficient grant in each of the next two years to cover its formula increase in education spending.

5.3.3 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has written to authorities to set out the Government's clear expectation that every LEA passports in full its SFSS increase into a matching increase in its Schools Budget i.e. full passporting unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances. The Secretary of State has statutory powers to require this to be done and the announcement made it clear that he will be prepared to use those powers if it is necessary for him to do so. Cabinet approved full passporting to schools at its meeting in December and the County Council has indicated its intentions formally to the DfES.

5.4 Central Spending Limit

5.4.1 There is a limit on the increase allowed in `central' spending within the Schools Budget. Central spending is the term used for expenditure from the Schools Budget, not delegated to Schools (as the Individual School Budget (ISB)) and includes spending on children in areas such as special education needs and excluded pupils. Central Spending may not rise faster than spending on delegated schools budgets. However, LEAs are able to apply to the Secretary of State for an increase in the limit. The County Council has made an application for an increase of £2.4m in its central spending limit from £1.4m to £3.8m.

5.4.2 The DfES have not approved this application but in a response received on 12 January 2004, stated: "It is open to the Authority to submit a further application which takes account of the points made; if this is done the views of the Schools Forum on any revision would be required. The deadline for such an application would be 13 February 2004".

5.4.3 The four points highlighted in the DfES letter which would need to be addressed in a further application are:

" a. although a considerable volume of material on SEN pressures is presented, the application does not sufficiently detail the reasons for Hampshire's position being particularly acute compared with that of other LEAs;

b. the cost pressures arising from independent schools are assessed at 13%. The Department believes this to be a gross over-estimate in the light of action being taken to keep these pressures at a lower level than in 2003-04;

c. the overall increase in central budgets which is projected is very significantly higher than the projected increase in the ISB, not just a few percentage points higher;

d. the LEA is maintaining a very high level of spend on Capital Expenditure from Revenue Account (CERA). Although a detailed justification for this has been supplied, and the rationale for the Authority's stance is understood, it is considered that in the current situation it would be possible and indeed advisable to moderate CERA spend somewhat in order to meet other pressures within the retained part of the Schools Budget whilst still maintaining a fairly high level of CERA - thus keeping central spend and ISB in better balance."

5.4.4 On 13 January 2004 the Schools Forum confirmed their approval of the original application, as supported at its meeting on 17 December 2003. (A copy of the original application is attached in Appendix A for information).

5.4.5 The central spending pressures remain and it is therefore proposed to make a further application, reflecting the points made in the DfES letter of 12 January 2004. In order to meet the budget timetable, the further application will be submitted on 29 January 2004 to the DfES seeking a response before Cabinet meets on 12 February 2004. The Executive Member for Education will continue to minimise the 2003/04 overspend and thus reduce the amount of the application and will ask Cabinet to consider what other budget measures are available to limit the size of the application. Schools Forum cannot meet again in full before the 29 January submission date. They have given their support to the proposed way forward and will receive the further application on 29 January 2004 for comments which can be fed forwards to the DfES.

5.4.6 This limit on central spending is anticipated to continue in 2005/06 and the Education Service will be working to identify ways to manage central spending within these limits.

5.5 Targeted transitional support

5.5.1 The Secretary of State has acknowledged that LEAs will need more flexibility to help schools balance budgets over the next two years and has amended the regulations to enable LEAs to target their resources at those schools which have particular problems "whatever their source". It expects LEAs to use this flexibility.

5.5.2 Those LEAs that have received the lowest increase in Education formula spending and grant between 2002/03 and 2004/05 will have a targeted transitional grant available over the next two years. This will take the increase in funding for all authorities over the two year period up to a minimum of 12% per pupil. It will cost around £120m and benefit around one third of LEAs. The County Council's indicative allocation is around £6.9m for 2004/05.

5.5.3 Unfortunately the support is a year too late and will not replace the extra funding that was provided by the County Council in its 2003/04 budget to increase schools' budgets beyond the level supported by Government grant in that year.

5.5.4 This additional resource is an indicative allocation and will only be provided when the Secretary of State is convinced that the County Council has made every effort to support its schools from within its own resources by:

· passporting its SFSS increase in full

· directing its resources to delegated schools' budgets as far as possible

· targeting the schools in greatest difficulty.

5.5.5 It will be a condition of such grant that each LEA prepares, with the schools concerned, a costed and credible plan to bring their schools' budgets into balance by 2006/07. A similar grant will be made in 2005/06 at around half the level of that provided in 2004/05 although it is not certain that Hampshire will receive grant next year. The grant has to be allocated to schools; the County Council can retain none even though its officers will be involved in significant additional work over the next few months. This will mean prioritising activity at a peak time in the annual work cycle for finance staff in particular.

5.5.6 The County Council has submitted its transitional support plan, which was fully supported by the Schools Forum in December and is awaiting DfES response to the criteria proposed. An up-date will be provided at the meeting if any response from the DfES has been received.

5.5.7 Schools Forum will give more consideration to the details necessary for implementation at it's meeting on 24 February 2004. A copy of the draft transitional support plan, submitted on 31 December 2003, is attached in Appendix B for their information.

6 Schools Budget proposals 2004/05

6.1 The County Council's assessed figure for the Hampshire Schools Budget for 2004/05, with full passporting, totals £547.018m and this is the figure, (excluding £234,000 specific grant for Excellence in Cities), that was notified to the Secretary of State in December 2003. This total sum incorporates all the expenditure on the Schools Block including funds managed on behalf of schools by Policy and Resources e.g. repair and maintenance of buildings and capital expenditure met from revenue. The Policy and Resources element of the passported sum for 2004/05 (including provision for future inflation and a minor rates adjustment) is £10.099m which gives the Education service passported amount as £536.983m. The cost of continuing the existing provision into 2004/05 amounts to £510.691m, with a further £11.785m being required to cover future inflation and an estimated £6.016m to cover the cost of the 4% guarantee. After the inescapable pressures on the `central' Schools Budget of £6.592m, an estimated balance of £1.71m is available for other ISB pressures. This is summarised as follows:

6.2 At its meeting on 17 December 2003, the Schools Forum agreed unanimously that the headroom should be used to cover two priority areas as discussed below

Additional cost pressures at 3.4% £700,000

6.2.1 The DfES estimate of the effect of net cost pressures on schools for 2004/05 is 3.4%. This is based on the teachers' pay award of 2.5%, as announced on 19 November, and 2.5% for other pay and price inflation pressures. The 4% guarantee is a minimum per pupil increase required under Government regulations. Some schools will achieve a year on year total budget share change of greater than 4%, due to changes mainly in the non-pupil elements e.g. increase floor area or schools entering real term protection. Recognising this additional level of cost pressures for these schools will have a cost of £700,000, which the Schools Forum have agreed to reflect as their first priority in 2004/05.

Schools serving deprived areas £1,135,000

6.2.2 As another means of recognising the specific financial pressures that schools face, Schools Forum agreed that any remaining funding should be provided as further recognition of the pressures for schools serving children from deprived areas. The Forum also indicated that any additional funds available should be used to increase the deprivation funding up to the £2.23m indicated by the working group that reported to the October meeting of the Forum. This working group was prompted by DfES policy guidance in December 2002 which encouraged LEAs to review their formula approach to funding deprivation.

6.2.3 The most appropriate criteria for defining "deprived schools" was agreed by the Forum to be to take the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) at the level of an individual pupil's address as at the September roll count, then work out a school's deprivation index by calculating the mean of the IMD for all pupils on roll and finally produce a ranking for all Hampshire Schools. On the basis that 16% of wards in Hampshire are more deprived than the national average, it was agreed that this is a reasonable proportion of Hampshire schools to select for deprivation funding, i.e. approximately 86 schools. The precise cut off will be determined once the data are available. The relative levels of actual funding for the selected schools will be allocated according to a per pupil basis.

7 Redeployment proposals, efficiency improvements and cost pressures 2004/05 : LEA Budget

7.1 The Cabinet requires all services, other than schools, to consider and report on:

· efficiency improvements achieved in absorbing pressures and costs within the budget guidelines

· the redeployment of any resources required to offset any new spending priorities, or inescapable budget pressures, or legislative requirements which otherwise cannot be met within their budget guidelines

· the annual review of charges and the maximisation of income.

7.2 In addition, a reduction in this service's cash limit for SAP benefit realisation will be considered by the Executive Member Policy and Resources on 23 January 2004. This reduction will reflect the procurement savings being achieved from the new corporate contracts resulting from the benefits realisation of the new IT resource management system SAP. The agreed savings are to be used to repay the original capital investment in the system. The reduction and consequent action required will be will be considered by the Executive Member Policy and Resources on 23 January 2004 and included in the County Council's budget report to the Cabinet on 12 February 2004.

7.3 Compilation of the base budget has resulted in a net budget pressure of £138,000 on the LEA Budget to sustain the current level of service. In addition, service pressures totalling £26,000 have been identified as priorities, making a total of £164,000 budget pressures in LEA Budget in 2004/05. While details are included in Appendix 5, the budget proposals set out below identify the main service pressures and developments for the LEA Budget for 2004/05 and propose the necessary redeployments to achieve these.

Home to School Transport £129,000

7.3.1 Inflation pressures on home to school transport contract agreements already negotiated and the increase in the cost of Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks, raises a pressure of £129,000 over and above normal inflationary costs in 2004/05. The proposal is to use some of the £200,000 home to school transport contingency to contain this pressure, leaving a contingency at the outset of 2004/05 of £71,000.

Other £9,000

7.3.2 Various other minor budget pressures.

Match funding for Standard Funds Grant (LEA Budget) £16,000

7.3.3 This represents the LEA increase in funding needed to match Standards Fund grants in 2004/05.

Governor Services £10,000

7.3.4 Achieving full complements of governors on each schools governing body remains a top priority for the County Council as it contributes especially towards Corporate Aim 4: Building strong and safe communities. A pilot programme of School Governor Service Awards has been running for just under one year and has proved successful. It is therefore proposed to make this a permanent feature and to allocate £10,000 to fund it from April 2004.

7.3.5 It is proposed to fund the balance of £35,000 (£164,000 less £129,000) by reducing the general contingency to £220,000 in 2004/05

7.3.6 Within the LEA Budget for 2003/04 there is currently a projected overspend of £65,000. According to County Council budget guidelines this will be carried forward into 2004/05 and as such needs to form part of our strategy for setting the budget in 2004/05. The proposal is to continue the management action currently underway in 2003/04 into 2004/05 to ensure that savings are made wherever possible. If this is unsuccessful, then the general contingency will be used

Summary of LEA Budget Pressures

7.3.7 The following table summarises the LEA Budget pressures totalling £164,000 and the proposals for funding these pressures

LEA Standards Fund Grants £5,159,000

7.4 In relation to the LEA Grants element of the Standards Funds, the application of the corporate priorities and the impact upon front line service provision of policy changes nationally, the flexibilities available to the county council by virtue of it being an excellent rated authority have been considered.,. From the LEA Grant total of £5.159m, the proposal is to amend the distribution from 2003/04 to the extent of £220,000 as detailed below

Drug Advisory Response Team £100,000

7.4.1 From April 2004 central Government support, of £140,000 for the Drug Advisory Response Team will cease. LEAs are expected to continue to work with schools in delivering improvements in drug education as part of the overall curriculum. The work of this team in addition to the Home Office funded Drug Action Team is highly regarded by secondary schools in particular. It is therefore proposed to use £100,000 of the LEA grant to enable the team's work to continue whilst a permanent funding solution is put in place over the next 12 months.

Ethnic Minority Achievement Service £100,000

7.4.2 The Ethnic Minority Achievement Service (EMAS) has had to cope with a 65% increase in the number of clients: up from 343 pupils in 2001/02 to 556 pupils in 2002/03. The service is continuing the three equal strands of achievement, new arrivals and training as approved by the Best Value Review Panel and delivered through a service level agreement. It is therefore proposed to increase the support from the county council by £100,000 to £336,000 whilst a permanent funding solution, including consideration of a brokerage service to schools, is put in place over the next 12 months. In addition to the County Council funds the service receives £250,513 from Standards Fund 3.

Hampshire Music Service £20,000

7.4.3 The Hampshire Music Service Standards Fund allocation has remained constant for the past three years meaning that the service has had to fund staff pay awards, incremental salary progression etc by a mix of increased charges to schools or reductions elsewhere in the service. In addition the service has had to contribute to the cost of moving twice during the past three years. It is therefore proposed to allocate £20,000 to assist towards the more recent move.

School Development Grant 1 (LEA Retained element) £1,093,000

7.5 From 2004/05 the DfES have merged a number of previous standard fund grants into one called the School Development Grant. Of the total of £13.5m, most of it, £12.4m is delegated to schools. The £1.093m that is retained by the County Council will be used as follows:

Special education needs £861,000

Study support £75,000

School support staff training £32,000

Outreach from Special Schools £84,000

7.5.1 It is proposed to target the £84,000 to extend the outreach programme currently managed by special schools through Beacon School status funding which ends in March 2004.

Behavioural intervention developments £41,000

7.5.2 It is proposed to allocate £41,000 to pump-prime innovative work over the next 12 months looking at new ways of working to reduce exclusions and sustain the successful Rights, Respect and Responsibilities work, which supports good behaviour through a new teaching programme. The pilot in Andover has been funded this year by a grant of £50,000 from the Innovation Unit( DfES). The grant reduces to £10,000 next year. The programme has been well-received by Primary Heads Conference who asked for the training to made available to all schools. The present funding constraints mean that the only way this can be achieved is through primary schools funding the programme and given the increase (up by 8.8% to £13.5m) in the amount delegated to schools through Standards Fund Grant 1 : School Development, this is appropriate.

Summary of LEA Standards Fund allocations

7.6 The following table summarises the movement on Standards Fund Grant allocations proposed for 2004/05 and the proposed use of the LEA retained element of the new School Development Grant (1)

8 Review of charges

8.1 The service's 2004/05 revenue budget includes income of £3.157m from fees and charges. Details of the material headings are included in Appendix 6.

8.2 Discretionary charges are reviewed annually except when they are subject to agreements which cover longer periods when the review takes place at the end of the period of the agreement.

8.3 As the majority of charges are made to schools there is limited scope for generating additional income to the County Council. Schools continue to be encouraged to maximise income through letting of facilities to the community and outside organisations. Decisions of the level of charges will take account of availability, demand and market rates.

9 Other expenditure

9.1 The budget includes some items which are not counted against the cash limit. This includes budgets for central departments' support services, except where they have been given to departments to buy services, and repair and maintenance of buildings. It also includes costs of member support within the Education budget which are rechargeable to the Policy and Resources budget for corporate and democratic core services. These have been excluded at this stage as the budgets are subject to Policy and Resources Executive Member's control and they have not yet been agreed. In the original budget they totalled £6.8m.

10 Mandatory Awards

10.1 The budget for mandatory awards for 2004/05 totals £1.8m Apart from awards to disabled students the County Council has not had any financial responsibility for new students since September 1999. As mandatory awards are 100% grant aided this change in responsibility has had no effect on the County Council's finances.

11 Staffing statistics

11.1 The average number of staff in the 2004/05 base budget is 14,431. This compares with the original estimate for 2003/04 of 14,513 which is a reduction of 82. Most of this is accounted for by the reduction in teachers (-91) and school support staff (-13) due to falling numbers on roll, offset by extra staff in the Youth Service (+7) and business units (+24). The balance is due to reduction in services to schools and support including Early Years.

11.2 The proposals for growth (Appendix 4) include proposals which would increase staffing numbers by 23 in the Special Education Needs (SEN) and EOTAS areas.

12 Business units

12.1 The services to schools business units operate under Management Partnership on a trading basis and have appropriate financial regulation status, enabling them to carry forward planned surpluses or deficits. A number of the business units are planning to use some of their accumulated surpluses to fund developments in 2004/05. Consequently, the proposed budget, reflects a net deficit of £281,000 (on gross expenditure of £24m). A summarised trading accounts of the eight business units is shown in Appendix 8.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

Published works.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE FILE