1. High Needs Funding User Group 13/01/16
Louise Langley
SEN Monitoring & Quality Assurance Manager

2. Why was IAR changed to High Needs Funding?
Individually assigned resource (IAR) was additional funding provided to schools to support pupils with Statements of SEN where there was 25 hours allocated. A standardised rate was provided dependent on the need type of the pupil.
This wasn’t a fair allocation of resources as;
Pupils had to have a SSEN
There was a perverse incentive for higher hours to be requested for SSENs
Didn’t reflect the actual cost of the provision provided

3. Why was IAR changed to High Needs Funding?
Government’s School Funding Reforms (April 2013);
The national process for identifying a high needs pupil has been set by the DfE as when the cost of interventions to support the additional needs of the pupil exceed £6,000 per annum. A school is expected to fund the first £6,000 from its notional SEN budget. The LA is required to provide the school with top up funding for the costs in excess of £6,000.
SEN Code of Practice 2015 section 6.99 states;
‘Schools are not expected to meet the full cost of more expensive special educational provision from their core funding. The local authority should provide additional top-up funding where the cost of the special educational provision required to meet the needs of an individual pupil exceeds the nationally prescribed threshold’.

4. The New Process
The new process was developed by a working group consisting of KCC officers and school representatives.
We wanted funding that was fairer, based on provision required and not tied in with the need for a SSEN (with hours) or EHCP.
We wanted schools to be able to list the interventions that they have put in place to support the needs of the child.
The application needed to automatically calculate the costs of these interventions based on average hourly rates dependent on the staff providing the support.
We wanted the system to capture the absolute minimum amount of information needed to make a decision about funding.
The system needed to have inbuilt validation and calculations to make the process as efficient as possible.
We wanted funds in schools as quickly as possible.
To achieve the requirements above KCC commissioned an online application system and created the High Needs Funding & Monitoring Officer role.

5. Aims of HNF Team To respond to applications within two weeks.
We wanted the process to be less bureaucratic and quicker than previous systems.
We wanted the funding to be targeted at the pupils who required the highest levels of provision to meet their needs, regardless as to whether they have a Statement of SEN or EHC Plan or not.
We wanted to continue to develop the system with feedback from the SENCos and schools.

6. Progress Towards Our Aims
We wanted to respond to applications within two weeks.
We are currently experiencing a high number of applications which has meant that we are not always able to making decisions on HNF applications within a fortnight. However we are still aiming for most schools will begin to receive funds within 6 weeks of their initial application (backdated to date of initial application).

7. Progress Towards Our Aims
We wanted the process to be less bureaucratic and quicker than previous systems.
When invited we are continuing to attended AEN Update meetings, SENCo Forum meetings and other meetings to provide more details on the process. We have also been offering individual support to SENCos either over the phone or at their school.
More and more SENCos are now reporting that they can complete the application within an average of 2 hours as they become familiar with the form.

8. Progress Towards Our Aims
We wanted the funding to be targeted at the pupils who required the highest levels of provision to meet their needs, regardless as to whether they have a Statement of SEN or EHC Plan or not.
Provision is shown by schools providing the pupil’s personalised/provision plan. To date 497 pupils without a Statement of SEN or EHC Plan have had high needs funded agreed (253 in October).

9. [Name’s] Provision Plan started on [Date]
Section F
[Name’s] Provision Plan started on [Date]
2.Section F Certified by Local Authority Officer
Name:
Signature:
3.Date Certified
4. The Outcome I am working towards
5. Changes that will be made to the National Curriculum or my course.
6. What I need to help me
7. Resources/training for which funding has been applied/agreed
8.Ways to help me best
9.Extra support I need and who has recommended it
10.How often I need this and who will provide it
11. What I need to achieve by the next review
12. How well did it work?
Date
14. In-year monitoring: Interim changes to delivery of intervention must be agreed, or provision must revert to that agreed at issue of EHC Plan (or last Annual Review)
In-year Review 1
Young person/parent/carer signature
Provider signature
Disagreements
In-year Review 2

10. Applications 1151 applications (543 in October)
877 accepted, 76% (411 in October, 76%)
Over £8.9 million has been agreed (£4.2 million in October)
57% have EHCP or SSEN (53% in October)
43% without an EHCP or SSEN (47% in October)
Need type with the most claims ASD (232, 98 in Oct) followed by SLCN (184, 93 in Oct) and SEMH (171, 79 in Oct)
Year group with the most claims is still Year R

13. Progress Towards Our Aims
We wanted to continue to develop the system with feedback from the SENCos and schools.
A summary of the feedback and suggestions we have received, along with what we did in response follows.

14. Feedback from schools and what we did (September 2015 to January 2016)
You Said:
We Did:
The format of the timetable was not user-friendly and parents wanted one they could stick to their fridge door.
Information on the timetable regarding named staff delivering interventions was not helpful to you or parents.
System now has a new single sheet timetable that can be easily viewed and printed off. It also only gives the name of the intervention being delivered and not the name of the member of staff.

15. Feedback from schools and what we did (September 2015 to January 2016)
You Said:
We Did:
You wanted an easy way of completing a reapplication each year so that you don’t have to re-enter all the same information again.
CAMHS needs to be renamed CHYPS.
Created a ‘reapply’ button that reactivates the previous application as the template for the new application. Schools will then only need to enter anything that needs updating or has changed. The school’s reviewed provision plan and new provision plan are uploaded as evidence.
We have added CHYPS in brackets after CAMHS as we have discovered not all areas of Kent have changed their name as yet.

16. Feedback from schools and what we did (September 2015 to January 2016)
You Said:
We Did:
Can you claim for a child who lives outside Kent but attends a Kent school?
I’m not informed of the funding end date at time of application agreement.
The primary need category wasn’t always obvious for the pupil.
Clearer guidance has been written on the recoupment process and will be added to the High Needs Funding page on KELSI.
Schools will be ed the date on which the funding will end.
Adjusted the wording of the categories and included examples.

17. Future Developments
Q. Having to re-enter week 1 and whether invention is delivered by a SRP each time is time consuming.
A. We are looking at developing the system to enable schools to only having to answer these questions once if they have a one week timetable and/or no SRP. If the school does have a two week timetable or an SRP these questions will remain.
Q. Text box for notes regarding the interventions would be useful.
Q. Rename the next button ‘Save and next’.
Q. When re-entering an application, it would be easier to be able to choose the page you want to go to, and not by flicking through the whole document. Page numbers would also be useful so that you know how many pages are left to be completed.
A. All of the above are being considered for future development.
Q. The online application form doesn’t seem to be compatible with the 2015 version of Windows.
A. ICT acknowledged this issue and are working on resolving it asap.
Q. The child’s parents didn’t provide an address, how are you going to provide them with the timetable?
A. If only the phone number is given then we will ask the school whether they want us to inform parents or not.
Q. Is there any specific guidance on what High Needs Funding for parents?
A. Parental guidance is being written and will be made available on both kent.gov and KELSI.

18. Speech & Language Therapy Service

19. Feedback from Districts
General feelings about the HNF process and whether it has achieved its aims.
Ideas for improvement.
Identified issues.