Report to Portfolio Holder for:
Communities, Sport & Leisure
14 March 2011
Subject:
Core Funding for Community Schools 2011/12
Status:
Open
Report Ref:
Ward(s):
All
Key Decision:
Yes
Key Decision Ref: 707/CSL
Report Of:
Head of Neighbourhood Development
Contact:
June Balcombe
Community Development & Learning Manager
Email: june.balcombe@basingstoke.gov.uk
Tel: 01256 845477 Ext 2477
Appendices:
Appendix 1 - Summary of funding allocations
CONFIDENTIAL Appendix 2 – Legal implications
Appendix 3 - Percentage levels of income
Papers relied on
to produce this
report
2011-12 Draft Service Plans and/or supporting documents
Previous Core Funding Reports
HCC – Children’s Services Department Revenue Budgets
2011/12
SUMMARY
1
This Report
1.1
The purpose of this report is to consider the 2011/12 core revenue allocations
to community schools funded under the Communities, Sport and Leisure
Portfolio.
1.2
The report sets out the options for funding community schools taking into
account proposals from Hampshire County Council to reduce / withdraw future
contributions.
2
Recommendation
It is recommended that:
2.1
the allocations for 2011/12 be approved as shown in the table overleaf:
1 of 10
School / College
BDBC Proposed Grant 2011/12
QMC Community Programme
£20,300
Aldworth Science College
£14,985
Clere School and Community
College
£7,242
Everest Community College
£12,036
Fort Hill Community School
£13,504
Four Lanes Junior Community
School
£6,728
Hurst Community School
£19,837
Testbourne Community School
£9,396
Vyne Community School
£12,851
Total
£116,879
2.2
Officers will work with the schools to deliver efficiencies and substantial
budget savings during 2011/12 and advise schools that in future years funding
may need to be reduced or withdrawn;
2.3
Officers work with the schools to explore how community use of school sites
(in terms of meeting community needs) can be sustained in the longer term;
and
2.4
the Portfolio Holder raises concern with Hampshire County Council relating to
the proposal to cease all funding for community school provision in 2012/13,
and ask for this decision to be reviewed.
2 of 10
PRIORITIES, IMPACTS AND RISKS
Contribution To Council Priorities
This report accords with the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework
Council Plan Ref 2010-13:
P2, A8
3-Year Action Plan:
ND/AHC/5.3
Other References:
Impacts
No
significant
impacts
Type
Impacts
for
BDBC
Some
impacts
Significant
impacts

Financial
Personnel

Legal


Impacts
Equality and Diversity
on
Rural/Urban
Wellbeing
Crime and Disorder


Health

Environment and Climate Change

Economic

Involving Communication/Consultation
Others
Partners


Risk Assessment
Number of risks identified:
0
Number of risks considered HIGH or Medium:
0
Strategic:
Already identified on Corporate Risk Register?
Operational:
Already identified in Service Plans?
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Term
Definition
3 of 10
Yes
No

Yes
No

DETAIL/MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
3
Background
3.1
There are seven designated community secondary schools and one
community junior school in the borough, which are joint funded for community
use by Hampshire County Council and the borough council. In 2008 the
governing bodies of all the community secondary schools signed up to a new
management agreement with HCC and the borough council setting out the
arrangements for managing use of the community facilities at the school.
These agreements followed a comprehensive review of the community school
arrangements, the outcome of which was reported to Cabinet in 2007.
3.2
The funding of the eight schools (as shown in appendix 1) is provided as core
funding towards staffing costs to deliver against the joint agreements to
support community use of their school/college. The aims are to:
3.2.1

Provide opportunities for local people to participate in educational,
recreational and social activities.

Develop programmes which are well researched, and responsive to
local need.

Use resources for the empowerment of individuals, groups and
organisations so that they can become self-managing, selfprogramming and self-financing.

Develop the concept of ‘working in partnership’ at all levels of
provision.

Establish and sustain a culture of continuous improvement.
The aims are to be achieved by:

Maximising the use of the school/college by school and community
users at weekends and school holidays, particularly by young people,
low income groups, people with disabilities and other targeted groups
in response to local need.

A balanced programme of community activities to include adult
learning, youth, arts, sports, childcare, and social provision;

Promote partnerships between user groups and the school/college
through opportunities for extra curricular activities for the
school/college students.
3.2.2
The management committees are also required to pay particular regard to
both the county and borough council’s strategic priorities.
3.3
Queen Mary’s College (QMC) receives funding towards its community
programme within a separate agreement with the borough council only. The
core funding agreement for QMC supports a programme of public use of the
college facilities, which offer sports and community activity and are available
for hire by local organisations. The community programme is supported
through its income generation and ‘deficit funded’ as necessary from the main
College budgets.
4 of 10
3.4
Some of the schools/colleges have received capital investment in their
community facilities, through funding from either the borough council or
Lottery funding. These funding agreements require the facilities to be used for
the purpose the funding was intended; if the facilities are not used for those
purposes then there is a requirement for the capital investment to be repaid
proportionally.
3.5
In general, officers of the council and the county council concur that the
community schools in Basingstoke and Deane are providing a good
neighbourhood service in accordance with their service plan objectives;
however there are financial challenges at many schools. In the current year
(2010/11), the standstill budget from this council and the 10% grant reduction
from HCC has required all the schools to review their priorities for services
and consider efficiencies and savings. The schools now need to plan for
further funding constraints.
4
Current Position
4.1
On 31 January 2011 the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services at
the county council agreed a set of proposals regarding the revenue budget for
2011/12. Amongst the many savings necessary to balance the budget, is a
proposal to start withdrawing funding during 2011/12 from 35 secondary and 2
primary schools across Hampshire which deliver locally managed community
programmes. The intention is to stop the payments altogether at the end of
the 2011/12 year. This will result in the county council savings of £570,000 in
2011/12 with a full year effect of £1.3 million thereafter.
4.2
The schools affected are those which operate within the terms of a community
management agreement with the County Council. District councils are party to
about half the agreements and also make revenue contributions to the
schools.
4.3
Across the county the effect on individual community schools will vary. Most
will receive at least a significantly reduced payment during 2011/12. Only in
exceptional circumstances will some schools be funded throughout the year.
For a few schools funding will be stopped from 1 April 2011.
4.4
The county council’s proposals for the Basingstoke & Deane schools is to
reduce funding by 25% for five schools and retain funding at the existing
levels for the other three schools, as shown in Appendix 1.
4.5
It is not possible as this stage to ascertain what the impact of HCC’s proposed
reductions will have on each individual school, but generally schools will need
to adjust their budgets or look at other sources of funding to sustain provision
through 2011/12. The county council has said, “The current arrangements are
inconsistent and regrettably, they are not sustainable. However, many of the
community schools will continue to access funding for adult and family
learning through the County Council, which is not affected. Funding for the
development of extended services has been removed from local authorities by
Government and included in school budgets, which will also be available to
support community provision”.
4.6
All schools will be encouraged by the county council to continue to make their
facilities available through lettings to community organisations and groups.
About half the secondary schools in Hampshire have not received such
5 of 10
funding for managing community programmes in the past, but nevertheless
manage to support large lettings programmes.
5
Rationale for funding community schools
5.1
The borough council’s review of community schools undertaken in 2007
established that access to facilities and activities on school sites is valued by
local communities. However, in order to make a reasoned assessment for the
future funding of community schools by the borough council, there are various
factors that need to be considered, such as:

What impacts will the withdrawal of HCC funding have on
community development work? It is likely that the school/colleges
would be able to continue to let their facilities under hire
arrangements. However they would be unable to provide community
development work or activity programmes that did not cover the cost
of provision.

If the council was to continue community school funding, what
would be the objectives? It is intended that grants to community
schools be assessed in the next few months as part of the council’s
overall review of future grant funding. Discussions about priority
outcomes and deliverability need to be held with the schools as part of
this review.

The importance given through public consultation to the role of
community schools in the sports facilities infrastructure?
Community schools serve a neighbourhood catchment and in many
areas provide the main focus for sport and recreation activity. The
developing Strategic Plan for Sport and Recreation Provision
advocates innovative ways to improve the accessibility of school
facilities for public and club use.
5.2
These issues need to be explored to inform the decision about funding for
community schools in the borough beyond the 2011/12 financial year.
6
Options to be considered
6.1
Option 1- Withdraw funding at same stage as Hampshire County Council
The county council proposal is significantly to reduce funding in 2011/12 and
to cease funding in 2012/13. The borough council could also do the same,
which would be in accordance with the agreements which state that should
any party wish to terminate the agreement written notice shall be given (notice
varies between 1 & 2 years according to each individual agreement) to the
other parties to expire on the 1 April any year. However, if the borough council
reduced its funding in 2011/12, the schools/colleges would not have sufficient
time to seek alternative solutions, to ensure the budgets do not go into deficit.
The risks associated with this would be:

Lose access to community provision.

Opening hours could be reduced.

If schools choose to use the school for lettings only, with no subsidy,
this could affect the most vulnerable groups (older people, children
and young people, disability groups etc).
6 of 10

6.2
Adverse perception of the council since schools have been informed
that they could reasonably plan to receive a standstill grant for
2011/12.
Option 2 - No change in funding from BDBC for 2011/12
The borough council has given an indication to the schools/colleges that their
likely revenue grant for 2011/12 would be frozen at the same level as
2010/11, although they are aware that actual funding levels will be agreed by
the Portfolio Holder in March 2011. This would be in accordance with the
agreements which state that should any party wish to terminate the
agreement written notice shall be given (notice varies between 1 & 2 years
according to each individual agreement) to the other parties.
The benefits associated with this option would be:

Time to work with the schools to explore how community use of
school sites can be sustained.

Notice given in relation to partnership agreement.
6.3
Option 3 – To fund rural schools/colleges only
In the urban area residents have much greater choice of services and
activities and easier access to facilities, whereas in the rural areas the choice
and access of facilities is much more limited.
The benefit associated with this option would be:

Ensure some provision is maintained in rural areas.
The risks associated with this option would be:

The risks identified in option 1 would apply to schools in the urban
area.
6.4
Option 4 - Fund some of the schools/colleges
To target funding to those schools/colleges in areas of greatest need to
ensure local needs continue to be met
The benefits associated with this option would be:

To continue development work in more targeted areas of need
The risks associated with this option would be:

The need to achieve agreement on criteria for funding schools (e.g.
could be based on priority areas in the Neighbourhood Renewal
Strategy)

The risks identified in option 1 would apply to those schools outside of
the targeted areas.
7
Way forward
7.1
Within the council’s budget strategy for 2011/12 an assumption has been
made that the core funding grant to community schools will be frozen at the
same level as 2010/11, and the school management committees have been
advised on this basis.
7 of 10
7.2
Officers recommend option 2 as the preferred way forward. This will allow time
to work with the schools to review and assess the wider issues and
considerations (as mentioned in paragraph 5.1).The activities and services
that take place in community school facilities are highly valued and whatever
the outcome of any future funding decision, the council should work with them
to seek the continued use of these facilities.
7.3
QMC’s community programme is unaffected by the withdrawal of Hampshire
County Council funding, since its budget is underpinned by the college itself.
However, it too will need to assess its response to the potential of reduced
council funding in future years. QMC’s role in community programmes may
become all the more important should such programmes diminish at
community school locations.
8
Consultation
8.1
Comments on the draft report were sought from the Members of the
Community Well-being Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 March 2011.
The Committee resolved to make the following comments:
Comment
Officer response
The impact of a loss of funding means that
certain functions will simply stop
Officers propose to work with schools to
explore how community development
work could continue to be delivered
Nothing within the report clearly shows this
impact
Officers propose to work with schools to
understand the impact of the loss of
funding and seek solutions for the way
forward.
Schools will try to carry on by (effectively)
becoming letting agencies for school
accommodation. Such accommodation will
be let to those that can afford to pay, thus
squeezing out other community groups
Officers propose to work with schools to
explore how community development
work, including accessibility could
continue to be delivered
Services will be lost within the community
that no other organisation can provide.
It maybe that services could be provided
by other organisations within the
community, however the ability and
skills to deliver the services would need
to be assessed
Concern was expressed that the County
Council had taken decisions without full and
proper consultation.
Noted – This will be raised with the
County Council as per member’s
request
Option 2 within the report was supported – Noted
there is a need to look at the individual
circumstances of each school, and Option 2
allows this
There was concern that if Everest
Officers will clarify with the school its
Community College becomes an Academy;
future intentions regarding use of the
community facilities, if Academy status

it will no longer be under an
8 of 10
obligation to continue as a
community school;

the community program of
Everest should be
guaranteed; and

if such a program cannot be
guaranteed, then this
Council’s funding for
community activities at
Everest must be stopped
is pursued.
If community uses were to cease, core
funding for community schools would be
withdrawn.
Also, if community uses were to cease
there may be implications regarding
repayment of earlier borough council
capital investment in the community
facilities (as per paragraph 3.4)
As this Council is likely to become the sole
funder of community schools, it needs to
better understand the impact of funding
withdrawal; it also needs to know precisely
what activities this Council is funding.
Funding to the community schools will
be reviewed as part of the overall grants
review in 2011/12
As the likely sole funder, this Council may
need to be prescriptive about precisely what
it funds.
Funding to the community schools will
be reviewed as part of the overall grants
review in 2011/12
8.2
The Committee also resolved that it deeply regrets Hampshire County
Council’s proposal to cease all funding for community school provision in
2012/13. The Committee asked the Portfolio Holder to raise this concern at
the highest level possible with County Council Officers and Members, and ask
for this decision to be reviewed.
9
Legal Implications
9.1
Confidential Appendix 2 sets out the conditions in relation to the potential
withdrawal of council funding.
9.2
The relationship with the community schools is detailed in Joint Management
Agreements, which set out the legal basis of the partnership for community
provision. All funded organisations have a service agreement aligned to a
service plan which sets out key objectives for the organisation and its links to
council priorities.
9.3
Hampshire County Council is aware of the funding agreements associated
with capital investment in community school facilities as stated in paragraph
3.4 and is proposing that it will continue to underwrite the agreements in
return for schools continuing to use the facilities for community use.
9 of 10
10
Financial Implications
10.1
The recommended way forward allocates £116,879, as detailed below, which
can be met from the 2011/12 revenue budget for community schools.
School / College
BDBC Proposed Grant 2011/12
School / College
10.2
QMC Community Programme
£20,300
Aldworth Science College
£14,985
Clere School and Community
College
£7,242
Everest Community College
£12,036
Fort Hill Community School
£13,504
Four Lanes Junior Community
School
£6,728
Hurst Community School
£19,837
Testbourne Community School
£9,396
Vyne Community School
£12,851
Total
£116,879
Appendix 3 shows the percentage share of income for each organisation.
10 of 10