Agenda item

SEND TRANSPORT

Purpose of the report:

Surrey County Council (SCC) is spending more than it can afford on Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) transport and needs a brave and bold approach to addressing this complex priority. There are no easy options due to the sometimes challenging and complex needs of service users and relationships with stakeholders. This paper is to provide members with an overview of a new SEND Transport Commissioning Programme, designed to address the challenges the council is facing.

Minutes:

Witnesses:

Gabrielle Close, Interim Head of SEND Operations
Robert Kitt, Senior Category Specialist

Liz Mills, Assistant Director Schools & Learning
Linda Kemeny, Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement

Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and Families

 


Declarations of Interest:

None

Key points raised in the discussion:

 

  1. Officers highlighted that there had been a significant increase in Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Transport costs. Officers had recognised a need for a more fundamental and joined-up change to the SEND Transport system was required and had commissioned a new team with a new programme, the SEND Transport Commissioning Programme October 2016, to resolve the underlying causes of this, while maintaining high standards of service.

  2. Officers noted that this was a collaborative approach between the service, schools and partners; such as Family Voice. It was emphasised that the SEND Transport Commissioning Programme team was working closely with these stakeholders to find new solutions to pilot in the first and second quarters of the next financial year, after further consultation has undertaken with schools.

  3. Officers highlighted that the SEND Transport Commissioning Programme team was improving information sharing amongst partners and stakeholders of the Council as a result of the new co-ordinated system and it was agreed that there would be an ongoing process of improvement.

  4. Officers explained to the Board that there were several potential new schemes that were being considered for pilots, including:
    1. Schools commissioning their own transport services;
    2. The leasing of a suitable vehicle to families;
    3. The implementation of a Social Impact Bond (SIB) to help fund training for young people with SEND to use public transport independently; and
    4. The utilisation of community transport organisations.

  5. The Board queried the use of Social Impact Bonds and if there would be any cost savings from using “in-house” services. Officers noted that there were no available “in-house” staff to deliver the scheme, with specialist training, and that as a result this scheme would require external resources. The Board questioned whether the SEND Transport Commissioning Programme team could undertake a cost analysis of whether the training of staff or the implementation of a SIB would be more efficient.

  6. Officers highlighted that cost savings had been made by undertaking a more thorough study into the needs of individual children as a result of the new co-ordinated system. It was also noted that a dynamic purchase system to improve competition between prospective providers was in place to improve cost savings.

  7. It was questioned by Members whether there were any links with the County’s independent schools in relation to SEND Transport provision. Officers agreed that although the Transport Co-ordination Centre (TCC) work closely with independent schools already, there was more potential to be realised from the independent school sector.

  8. Members questioned the high spend on SEND Transport per child in comparison to other Local Authorities. Officers highlighted that there was a large proportional number of children with complex SEND requirements in Surrey. Members queried whether it was possible for the service to provide a comparative breakdown of Surrey County Council and other comparable local authorities, to ascertain their provisions and if the service could adapt any of their provisions into their own offer.

  9. Officers noted that Surrey offered children with SEND requirements a positive deal. Officers highlighted that this had led to more children with SEND requirements coming into the county than are leaving, presenting the service with a net gain of children with SEND requirements.

  10. It was highlighted by officers that SEND Transport was required to meet targets set in the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and that the overspend had so far been reduced and that the service was aiming to be on target as part of the five year plan.

  11. The Board queried whether the SEND Transport Commissioning Programme team could circulate to the Board the SEND Transport Commissioning Document, to highlight budget pressures and possible solutions. Officers agreed to circulate this information to the Board.

  12. Officers highlighted that the service was working closely with parents of children and young people with SEND to look into their involvement with SEND Transport provision. It was also noted that the service would be working more to better determine the requirements of the individual child.

  13. Officers assured the Board that children with SEND provisions that came from outside of Surrey were the responsibility of the Local Authority that they came from.

  14. The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement highlighted that they were confident with the direction of travel with regard to SEND Transport provision and were satisfied that the service was adopting a positive model for change.

Recommendations

  1. The Board recommends that Officers provide a comparison chart of neighbouring and comparative local authorities and their provision of SEND Transport services, including: the total number and percentage of children and young people with SEND, the cost of SEND Transport services, and details of their local offer.

  2. The Board recommends that Officers complete an evaluation of the pilot schemes to be launched in April 2017 before a wider implementation in September 2017, and in doing so, provide the Board with their findings and explain any modifications to the schemes.

  3. The Board requests that Officers circulate the SEN Transport Commissioning Programme document.

 

Supporting documents: