Is there a reason local authorities can't...

[SaucepanRattle]

Is there a reason why local authorities can't bid for money to support children with SEND above and beyond the amount they have in their budgets at the start of the year?

Every year we're told there's not enough money to meet the needs and parents have to fight for what is their legal right as local authorities create friction in the system to reduce demand due to insufficient supply of money. But can't they bid for additional money from grant funders to be able to meet the needs? Or because they're legally expected to meet those needs they can't claim to not have enough, even though for years they don't have enough. I'm wondering if there's a legal or practical reason why they can't look for additional funding sources above and beyond their forecasted budget?

I think you've answered your own question there - they can't admit they're committed to legal responsibilities they can't meet without the whole house of cards coming tumbling down.

Regarding fundraising (I was a fundraiser for a charity within the NHS for a while), it takes time, resources and expertise. LAs don't have any of that. Charitable trusts, understandably, would be unlikely to want to subsidise a branch of government.

I did wonder. So is it literally not possible? Or is it more about not possible without admitting they don't have the money to meet their legal obligations?

I completely understand about not wanting to subsidise part of the government, but it does seem it's children and their families who suffer.

@Phineyj interesting you worked for a charity within the NHS because I'm (genuinely) confused how the NHS can have a charity (I only became aware of it because of Captain Tom) when taxes (is it National Insurance?) are supposed to fund the NHS. How come there's also a charity? What can it fund that the NHS can't? And can anything be learnt from that for local authorities and children with SEND? Would really appreciate your insight on this @Phineyj

Many funding source won’t fund things where there is a statutory duty for someone else to provide it.

Besides, LAs waste £££ defending indefensible cases against unrepresented parents.

There are lots of charities in the NHS. Some could be likened to school PTAs/Friends of.

The charity I worked for was providing arts activities to the children's and elderly wards and artwork for the walls. The NHS doesn't cover that but there are grant making trusts who will. The individual wards had charitable funds which were mostly spent on staff training and items the wards needed. There were special interest charities such as one for the cardiac service that provided equipment and support to heart patients. Individual hospitals have Friends organisations that are charities. There are also external charities who provide specific services, posts, equipment - for example Cancer Research, Headway, Teenage Cancer Trust. There are loads of them!

The point I was making is that donors need to trust that the cause they're donating to has expertise and that the money will be spent on what it was given for. You can't guarantee the former with any government service and you certainly can't control the latter, any more than you can decide what your taxes are spent on.

There are lots of charities doing valuable work in SEN. I found IPSEA incredibly helpful for understanding the tribunal process, for instance.