Attainment Scotland Fund evaluation: implementation and impact report 2024

Section 2: Funding

What funding was allocated through the Scottish Attainment Challenge Refreshed Attainment Scotland Fund to schools and local authorities, to what extent was it used within funds requirements and/or supplemented with other funding sources? What were stakeholders views on the implementation of the new funding structure introduced with the Scottish Attainment Challenge refresh?

The following aspects related to funding were highlighted through the evidence considered for this report:

• All local authority respondents to the SAC Leads Survey 2024 viewed ASF as being used as an additional resource within their local authority (ie additional to the core offer to all children and young people supported by core education budgets). Eighteen of twenty six respondents were of the view this was the case to a great extent, and the remaining eight viewed this was the case to some extent.
• The extent to which funding is additional was queried by several national stakeholder interviewees, highlighting a perception that the funding through the Attainment Scotland Fund was to some extent being used to ‘plug a gap’ in local authority budgets.
• The extent to which local authorities utilised core (ie non-ASF) and/or other funding to support the Scottish Attainment Challenge Mission was more mixed. Twenty-five of twenty-six respondents to the SAC Leads Survey 2024 reported their local authority utilised core and/or other funding: for nine respondents this was to a great extent, for twelve to some extent and for four to a limited extent. One respondent indicated this did not occur at all.
• The ongoing challenging financial impact of reduction of funding for former Challenge Authorities was raised by respondents to the SAC Leads Survey 2024.
• Whilst the dominant theme across national stakeholder interviews was one of support for the approach to Strategic Equity Funding across all thirty two local authorities, there were perceptions of ongoing negative impact on former Challenge Authorities as a result of tapering of funding despite the continued existence of challenges in relation to levels of poverty being experienced. Conversely, it was recognised that local authorities who had received Strategic Equity Funding in 2022 could face challenges in relation to effectively planning spend of the fund in a relatively short period of time.
• The context of the ongoing impact of COVID-19 and the cost-of-living crisis was highlighted by several national stakeholder interviews as critical to recognise in relation to the scale of the challenge local authorities and schools face.
• There were perceptions that schools with lower PEF allocations (based on number of pupils in receipt of Free School Meals) may not have sufficient funding to meet the needs of their pupils affected by poverty, given the ongoing negative impact of COVID-19 on many families’ financial circumstances and of the cost-of-living crisis, with increased numbers of families experiencing deteriorating financial circumstances. This was associated with a perception of the funding methodology for allocating PEF through Free School Meal registrations as problematic.
• National stakeholder interviewees were broadly supportive of the value headteachers place on PEF as providing a source of discretionary spend to direct towards local need. Without PEF, it was noted that available funds for local discretionary spend would be very limited. However, some concerns regarding PEF spend at the school level was also raised. One interviewee highlighted a concern that there were instances in which headteachers were directed towards particular PEF spend rather than spend being at their discretion. Several instances of ‘top slicing’ of PEF, whereby a percentage of PEF spend was retained by the local authority rather than being distributed to schools, were also raised.
• Funding previously provided on a year-by-year basis was also raised as a factor, with the change to multi-year allocations introduced with the SAC Refresh in 2022 viewed positively. There were also some positive comments made regarding the introduction of flexibility to spend PEF across two years. However, uncertainty related to PEF funding beyond the current parliamentary term was viewed as a matter of challenge and concern affecting schools.
• Other themes raised during national stakeholder interviews included:
  • Some concern about potential ‘clawback’ of unspent PEF funds;
  • Recruitment challenges resulting in schools on occasion not being able to fill posts, leading to a perceived underspend on PEF.
• In relation to CECYP funding, there was a certain lack of clarity amongst some national stakeholders regarding the eligibility criteria for the fund, with concerns raised that the funding does not include the wider population of care experienced children and young people who are not ‘looked after’ by a local authority^[19]. This was viewed as creating challenges in being able to provide a service for all care experienced children and young people within the local authority. This, alongside perceptions of wider budget challenges, was viewed as limiting the ability of local authorities to provide support to as many care experienced children and young people as require such support.
• Funding uncertainty in relation to CECYP was also raised as a concern, particularly given the importance of building relationships and consistency in working with care experienced children and young people. The context of the ten year timeframe of The Promise, without funding certainty for CECYP beyond the current year, was also raised as a challenge.