Ringfencing and the Early Intervention Grant

I've always been ambivalent about the ringfencing of budgets. On the one hand, it ensures that money is spent on activities that central (or local) government wants to support.

The old GEST and Standards Fund grants were typical of this approach – there were probably hundred of initiatives funded this way over the years. My favourite was a capital grant, the indoor toilets grant, which was designed to stop children having to go outside to the toilet block.

When in Somerset, we used this grant extensively to add inside toilet block extensions. Ironically, children still got wet in the rain, as almost all primary schools had external temporary classrooms, as Somerset couldn't afford to build classroom extensions to meet rising numbers...

On the other hand, ringfencing reduces local autonomy and does not enable local decision-making to meet the needs of local circumstances.

Professionally, I've argued for ringfencing and against it, as and when it suited the spending I wanted to undertake.

For many years, the LGA position has been against ringfencing, and now it is a cleft stick. The Early Intervention Grant is being cut and no longer being ringfenced.

At a time of huge budget pressure, it seems unlikely that councils will be able to protect early intervention budgets when they are not ringfenced, even though everyone knows that early intervention is both philosophically and morally the only way to go, accepting that there will be long-term savings across the public sector, but not short-term savings in 'my' budget.

So, however councils, the LGA, the DfE and DCLG square the circle, I hope that spending on early intervention will be sustained. Not to do so will result in increased costs – financial and social – downstream.