Under new legislation, 60% of DC with a Statement will not get HSC Plan

[Doomsday2014]

Have name changed, but often ask questions on here.

I was at a meeting today where a high profile member of the SEN Dept of my LA was speaking about the Children and Families Bill and the implications for children with SEN. It was meant to reassure parents that children with SEN would be better off under the new legislation. However, the representative admitted that come Sept 2014, my LA's remit will be to ensure that only 40% of the children who currently have Statements will be considered to have needs complex enough to require a HSC Plan.

We were told that all children with Statements would be re-assessed under new criteria (this would probably happen at Annual Review), and that it could be the case that even children currently considered to require a fairly high level of provision, could potentially be left with nothing more that a PRA, which is not legally binding.

Even our LA (which has one of the highest tribunal rates in the country), admitted they were concerned about what would happen to those children who currently have Statements but would not be eligible for EHC Plans.

No one knows what the criteria might be for EHC plans, but apparently they could vary between counties, so no standardisation.

I'm really worried for my child.

Sorry, title should read EHC plans

Are you willing to name and shame the LA? Have you spoken to IPSEA about this, if not it would be a good idea.

I presume there must be some right to appeal any changes and I can't imagine an appeals panel being too pleased with drastic changes to children with previously documented needs that have not changed for the better. Surely if the local areas set their own criteria then it should be straightforward for the criteria to apply for previously statemented kids as they were before, unless there has been a change in level of need in the meantime. Of course if the LAs are using this as a method of removing statements from children to save money then there will be a big problem and it would make a lot more sense as to what they are up to after all. Expect tribunals to get very busy in the next year or two.

What "new criteria"? I don't remember seeing anything in the Act which changes assessment criteria, and we don't yet know what will be in the Code of Practice. I know there's been an indicative CoP published, but the DfE say the final version will be quite a lot different.

I was thinking about contacting ipsea. Some parents raised the point that surely if a child has already been assessed as a matrix 8 for example (another area of contention; our LA only talk in terms of matrices), which indicates a high level of provision, then would that not just be translated into provision under an EHC plan, but the man from the LA was adamant that no, all children would be reassessed under the "new guidelines". We will still have a statutory right of appeal as before, but I can see the tribunals service being overloaded! Reading between the lines, it felt as if we were being told that if we had a child in mainstream with a statement, then they would probably be the children who would not be entitled to EHCPs, but that is just my inference.

Apparently the new draft COP is out for consultation in October and should be in the public domain.

If you are willing - I have contact with IPSEA and could pass this info on at the highest level.

I suspected that the whole reasoning behind the Bill was not altruism and spending more! It is bound to be used for cuts to services despite the fact as nennypops says, there is nothing in the Bill which changes the criteria.

Similarly no LA is remotely interested in Direct Payments for SEN. They have taken pilot money and just held breakfast meetings by the look of things!

racetothebottom, I have to go out now but will PM you.

Yes, the LA bloke said make no bones about it, the DfE are expecting authorities to deliver the new system on the same budget, so to expect services already in place to be cut. I have no sympathy with the LA, but he was stressing about how it was all going to work ( and we are a Pathfinder authority)

This is so important. Could we watch this space and mobilize the MNers?

I really want to do something but don't know what. There were about 30 parents in the meeting yesterday. I'm sure most parents in our LA who have DC with statements will not know what's hit them when they get a letter through the door saying their child will need to be reassessed to see if they will be entitled to an EHCP.

The LA will say that the children will get adequate support without an EHCP, but of course the problem will be that it will not be legally enforceable. If there is a blanket policy of reducing the number of statements irrespective of the needs of the child it might ultimately be challengeable through the courts but I think it will need to wait till there is more information available.

We have started something - or the beginnings of something - but I find people have so many stresses and strains on their lives that they find it hard to campaign consistently.

I have, however, made very good links with groups because of our nascent campaign but I do need help to progress things.

If you want to help and can commit some time, do get in touch.

We have alot of very useful info as the result of a FOIA campaign to pull together but I don't have time to do this alone.

There have also been other posters on here saying the same thing about a reduction in statements etc. Many of the top children's charities are already taking Gov money and are either oblivious or turning a blind eye to what this will mean on the ground.

Pretending, for example, that direct payments for SEN will create a 'market' for SEN provision with more choice or that LAs will magically start working in a more transparent way.

Read here

I have seen some kind of draft for my LA for how you will apply for a EHCP - it states that before you can even apply your child will need to have been seen by an EP and then done whatever the EP had suggested. only if that fails do you then get your request granted - of course this means that all the LA need to do is to make the EP unavailable to see the kids for a period of time , set targets that will take a long time to complete so basically delay delay delay. if a child doesn't see the EP first then the request will automatically be thrown out - clearly a blanket policy already. I asked another parent who is on the working group how can they be doing this when there is no real code of practice yet but she seemed to think what the LA is doing is okay - she is very pally with the LA so not really representative of all parents. each LA will have their own version of a EHCP so its going to be an absolute postcode lottery.

Also - any EHCP in place now has no force of law behind it, unless it is also accompanied by a statement.

They introduced Regulations to change the law to allow for SEN DPs. They have not done this for EHCPs yet, so the law does not recognise EHCPs and you could not appeal one to Tribunal

DfE seems to think this lack of legally enforceable provision is ok, as it's all about 'working with parents'.

Who needs the law when we're all pals eh?

BJK, subject to what the Code of Practice says about the assessment process, you LA's policy sound unlawful. If that stays in place it could be worth talking to someone like IPSEA about organising a legal challenge.

The LA admitted that in many cases their trials of direct payments were proving disasterous for some parents since they (parents) hadn't been made aware of the fact that accepting direct payments would make them, in effect, employers and so would burden them with a lot of additional administration.

The LA bod made a big thing about how the current system is 'not fit for purpose', but as he was shouted down was pointed out to him, it is only not fit for purpose because the LA blatently ignores all direction given in the CoP and subsequent caselaw, so how will anything change with the new bill if it is open to abuse by the LA in the same way? It's a right shambles.

With regard to trialing the EHCPs, I am not convinced the parents involved in our LA trials realise they have no legal basis.

'The LA admitted that in many cases their trials of direct payments were proving disasterous for some parents since they (parents) hadn't been made aware of the fact that accepting direct payments would make them, in effect, employers and so would burden them with a lot of additional administration'

I reckon this is absolute bollocks. Get them to put this in writing, then do a FOI request for how many parents have actually received DPs.

I'll hedge a guess at none, - or if you have an exceptionally contriving LA, one person who has been 'supported' in their feedback and was chosen very carefully indeed.

It is very worrying and I know IPSEA are very concerned about this too.

As for DPs, most LAs who say they are trialling DPs are actually granting them for provision they could provide by way of DPs anyway, for example, travel payments. If you take away travel payments, there are very few DPs.

So what are they doing with the money? I suspect its being used to top up budget shortfalls.

There is no way LAs are going to agree true freedom of choice and let independent therapists deal with provision.

Whatever the new Code says, the problem is there is no rule of law in the SEN world and the reforms don't even try to address this. By this I mean, LAs do what they want with no accountability, no transparency, no regard to statutory duties and precious few opportunities to enforce legal rights.

Even if you can use the law against LAs, they move goalposts, delay provision, change provision, review statements......until they get what they want.

It's the 'failed state' of SEN!

In fact, have a look at the 'What do they know' website as I bet someone has already asked for the numbers of people tribally DPs for each pathfinder LA .

Yes. Indeed. We need to collate that info.

Bill goes before HL Cttee and it would be interesting to put these figures together.

I don't really understand dos for sen - I did read the regs at one time. Are they meant for use during school hours within the school to provide something from the statement? But you need permission from the head if that 'something' is a person?

DPs not dos

As far as I understood from this talk, once money had been allocated by the LA to the school for provisions on the Statement, then Parents could not have access to this to source their own SALTs etc. Like inappropriately says, most DPs seem to be granted for transport and things like respite. I was confused tbh because the implication was you couldn't use the DPs for education services.

Thanks , I suppose I shouldn't worry. - still debating applying for a ssen!

SEN DPs are used to pay for statement provision. You need the head"s consent whatever they are for.

You need the statement to be quantified and specified enough to be able to cost out the provision.

You can apply in Pathfinder areas but they don't have to agree. They can argue that it would not be an efficient use of resources to release the money (e.g. they are paying for the same provision under a block contract). However, each decision has to be individually made.

More info here

But LAs clearly don't want them. We managed to get them for SLT under threat of JR and they ignore my SLT completely.

But at the last AR, she asked for slightly increased provision (basically because my son is out of school and it has to be delivered in a slightly different way) and I got a letter asking me to bring him from an appointment with an NHS SLT so she could prepare a report for Tribunal.

Our SLT has been working with him for two years.

our LA are apparently following the model being used by Hampshire - god help up! why they are not working with the LA next door who are pathfinders and our kids cross counties into school with each other I do not know. we are many hundreds of miles away from blooming Hampshire. our LA is consulting with one parent who is on the panel for agreeing how EHCPs will work. I have expressed concern that we should be talking to all parents in county and telling them what is going on. I am appalled that the person on the panel has not challenged what the LA is saying and is unaware of the law

BJK - do feel free to pass info on and I will forward to IPSEA.