Some cash-strapped councils do have targets to 鈥渕anage demand鈥 for education health and care plans (EHCPs), Schools Week has found, amid concerns support for vulnerable children is being 鈥渞ationed鈥. It a 拢19.5 million Department for Education contract with Newton Europe, to help 55 councils 鈥渄eliver better value in SEND鈥, included 鈥渢argeting at least 20 per cent reduction in new education, health and care plans [EHCPs] issued鈥. Claire Coutinho The education committee wrote to the government this week saying it 鈥渁ppears to contradict evidence鈥 from former children鈥檚 minister Claire Coutinho. She told the committee in May the government schemes to help councils get huge SEND deficits under control were 鈥渘ot about targeting a particular reduction鈥 in EHCPs. Robert Halfon, skills minister, pledged this week 鈥渨ith absolute certainty鈥 that DfE 鈥渉as not provided any local authorities either nationally or locally with targets to reduce provisions鈥 in EHCPs. However, Schools Week has found both Kingston and Richmond councils have conditions to 鈥渕anage demand鈥 for EHCPs. Six key performance indicators reference EHCPs measured against an annual 鈥渢arget鈥. 34 councils promised bailouts The councils are among the 34 who have been promised bailouts of nearly 拢1 billion in total under the government鈥檚 safety valve scheme. In return, they must make savings on their SEND spend. A statement issued by both councils said when agreeing the safety valve funding, they modelled 鈥渨here we thought we would be over the five-year plan period and what that meant in terms of funding we needed鈥. 鈥淭he targets reflect those projections,鈥 they added. They said no targets look 鈥渢o change our threshold for issuing an EHCP. 鈥淲e are focused on making sure the threshold complies with legislation and appropriately meets the needs of children and young people who require support.鈥 When asked about our findings, the DfE said it was 鈥渦ntrue to suggest any targets relating to EHCPs were created or agreed by the department for any safety valve local authorities鈥. But the DfE refused to clarify whether it signed off, or had involvement in, setting the KPIs as part of the safety valve contracts. One of the councils said in a safety valve update that they are “required to submit a set of KPIs and updated DSG (dedicated safety grant) plan” to the DfE. ‘They’re effectively EHCP restraint targets’ Matt Keer, a SEND specialist for Special Needs Jungle, said this was a 鈥渒ey question. It鈥檚 unclear, but if the metrics need DfE sign-off, and if the DfE reviews them as the agreement progresses, then they鈥檙e effectively EHCP restraint targets in all but name.鈥 In Haringey, which has a 拢22.9 million safety valve deal, an April presentation sets out its 鈥渒ey project goals鈥 to bring EHCP figures in line with comparable councils. Matt Keer One of the points included to 鈥渞educe the numbers of children following annual review who have an EHCP by 7% by [20]27/28鈥. The council said the DfE has not set a target number for EHCPs as part of its funding agreement.鈥 A DfE spokesperson said safety valve agreements 鈥渄o not contain such targets鈥 on EHCPs. However, Bexley鈥檚 拢30 million deal explicitly states an aim is to 鈥渞educe the growth in numbers of EHCPs required for SEMH (social, emotional and mental health) children by 48 in six years鈥 time鈥. This would be done by creating four full-time specialist teaching assistant posts to support 80 children in both primary and secondary settings. DfE said this reduction is 鈥渃learly as a consequence of positive actions鈥 to improve early intervention. ‘Transparency is needed’ The government鈥檚 SEND review, more generally, is pushing for early intervention which would mean fewer children need to access support through EHCPs. However, Catriona Moore, policy manager at legal advice charity IPSEA, said: 鈥淪ome transparency is urgently needed on what local authorities have been told by central government about the use of targets for reducing the number of EHC plans they issue.鈥 On the Newton contract, DfE said the 鈥渋ndicators鈥 around EHCP numbers 鈥渨ere not formalised or agreed鈥. As they are not formal key performance indicators in the contract, they are not legally binding, they added. But Robin Walker, chair of the education select committee, has asked new children鈥檚 minister David Johnston to 鈥減rovide us with further detail about this contract and explain if and how this is compatible with the approach鈥 described by Coutinho as not 鈥渢argeting a particular reduction鈥 in EHCPs. A DfE spokesperson added: 鈥淲e have been clear programmes like safety valve and delivering better value are just one part of our wider reform work, as set out in our improvement plan, to help local authorities effectively and sustainably deliver high quality SEND services for families.鈥
Richard Tod 25 September 2023 I am a new Governor and have just read the article by Samantha Booth ‘Councils DO have targets to ration EHCPs.’ Am I correct in assuming that if experts recognise a child needs assistance, they will not get what the experts recommend because of a bureaucratic line drawn in the sand has not been reached? If this is the case, then wouldn’t desperate parents and schools exaggerate the problems in order to reach the line? Could the councils who do this not also be reported under the Child Protection Act 2004 for failing those children who did not reach the line, but were assessed to need assistance? Under the same act, could they not also be accused of failing to implement the Act which states that it ‘…places a duty on local authorities in England to make arrangements to promote co-operation with key partners and local agencies, with a view to ‘improving’ the well-being of children in the authority’s area?