LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON
Education, Health and Care Plan
23rd April 2014
Seven primary changes:
1. Assessment to involve parents, CYP; a different way of
communicating
2. All duties apply to all LA funded schools including academies and
free schools
3. Co-ordinated assessment process for 0-25’s
4. LA, Health and Care services to commission services for children
jointly
5. A clear, transparent local offer of services to be published for all
CYP with SEND
6. Statutory protection for 16-25’s; focus on preparing for adulthood;
there will be a national framework for colleges
7. Families to be offered a personal budget; more choice and control
for families to develop a personalised programme
Bill amendments:
• Children with disability added
• LA’s have a duty to provide core information for, and to, children
• Added a requirement to publish responses to comments linked to
the Local Offer
• Health and Social Care in a plan classed as ‘education’
• Social care duty in EHCP’s included – linked to the Chronically sick
and Disabled Act 1970 (S2)
• LA’s to have regard to age (requires additional time to complete
their education
• Young offenders included – new rights under new CoP
• Mediation extended to cover health and care – tribunal extended?
• LA’s to assist parents in making suitable arrangements
A Family Centred System:
• Need to involve children, parents and young people in decision making
• Statutory right to contribute to the decision making process
• More streamlined assessment process, co-ordinated across education, health
and care, and involves children and young people and their families throughout.
• New 0-25 Education, Health and Care Plan, replacing the current system of
Statements and Learning Difficulty Assessments, which reflects the child or
young person’s aspirations for the future, as well as their current needs.
• Children have the right to be involved in making decisions and exercising
choices.
• Person centred planning
Issues identified by Pathfinders
• Health engagement/Joint Commissioning ~ new duty on health commissioning,
to deliver the health element of EHC Plans
• EHC plans from 0-25: thresholds, timing, panels, commissioning and outcomes
• Phasing out SEN Statements & phasing in new EHC plans with parents at the
centre of assessment process
• Personal Budget implementation
• Links with Education Funding Reforms/wider funding issues
• Multi-agency keyworking support to assessment
• IT and data
• Children and young people below threshold for EHC Plan
• Implementing new systems in difficult financial times
• Statutory protections for young people 16-25 in full time education
EHCP
• Outcomes – including for adult life and
arrangements for setting shorter term targets
• Must consider the views, wishes and feelings of
the child
• Must consult with the child’s parent
• A ‘tell us once approach’
• 20 week timescale; 6 weeks, 6 weeks, 2 weeks,15
days, 15 days
Process:
• Focus on CYP as individual – not label
• Must outline the CYP’s views, interests and
aspirations
• What they have done, what they are interested in
and outcomes
• Drawing up a one page profile of the CYP
• Including the CYP/family
Overarching considerations:
• We know the Early Years TAC model not
appropriate for entire SEN cohort
• Need to implement staged approach – based on
level of need or/and funding model (process
requires the same approach, planning/review
requires differentiated approach)
• Ability to change/adapt the model over 3 year
implementation phase
Key Worker vs. Co-ordination role
KEY WORKER
EHCP CO-ORDINATOR
Direct 1:1 family contact high commitment Contact limited to key areas of process
Time required to deliver contact 1:1 – time
consuming
Sufficient time provided to undertake
family facing elements of the process
Greater ability to ensure holistic approach Adoption of proportional approach based
on children’s individual need
Creation of ‘champions’ for age groups or
agencies
Administration burden removed from key
workers/agencies
Specialised input to EHCP ensuring high
quality
Specialism in co-ordinating Plan and Plan
process; consistency in approach and
content
Reduces dependency culture from
families on agencies
Ability to complete plans in the absence
of sufficient agency engagement
Increased family satisfaction
Increased family satisfaction – reduction
in appeals
Prior to request for EHCP + request
Prior to requests:
• Lead agency/person drawing up a one page profile of the CYP
– key agency/worker (statutory)
• Multi-agency meeting led by key agency/worker leading to collation
• Collation of documentation – Key agency/worker – request made
Following request:
• LA receive request and 6 week statutory timeline initiated
• To panel – EHCP Co-ordinator
• Multi-agency EHCP Panel – agree/refuse application, confirm
further documentation required
Process – Stage 2: 10 weeks
• Requested statutory evidence gathered – EHCP
Co-ordinator
• Meeting with parent to draft EHCP – EHCP
Co-ordinator
Objectives and targets set through reports
Professional reports required to be outcome focused
Process – Stage 3: 2 weeks
• Document amended following parental meeting –
EHCP Co-ordinator
• Provision commissioned – Commissioning team
Overview and sign off to be determined
Process – Stage 4: 2 weeks
Amendments made – document finalised
Tribunal alerts provided/given at this point.
No exception to timescales for late evidence!
NB: clear advice only given on 16 weeks –
clarification on ‘missing’ 4 weeks awaited
Review
• Annual
• Review process/timeline identified by EHCP Coordinator
• Entire plan to be amended, if necessary, every
year. Model of good practice, negates ‘separate’
process
• TAC approach too resource heavy for all cases;
requires staged approach
Disputes
• New joint agency decision making process
required for disputes between agencies
• Needs independent group and chair - would
require high level chair to ensure transparency
and equity of decision making.
• Needs to be (i) equitable between agencies or (ii)
independent of all agencies
Mediation
• Parents have to discuss mediation option before they can go to
appeal; parents are required to pro-actively consider mediation
• LA’s have to agree to mediate with 30 day timeframe
• LA’s may have to pay parents reasonable expenses to attend
mediation (this does not include legal fees) but could include travel
etc. There is a maximum cap on this.
• LA’s will have to develop dispute resolution service for non-tribunal
related disputes
• Health and social care have to attend mediation in relation to their
services in an EHCP (SENDIST likely to follow)
• Mediation speculated to take longer