Análisis de los resultados de la aplicación del procedimiento

To examine the scale of activity related to EHC needs assessments and plan development, we draw on data from three surveys, each covering two terms of the study:

• Terms 1 and 2 (September 2014 to March 2015) • Terms 3 and 4 (April to end of December 2015) • Terms 5 and 6 (January to August 2016).

Terms 1-3 equate to Year 1 and Terms 4-6 to Year 2 of the implementation of the Children and Families Act 2014 SEND reforms. Eighty LAs responded to Survey 1, 75 LAs to Survey 2 and 67 LAs to Survey 3 (Table 2 in Chapter 1). The results are

presented to illustrate findings that help us understand how disagreement resolution was working during this time of transition from processes under the Education Act 1996 to those under the 2014 Act.

For those who are interested, more detailed information is presented in Appendix 3 where our analytic approach is described alongside fuller information on the data and statistical analysis.

51

2.2.1 Processing requests for EHC needs assessments

When examining disagreements relating to SEND, requests for EHC needs

assessments are important because, for each individual child’s case, it is only from that point onwards that decisions are made which can be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal SEND. We asked LAs to indicate the number of EHC needs assessment requests

processed during September 2014 to August 2016, under the 2014 Act and of re- assessments under the 1996 Act (transitional arrangements) 20_.

• To examine the relationship between key decisions(e.g. a refusal to assess)

and outcomes(e.g. the number of appeals related to this), we draw on relevant data reported to us from all 109 LAs that responded to any of the three surveys. • To examine change or stability over time (Year 1 versus Year 2), we draw on

data from the 42 LAsthat responded to all three surveys.

2.2.1.1 Relationships between key LA decisions and appeals (109 LAs)

We first turn our attention to the decisions made on individual requests for an EHC needs assessment. To do this, we used the information we received from all 109 LAs who responded to one or more of our surveys. This allowed us to look at the

relationship between LA decisionswhether or not to conduct an assessment, and whether or not to issue a plan, and the subsequent numbers of appeals to the First- tier Tribunal SEND.

Every single one of these requests for an EHC needs assessment relates to a child or young person. It is very important to remember this when looking at statistics about SEND.

Figure 5 is a flow chart illustrating this relationship. It uses the information (‘data’) we received in relation to decisions taken. This means that it excludes the data relating to requests for assessment that had not been decided and to assessments that were not completed.

20 _{All data relating to assessment and statementing processes under the 1996 Act are presented in} Appendix 4.

52

Figure 5:Flow chart showing First-tier Tribunal SEND appeals, 1.9.2014 – 31.8.2016 in relation to key LA decisions made in 109 LAs (Decided cases only)

Request for assessment (Decisions) N1 = 40952 (100%) Refused N1.2 = 12856 (31%of N1) Agreed N1.1 = 28096 (69% of N1) Issue a plan? (Decisions) N2 = 26813 Refused N2.2 = 1393 (5% of N2) Agreed N2.1 = 25420 (95% of N2) Content of Plan N2.1 = 25420

Appeal? Appeal? Appeal?

No Appeal N1.2.1 = 11983 (93% of N1.2) Appeal N1.2.2 = 873 (7% of N1.2) No Appeal N2.2.1 = 1225 (88% of N2.2) Appeal N2.2.2 = 168 (12% of N2.2) No Appeal N2.1.1 = 23892 (94% of N2.1) Appeal N2.1.2 = 1528 (6% of N2.1) Base: 109 LAs

53

Figure 5 (the flow chart above) shows that, in our online survey sample, 40,952 decisionswere reported to us across 109 LAsregarding requests for EHC needs assessments during the research period, 1 September 2014 to 31 August 2016. These were the first two years of practice under the Children and Families Act 2014. Of these 40,952 decisions:

• _7% of refused requestsresulted in an appeal (n = 873)

• _12%of assessments that resulted in a refusal to issue an EHC plan were appealed (n = 168)

• 6% of EHC plansresulted in an aspect of the content being appealed (n =1,528). It is also important to consider the parents who are refused an EHC needs assessment, or refused an EHC plan following an assessment, or who do not agree with the content of the EHC plan, yet who do not appeal. We cannot assume that all of these are satisfied. As we show later (Chapter 5), a high proportion of cases to the Tribunal are conceded or withdrawn and, where the case is heard by the Tribunal, the majority are decided in the favour of the appellant. This suggests that there may be a similar proportion of ‘refusal to assess’ and ‘refusal to issue a plan’ and ‘content of plan’ decisions that are not appealedthat mayhave been overturned if they had been appealed.

Information on the scale of appeals to the First-tier Tribunal SEND has not been presented in this way before, to our knowledge. In our view, it is more illuminating in terms of raising questions that help us to better understand patterns of

disagreements around SEND. By examining rates of appeal in relation to the relevant decisions being made at LA level, and also taking note of the numbers involved,

relationships between decisions made and both overall scale and rates of appeal can be explored in terms of LA processes and other relevant local factors. For example, using the numbers of EHCappealsnationally (Table 6 below), we can see that more appeals under the Children and Families Act 2014 relate to ‘refusal to assess’ than to a ‘refusal to issue a plan’. Our flow chart, by contrast, shows that, of all refused EHC needs assessmentrequests (n =12,856, those that went to appeal amounted to 7% (n = 873). In terms of type of LA decision, in our sample of 109 LAs, the largest

proportionof appeals (12%; n = 168) related to decisions to refuse to write an EHC planfollowing an assessment. Thus, showing both absolute numbers and percentages of different stages of the decision-making process provides a richer picture to assist monitoring and review of how the system is working.

54

Table 6 Number of appeals by reason for appeal (national data)

Reason for appeal Year 1 (2014-15) Year 2 (2015-16)

Refusal to assess 603 1185

Refusal to issue an EHC plan 97 321

Against any aspect of content of EHC plan

453 1672

Source: Statistical Bulletin, 8 Dec 2016, Ministry of Justice, SEND Table 2 21 Table 6 also shows that in Year 2, appeals against any part of the content of the EHC plan rose markedly from 453 in Year 1 to 1,672 in Year 2. It is likely that, at least in part, this was because of the expansion to cover the age range 0-25, the very large numbers of statements of SEN that have been transferred over to EHC plans (not always in an ideal manner, according to parents in our study), and better information and support for parents and young people about their rights of appeal. In order to examine any such changes over time in our sample of LAs, we used information given to us by the 42 LAs that completed all three of our surveys.

2.2.1.2 Relationships over time: comparing Year 1 and Year 2 (42 LAs)

Across the 42 LAs for which we have data for Years 1 and 2 under the 2014 Act, a total of 23,526 EHC needs assessmentswere requested: 9,969 in Year 1 and 13,557 in Year 2. In these 42 LAs, the median number of EHC needs assessments completed

per LA rosefrom 198 in Year 1 to264 in Year 2. This rise was likely to have been, at least in part, for the same range of reasons as noted above in relation to the national data presented in Table 6. Figure 6 shows the percentage of assessments requested that were refused or completed (i.e. agreed and completed).

55

Figure 6: Outcomes of assessments requested under the 2014 Act in Year 1 and Year 2

Base: 42 LAs (responded to all 3 surveys)

Figure 6 shows that, in the 42 LAs under consideration, the majority of requests resulted in decisions, although for a substantial minority, not reported in the graph, no decision was reported. Of the decisions, a significant majority of assessments were reported as having been completed: 57%at Year 1 and 64%at Year 2. However, over a quarter of assessment requests were refused(Year 1: 27%, Year 2: 29%). There was no

significant difference between the proportion of requests for assessments being refused and the proportion of assessments completed between the two years22,23_.

In these 42 LAs, the median number of EHC needs assessments refusedper LA rose from 48 in Year 1 to63 in Year 2. Every decision to refuse to conduct an EHC needs assessment was potentially a source of disagreement between parents and the LA. Each could potentially be appealed.

For the same 42 LAs, Figure 7 compares the percentage of EHC needs assessments that resulted in writing a plan or not in Year 1 and Year 2 of the new processes.

22_{p =.257, non-significant, See Analysis 1a, Appendix 3}

23 _{There is a proportion of the assessments requested that the LAs did not report on (16% in Year 1 and}

7% in Year 2), presumably because they were in process; therefore the bars in Figure 6 do not add up to 100%. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 refused completed %