Lynn Mead Inc., Management Consultancy Service "Insight, Challenge, Delivery”

ANONYMISED FOR DISTRIBUTION Hampshire Special Educational Needs and Disability Pathfinder Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014

Lynn Mead Hampshire SEND Pathfinder Project Manager Table of Contents

Appendices

Appendix 1 Current SEN and SENPA (post 16) staffing structures Appendix 2 Current capacity plan for SEN Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

1. Executive Summary

1.1 This research was commissioned to explore how other authorities had approached the development of the requirements with the SEND Reforms currently progressing through the House of Lords as part of the Children and Families Bill. This includes the introduction of the Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) and the Local Offer. The purpose of the research was to determine if there were other innovative ideas or approaches that could enable the process in Hampshire to be achievable within the new shorter statutory timeframe of 20 weeks, with less staff due to further budget cuts from 2015/16 and the requirement for increased personalised approaches working directly with families. 1.2 This has included desk top research with other authorities, considerations around how IT could enable the new EHCP process within Hampshire County Council to support staff to operate in a more efficient and effective way, and analysis of data and metrics to look at throughput and cross over of clients across the three agencies of Education, Health and Social Care. 1.3 In addition to the position within Hampshire County Council the desktop research included telephone interviews with nine other local authorities, largely County Councils, as follows:

1.4 The detailed findings are set out in a 39 A3 page summary document. The key findings are set out in section 5 of this report, particularly analysing:  Commonality across the authorities  Areas of innovation  Who writes the EHCP  When in the process the family story and child/young person’s story are collated  Ways of working and structure changes. 1.5 Headline findings from the research within section 5 of this report are:

i) The approach to the SEND Reforms across all the participating authorities is still evolving, as such approaches may still change leading up to when the reforms go-live in September 2014;

3 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

ii) Two authorities are in the process of implementing a 0-25 service. They both have a single co-terminous Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) within their area. Otherwise integration across Education, Health and Care is limited to small scale examples that were largely in place anyway. Section 8 explores integration further, including clarifying definitions;

iii) When asked what they would do differently all participants said they would have started with the Local Offer as it is so pivotal to the success of the whole approach. It is apparent that the Hampshire Local Offer is one of the most advanced in terms of development;

iv) All authorities specified that they would append professional assessments and specify provision separately across Education, Health and Care within their EHCPs;

v) All authorities are looking at reducing or eliminating the number of Advisory Panels they have in place;

vi) The most significant innovation was centred around maximising the information held and obtained prior to the 20 week clock starting. This requires working closely with schools to maximise the information they currently hold and develop a consistent framework for application across all schools. The autonomous nature of schools makes this approach complex, but given three authorities have been progressing this, with a fourth similar approach, this would seem an opportunity to explore further;

vii) A range of person centred roles have been trialled. Five authorities used SEN core staff for this role. The other five used alternative approaches including some where they come from a range of agency backgrounds, one used the VCS sector and another a lead professional model;

viii) An innovative family portal prototype has been trialled within one authority, which was received very favourably by parents. However due to the cost of developing this as a full IT system at a time of significant budget cuts the sustainability of this approach as a solution from September 2014 is at risk. 1.6 The data and metrics, set out within section 6 below, show that one in five Hampshire pupils with a statement of SEN also have an open or on-going social care case, which pre-dated the statement of SEN. Further work is required to analyse why there appears to be less than 5% of current SEN cases with any live Children’s Social Care input as this would seem to not be in line with the data extracted from the IT systems of SWIFT (social care) and Impulse (SEN). 1.7 Analysis of the IT capability, discussed in section 7 below, to enable the EHCP process within SEN suggests that the only real solutions that could be considered for introduction in the shorter term are secure email to send confidential documents between Health and the County Council, and the procurement of extra screens to assist the staff writing the EHCP and extracting data from multiple electronic source documents.

4 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

1.8 Mobile working technology solutions remain unresolved, and the other areas are dependent on the completion of the IT procurement and the obvious need to prioritise the migration of data and information from the old and on to the new Children’s Services IT provider solutions. IT enablement in the form of self-service, and improved integration of data between social care and SEN are unlikely to be implemented in short or medium term. 1.9 The following factors need to be taken in to consideration when developing the final model to be implemented from September 2014 for the SEN Reforms, as they could impact on their success:

 Children’s services having to find £27m savings from 2015/16 financial year onwards  Reduced staffing in SEN, Educational Psychology and social care to manage the new EHCP process and undertake person centred approaches.  Electronic working using Hantsfile, but without an easy and effective mechanism for staff to work remotely and reliably in a paperless way (section 6 refers).  The impact of cumulative increases of new requests for statutory assessments at + 11 to 15% per annum. However, for the current year this may be a conservative estimate as there has been a 28% increase in the first four months, with the busiest period yet to be recorded during January to March 2014. It is acknowledged that this increase could be temporary due to a rush to “get a statement” before the SEN Reforms come in to place 1 September 2014.

2. Recommendations and Next Steps

2.1 The key requirements envisaged to enable a successful implementation of the SEND Reforms from September 2014 are:  Deliver a seamless 0 to 25 EHCP journey;  Complete EHCPs within the revised statutory 20 week time frame;  Ensure the process is more personalised working more closely with families, particularly children and young people directly;  Mitigate the increasing volume of requests for statutory assessment to enable the reduced workforce, as a result of the public sector cuts from 2015/16 onwards, to be able to complete quality EHCPs within the timeframe;  Alleviate the need for mediation and progression to tribunal as far as possible through a more transparent and person centred process.

5 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

2.2 This research does not provide simple and straightforward solutions but it does suggest useful alternative approaches that may be worthy of further consideration regarding the implementation of the SEND Reforms within Hampshire County Council. They would all require further detailed analysis of financial and non-financial considerations. The options are as follows:

A). Maximising the information obtained pre request for statutory assessment, i.e. before the clock starts. This would be effected by working in partnership with schools representatives to capitalise on information already held on children and young people at a school level to develop a document that could be used by all schools and would represent the “school based plan” (or non statutory EHCP) of a child/young person. This would include the family and child/young person’s stories, progress towards agreed outcomes, evidence gained through assessments already undertaken and set out the services accessed under the Local Offer. This document would then represent the information sent in to the local authority by the school when a request for a statutory assessment was made and replace the current Appendix B. It would enable a much quicker decision (up to 5 weeks) as to whether it was appropriate to undertake a statutory assessment for each child/young person, and then enable requests for additional professional assessments to be made more rapidly after the request was received.

The role and ‘fit’ of the recently announced independent parental supporters that the Council for Disabled Children have been awarded to recruit and train will be key here.

There is no requirement for schools/colleges to provide information in this way in the present consultation draft Code of Practice so this would require consultation, engagement, co-operation and partnership working with schools to gain their sign up to this type of approach. Three of the nine authorities approached in the research have trialled and are progressing this for go-live from September 2014, which suggests this is a workable solution. This solution is also dependent on a robust Local Offer that contains all provider information and that is easy to access and search for parents/carers, children and young people. The direction of travel for the Hampshire Local Offer solution would fit this requirement, but is dependent on the success of effectively engaging all providers to populate the Offer.

This solution is complex and would take a lot of engagement and partnership working with schools to ensure it could be implemented successfully, but it is the option that is the most likely to lead to the process being able to be delivered within 20 weeks in a more personalised way

6 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

B). Examine the configuration, roles, responsibilities and skills required across the SEN service, including SEN Personal Advisors for post 16 and Specialist Teacher Advisors, to re-align the services for the requirements of the Code of Practice and ensure they represent effective modern services that meet the needs of users and the local authority. This should include examining the potential for co-ordination (section 8 refers) across services (for example including Educational Psychology), co-location and delegating decision making for lower risk cases where appropriate.

C). Consider establishing a 0-25 service within Children’s Services, who already hold the statutory responsibility for 0-18 year olds, to enable a co-ordinated service to be provided across the whole age range covered by the requirements of the Children and Families Bill. This would require a business case to define exactly what a 0-25 service would look like; including a full financial and non-financial analysis (section 5 refers).

D). Progress the IT developments to ensure the services can benefit as soon as possible from improved technology solutions accepting the limitations of the current financial climate (section 7 refers). 2.3 There may be some areas where it is felt that there are limitations under the legislation. However these need to be explored further and challenged to ensure that opportunities are not being missed. As such consideration should be given to bringing in a peer challenge/critical friend role late Spring/early Summer 2014 when developing final implementation approach after publication of final Code of Practice, Regulations and Act – County Councils B, E or F. 2.4 The proposed approach to the EHCP needs to change as it is not currently sustainable within existing and proposed resources to deliver an EHCP within the revised statutory time frame of 20 weeks. The solutions above could provide the mechanisms to enable this target to be realisable, however they need full exploration with a business case, including financial and non-financial considerations, and including the key success criteria applicable to each option.

7 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

3. Introduction 3.1 This business innovation research analysis was conducted at the request of the Hampshire SEND Pathfinder Project Executive, and Chair of the Pathfinder Change Board, to determine how other authorities were approaching the challenges of the SEND reforms, and where the current evolving Hampshire process could be challenged and developed further, particularly around integration. 3.2 The business innovation incorporated three aspects:

 Research in to nine other local authorities approaches to the SEND Pathfinder requirements

 Analysis of data and metrics to determine scope and scale of potential application

 IT developments to enable the process further. 3.3 The work was undertaken between August and December 2013 with the aim of reporting to the 29 January 2014 Hampshire SEND Pathfinder Change Board meeting.

Précis of the Hampshire SEND Pathfinder Programme position 3.4 The Hampshire Pathfinder has been operating since September 2011 in line with the expectations of the Department for Education’s (DfE) Special Educational Needs (SEN) reforms pathfinder programme. Hampshire forms part of the South East 7 Pathfinder made up of seven local authorities in the south east of England (East Sussex County Council (and SE7 Pathfinder lead authority), West Sussex County Council, Surrey County Council, Kent County Council, Hampshire County Council, Medway Unitary Authority and Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority). 3.5 The first phase of the programme up until March 2013 involved multi stakeholder buy-in and engagement and a structured programme of activity to test the proposals set out within the Green Paper from March 2011 “Support and Aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability”. The three key areas of development were:  Local Offer  Education, Health and Care Plans (replacing the current statement of SEN and Post-16 Learning Difficulty Assessment Section 139a)  Personal Budgets.

8 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

3.6 An extension to the first phase was announced with effect from April 2013 to run until March 2014. The extension period was for a further range of testing to implement proposals from the updated green paper. Hampshire had tested proposals for the Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP), particularly focusing on the person centred aspects and format and as such was not fit for implementation as it did not cover the end-to-end process. This had not been a requirement of phase one, but became necessary to enable a new approach to be implemented as part of the next phase of Pathfinder work. 3.7 A further programme of work was then introduced to develop, with key stakeholders, an end-to-end business process and subsequent format and guidance to enable a testing programme to be introduced from September 2013. 3.8 Whilst this has been achieved there were still some stakeholders at the April 2013 Change Board, particularly parent/carer representatives, that felt that the proposals could be more far reaching to achieve the principles of a person centred approach within a shortened 20 week timeline (from the current 26 week requirement for a statement of SEN). Parent/Carer representatives felt that other local authorities (from published material) had been more radical in their approaches. As a result this business innovation work was commissioned to explore how other Pathfinder authorities, particularly large County Councils, had approached the SEND reforms and the solutions they had developed.

4. Current operating context 4.1 To set this research in to context within Hampshire County Council it is necessary to explain the current operating environment, within the Council as a whole, the Special Educational Needs Service (SEN), children’s and adults social care and Health, alongside which any proposed options would need to be able to successfully fit. 4.2 Since 2010/11 Hampshire County Council has undergone a series of budget cuts to enable the authority to operate effectively within the significantly reduced public sector funding that the Government had imposed due to the prevailing economic climate. This has included sizeable staffing reductions, particularly in management posts, as well as operational delivery across the authority. 4.3 Significant restructuring and staffing changes with the National Health Service in Hampshire, as a key partner in SEND Reforms, resulting in resource constraints and staffing changes. 4.4 Whilst Hampshire County Council, amongst other cross-authority cuts, has focused on restructuring and realigning the back office support to minimise the front line impact, including the implementation of shared service solutions and centralised transaction processing functions in to an integrated business centre, other authorities have restructured in different ways. For example, one authority is in the process of undergoing a significant transformation programme for Adult and Children’s services including the implementation of a 0-25 service, and two others are both transforming in to commissioning authorities. This means that solutions are likely to be constrained within the specific preferences and operating principles and environment of each local authority.

9 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

4.5 Within the Hampshire County Council SEN Service the operating context is as follows:  In January 2013 the service had 4,825 children and young people with a statement of SEN maintained by the local authority.  The current structure of the SEN and SEN Personal Advisors for post 16 are shown at Appendix 1.  From September 2013 to December 2013 (the complete months data that is available in the 2013/14 academic year to date) within the SEN service there has been an equivalent 28% rise in the volume of requests for statutory assessment compared to the equivalent period in 2012.

Monthly change in new requests for statutory assessment 2012 to 2013 for the first 1/3 of the academic year Month 2012 2013 % change September 40 38 - 5% October 50 85 + 70% November 68 89 + 31% December 85 100 +18% 4 month total 243 312 + 28%

 Examining the annual trend data for the last five years of new requests for statutory assessments this shows that that whilst numbers reduced after 2008/09, since 2011/12 the numbers have been increasing year on year with +15.7% and +11% in the last two academic years, and it would appear that there will be at least an 11% increase in the current academic year with the forecast forward based on numbers of requests received between September and December 2013.  However, given the highest period for requests is January to March the trend seen in the first four months may continue and potentially result in an increase closer to 30%.

Annual change in numbers of new requests for statutory assessment over the last five academic years plus current

Academic Year Number of new % change from requests for statutory previous year assessment 2008/09 806 2009/10 684 - 15.1% 2010/11 658 - 3.8% 2011/12 761 + 15.7% 2012/13 845 + 11.0% 2013/14 to end Dec 312 (4 months)

10 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

2013/14 forecast 936 + 10.8% forward for the year (minimum increase) (based on 4 months data above)

4.6 It is likely that the cumulative effect of the following will impact on the ability to achieve a successful implementation of the SEN Reforms:

 Children’s services having to find £27m savings from 2015/16 financial year onwards.  Reduced staffing in SEN, Educational Psychology and social care to manage the new EHCP process and undertake person centred approaches.  The impact of cumulative increases of new requests for statutory assessments at + 11 to 15% per annum. However, for the current year this may be a conservative estimate as there has been a 28% increase in the first four months, traditionally the period with the lower level of requests, with the busiest period yet to be recorded during January to March 2014.  Electronic working using Hantsfile, but without an easy and effective mechanism for staff to work remotely and reliably in a paperless way (section 6 refers). 4.7 Alternative solutions to deliver the EHCP are therefore essential to enable it to be delivered in a shorter 20 week time frame successfully. Any proposals need to be set against the backdrop of lower staff morale due to budget cuts and colleagues leaving, the pressure of the paperless way of working and lack of current effective and efficient mobile working solutions, increasing requests for statutory assessment and a fundamental change in the process with the introduction of the Local Offer and EHCPs.

5. Research analysis and findings

Existing Pathfinder innovation and research from Mott MacDonald 5.1 Mott MacDonald were appointed by the DfE as the Support Partner for Pathfinders. They have collated some examples but they have undertaken limited overall comparison and contrast across large County Councils. They have produced information packs over the last few months but these do not compare a lot of authorities over similar subject areas, rather they pick out examples of what is seen as good or innovative practice. Most examples of real innovation rest within unitary authorities who also operate within a co-terminous boundary with the Health Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

11 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

5.2 The following is the link to the Information Packs that Mott MacDonald has produced. They are high level, but indicate the progress made by the showcasing authorities. http://www.sendpathfinder.co.uk/infopacks/ 5.3 A few examples, from Mott MacDonald, focused around joint commissioning are as follows:

Authority CCGs Area of focus Key features of models and structures Unitary 1 0-25 co-located, Multi-agency Team Around the Child with single Authority 1 multi-agency key worker from that team. Sits within a jointly planning pathway funded health and social care Team Co-ordinator (MAPP) team - responsible for managing MAPP and promoting multi-agency forum service development. Team is co-located within a with family Children’s Centre with a single point of entry for attendance. referrals. Strong strategic health support from CCG and Local Authority Children and Young Peoples Directorate with commissioning level support and jointly funded admin. Unitary 1 Integrated joint CCG and Council remain as two separate bodies Authority 2 commissioning but have a joint strategic management team. CCG senior pay 45% of Chief Executive. Chief Executive is also management Director of Adult Social Services. Separate model finances. Commissioning increasingly aligned with view to eventual integration. Many support and clinical functions work across health and social care. Unitary 1 Integrated joint Commissioning function jointly appointed by CCG Authority 3 commissioning and LA. Health Commissioning responsibility for function, education, health and social care rests with two co- championed by LA located managers who also have joint responsibility and CCG, leading for the Children and Young Peoples Plan which multi-agency team outlines strategy for children and young people with SEND. Budgets not pooled but are aligned and brought together by LA and CCG.

5.4 Whilst these could be classified as good practice they are models that can most easily be developed when there is a clear single CCG and one clear local authority partner. Within Hampshire, and indeed most County Councils, there are two tier local authority structures with District/Borough and County Council considerations. These sit alongside multiple CCGs often operating across local authority boundaries, and with highly devolved local health providers and an overall lack of co-terminosity. This makes a joint strategic commissioning model with shared senior management teams a more complex solution to consider, plan and implement. It would be dependent on strategic leadership and support from the outset across partner bodies at a political and officer level.

12 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

5.5 The only apparent County Council moving in this direction is County Council F who, similarly to the above examples, also have one clear co-terminous CCG partner. This does not make this kind of proposal impossible, but it would be complex and require clear political, strategic and operational support and co-operation to lead to a successful model of implementation.

Hampshire Other local authority reference site research 5.6 The purpose of this research was to undertake more detailed analysis across a range of large County Councils to get a deeper understanding of how other authorities had developed their approaches and why. The research was conducted with nine authorities who were acting as Pathfinder authorities over the period August 2013 up until November 2013. These were discussed and agreed with the Pathfinder Project Executive and Pathfinder Lead. The summary findings also include the Hampshire position. The authorities were:

5.7 The key reasoning behind the use of largely County Councils was to have authorities who were trying to compare their solutions within the similar issues of scale and lack of co-terminosity across key agency boundaries (health, adult and children’s social care and SEN) that Hampshire County Council was experiencing. In addition a number of authorities that are traditionally compared with Hampshire were included. 5.8 To set the local authorities in context the following chart displays the pupils with a statement of special education needs maintained by the Local Authority as a percentage of total pupils in that Local Authority as at January 2013, with the England average comparator. The values range from 1.87% to 3.73% set against the England average of 2.83%. Hampshire is 2.61%: 5.9 All authorities willingly participated. A schedule of 55 questions, covering the key aspects of the Pathfinder work, was compiled that was conducted via a telephone interview of approximately 1-1.5 hours per authority. The discussion was typed up and then emailed to the authority to check and agree the content. A single spreadsheet was then collated which brought together the telephone interview findings from all nine authorities, plus the equivalent Hampshire responses. This was distributed to the participating authorities 16 December 2013. It is 39 pages in A3 format. All authorities emailed a range of supporting documents in line with their responses; as such there is a vast range of information that has been collated.

5.10 Key highlights from the research are as follows:

13 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

5.11 There were a range of common features across the authorities:  The approach in all authorities is still evolving so their positions are highly likely to change between when the research was undertaken and the enactment of the Act from September 2014.  All authorities had developed a process map of their approach, in differing levels of detail.  All authorities cited a key success as being the engagement and involvement of parents throughout the Pathfinder programme and the positive relationships that had developed as a consequence.  All post 16 work is undertaken by ex Youth Support Service staff  No authority has defined what educational attainment and progression should or could look like post 18 years of age  There are two authorities that are developing and implementing an integrated 0-25 service for children and young people with additional SEND needs.  Beyond these two examples there has been no real development of integrated teams across Education, Health and Care, nor is there much appetite for the concept of pooled budgets. There are however, smaller scale joint working initiatives.  When asked what they would do differently they all categorically said they wished they had started with the development of the Local Offer, as this underpins the whole EHCP approach. It is apparent that the Hampshire LO is one of the most developed.  All authorities are appending assessments to the EHCP, and specifying provision separately for Education, Health and Care.  All authorities either have or are looking to reduce significantly or eliminate panels within the process.

Authority CCGs Innovation Hampshire 7 Four versions of “All About Me” used according to age, ability and aptitude. One specifically developed by KIDS. Local Offer framework developed, managed and hosted by Parent Voice, a VCS organisation. Hampshire is the only authority in SE7 to have LO supported in this way as all others on LA websites. Parental Journey research to inform Local Offer. County 3 Holistic assessment wheel building a meaningful relationship (not Council A necessarily positive) between the professionals and the family. “Step down” approach for those not entitled to an EHCP, with a team also trained in mediation working with the family and school to plan the child/young person’s future, which resulted in a significant drop in

14 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

Authority CCGs Innovation complaints during the trial. County 3 Family portal prototype. Very positive feedback from families, but Council B sustainability in to the future at risk due to cost of IT system and implementation in time of cuts. School based plan emphasising the Local Offer and maximising the information obtained at school level in a personalised way before the clock starts County 5.5 Lean EHCP with 3 age specific workbooks. Council C Individual Support Plan for all children with SEN emphasising the Local Offer and maximising the information obtained at school level in a personalised way before the clock starts Approach to mediation – philosophy from the outset. County 7 Equivalent of Individual Education Plan (IEP) being captured within the Council D EHCP which has developed more buy-in from SENCos. This is the school level action plan for the child, which is not included within the current consultation Code of Practice. County n/a VCS sector Independent Facilitator (IF) role working directly with Council E families from week 1 to week 10 writing draft EHCP. Job Description developed and emailed. Have a High Needs Funding Panel for applications where feel need additional support in school. Trying to move away from a statement = support with a long term aim to change the culture. Have undertaken lots of communications. Monitoring MAP of support provision in schools (fundamentally the LO). Approach to EHCP emphasising the Local Offer and that the EHCP is multi-agency. Single agency, education only, requests, unless eligible, are met through LO with a multi-agency plan (MAP) of support along with applications to High Needs Funding Panel as above. County 1 Whole service ethos within new seamless and accessible 0-25 SEND Council F service for those with additional needs that are not or cannot be met in mainstream or universal services. They have a conceptual model with key operating principles for this service. The two main functions are ‘early action/prevention’ and ‘on-going or complex support’. There is no distinction between statutory EHCP and non-statutory EHCP, as all children will end up with one or the other as they contain the same information. They maximise the information obtained at school level in a personalised way before the clock starts. County 2 Customer Journey mapping (only finalised at the end of 2013 and Council G awaiting approval to share). County 5 Personal budgets development and VCS involvement as support Council H planners. No structured approach or common format to EHCP. This is individual to each family. Unitary 1 Key working approach split over 2 roles – delivering the assessment Authority I process and professional group to deliver the EHCP. Developing a 0-25 children and young people’s development service with the aim to have a new integrated model of working across specialist education, health and care services to improve outcomes for

15 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

Authority CCGs Innovation children and young people with SEND.

16 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

5.12 One of the earliest questions in the Pathfinder work was “who is writing the EHCP”. For five authorities, including Hampshire this was the SEN and ex-YSS post 16 staff. However for five authorities a different approach has been taken as follows:

Authority Who is writing the EHCP? County Council E 40% Independent Facilitator (VCS) up to week 10, 60% SEN weeks 10 to 20 County Council F SEND Lead Worker (0-25 years) who come from a range of agencies, and with specialist input from SEN as required. They gather the information for the EHCP from the first meeting County Council H Lead practitioner involved with the family County Council B Part 1 of their 4 part EHCP process is where the family write their part of the EHCP moderated by the EHC case co-ordinator Unitary Authority I Assessment co-ordinator (from an education, health or care background)

5.13 One particular area where there appears to be a range of different approaches is where in the process the family story (“Our Story” within the Hampshire process, and the child/young person’s story (“My Story” in Hampshire) is collated. This is shown as follows.

Note: County Council A were developing the child and young persons view and where that was collated within the process and as such they had not finalised their position when the research was undertaken.

5.14 County Councils B, C and F have all developed school level EHC plans (they have called them different names) for all children with SEN. These represent the services available through the school based interventions, and all emphasise what is available within the Local Offer. They also include the family story and child or young person’s story. These three authorities are all operating an approach whereby the Local Offer is emphasised, and an EHCP is only available for the most complex needs. The school based interventions are collated in this single document in a more personalised way with the family. These documents also represent the non-statutory EHCP for these authorities and can be used by the Local Authority to very rapidly make the decision as to whether to proceed to a statutory assessment or not (the “Assess” part of the EHCP) far more quickly than the current 6 weeks in the Hampshire process.

17 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

5.15 From the research one other County Council (E) have a different approach, but still hold a lot more information in a consistent way at a school level – they have a multi- agency High Needs Block Funding Panel where applications for additional funding are taken to provide additional support in school. They also have their non-statutory EHCP which outlines needs, provision and support funded through the Local Offer for each child/young person. Entitlement to an EHCP is therefore education plus another agency due to the approach to additional high needs funding they have in place. They have worked closely with schools and also have agreed descriptors of schools responsibilities for meeting the needs of children/young people with SEN. Their Educational Entitlement Service monitors the school level non-statutory EHCP support plan in place. This is the contact point for parents who feel that their child/young person is not being supported effectively in school (along with their Parent Partnership Service). Their long-term aim is to change the culture – same support provided, just a different route. Their intention is to try to move away from the belief that support is tied up with money and a statement. 5.16 These all indicate that this is an area that could be examined further within Hampshire, and indeed was raised by staff in one of the process mapping workshops in Hampshire earlier in 2013 - that of gathering as much information as possible before the request for a statutory assessment is made, and the 20 week statutory process clock starts. This places a greater emphasis on school held information and evidence. 5.17 This requires working closely with schools and examining the information the school holds and collects from each family. There could be potential to adapt the current school level information from the Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each child (which has guidance from the local authority, but no standard format), the Inclusion Partnership Agreement (IPA – which does have standard forms and guidance), the Appendix B (school appendix for a request for a statutory assessment), Note-in-lieu (if not entitled to a statement of SEN) and the EHCP to use this to form the non- statutory EHCP held by each child. With three authorities operating in this way it suggests this has real potential. 5.18 This approach also places a heavy reliance on a really solid Local Offer with good quality, family orientated easy to access and search information. This is the essence of the approach to the Local Offer within Hampshire. The key is the active participation and engagement of all providers to ensure reliable and complete information is available. 5.19 The school based plan (or whatever title it could assume), and non-statutory EHCP, could be in place for all children with SEN and would then also be used as the basis for holding the actions arising from the EHCP, following a statutory assessment, and the core evidence base behind the Annual Review process.

18 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

5.20 There was a common theme of role and structure changes across seven of the authorities that participated in the research. These authorities have provided the material behind their role changes that could be used to inform further thinking on the approach in Hampshire. These are summarised in the table below. Authority Ways of working: ‘A’. Personalised approaches within the EHCP – who undertakes this role with the family? ‘B’. Are any specific workforce changes proposed? Hampshire A. For the trial this is the Educational Psychologists, but this is not sustainable for business as usual. This research, along with the CDC appointed independent supporters, will further inform this area. B. Likely need to examine the workforce, but not commenced and no clear direction as yet. County A. Planning Co-ordinators (0-16 years) which is a new role being developed Council A from within the existing SEN assessment team so diverting existing resources. Have 4 part time people in place covering 1/3 of the County for the trial. B. Examining restructure so can get to work within 20 weeks. Planning Co- ordinators, supported by case workers, a key more hands on function here and will come from an education, health and care background. Developing a 3-5 year plan. County A. Designated lead professional or family preference. Council B B. Considering a whole system change across assessment and planning. County A. Not finalised yet but likely < 16 years SENCO/school person; >16 years Council C SENPA. Youngest children Early Support key worker (additional support for those with most complex needs). B. Authority looking at what roles will be needed to support families with the most complex needs, such as the assessment co-ordinator. No further plans at this stage for any workforce changes. County A. Super Case Workers (from LDA officers) for the trial. Council D B. Have focused on developing functions rather than roles as yet. Process mapped between administration, more complex or something that requires authorisation. Council “Facing the Challenge” programme of cuts over three years will drive any changes in SEN – re-engineer within cash envelope. County A. Independent Facilitators (IF) from the VCS sector work with the family Council E from weeks 1 to 10. B. Restructuring SEN team work in progress, along with developing a sustainable IF role for September 2014 examining capacity, role and requirements. No new money so diverting existing resources. County A. Developing a single point of contact as the SEND Lead worker role (E, H Council F or C background) who will then pull together the relevant specialists for the team around the child. This role B. Developing a 0-25 service following a ‘proof or concept’ exercise. From September 2013 introducing six key new roles (cost neutral from large organisational restructure) within the SEND service of Senior SEND Lead Worker, SEND Lead, Worker, SEND Team Lead, SEND Locality Manager, SEN Inclusion Support Manager and a Head of SEND Service.

19 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

Authority Ways of working: ‘A’. Personalised approaches within the EHCP – who undertakes this role with the family? ‘B’. Are any specific workforce changes proposed? Change management and culture change are critical and challenging and take time. County A. Facilitator, i.e. key lead working closest with the family/child/young Council G person B. Inevitable there will need to be changes and are just commencing this piece of work. County A. Specialist Teacher Advisors/practitioners working with the family i.e. Council H portage etc. Same principles as support put in place to develop Support Plans for personal budgets B. Not specified but approaching EHCP work as business as usual. Unitary A. Assessment Co-ordinators allocated at panel dependent on age of child Authority I and primary need. Have 30 coming from a range of professional backgrounds covering 0-25 years. Will exist as part of their professional role i.e. portage, LD nurse etc. Single point of contact to work with the family through the process. B. Developing a 0-25 service as part of the authority’s Transformation Programme. At September 2013 they were determining who would be assessment co-ordinators and SEN administrators to sit alongside them to ensure meet statutory obligations. Have used part of Pathfinder grant to explore EP role and skills – good but expensive for assessment co- ordinator role.

Personalised approaches 5.21 The discussion around the principles of who undertakes the personalised work directly with families shows a range of solutions above. Historic work trialling the concept of key working has been on-going for many years in local authorities, but has not to date demonstrated a sound solution without a significant investment in staff resources to undertake it as a role. Key working approaches moves more to a way of working rather than a role. 5.22 The SE7 have produced a booklet on the role of Assessment and Planning Co- ordinators, as a personalised way of working, and this states that the requirements of the role as follows: “[the Assessment Co-ordinators] …will require a high level of knowledge and skills and also have important personal qualities. There will need to be a flexible and effective workforce development strategy to support these

20 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

important members of staff to undertake this role effectively. A high level of interpersonal skill and experience is needed for the important contact with families. A fundamental requirement is for the contact with the family to have been an equipping and enabling experience, with clarity about the time-limited nature of the contact and next step in the overall process. Assessment and Planning Coordinators will need to be supported by regular high quality supervision as they undertake this important role.’ 5.23 It is clear from this extract that the personalised pool of resources, wherever they are sourced from, will require quality assurance measures in place to maintain standards including regular supervision and training. The recruitment process will also need to carefully managed to identify suitable candidates and really discover those with the requisite interpersonal skills with a ‘can-do’ approach.

Council for Disabled Children pool of independent parental supporters 5.24 In January 2014 Edward Timpson, Department for Education, announced that they were awarding £30m to the Council for Disabled Children (CDC) to appoint a pool of approximately 1,800 independent supporters to work directly with families and for them to be in place for September 2014. The CDC website states that this will be used to recruit and train a pool of ‘independent supporters’ - champions drawn from independent voluntary, community and private organisations to help the families of children and young people with special educational needs (SEN) navigate through the new process. 5.25 This role would appear similar to that of the Independent Facilitator role trialed in Council E, who have worked with the VCS in this way. 5.26 Until it is clear the precise nature of the CDC independent parental supporters, their role, numbers and remit in terms of how they will work with the local authority and Parent Partnership Services, including the voluntary independent parental supporters recruited by Hampshire County Council, it is difficult to consider role or structural changes within the local authority. 5.27 The research provides useful information to inform thinking around roles and responsibilities with a lot of supporting material, including job/role descriptions.

6. Data and metrics

6.1 As at January 2013, the point at which the SEN2 data returns are taken, based on School Census data, Hampshire had the following numbers of children in SEN (figures and percentages from SEN2 published data): SEN type Number at % of total January 2013 pupils Total pupils in Hampshire 184,687 Pupils with statements for whom 4,825 Hampshire Council Council is

21 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

SEN type Number at % of total January 2013 pupils responsible (in Hampshire and in out of county schools) Pupils with statements in Hampshire 4,939 2.7% (based on where the pupil attends school) Pupils at School Action Plus 7,240 3.9% Pupils at School Action 17,460 9.5% Total SEN (statement, school action 31,775 17.2% plus and school action)

6.2

6.3 To set the local authority research in to context it was also necessary to determine the data, volumes and metrics across SEN, Children’s Social Care and Health. The diagram below sets out the data, volumes and metrics that were considered desirable. This commenced examining “B” as an area within the County Council Children’s Services where it was known that a good data set existed. Impulse, the SEN IT system, and SWIFT, the children’s social care IT system were mapped against each other to determine the matches of client between the two services. Similarly to try and understand the Health metrics a data request was issued to the contractors through the key Health contacts, however, rather disappointingly only one area has responded to date. 6.4 The diagram below sets out the desirable data sets across Education, Health and Social Care (Adults and Children’s) identified at the outset of the Pathfinder work. “A”, “C” and “D” have proven to be rather complex to compile due to the limited readily available data within the NHS. The needs to be set against the considerable structural and staffing changes that the NHS have been undergoing across the Country, and including within Hampshire, during the last eighteen months.

22 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

6.5 Focusing on the area “B” in the diagram above, the base data and cohorts of clients as at 17 January 2013 within the two IT systems of SEN (Impulse) and Children’s social care (SWIFT) was as follows: Total Total SEN Total pupils in School School Total pupils Children in statements Hampshire Action Plus: Action: in Hampshire Need where County Total pupils Total pupils County (CiN) Hampshire Council in Hampshire in Hampshire Council caseload County Council schools with County County schools with [in other is the an SEN Council Council SEN words responsible LA statement schools schools (statement, children’s (Hampshire school action schools and out of plus and school social action) care] county schools) 7,016 4,825 4,364 7,152 17,459 28,975

These were CiN with an open social care case and an open referral and included all Children’s Social Care teams – for simplicity they are referred to as CiN and this encompasses Looked After Children, Child Protection, Children with Disabilities (Disabled Children Team) and Care Leavers. 6.6 Further breakdown of the CiN cohort of 7,016 where the clients overlapped with SEN depicts the following:

SEN description of Number % Social Care of cases Statement of SEN 1,271 18.1% } School Action Plus 831 11.8% } 40.2% School Action 724 10.3% } Not SEN 2,068 29.5% } No matching Impulse 2,122 30.3% } 59.8% record for CiN client Grand total 7,016 100.0%

6.7 Based on the SEN2 data, of the pupils with a statement of SEN for whom Hampshire County Council is responsible (4,825 above) the proportion that also have a social care interaction (1,271 above) is 26.3%. 6.8 Of the CiN clients that have a statement of SEN (the 1,271 in the table above) the next piece of analysis was to determine whether the Children’s social care or SEN episode occurred first. This showed the following:

CiN episode or SEN statement first? Number % CiN episode first 972 76% SEN statement first 295 23% CiN/SEN start together 2 1% Unknown which came first 2 Total 1271 100%

23 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

6.9 Overall 20% of the total children with a statement of SEN for whom Hampshire is responsible the social care episode triggered first, before the need to progress a statutory assessment and statement of SEN. This represents one in five children with a statement of SEN. Note; this does not necessarily mean a ‘live’ social care case as children inherently move in and out of social care. 6.10 It is also worth noting that in a recent straw poll across the SEN teams to determine the number of SEN statements with live Children’s social care input this resulted in a negligible figure of less than 5%. Further work is being undertaken within Children’s social care to examine this to determine whether there is no response to SEN requests, or whether there is a genuine significant reduction in the CiN involvement in SEN cases. 6.11 Examining the children with a statement of SEN, school action plus or school action (per 6.6 above) within the children’s social care teams shows that the Disabled Children’s Team (DCT) hold 58% of the case load for children and young people with a statement of SEN, and overall with all children and young people with SEN they hold 29% of the caseload as follows:

SEN Level Description School Statement action School Type of SEN % plus % action % Total % Adoption 20 2% 34 4% 27 4% 81 3% Adult 35 3% 0 0% 0 0% 35 1% CiC 133 10% 201 24% 89 12% 423 15% CiN 110 9% 263 32% 287 40% 660 23% DCT 747 59% 45 5% 15 2% 807 29% Locality 20 2% 68 8% 55 8% 143 5% OT 98 8% 32 4% 13 2% 143 5% Other 22 2% 27 3% 44 6% 93 3% R&A 64 5% 120 14% 190 26% 374 13% Youth 21 2% 41 5% 4 1% 66 2% Unknown 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% Grand Total 1,271 100% 831 100% 724 100% 2,826 100%

6.12 Of the overlap with those clients with a statement of SEN (the 1,271) the following SEN type descriptors were most prevalent, accepting that 35% did not have an SEN type on Impulse:

SEN type descriptor % Moderate Learning Difficulty 27% Behavioural, emotional and social 19% difficulties Severe Learning Difficulties 19% Physical difficulties 10% Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulty 9% Autistic Spectrum Disorder 7%

24 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

SEN type descriptor % Speech, Language and Communications 5% Needs

Transition to Adult Services 6.13 Analysing the Adult Services transition data sheets for the past three years demonstrates the following rough but indicative levels of young people moving from Children’s Services to Adult Services. There is an assumption, based on experience, that around 10% wouldn’t have a funded package from social care. This is a considerable jump from the previous levels of around 53 young people with complex needs transitioning to Adult Services. When need was last examined it showed that of the numbers below approximately 48% had a primary need around autism or Aspergers.

Young people transitioning from Children’s Services in to Adult Services Financial year Transition number 2010/11 192 2011/12 163 2012/13 185

These figures are not directly comparable to the SEN volumes in paragraph 4.5 as they are on an academic year and the Adult Services figures are on a financial year. Crudely they represent around 4% transitioning in to Adult Services (taking 185 above as a proportion of 4,825 statement of SEN at January 2013). SEN and the capacity available to undertaken and manage EHCPs, Annual Reviews etc.. 6.14 In consultation with the Head of SEN and an Education Officer the following analysis was compiled. This depicts the assumed total capacity to deliver indirect and direct SEN case work. This shows that overall 21% of time is indirect, with 79% being direct work with and for clients. This is split by roles as shown in Appendix 2. Appendix 1 sets out the current SEN and SENPA structures. 6.15 Further work was then undertaken to analyse on what activities the 79% of time was split against by role. This was approached by asking the SEN and SENPA service to complete time recording sheets for four weeks during November 2013. These are still being analysed for quality assurance and completeness. This work will therefore be available to inform any next stage analysing roles and responsibilities across SEN, including SENPAs for the implementation of the SEN Reforms.

25 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

7. IT enablement potential

7.1 IT can operate as a key enabler in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of a service. As part of the work of reviewing how the process for the new EHCP could operate as efficiently as possible an IT Business Analyst within the County Council was commissioned to review a range of desirable IT developments and determine what could be achievable by when. The following areas for potential improvements were identified by the Pathfinder Lead:

1. Electronic document management interface with SEN case management recording.

2. Increased integration of Education and Social Care data and systems to support the introduction of the EHC assessment and plans. In particular, the interlinking of the Social Care new Single Assessment and Plans with SEND EHC assessments and plans.

3. Improved links between the Learning Difficulty Assessments under section 139A (currently recorded in CorePlus) and the SEN data to support introduction of the EHC assessment and plans.

4. Maintaining the interface and links between Children’s Services and Adult Services social care data to support the 0 – 25 year age group.

5. Consistent and integrated case chronologies between SEN and social care.

6. Establish better links with Health.

7. Improved data analysis and reporting to enable improved service planning based on future demand by area and service.

8. Support for more effective mobile working and improved access to data and electronic files.

9. Enable child, young person and parental self service to securely track the progress of an assessment and feedback into the process. This could lead to personalised budgets in the future. 7.2 One of the challenges of this piece of work was the timescale within which it had to be completed. Children’s Services have been in the process of procuring a new set of IT systems to support their future requirements. This procurement will impact all areas of Children’s services, and may possibly involve a change of IT software products in each of the separate disciplines. In the light of these changes it was necessary to evaluate the benefits of researching improvements within the existing IT systems against the alternative of waiting until the new set of software products have been selected to review the benefits.

26 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

7.3 The timescales for the Pathfinder project/implementation of the SEND Reforms, (with a trial from September 2013 and full implementation from September 2014) fall directly within the period of contract award and the migration period of moving the data from current to new IT systems which is anticipated to take up to a year. The new software may well have a significant impact on the options open for the implementation of the SEND Reforms. In addition, there is a very real risk that the pathfinder processes will evolve over the course of the forthcoming period up to September 2014. As such it would not be prudent to invest any time or money in to any significant IT development work until there is greater certainty on the SEN requirements and the position regarding the Children’s Services IT systems is finalised. 7.4 Each of the desirable areas of improvement have been considered against their potential for: a) an interim solution on the existing IT system that would add value, or b) if it would be prudent to wait for the implementation of the new IT solutions. Inevitably the areas that would produce the greatest benefit from more efficient and effective ways of working have the longest lead in times as they are the areas that need to wait for the new IT systems to be in place. 7.5 Areas where an interim solution on the existing IT system would add value:

Ref Feedback from IT Business Analyst 1 Electronic document management interface with SEN case management recording. Following the migration of SEN files on to Hantsfile with the move to paperless working the ability to peruse various documents at the same time to write the current statement of SEN or the EHCP from September 2014 would be enhanced through the ability to view documents side by side. The proposal here was for the supply of a second monitor for each desktop for those producing statements/EHCPs (£117 capital cost plus £30 annual charge per workstation). 6 Establish better links with Health through the development and implementation of a secure email facility for transferring confidential material. This is already being developed corporately for the transfer of data between partners. 7 Improved data analysis and reporting to enable improved service planning based on future demand by area and service. The area examined by the IT Business Analyst was relating to the speed of producing statements and transferring data from the main Educational Psychologist report to the statement/EHCP via the creation of a template for EPs to complete that utilises the same headings as the statement/EHCP to enable a much quicker transfer between the two reports. Currently there are a variety of formats and a wealth of information to search through from agencies that supply assessment information for a child/young person 8 Support for more effective mobile working and improved access to data and electronic files. Following the move to electronic paperless working a robust means of accessing the electronic files whilst at meetings at other locations (such as

27 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

homes and schools) is required. The provision of mobile winterms, also requiring “Passport” to access the Hampshire systems via the internet, has been trialled but there is no easy way of accessing electronic information routinely by SEN staff currently. The current practise is therefore printing out the hard copy of paper file information, using this and then discarding it after the information has been re-typed on to the system. This is not an efficient, nor a sustainable way of working and is likely to lead to a lot of dissatisfaction by staff

7.6 Area where it would be prudent to wait for the implementation of the new IT solutions:

Ref Feedback from the IT Business Analyst 2 Increased integration of Education and Social Care data and systems to support the introduction of the EHC assessment and plans. In particular, the interlinking of the Social Care new Single Assessment and Plans with SEND EHC assessments and plans 3 Improved links between the Learning Difficulty Assessments under section 139A (currently recorded in CorePlus) and the SEN data to support introduction of the EHC assessment and plans. It is however likely that as the s139a will no longer exist and the EHCP becomes standard that the need for a separate system will no longer be valid as all data for SEN up to 25 would be held on the same system. 4 Maintaining the interface and links between Children’s Services and Adult Services social care data to support the 0 – 25 year age group. This could be resolved if there was a desire to progress evaluation of a 0 to 25 service. 5 Consistent and integrated case chronologies between SEN and social care 9 Enable child, young person and parental self service to securely track the progress of an assessment and feedback into the process. This could lead to personalised budgets in the future

7.7 IT capability will continue to hinder staff within SEN operating effectively until a sound solution to efficient mobile working can be put in place. Until this time the EHCP is likely to be held up, and staff throughput affected, due to the inefficiencies of replicating electronically held information in hard copy format and double handing the input by hand writing and then typing up the input to the IT system later in the office. Tablet, hand held or small terminal devices in the field would be one method of resolving this issue with a suitable interface to the core system. However this would require a full business case with a cost benefit analysis undertaken, along with quantification and evidence of the inefficiencies present within the current approach, prior to any decision being made. This is accepting that investment in any IT solutions is not a given within the current financial environment of the local authority.

28 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

7.8 In summary whilst areas 1, 6, 7 and 8 could be developed and implemented now, these represent the extent of IT developments that could help the current implementation of the SEND Reforms. However, with a new IT system in place during 2014, and following the migration of data on to that system, there is an opportunity in the future, potentially from March 2015, to begin developing some of the harder areas that could provide the largest benefits. Solutions would be influenced by decisions around structure, roles and responsibilities, as these would include the need to further analyse and potentially amend the requirements for 3, 4 and 5 above. These would then be subsumed with any business case on future direction.

8. The potential for integration

8.1 A key consideration for this research was around the potential for integration across Education and/or Health and/or Social Care. It is important to start from a clear understanding of the term “integration” as there are different interpretations. “The journey towards integration needs to start from a focus on service users and from different agencies agreeing a shared vision for the future, rather than from structures and organisational solutions.” (Ham, 2009:9)

8.2 The Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services (IRISS) in Scotland produced an Insight study (Evidence summaries to support social services in Scotland) based on the key findings of a review conducted for Association of Directors of Social Work (Petch, 2011), which considered the evidence base for health and social care integration. Written by Alison Petch (IRISS). This described a continuum extending from relative autonomy to structural integration as shown below.

8.3 The characteristics for each of these categories, taken from the IRISS study, were:

29 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

Relative autonomy The local authority and NHS meet statutory requirements for formal partnership working, but most co-ordination is largely informal Co-ordination There is a reasonable level of formal commitment to joint working, with co-ordination around some areas of strategy and/or commissioning, depending on circumstances Joint appointments Health and the local authority have some key joint appointments and the teams collaborate but are not integrated/combined Enhanced partnerships A system-wide commitment, shared vision and integration across most strategic and commissioning functions, senior and middle-tier joint appointments, formal high-level backing, but separate entities remain Structural integration Health and local authority care services have formed a single integrated legal entity with pooled budgets (a care trust in England) or a combined service (joint PCT and social care department in England).

8.4 This survey also asked respondents to identify the factors that they considered had helped or hindered integrated working locally. The findings are important. The top five factors enhancing integrated working were all local and within the control of the partnership organisations: • Friendly relationships • Leadership • Commitment from the top • Joint strategy • Joint vision.

8.5 Conversely, all those seen to hinder integrated working were external, the majority nationally determined:  Performance regimes  Financial pressures  Organisational complexity  Changing leadership; and  Financial complexity.

8.6 The above research extracts help to contextualise the consideration as to whether or what type of integration could be considered within Hampshire.

The Hampshire research findings 8.7 As such it is critical to be clear what is meant when the term integration is used. For Hampshire it is probably more towards the co-ordination of services than full integration at this stage.

30 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

8.8 The research undertaken asked the authorities whether they were developing any integrated or co-located teams. The responses suggested that other than the 0-25 services being developed in Council F and Council I, which include, or are working towards including, social care, health and education, there are only small scale examples of integration in existence. 8.9 When analysing in more depth it is important to understand when the term integrated is used how closely teams actually work together for service users, or if they remain within the same management structure but still essentially operate in silos. 8.10 Within Hampshire Adult Services there has been an evolving joint commissioning model in the north of the County since 2012 between the North Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group and Hampshire Adult Services focusing on the Older Persons services. The aim is to develop an integrated care team. It is presently too early to draw any firm conclusions. 8.11 The ex-Youth Support Service workers involved in producing the section 139a Learning Difficulty Assessments have been moved to within the same management structure as the SEN service from April 2013. This supports more co-ordinated working across the 3-25 year age range for the EHCP. Other services remain separate. 8.12 The consideration as to whether teams within Hampshire Children’s Services should be co-located, and for how much of the week as this need not be a full time solution, is drawn from the question of what the overlap of the client base is across social care and SEN, and with other closely associated services such as Educational Psychology. 8.13 The data and metrics suggest at January 2013 there was a 26% overlap between those with a statement of SEN and children’s social care, and that one in five of those clients had an open or ongoing social care case. However, until the work is completed to explain why there is currently less than 5% of SEN cases with any live children’s social care input the case for co-locating or more close working between these teams is not substantiated. Consideration then moves to the SEN interlinking services including Specialist Teacher Advisors, Educational Psychologists etc.. 8.14 It has not been possible to obtain more detailed information on Health structures or metrics, although requests were made to providers. Additionally, Health are still in the process of embedding new teams and working arrangements as a result of their recent large scale re-organisation. 8.15 The value of establishing a seamless 0 to 25 service in Children’s Services, who retain the statutory responsibility for children aged 0 to 18) for children and young people with additional needs is worthy of more detailed consideration (section 5.20 refers). This could support a clearer pathway through the whole EHCP lifetime. However, it would need a full business case to establish who the service would support, what services it would include, what it would look like, how it would operate (including how the revised transition point of 25 could then work with Adult Services), financial and non-financial considerations.

31 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

8.16 The key consideration goes back to the Ham 2009 quote above - the focus must be on service users, their outcomes and a shared vision from the agencies involved i.e. the changes must be of benefit for the client and their seamless access to services. Solutions need not be for full time integration, but can centre around co-ordinating services and co-locating for say one day per week. However, a clear shared vision is the underlying requirement to ensure that solutions will improve service delivery and deliver the right outcomes for service users.

9. Options for implementing the SEN Reforms in Hampshire

9.1 The research has highlighted some useful and interesting work across the range of authorities that participated. The key requirements envisaged to enable a successful implementation of the SEN Reforms from September 2014 are:  Deliver a seamless 0 to 25 EHCP journey;  Complete EHCPs within the revised statutory 20 week time frame;  Ensure the process is more personalised working more closely with families, particularly children and young people directly;  Mitigate the increasing volume of requests for statutory assessment to enable the reduced workforce, as a result of the public sector cuts from 2015/16 onwards, to be able to complete quality EHCPs within the timeframe;  Alleviate the need for mediation and progression to tribunal as far as possible through a more transparent and person centred process. 9.2 The potential solutions that could help enable these requirements have been identified from the research as follows:

32 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

A.) Maximising the information obtained pre request for statutory assessment, so before the clock starts. This would be effected by working in partnership with schools representatives to capitalise on information already held on children and young people at a school level to develop a document that could be used by all schools and would represent the “school based plan” (or non statutory EHCP) of a child/young person. This would include the family and child/young person’s stories, progress towards agreed outcomes, evidence gained through assessments already undertaken and set out the services accessed under the Local Offer. This document would then represent the information sent in to the local authority by the school when a request for a statutory assessment was made and replace the current Appendix B. It would enable a much quicker decision (up to 5 weeks) as to whether it was appropriate to undertake a statutory assessment for each child/young person, and then enable requests for additional professional assessments to be made more rapidly after the request was received.

The role of the recently announced independent parental supporters that the Council for Disabled Children have been awarded to recruit and train will be key here. There is no requirement for schools/colleges to provide information in this way in the present consultation draft Code of Practice so this would require consultation, engagement, co- operation and partnership working with schools to gain their sign up to this type of approach. Three of the nine authorities approached in the research have trialled and are progressing this for go-live from September 2014, which suggests this is a workable solution. This solution is also dependent on a robust Local Offer that contains all provider information and that is easy to access and search for parents/carers, children and young people. The direction of travel for the Hampshire Local Offer solution would fit this requirement, but is dependent on the success of effectively engaging all providers to populate the Offer. This solution is complex and would take a lot of engagement and partnership working with schools to ensure it could be implemented successfully, but it is the option that is the most likely to lead to the process being able to be delivered within 20 weeks in a more personalised way.

33 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 ANONYMISED

B). Consider establishing a 0-25 service within Children’s Services, who already hold the statutory responsibility for 0-18 year olds, to enable a co-ordinated and seamless service to be provided across the whole age range covered by the requirements of the Children and Families Bill. This would require a business case to define exactly who the service would support, what services it would include, what it would look like, how it would operate (including how the revised transition point of 25 could then work with Adult Services), financial and non- financial considerations (paragraphs 5.20 and 8.15 refer).

C). Examine the configuration, roles, responsibilities and skills required across the SEN service, including SEN Personal Advisors for post 16 and Specialist Teacher Advisors, to re-align the services for the requirements of the Code of Practice and ensure they represent effective modern services that meet the needs of users and the local authority. This should include examining the potential for co-ordination (section 8 refers) across services (for example including Educational Psychology), co-location and delegating decision making for lower risk cases where appropriate and links in with the budget cuts within the service required for the 2015/16 financial year.

D). Progress the IT developments to ensure the services can benefit as soon as possible from improved technology solutions (section 7 refers).

E). Utilise a peer challenge/critical friend role in late Spring/early Summer 2014 when developing final implementation model to help ensure a workable solution can be put in place. Authorities to consider would be Councils B, E or F.

34 | P a g e Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 Appendix 1 Current SEN and SENPA post 16 structure charts Special Educational Needs (SEN) Service 1st Floor, ElI Court North, The Castle, Winchester, SO23 8UG

35 Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 Appendix 1 Current SEN and SENPA post 16 structure charts SEN Post 16

County Service Manager for SEN and STAs 1 FTE

Education Officer (SEN) Education Officer (SEN) Education Officer (SEN) Post 14 Learning Officer SEN Area 1 & 2 SEN Area 3 & 4 SEN Area 5 & 6 1 FTE 1 FTE 1 FTE 1 FTE

SEN Post 16 Team Leader SEN Post 16 Team Leader SEN Post 16 Team Leader SEN Policy Support Officer 1 FTE 1 FTE 1 FTE (Post 16) 1 FTE

SEN Personal Advisers SEN Personal Advisers SEN Personal Advisers (SENPAs) (SENPAs) (SENPAs) 3.2 FTE 3.4 FTE 4.2 FTE Out of County Out of County Out of County 1 FTE 1 FTE 1 FTE

Total days in the year per person Less Weekends

36 Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 Appendix 1 Current SEN and SENPA post 16 structure charts

Bank holidays

Total available days in the year Total SEN days available per annum Based on 32.1 FTE

Role T o t AE a O PSNO CWS l FTE 3 3 6 7 2

Indirect case work time (days per person per annum) Annual Leave 28 28 25 Sickness (standard assumption) 5 5 5 Management time 0 3 2 1:1 supervision 3 6 2 Training days 5 5 5 Agreed place number visits (EOs) 0 0 0 Team meetings 0 5 3 Administration 6 6 6 Total indirect case work time per FTE 23 18 34% 47 58 % 46 % 20% Per role (total FTE per role) 1 , 7 1 141 345 322 7 21%

Direct case work time available per FTE 66% 206 196 77 207 82 80%

37 Hampshire SEND Pathfinder: Business Innovation Research Findings January 2014 Appendix 1 Current SEN and SENPA post 16 structure charts

% % Per role 6 , 4 0 618 1,173 1,449 4 79%

Total time available check 8 , 1 2 253 253 253 1

38