← Back to SEND

SEND: evidence and policy appraisals

Detailed research records, alternatives, costs and provisional assessments. These records preserve different scopes and historical reviews; they are not an additional ranked action plan.

Evidence → choices → outcomes

What could improve it?

Children with special educational needs in England get suitable support on time, with their rights maintained.

These options link to their national assessment, including funding, delivery constraints and remaining uncertainties.

  • Assessed option · provisional

    Give children special-needs support on time

    7/10 criteria scored

    Coverage of the appraisal, not an impact score.

    Delivery: Red

    Whole-life costs incomplete

    Evidence and delivery constraints

    Audits establish delays and capacity problems; no remedy is defined sufficiently for an effectiveness claim.

    Define specialist and mainstream support; protect entitlements; plan staff pipeline and commissioning; track delivered provision.

    Wellbeing listEvidence and assessment

  • Assessed option · provisional

    Close the early-language support gap

    Reach eligible children with evidence-based language support.

    9/10 criteria scored

    Coverage of the appraisal, not an impact score.

    Delivery: Amber

    Whole-life costs incomplete

    Evidence and delivery constraints

    EEF effectiveness trial supports language outcomes; the transfer to a gap-closing delivery programme and persistence of effects need checking. Programme availability alone is not a verified access gap.

    Audit reach, eligibility and delivery fidelity; cost trained staff, release time, screening, materials and follow-up. Protect SEND provision. Measure language outcomes and access. Proposed owners: schools, education bodies and councils as appropriate.

    Equality and opportunity listEvidence and assessment

This domain in the UK SWOT →UK National Action Plan →

How we assessed these options

What would it take to improve this?

Detailed policy appraisal

The outcome we want: Children with special educational needs in England get suitable support on time, with their rights maintained.

The main constraint: Assessments and therapies depend on specialists who take years to train, council high-needs budgets are in deficit, and no national data show whether the support in plans is delivered — so DfE, councils and the NHS cannot see whether more money buys more support.

Constraint type: workforce, money, evidence.

The options on the table

What is funded now, and the changes assessed against it — the current baseline and the alternatives, before the position today and the actions.

Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.

  • Give children special-needs support on timeDelivery risk: Red

    Funded now
    Not yet stated in the record.
    The change assessed
    Not yet defined.

    Range if completed: 9.0–18.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

  • Make council and SEND funding risks explicit before promises expandDelivery risk: Amber

    Funded now
    Not yet stated in the record.
    The change assessed
    Build a service-duty, demand, reserves and workforce baseline for exposed councils; appraise settlement choices explicitly.

    Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

Assessed with another page as home

These options also bear on this topic. The full assessment sits on the home page named under each.

  • Close the early-language support gapDelivery risk: Amber

    Home: Education.

    Funded now
    DfE funds NELI free for every state-funded school with a reception class, confirmed to academic year 2028–29 subject to spending rounds (reception improvement offer, updated July 2026); The proposal is protected teaching-assistant time to deliver all 20 weeks — not a replacement for statutory SEND assessment.
    The change assessed
    Deliver the evaluated Reception NELI model to eligible children currently missing suitable support, with protected trained-staff time.

    Range if completed: 20.0–23.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

Alternatives already on record: 20 options listed under the points in the position today (11 without an action record), and 3 earlier options under other options compared. They have not been scored in the review.

The position today

  • What we can build on (2)
  • What is holding us back (8)718,838 children and young people held a plan in January 2026, 2.99 times the 240,183 in January 2015; in schools the share of pupils rose from 2.8% to 6.0%. Part of the rise reflects a wider legal category (plans run to age 25) and identification, not only need. (January 2015 to January 2026 · England)
  • What could improve things (1)Building mainstream support for common needs and specialist capacity together could shorten waits without weakening entitlements.
  • What could make it worse (1)

Which quadrant a point sits in is our analytical judgement, not a statistical category. Each point says whether it is a measured fact, our synthesis or a risk.

What we can build on Strengths

  • 718,838 children and young people hold an education, health and care plan, a legal entitlement to the provision it sets out.

    Measured factConfidence: High· January 2026· England

    Source: Department for Education, Education, health and care plans, reporting year 2026 (Data files: EHC plans (caseload))

    Options assessed against this point: Give children special-needs support on time (Red delivery RAG)

    What government has committed to

    Policy: Under the schools white paper and SEND consultation, education, health and care plans will be retained with a legal entitlement based on a specialist provision package; no child with a current plan will move to the new system until the end of their phase and not before September 2030; every child with a special school place in September 2029 can keep it; the SEND Tribunal remains for key decisions. These are proposals requiring legislation.

    Who and when:
    Starmer government (to July 2026), 23 February 2026.
    Since 20 July 2026:
    Kept by the Burnham government. Re-stated in DfE written answers under Burnham (8 Sep, 21 Aug, 21 Sep 2026). DfE says it will respond to the consultation 'in due course' and 'bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity'; no government SEND bill was listed in session 40 as of 4 Oct 2026. Source: UK Parliament (written questions API; DfE answer), Written question 19783: Special Educational Needs ('EHC plans will continue to provide statutory entitlements ... No child with a current EHC plan will transition until the end of their phase of education, and not before September 2030.').
    Source:
    DfE, Radical expansion in rights for children with SEND (Bullets: EHCPs retained; special school place in 2029 kept; transition only from 2030; £200m training, £1.6bn inclusion grant, £3.7bn for over 60,000 places, £1.8bn Experts at Hand)

    Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.

    Options (2)

  • Evaluated early-language support exists: three months’ extra language progress for reception children with the weakest language.

    Measured factConfidence: High· 2018–19 trial· England

    Source: Education Endowment Foundation / RAND / University of Oxford, Nuffield Early Language Intervention (re-grant): evaluation report (2020) and addendum (2023) (Report Table 1)

    Options assessed against this point: Close the early-language support gap (Amber delivery RAG)

    What government has committed to

    Funding: NELI is funded free for every state-funded school with a reception class until academic year 2028 to 2029, subject to spending rounds.

    Who and when:
    Starmer government (to July 2026), 6 July 2026.
    Since 20 July 2026:
    Not confirmed either way since the change of Prime Minister on 20 July 2026. No Burnham-era statement on NELI found; Burnham-era SEND teacher training (25 Sep 2026) and the Inclusive Mainstream Fund guidance (updated 7 Aug 2026) point schools to 'proven programmes' and the EEF Promising Programmes list.
    Source:
    DfE, Reception improvement offer (Section 'Speech and language development through NELI': 'funding is confirmed until academic year 2028 to 2029, subject to future spending rounds')

    Checked 4 October 2026. A commitment is not delivery.

    Options (2)

    • ShortlistedDeliver early language support in reception as a complement to assessment

      Screening and NELI meet common language needs in ordinary classrooms without delaying statutory assessment.

      Who: Schools; DfE · Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation · Status: Established · Works through Education: Screening and NELI meet common language needs in ordinary classrooms without delaying statutory assessment.

      Source: DfE, Reception improvement offer (Section 'Speech and language development through NELI': 'funding is confirmed until academic year 2028 to 2029, subject to future spending rounds')

    • Fund proven programmes from the Inclusive Mainstream Fund

      The £1.6bn fund (from 2026-27) pays for small-group speech and language support in mainstream settings.

      Who: DfE; schools, colleges, early years settings · Evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation · Status: Funded programme

      Source: UK Parliament (written questions API; DfE answer), Written question 28974: Special Educational Needs: Finance (Experts at Hand £1.8bn grant over three SR years; £1.6bn Inclusive Mainstream Fund; local SEND inclusion formula consultation; 'further rebalancing of funding from the high needs budget into schools' budgets')

What is holding us back Weaknesses

What could improve things Opportunities

What could make it worse Threats

The actions worth examining

Our shortlist for this page. Research quality, policy status, cost and funding are judged separately; none of these is government policy unless its status says so.Our shortlist. None is government policy unless its status says so.

  1. Fund SEND capacity and track provision actually delivered — not yet costed / funding not identified
  2. Close the early-language support gap — programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed

  • Action 1A12Policy status: announced proposal

    Fund SEND capacity and track provision actually delivered

    Plan and fund educational psychologists, therapists and training places against statutory duties, and publish whether support in plans is actually delivered alongside timeliness.

    The thread: issue, evidence, action

    1. Issue Weakness: 46.1% of new plans were issued within the 20-week legal limit, against 60.4% in 2019. Also: weakness, weakness, threat, opportunity, strength
    2. Evidence New EHC plans issued within 20 weeks; Support in plans actually delivered
    3. Action A12, this action

    Assessment (draft, 6 October review)

    Who decides:
    DfE, DHSC and NHS commissioners, councils, schools and colleges (England)
    Evidence:
    Expert or audit recommendation. System diagnosis from audit and fiscal analysis; the reform package itself is unevaluated.
    Expected effect:
    Direction plausible; size not established.
    Cost and funding

    Not yet costed

    Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified

    Why it is shortlisted here: The page’s central gap: specialist capacity and a measure of support actually delivered.

    What it takes
    The problem

    Assessments wait for scarce specialists, high-needs budgets are in deficit, and no national data show whether the support in plans is delivered.

    Who is affected, and where

    Children and young people with special educational needs in England, with or without a plan. Territory: England. SEND law differs in Scotland (additional support for learning), Wales (ALN) and Northern Ireland.

    Policy status

    Announced by government, not yet in place. The February 2026 schools white paper announced specialist workforce and capacity funding; the reforms and any change to entitlements need legislation not yet introduced. A national measure of provision delivered does not exist.

    The evidence
    What the research found:
    High-needs spending rose 66% in real terms from £7.5bn (2016) to at least £12bn (2025); EHC plans rose from 2.7% to 5.2% of under-16s; deficits were forecast around £8bn.
    Evaluated on:
    England’s SEND system; England, 2016–2025
    Our recommendation (separate from the research):
    Publish support delivered, outcomes and family experience alongside timeliness, and cost specialist capacity separately from legacy deficits.
    Strongest counter-evidence:
    More money has not on its own improved outcomes; restricting access to plans could cut recorded demand without improving children’s lives.
    Cost and funding

    Cost completeness: Not yet costed. Funding: Not yet costed / funding not identified.

    • Educational psychologists, therapists, training places and recurrent support (recurring spending; paid by central government, councils, NHS): Not yet costed. Must be costed separately from legacy high-needs deficits. Announced national sums are shown in the earlier options on this page with their own status.
    Who pays:
    Central government through high-needs and health allocations; councils; the NHS for therapies.
    Financing proposed:
    Match named high-needs and health allocations to duties and cash timing; accounting relief on deficits is not service funding.
    Gap remaining:
    Unknown: specialist capacity has not been costed against duties.
    What delivery needs
    Skills:
    Educational psychologists (three-year training) and therapists.
    Operational capacity:
    Training places and supervisors.
    Infrastructure:
    Specialist places.
    Permissions:
    Commissioning across councils and NHS.
    Law:
    Existing duties; any change to entitlements needs legislation.
    Public consent:
    Families’ confidence in support without a plan.
    First step and stages

    First step: Audit provision gaps and specialist capacity with families, then publish a costed recruitment and delivery plan. (owner: DfE with councils and NHS commissioners)

    1. Meet existing duties now — Councils and schools (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
    2. Train and recruit specialists — DfE, universities, NHS (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
    3. Publish support delivered each year — DfE (proposed stage, not an official timetable)

    Depends on: A11 for early language needs; Workforce training pipeline

    Trade-offs
    Who gains and who loses:
    Gains for children waiting for support; councils carry deficits; other services compete for the same money.
    What else the money or effort could do:
    High-needs money spent here is not available for other education or council services.
    Strongest counterargument:
    Recruiting specialists from schools or private practice moves capacity rather than adding it.
    Risks:
    Fewer plans or appeals presented as success while unmet need rises.
    How we would judge it
    Baseline:
    Share of new EHC plans issued within 20 weeks (DfE).
    Leading indicator:
    Educational psychologist and therapist FTE; assessment-stage times.
    Outcome:
    Support hours delivered, attainment and attendance of pupils with SEN, complaints and family feedback.
    Continue, adapt or stop:
    Continue where delivery and outcomes improve; review where timeliness improves only because access is restricted.
    Earlier option on this page

    This card replaces the option “More educational psychologists and therapists” (announced: £1.8bn “Experts at Hand” programme announced February 2026.). Its evidence: Local authority educational psychologists rose from 1,724 FTE (2010/11) to 2,332 (2025/26). There is no national evaluation linking specialist numbers to timeliness or outcomes; the link is a plausible mechanism. DfE, Education, health and care plans, reporting year 2026 · DfE, Radical expansion in rights for children with SEND (23 February 2026)

    Sources

    Source published September and October 2025 (IFS); evidence reviewed 2026-10-04. Reconsider if: SEND legislation is introduced; DfE publishes a measure of provision delivered; The statutory override on deficits changes.

  • Action 2A11Policy status: established

    Close the early-language support gap

    Trained teaching assistants deliver a tested 20-week language programme to reception children with the weakest language, with protected time.

    The thread: issue, evidence, action

    1. Issue Opportunity: Building mainstream support for common needs and specialist capacity together could shorten waits without weakening entitlements. Also: strength
    2. Evidence New EHC plans issued within 20 weeks
    3. Action A11, this action

    Assessment (draft, 6 October review)

    Who decides:
    Schools and trusts, with councils and DfE (England)
    Evidence:
    Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation. A large randomised trial with the highest evidence security; the measured outcome is language, not SEND demand.
    Expected effect:
    +3 months (effect size 0.26): oral language of reception pupils with the weakest language (193 schools in England). A language outcome; not evidence of fewer EHC plans or lower SEND demand. The 2023 follow-up lost 55.5% of pupils.
    Cost and funding

    Not yet costed

    Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed

    Why it is shortlisted here: Meets common language needs early in ordinary classrooms, with the strongest trial evidence — as a complement to, not a substitute for, assessment.

    Builds on the option Earlier, evidence-based support in mainstream schools compared below.

    What it takes
    The problem

    Children who start school with weak language fall behind in reading and learning, and some wait a long time for specialist help.

    Who is affected, and where

    Reception-age children with weak oral language in England. Territory: England. The trial was in England; devolved nations would need their own decisions.

    Policy status

    Already in place. DfE funds NELI free for every state-funded school with a reception class, confirmed to academic year 2028–29 subject to spending rounds (reception improvement offer, updated July 2026); The proposal is protected teaching-assistant time to deliver all 20 weeks — not a replacement for statutory SEND assessment.

    The evidence
    What the research found:
    Three months’ additional language progress (effect size 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.35). A 2023 follow-up found about two months on early reading but lost 55.5% of pupils.
    Evaluated on:
    1,156 reception pupils with the lowest language scores in 193 schools; England, 2018–19
    Our recommendation (separate from the research):
    Fund the teaching-assistant time needed to deliver it well, and keep referral routes open for children who need specialist help.
    Strongest counter-evidence:
    Staff felt it worked less well for pupils with SEN; there is no evidence it reduces EHC plans or overall SEND demand.
    Effects on record
    • Oral language of reception pupils with the weakest language: +3 months (effect size 0.26) (randomised control schools; 2018–19 school year; effect size 95% CI 0.17 to 0.35; 5 of 5 padlocks). evaluated, high confidence; 193 schools in England. A language outcome; not evidence of fewer EHC plans or lower SEND demand. The 2023 follow-up lost 55.5% of pupils.
    Cost and funding

    Cost completeness: Historical price only; current cost and staffing to establish. Funding: Programme funding exists; project allocation unconfirmed.

    • NELI materials and training (recurring spending; paid by central government): Not yet costed. Trial price: £870 per one-form-entry school (£58 per child a year over three years), covering materials and training only. Current prices must be checked with the provider.
    • Teaching-assistant delivery time, cover and supervision (recurring spending; paid by central government): Not yet costed. Existing staff time is not free: it is taken from other work.
    • DfE-funded NELI offer to every state school with a reception class: amount not established — not committed (programme envelope, not a project award). No amount is published on the page read. Teaching-assistant time (C-A11-STAFF) is not covered.
    Who pays:
    Schools, from core or inclusion budgets.
    Financing proposed:
    A named school or inclusion allocation; an announced national grant does not confirm local staff time is covered.
    Gap remaining:
    Unknown: current prices and staff time are not costed.
    What delivery needs
    Skills:
    Trained teaching assistants.
    Operational capacity:
    Protected delivery time over about 20 weeks.
    Infrastructure:
    None.
    Permissions:
    None.
    Law:
    None.
    Public consent:
    Family involvement.
    First step and stages

    First step: Assess language needs and confirm staffing before choosing the programme. (owner: Schools)

    1. Screen language in reception — Schools (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
    2. Deliver the 20-week programme — Schools (proposed stage, not an official timetable)
    3. Assess and refer children who need more — Schools and SENCOs (proposed stage, not an official timetable)

    Depends on: Teaching-assistant capacity

    Trade-offs
    Who gains and who loses:
    Gains for children with weak language, often disadvantaged; staff time taken from other work.
    What else the money or effort could do:
    Teaching-assistant hours spent here are not spent on other support.
    Strongest counterargument:
    A generic programme cannot substitute for individual specialist provision.
    Risks:
    Screening that delays statutory assessment; diluted delivery without protected time.
    How we would judge it
    Baseline:
    Reception language scores at screening.
    Leading indicator:
    Programme completion at fidelity.
    Outcome:
    Language progress and later reading, including outcomes for children with greater needs.
    Continue, adapt or stop:
    Continue where progress matches the trial; review where it does not.
    Sources

    Source published May 2020 (trial); March 2023 (follow-up); evidence reviewed 2026-10-04. Reconsider if: A new evaluation of NELI at scale; Changes to SEND legislation.

    Also on: Education — one shared record, so its cost is counted once.

How the options are assessed

One shared record per option — the same one the national plan reads. Delivery risk, gate and list membership are separate judgements.

  • Give children special-needs support on time — Red delivery RAG; gate pending
  • Make council and SEND funding risks explicit before promises expand — Amber delivery RAG; gate pending

Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.

  • A12v2Delivery risk: RedGate: pending

    Give children special-needs support on time

    A new scope of action A12 (A12v2); A12 itself is unchanged and nothing is inherited from it.

    Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

    Who and where
    Population not yet defined. Jurisdiction: England.
    Result so far
    Range if completed: 9.0–18.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
    Funded now (baseline)
    Funded baseline not yet stated
    The change assessed (marginal)
    Marginal change not yet defined
    What the evidence supports—and the next decision

    Reducing a council deficit is not the same as meeting a child’s needs. Announced SEND funding and proposed reform belong in the baseline with their status.

    AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

    Define the change
    Specify a cohort and additional mainstream or specialist support, retaining entitlements while comparing suitable provision.
    Test whether it works
    Attendance, attainment, wellbeing, timely support and family experience; track exclusions, appeals and children without suitable education.
    Establish the cost
    Specialists, training, transport, placements, capital and recurring support. Separate accumulated accounting deficits from future resource costs.
    Protect against harm
    No saving is accepted if it comes from unmet need or lost lawful access; assess distribution by need and place.

    Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

    Full assessment of Give children special-needs support on time: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring
    The ten criteria (0–3)

    Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

    1. Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

      Reviewer’s reason: Provisional problem-importance judgement from linked site pages; not the scale of achievable benefit.

    2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)Not yet assessed

      Reviewer’s reason: Define specialist and mainstream support; protect entitlements; plan staff pipeline and commissioning; track delivered provision. A missing rating requires a defined marginal change.

    3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)0 of 3 — No effect evaluation

      Reviewer’s reason: Audits establish delays and capacity problems; no remedy is defined sufficiently for an effectiveness claim.

    4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed

      Reviewer’s reason: Unknown unless a reasonably defined target-population benefit can be judged; no bonus merely for spanning domains.

    5. Residual harms (Hm)1 of 3 — Material harm/unresolved mitigation

      Reviewer’s reason: Rights and rationing risks; specialists unavailable at required scale.

    6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

      Reviewer’s reason: Specialists, training, placements, transport, capital and recurring provision; separate historic deficits from future costs.

    7. Delivery capacity (Ca)0 of 3 — Unavailable within scope

      Reviewer’s reason: Define specialist and mainstream support; protect entitlements; plan staff pipeline and commissioning; track delivered provision.

    8. Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

      Reviewer’s reason: Provisional distribution judgement for the stated target; verify who pays, who gains and excluded groups.

    9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)1 of 3 — More than three but less than ten years

      Reviewer’s reason: First meaningful outcome, not announcement: Timely and delivered support, child outcomes and family experience.

    10. Readiness (Rd)1 of 3 — Legislation/external agreement or major enabling work

      Reviewer’s reason: DfE, councils, schools and health commissioners in England; Specify service improvement before scoring reform

    Four weightings

    Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

    • Equal weights: Range if completed: 9.0–18.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
    • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 8.2–16.4 out of 30. Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
    • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 10.9–19.1 out of 30. Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
    • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 10.0–16.7 out of 30. Not yet assessed: increment beyond baseline (Ad), expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.

    Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

    Delivery risk and gate

    Delivery risk shown: RedReview’s claim: Red. Best the recorded evidence allows: Red.

    Review’s reason: Rights and rationing risks; specialists unavailable at required scale.

    Why it is not Green yet

    • Delivery obstacle: Rights and rationing risks; specialists unavailable at required scale..
    • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
    • No verified owner with the powers in place.
    • Delivery capacity not verified.
    • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
    • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
    • Safeguards not specified.
    • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

    Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

    Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending: incomplete appraisal”).

    Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

    The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

    Cost and funding

    Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Full incremental costing not established in reviewed material”.

    Still to cost: Specialists, training, placements, transport, capital and recurring provision; separate historic deficits from future costs.

    Funding status: not established in review.

    Owner, powers and capacity

    Proposed owner: DfE, councils, schools and health commissioners in England (proposed, unverified).

    Powers: needs legislation or external agreement. Capacity: binding constraint.

    Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

    England:
    DfE, councils, schools and health commissioners in England (review)
    Scotland:
    not assessed
    Wales:
    not assessed
    Northern Ireland:
    not assessed

    Read from the review’s owner and scope text; not verified against the powers held.

    Dependencies, safeguards and risks

    Depends on: None recorded.

    Safeguards

    • protect entitlements (proposed, not yet specified)

    Risks and residual harms: Rights and rationing risks; specialists unavailable at required scale.

    Monitoring and measured results

    Metric: Timely and delivered support, child outcomes and family experience.

    Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

    Measures already on the domain page

    A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

    Evidence for the outcome

    Outcome: Timely and delivered support, child outcomes and family experience.

    Audits establish delays and capacity problems; no remedy is defined sufficiently for an effectiveness claim.

    Review record

    Assessment status: Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

    Reviewer: Original assessment author (name not supplied). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

    Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.

    First 90 days (review): Produce a signed scope and current-delivery baseline; Define specialist and mainstream support; protect entitlements; plan staff pipeline and commissioning; track delivered provision. Obtain incremental costs and an accountable decision before expansion.

    Decision route: Specify service improvement before scoring reform

    An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

  • A76Delivery risk: AmberGate: pending

    Make council and SEND funding risks explicit before promises expand

    Proposed new action A76; sourced research home and appraisal design; scope and funding remain provisional.

    Provisional single-reviewer desk assessment, 6 October 2026.

    Who and where
    Build a service-duty, demand, reserves and workforce baseline for exposed councils; appraise settlement choices explicitly. (from the 6 October review) Jurisdiction: England.
    Result so far
    Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))
    Funded now (baseline)
    Funded baseline not yet stated
    The change assessed (marginal)
    Build a service-duty, demand, reserves and workforce baseline for exposed councils; appraise settlement choices explicitly. (from the 6 October review)
    What the evidence supports—and the next decision

    Publishing fiscal risk improves visibility; it does not fund statutory services or remove accumulated deficits.

    AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

    Define the change
    Build a council-level service, demand, reserves and workforce baseline, then compare explicit settlement and service-delivery options.
    Test whether it works
    Services delivered against need, recurring balance, reserve use and quality; test demand and provider-price scenarios.
    Establish the cost
    Separate recurring resources, capital receipts, borrowing, historic deficits and transition. Reconcile SEND measures with the SEND appraisal.
    Protect against harm
    Do not frame an accounting permission or asset sale as sustainable recurring funding; protect statutory duties.

    Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

    Full assessment of Make council and SEND funding risks explicit before promises expand: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring
    The ten criteria (0–3)

    Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

    1. Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

      Reviewer’s reason: Problem scale judged from the linked domain evidence; not a population estimate of those helped.

    2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

      Reviewer’s reason: Build a service-duty, demand, reserves and workforce baseline for exposed councils; appraise settlement choices explicitly. This is a provisional marginal-change judgement, to confirm against commissioned delivery.

    3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support

      Reviewer’s reason: Site records cross-service fiscal stress; it does not show that any proposed funding formula improves outcomes.

    4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed

      Reviewer’s reason: Unknown: no sufficiently supported magnitude for this exact change.

    5. Residual harms (Hm)1 of 3 — Material harm/unresolved mitigation

      Reviewer’s reason: Bailout incentives, losses elsewhere and accounting fixes mistaken for capacity.

    6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

      Reviewer’s reason: Unknown: the proposed increment has not been costed and matched to an approved affordable allocation in this review. Existing programme envelopes are not that allocation.

    7. Delivery capacity (Ca)2 of 3 — Stretched but plausibly obtainable

      Reviewer’s reason: Do not treat asset sales or borrowing permission as new recurring grant.

    8. Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

      Reviewer’s reason: Distribution assessed against the target group and the burdens described here: Bailout incentives, losses elsewhere and accounting fixes mistaken for capacity.

    9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years

      Reviewer’s reason: Timing judgement concerns the first meaningful outcome in: Statutory provision actually delivered, arrears/deficits and service continuity. It does not imply all long-term benefits arrive then.

    10. Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

      Reviewer’s reason: Publish a costed continuity plan and alternatives for deficits without hiding service reductions. Owner: Treasury, MHCLG, DfE and councils in England.

    Four weightings

    Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

    • Equal weights: Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
    • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 15.5–20.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
    • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 17.3–22.7 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
    • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 17.8–21.1 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.

    Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

    Delivery risk and gate

    Delivery risk shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.

    Review’s reason: Incremental lifetime costs and funding not established. Do not treat asset sales or borrowing permission as new recurring grant.

    Why it is not Green yet

    • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
    • No verified owner with the powers in place.
    • Delivery capacity not verified.
    • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
    • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
    • Safeguards not specified.
    • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

    Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

    Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending cost, funding, scope and capacity appraisal”).

    Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

    The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

    Cost and funding

    Lifetime costing: Not established.

    Still to cost: Incremental lifetime costs and funding not established. Do not treat asset sales or borrowing permission as new recurring grant.

    Funding status: not established in review.

    Owner, powers and capacity

    Proposed owner: Treasury, MHCLG, DfE and councils in England. (proposed, unverified).

    Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: unverified.

    Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

    England:
    Treasury, MHCLG, DfE and councils in England. (review)
    Scotland:
    not assessed
    Wales:
    not assessed
    Northern Ireland:
    not assessed

    Read from the review’s owner and scope text; not verified against the powers held.

    Dependencies, safeguards and risks

    Depends on: Do not treat asset sales or borrowing permission as new recurring grant.

    Safeguards

    None specified yet.

    Risks and residual harms: Bailout incentives, losses elsewhere and accounting fixes mistaken for capacity.

    Monitoring and measured results

    Metric: Statutory provision actually delivered, arrears/deficits and service continuity.

    Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

    Evidence for the outcome

    Outcome: Statutory provision actually delivered, arrears/deficits and service continuity.

    Site records cross-service fiscal stress; it does not show that any proposed funding formula improves outcomes.

    Review record

    Assessment status: Provisional single-reviewer desk assessment, 6 October 2026.

    Reviewer: Original assessment author (name not supplied). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

    Carried from the earlier domain review (C record): must be calibrated jointly with the G/W/E/NG/NW/NE records before any combined comparison.

    Decision route: Publish a costed continuity plan and alternatives for deficits without hiding service reductions.

    An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

Decision brief

  • Count the support children with EHC plans actually receive — and fund the specialists to deliver it — starting in one area

The leading option set out as a decision someone could take: who decides, who benefits, the best evidence, cost and funding, and the main trade-off. The full research record is one click away.

Decision briefPublic-policy proposalReviewed 2026-10-04

Count the support children with EHC plans actually receive — and fund the specialists to deliver it — starting in one area

The thread: issue, evidence, action

  1. Issue Weakness: 46.1% of new plans were issued within the 20-week legal limit, against 60.4% in 2019. Also: weakness, weakness, threat, opportunity, strength
  2. Evidence New EHC plans issued within 20 weeks; Support in plans actually delivered
  3. Action Fund SEND capacity and track provision actually delivered
Decision required
DfE, one council and its integrated care board run a two-year pilot that compares, for a defined group of children with EHC plans, the hours of support their plans specify with the hours they receive from educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists — with family experience and the cost of closing the gap — so new specialist funding is judged on support delivered, not only on plans issued on time.
Who and where
Children and young people aged 0–25 with an EHC plan maintained by the pilot council whose plans specify support from an educational psychologist, a speech and language therapist or an occupational therapist; and children awaiting an EHC needs assessment that requires psychological advice. Applies in: Local.
Accountable body
Department for Education (with DHSC and NHS England for health provision); the council and the integrated care board for the pilot area
Intervention
Record, for each child in the cohort, the support specified in the plan and the support actually received by profession, and direct high-needs, NHS commissioning and recruitment money to the largest gaps first.
Best evidence, and where it applies
No evaluation of a measure of support delivered exists. The case rests on audit evidence: high-needs spending rose 66% in real terms between 2016 and 2025 (IFS), timeliness of new plans has fallen since 2019, and no national data show whether the support in plans is delivered.Studied in: England’s SEND system (2016 to 2025).How closely the comparison transfers to this decision: Wales — low.
Extra cost of this change
Capital: none identified in the brief.Recurring: Educational psychologists, therapists, training places and recurrent support — Not yet costed; Specialist hours to close the measured gap, by profession — not yet established; Family experience survey — not yet established.One-off or mixed: Provision-delivery record (case-record changes, staff time to record sessions, data linkage) — not yet established; Independent evaluation with a comparison area — not yet established.
Funding
Not funded yet: a possible funding route exists, but nothing is allocated to this change.Committed to this change: none.Possible source, not an award: none identified.Unfunded: Unknown: specialist capacity has not been costed against duties, and the size of the delivery gap is unknown until it is measured.
Savings and wider benefits
Not yet specified: no cashable saving or avoided cost has been costed for this change. Expected outcomes are listed one by one in the research appendix and are never added together or counted as money available.
First 90-day step
Agree the cohort, the provision-delivery record and the family survey with the parent carer forum, and sign the council–integrated care board data-sharing agreement.The proposed first milestone; a 90-day date is not yet specified. Owner: Council SEND service and integrated care board, with DfE. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.
Twelve-month milestone
Not yet specified.Time to a first useful result: A first count of specified against delivered hours about six months after recording starts; any change in delivery after about a year of added specialist capacity.
Outcome, and when to scale or stop
Measure: Share of children whose specified sessions took place in the term; specialist full-time equivalents in post.Scale if: Delivered support moves towards what plans specify, family experience improves, and any improvement in timeliness is not explained by restricting access to assessment.Stop if: Providers cannot keep the record reliably, or delivery does not improve once specialist capacity has been added.
Main trade-off
Specialists hired for the pilot may come from schools, private practice or other councils rather than being new; recording delivered hours takes staff time; and publishing gaps may raise requests and appeals before capacity grows.
Source and review date
England's SEND crisis: costs, challenges and the case for reform (IFS comment) (3 October 2025 (Green Budget chapter, source of the figures); comment 12 September 2025); Education, health and care plans, reporting year 2026 (25 June 2026 (reporting year 2026)). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

An editorial proposal by UK Facts for discussion, not government policy. Records: A12 · costs C-A12-CAPACITY

Research appendix: study design, effect sizes and limits, alternatives, full costing, international comparisons and how we would know

1.The change, in plain words

Count the support children with EHC plans actually receive — and fund the specialists to deliver it — starting in one area

2.The decision requested

Decision
Approve and fund, for one council and integrated care board area, a two-year provision-delivery and specialist-capacity pilot alongside the area’s Experts at Hand offer: record specified against delivered support for a defined cohort, survey families, cost the gap by profession, and publish the results before DfE designs any national measure.
Accountable institution
Department for Education (with DHSC and NHS England for health provision); the council and the integrated care board for the pilot area
Geography
Local
Powers
Existing duties: Children and Families Act 2014, section 42 (the council must secure the special educational provision in a plan; the responsible commissioning body must arrange the health care provision in it) and section 26 (joint commissioning between councils and health bodies). Local recording and publication need a data-sharing agreement, not new law; a national statutory collection or any change to entitlements would need legislation, which has not been introduced.
Delivery partners
Council SEND and educational psychology services; Integrated care board and NHS community speech and language therapy and occupational therapy providers; Schools, colleges and their SENCOs; The local parent carer forum; SEND Information, Advice and Support Service; An independent evaluator

3.Who it is for, and what changes beyond today

Target population
Children and young people aged 0–25 with an EHC plan maintained by the pilot council whose plans specify support from an educational psychologist, a speech and language therapist or an occupational therapist; and children awaiting an EHC needs assessment that requires psychological advice.
Eligibility
Plans maintained by the pilot council and, for health provision, children for whom the integrated care board is the responsible commissioning body. Need is defined by the provision specified (profession and hours), not by plan type, so results can later be compared with other areas and nations.
Scale
All plans in the area that specify these professions, or a random sample big enough for the evaluation — chosen with the council from its caseload and the specialists it can actually recruit, not a national number.
Baseline
46.1% of new EHC plans in England were issued within the 20-week legal limit in 2025, against 60.4% in 2019; 9,871 took more than a year. Councils employed 2,332 full-time-equivalent educational psychologists in 2025/26 (1,724 in 2010/11); psychologists in private practice or other arrangements are not counted. The national statistics count plans, requests, timeliness and reviews — not whether the support written into a plan is delivered — so the pilot must measure delivery first.

Source: Department for Education, Education, health and care plans, reporting year 2026 (Timeliness of new EHC plans (20 weeks); published data files); Department for Education, School workforce in England: educational psychologists employed centrally by local authorities (Educational psychologists employed centrally by local authorities)

Change beyond existing law or funding
The February 2026 white paper announced £1.8 billion over three years for an Experts at Hand offer run by councils and integrated care boards, and over £40 million to train more educational psychologists and speech and language therapists; existing duties stay until new legislation, which DfE expects to take effect from September 2029. Experts at Hand is early, mainly group-based support in mainstream settings: its grant conditions bar spending on support named in existing EHC plans or on EHC needs assessments, so it is not a route for closing gaps in plan provision. What is added: a record of support delivered against support specified, by profession, with family experience and a costed gap — so the council and integrated care board can see the gap their existing duties require them to close, workforce growth can be aimed at it, and an on-time plan is never read as support received.

4.How it would work

Do: Record, for each child in the cohort, the support specified in the plan and the support actually received by profession, and direct high-needs, NHS commissioning and recruitment money to the largest gaps first Changing: more of the support already written into plans is delivered, and commissioners can see which profession is the binding constraint

  • Share of specified support hours delivered, by profession

    Hypothesis to test

    No national or published local measure exists; the pilot creates the baseline before any change can be judged.

  • Waiting time for psychological advice in EHC needs assessments

    Hypothesis to test

    More psychologist time may shorten assessments, but the published workforce and timeliness series cannot show that one causes the other.

  • Families’ experience of the support their child receives

    Hypothesis to test

    To be measured with a survey designed with the parent carer forum.

  • Attendance and attainment of children with plans

    Hypothesis to test

    A longer-term outcome; two years is too short to expect a reliable change.

Outcomes are kept separate and never added into one impact figure.

5.Best evidence

  • England's SEND crisis: costs, challenges and the case for reform (IFS comment)

    Author or institution:
    Institute for Fiscal Studies
    Published:
    3 October 2025 (Green Budget chapter, source of the figures); comment 12 September 2025
    Evaluation period:
    2016 to 2025
    Design:
    Analysis of fiscal and administrative data with expert commentary
    Sample or population:
    England’s SEND system
    Effect and uncertainty:
    High-needs spending rose 66% in real terms, from £7.5bn (2016) to at least £12bn (2025); EHC plans rose from 2.7% to 5.2% of under-16s; council deficits were forecast at around £8bn.
    Limits:
    Diagnoses system pressure; it does not evaluate any intervention or measure support delivered.

    Where: Green Budget chapter key findings 1–3; comment text. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.

  • Education, health and care plans, reporting year 2026

    Author or institution:
    Department for Education
    Published:
    25 June 2026 (reporting year 2026)
    Evaluation period:
    Calendar years to 2025 (timeliness); caseload at January 2026
    Design:
    Official statistics from the SEN2 return by local authorities
    Sample or population:
    All EHC plans maintained by local authorities in England, ages 0–25
    Effect and uncertainty:
    Counts plans, requests, timeliness and annual reviews; there is no item on whether specified provision is delivered.
    Limits:
    Timeliness excludes statutory exceptions; an on-time plan says nothing about the support that follows.

    Where: Timeliness of new EHC plans; published data files. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.

  • Every child achieving and thriving (schools white paper)

    Author or institution:
    Department for Education
    Published:
    23 February 2026
    Evaluation period:
    Not applicable (policy proposal)
    Design:
    White paper; cites emerging evidence from the Early Language Support for Every Child and Partnerships for Inclusion of Neurodiversity in Schools programmes
    Sample or population:
    Early years settings, schools and colleges in England
    Effect and uncertainty:
    £1.8bn over three years for Experts at Hand (£1bn professionals working directly with mainstream schools, £800m outreach from specialist settings); by the end of 2028/29 DfE anticipates support equivalent to 40 days a year for an average primary and 160 days for an average secondary school.
    Limits:
    Announced funding: 2026–27 allocations to councils (£429 million) followed in June 2026, and the grant conditions bar spending on support named in existing EHC plans or on EHC needs assessments. It proposes a new duty on settings to record and monitor provision in individual support plans (needing legislation), but the passages read set out no published national measure of whether EHC-plan provision is delivered.

    Where: SEND chapter: “Access to specialist support for SEND – Experts at Hand”. Affiliation is provenance, not proof of quality.

6.Alternatives, counter-evidence and who loses

Closest feasible alternative
Roll out Experts at Hand nationally as announced, keep the timeliness of new plans as the headline measure, and consider a national measure of support delivered only once the reform legislation is passed.
Strongest counter-evidence
The IFS finds the system failing many of the children it is meant to support despite billions in extra spending, with almost no way to judge whether that money is value for money. Specialists recruited from schools, private practice or neighbouring areas move capacity rather than add it — a risk DfE recognises by requiring areas to show that Experts at Hand adds capacity rather than displacing it. Wales’s reform shows that changing definitions changes recorded numbers without showing whether support improved.

Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, England's SEND crisis: costs, challenges and the case for reform (IFS comment) (Comment text); Department for Education, Experts at Hand and local authority SEND transformation fund: funding for local authorities 2026 to 2027; and Experts at Hand: developing and delivering the offer in year 1 (Year 1 guidance, “Principles”); Estyn, Implementation of new additional learning needs system requires greater consistency and clearer guidance, report finds (News release text)

Distributional effects
Gains go to children in the pilot area whose specified support is missing; families who have already secured support through appeals or private reports gain less. Councils already in deficit carry the cost of any gap the pilot reveals. Children without plans are outside the measure unless the cohort is widened.
Main downside
Specialists are the scarce resource: educational psychologists take three years to train, so in the short run the pilot can measure the gap faster than it can close it.

The options compared, including current policy

  • The proposal

    Measure support delivered against plans, by profession, and fund specialists to close the largest gaps — one area first (this brief)

    Who is reached
    Children with EHC plans in the pilot area that specify psychology or therapy, and children awaiting assessment
    Evidence
    Audit evidence of rising spending and falling timeliness; the measure itself is untested
    Likely outcome and timing
    First delivery count in about six months; change after about a year
    Cost and funding
    Not costed; high-needs and NHS budgets under existing duties (Experts at Hand cannot fund support named in plans); nothing allocated
    Main trade-off
    Measures the gap faster than specialists can be trained; may move rather than add capacity

  • Current policy

    Current policy: Experts at Hand and the white paper reforms, with timeliness of new plans as the headline national measure

    Who is reached
    Early years settings, schools and colleges across England; children with and without plans
    Evidence
    Untested as a package; DfE cites emerging evidence from two programmes
    Likely outcome and timing
    DfE anticipates 40 days of support a year per average primary and 160 per average secondary by 2028/29; reform legislation not yet introduced (DfE expects it to take effect from September 2029)
    Cost and funding
    £1.8bn over three years; 2026–27 allocations to councils published (£429m); cannot fund support named in existing plans
    Main trade-off
    No measure of whether support in plans is delivered; timeliness can improve if access is restricted

  • Alternative

    Nuffield Early Language Intervention in reception — kept separate from system reform

    Who is reached
    Reception children with the weakest oral language, with or without SEND
    Evidence
    Randomised trial: three months’ extra language progress; no evidence it reduces EHC plans or SEND demand
    Likely outcome and timing
    Language gains within the school year
    Cost and funding
    Funded DfE offer to state schools to 2028–29; teaching-assistant time not covered
    Main trade-off
    Meets common language needs early but is not a substitute for assessment or specialist provision

  • Alternative

    Restrict access to plans to bring demand and deficits down

    Who is reached
    Fewer children with statutory plans
    Evidence
    The IFS warns that cutting support and legal rights without serious alternatives risks a repeat of the welfare cuts and could harm children who benefit from the support they now receive
    Likely outcome and timing
    Recorded numbers could fall quickly
    Cost and funding
    Lower high-needs spending on paper; not costed here
    Main trade-off
    Unmet need moves to schools, families and tribunals

  • Alternative

    Borrow Wales’s single individual development plan model

    Who is reached
    Every learner with additional learning needs, under a different legal definition
    Evidence
    Inspectorate reviews: improvement where implemented, but definitions applied inconsistently; recorded numbers fell with the new definition
    Likely outcome and timing
    Years of transition; Wales began in 2021
    Cost and funding
    Not established; funding impact evaluation weak
    Main trade-off
    Need definitions differ from England’s, so results do not transfer without matching them first

7.What other countries or the devolved nations show

Country lesson · Wales, Phased implementation from September 2021; Estyn thematic reviews September 2023 and December 2024

Replacing SEN with additional learning needs in Wales

Evidence: Expert or audit recommendationWeak match: context only, not a model to copy

What was changed
The Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 replaced the special educational needs framework: a single statutory individual development plan (IDP) replaced the previous statutory and non-statutory plans (statements, School Action and School Action Plus), with person-centred planning and ALN co-ordinators (ALNCos) in schools. The ALN Code came into force on 1 September 2021.
Study design and population
Inspectorate thematic reviews of participating schools and local authorities (Estyn), with the Welsh Government’s response. Not an outcome evaluation with a comparison group. Pupils with additional learning needs in participating schools and settings in Wales.
Measured outcome there
First review (2023): no evidence that children’s needs were not being met, but settings interpreted and applied the legal definition of ALN and of additional learning provision differently, with a few local authorities and schools using their own definitions while awaiting tribunal decisions; the number recorded with ALN fell in the transition while the share with a statutory plan stayed similar; evaluation of the impact of rising ALN funding was “variable and weak”. Second review (2024): reforms beginning to improve support where implemented, but inconsistent across settings; the Cabinet Secretary said some families may not be receiving the support they need.
Cost status
Not established: Estyn found funding transparency and impact evaluation weak; no cost per learner is published in the material read.
What failed or remains uncertain
No measure of provision delivered or of outcomes against a comparison; recorded numbers changed because the definition changed. Implementation varied by setting and local authority.
Why the UK differs
Wales’s ALN definition and IDPs cover a different group from England’s EHC plans (UK Facts’ four-nations SEND comparison shows four legal frameworks producing four statistics that cannot be compared). A Welsh count, timeliness rate or cost cannot be applied to English EHC-plan holders without matching need definitions first.
First change required here
Before borrowing any part of the Welsh model, define the English cohort by the provision a child needs (for example speech and language therapy hours) rather than by plan type, and record provision delivered against provision specified, which neither system publishes.

Not a UK forecast: the effect above was measured in that place and population. Source: Welsh Government, Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 (Overview; subordinate legislation table (ALN Code, 1 September 2021)); Estyn, Implementation of new additional learning needs system requires greater consistency and clearer guidance, report finds (News release text (29 September 2023)); Welsh Government, Written statement: publication of Estyn’s second thematic review: implementation of ALN reforms (Written statement text (11 December 2024)). Reviewed 2026-10-04.

8.What delivery needs first

  • staff — Educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists to deliver the hours plans specify, recruited without simply moving them from neighbouring areas. (Scarce resource shared with other priorities; owner: Council and integrated care board, with DfE and NHS England workforce training)
  • data — A child-level record of the provision specified in each plan and the sessions delivered by council and NHS providers. (Requirement; owner: Council SEND service and integrated care board)
  • law — A lawful basis and data-sharing agreement for linking education and health records about individual children, with a data protection impact assessment. (Requirement; owner: Council and integrated care board data protection officers)
  • public consent — Families agree to the record and help design the experience survey through the parent carer forum. (Requirement; owner: Council with the parent carer forum)
  • dependency — High-needs and NHS commissioning budgets for the added specialist hours: the area’s Experts at Hand grant cannot be used for support named in existing EHC plans. (Scarce resource shared with other priorities; owner: Council and integrated care board)

9.What it would cost

How the cost is built up: Measurement: data linkage and case-record changes + staff time to record sessions + family survey + evaluation. Delivery: for each profession, (hours specified − hours delivered) × cost per specialist hour + recruitment and supervision. Both kept separate from legacy high-needs deficits.

  • Educational psychologists, therapists, training places and recurrent support

    England: specialist capacity to meet existing duties

    Not yet costed (ledger C-A12-CAPACITY)

    recurring; price year not stated; Each year; Not yet established

    Read from the ledger record, which has no amount; it must be costed separately from legacy high-needs deficits.

    Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies, England's SEND crisis: costs, challenges and the case for reform (IFS comment) (Green Budget chapter key findings)

  • Specialist hours to close the measured gap, by profession

    Children in the pilot cohort whose specified support is not delivered

    Not yet established per specialist hour

    recurring; price year not stated; Two years; Not yet established

    Unknown until the gap is measured; priced from council and NHS pay costs or agency rates.

  • Provision-delivery record (case-record changes, staff time to record sessions, data linkage)

    Council and NHS providers in the pilot area

    Not yet established per area

    mixed; price year not stated; Set-up, then each term; Not yet established

  • Family experience survey

    Families of children in the cohort

    Not yet established per survey wave

    recurring; price year not stated; Once or twice a year; Not yet established

  • Independent evaluation with a comparison area

    Pilot area and comparison areas

    Not yet established per evaluation

    one-off revenue; price year not stated; Two years; Not yet established

10.Who pays, and what is missing

Programme envelope (a possible route, not an award)
None identified
Allocation committed to this change
None
Remaining gap
Unknown: specialist capacity has not been costed against duties, and the size of the delivery gap is unknown until it is measured.
Proposed financing
Added specialist hours for children with plans fall under the council’s and the integrated care board’s existing duties, so they would come from the high-needs budget and NHS commissioning budgets. Experts at Hand (£1.8 billion over three years from 2026–27; £429 million allocated to councils for 2026–27) cannot pay for support named in existing EHC plans or for EHC needs assessments, though the £40 million workforce fund (including training at least 200 educational psychologists a year in 2026 and 2027) adds supply. Measurement and evaluation would need a DfE research budget or council funds. None is allocated to this pilot, and accounting relief on high-needs deficits is not service funding.
Responsible payer
central government, councils, NHS
Budget displaced
High-needs money not spent on other support; specialist time moved from assessments and Experts at Hand work to recording and plan provision; NHS community therapy time.

11.First milestone and time to a useful result

Agree the cohort, the provision-delivery record and the family survey with the parent carer forum, and sign the council–integrated care board data-sharing agreement. (Owner: Council SEND service and integrated care board, with DfE. Proposed by UK Facts, not an official deadline.)

Time to first useful result: A first count of specified against delivered hours about six months after recording starts; any change in delivery after about a year of added specialist capacity.

What could delay it: Specialists can be recruited NHS and council providers can report sessions per child The data-sharing agreement is signed High-needs and NHS budgets can fund the added hours

12.How we would know

Baseline
For the cohort in the first term: hours specified and delivered by profession, waiting times at each assessment stage, family-reported experience, complaints and tribunal appeals.
Comparison
Statistically similar areas that start recording later (a phased start), with need defined by the provision specified rather than by plan type.
Leading indicator
Share of children whose specified sessions took place in the term; specialist full-time equivalents in post.
Follow-up
Every term for two years; attendance, attainment and family experience at the end.
Continue if
Delivered support moves towards what plans specify, family experience improves, and any improvement in timeliness is not explained by restricting access to assessment.
Adapt if
Gaps persist in one profession: redirect recruitment or outreach to it; if recording burdens staff, simplify the record.
Stop if
Providers cannot keep the record reliably, or delivery does not improve once specialist capacity has been added.
Thresholds
Not yet set: The size of the delivery gap is unknown, so any target for improvement must wait for the first-term baseline and the evaluation design.

What is not yet known, and how to find out

  • How many specialist hours are missing, and what would it cost to provide them, by profession? (cost)Next step: Measure the gap in the first term, then price it from local pay costs and vacancy rates.Scope: Hours specified but not delivered in the pilot cohort, for educational psychology, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy, over two years · Data or quotes needed: Specified and delivered hours per child; council and NHS pay costs, agency rates and vacancy rates · Who can estimate it: Council and integrated care board finance teams, with DfE
  • What does the provision-delivery record and family survey cost to run? (cost)Next step: Obtain quotes for case-record changes and survey fieldwork before launch.Scope: Set-up and two years of recording in one area · Data or quotes needed: Supplier quotes for case-management changes, staff time per recorded session, survey costs · Who can estimate it: Council SEND service with the evaluator
  • Does added specialist capacity raise delivered support and children’s outcomes? (effect)Next step: Test it in one area with a phased comparison before national design.Defensible route: bounded pilot
  • Should DfE collect provision delivered nationally, and under what legal basis? (legal)Next step: Decide after the pilot whether to add an item to the existing EHC plan data collection or to the reform legislation.
  • Can NHS community providers report sessions per child against what plans specify? (data)Next step: Test extraction from provider systems in the first term.

Sources last checked 4 October 2026 · Owner: Evidence editor (James Harris) · Next check: the first trigger: DfE special educational needs in England and education, health and care plans (annual, usually June).

What it would take

The order things have to happen in, who pays, and the effects and appraisals on record.

The order things have to happen in

  1. First, the prerequisite

    Audit provision gaps and specialist capacity with families

    Owner: DfE with councils and NHS commissioners

    No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.

  2. Then, the decision

    Publish a costed recruitment plan and a national measure of support delivered

    Owner: DfE, DHSC and HM Treasury

    No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.

  3. Then, delivery

    Train specialists; deliver early-language support in reception

    Owner: Universities, NHS, councils, schools

    No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.

  4. Finally, the measured outcome

    Support delivered on time, with outcomes and family experience improving

    Owner: DfE statistics

    No date: the timing depends on the steps before it.

Who pays, and what is still missing

Cost, committed funding and the remaining gap for the same scope and years. A programme envelope is not an award to a project; a proposal is not committed money. None of these costs has been established yet, so no total is shown.

Cost and funding ledger

  • Educational psychologists, therapists, training places and recurrent support

    A12 · recurring spending · not costed

    Amount
    Not yet costed
    Who pays
    central government, councils, NHS
    Committed
    None identified
    Proposed, not committed
    —
    Gap
    Not established

  • NELI materials and training

    A11 · recurring spending · historical price only

    Amount
    Not yet costed
    Who pays
    central government
    Committed
    None identified
    Proposed, not committed
    DfE-funded NELI offer to every state school with a reception class
    Gap
    Not established

  • Teaching-assistant delivery time, cover and supervision

    A11 · recurring spending · not costed

    Amount
    Not yet costed
    Who pays
    central government
    Committed
    None identified
    Proposed, not committed
    —
    Gap
    Not established

“Not yet costed” means no defensible cost has been found — not that the action is free. Lifetime benefits, benefit-cost ratios and forecast savings are never shown here as money available to spend.

Effects on record, with evidence ratings (1 record)

What the evidence says each action changes

Effects on record — these measure different outcomes, so they are not drawn on one scale
ActionOutcome and areaEffectCompared withEvidence
Meet early language needs before children fall further behindOral language of reception pupils with the weakest language Education and children+3 months (effect size 0.26)effect size 95% CI 0.17 to 0.35; 5 of 5 padlocksrandomised control schools; 2018–19 school yearevaluated; high confidence; 193 schools in EnglandA language outcome; not evidence of fewer EHC plans or lower SEND demand. The 2023 follow-up lost 55.5% of pupils.

How we would know

New EHC plans issued within 20 weeks; EHC plans in place; Support in plans actually delivered.

The outcome measures to watch. A baseline is where we start, not a target; where there is no official target we say so.

Measured results

What each option would be judged on, and the latest value of the measures already on this page. A measure moving is not proof that an option caused it.

Where the ideas come from

Research, counter-evidence and methods (8 sources; 2 claims held back)
  • Education, health and care plans, reporting year 2026 — Department for Education, 25 June 2026.Official statistics; England. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-04.
  • Nuffield Early Language Intervention (re-grant): evaluation report (2020) and addendum (2023) — Education Endowment Foundation / RAND / University of Oxford (Sashka Dimova, Sonia Ilie, Elena Rosa Brown, Miriam Broeks, Andreas Culora, Alex Sutherland (RAND Europe); addendum: Merrilyn Groom, Elena Rosa Brown, Lydia Lymperis), 2020-05 (report); 2023-03 (addendum).Two-arm cluster randomised trial (97 treatment and 96 control schools), June 2018 to November 2019; 193 schools, 1,156 reception pupils with the lowest language scores in each class (1,071 in the primary analysis); England. Full text checked (read from an Internet Archive copy), 2026-10-04. Limits: No quantitative SEND or EHC-plan finding; staff felt it worked less well for pupils with SEN. Cost of £870 per one-form-entry school (£58 per child a year over three years) covers materials and training only, not teaching-assistant time.
  • School workforce in England 2025 — Department for Education, 2026-06-04.Official statistics; England. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-21.
  • Local authority revenue expenditure and financing: multi-year outturn time series — MHCLG, 2026-09-17.Official statistics; England. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-21.
  • Area SEND inspections and outcomes in England as at 31 December 2025 — Ofsted and CQC, 2026-07-16.Official inspection statistics; England, inspected areas. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-11.
  • Home to school transport — National Audit Office, date not stated.Public audit; England. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-07.
  • regulation 13 — legislation.gov.uk, date not stated.Legislation; England. Relevant passages checked, 2026-10-04.
  • England's SEND crisis: costs, challenges and the case for reform (IFS comment) — Institute for Fiscal Studies (Luke Sibieta, Darcey Snape (comment); Eduin Latimer, Luke Sibieta, Darcey Snape (chapter)), 2025-09-12.Descriptive analysis of DfE SEN statistics and council spending; England. Full text checked (read from an Internet Archive copy), 2026-10-04. Limits: The two pieces date the £8bn deficit differently; check the 2026 reform baseline before using either as current.

Counter-evidence and criticism

  • Fund SEND capacity and track provision actually delivered: More money has not on its own improved outcomes; restricting access to plans could cut recorded demand without improving children’s lives. (Institute for Fiscal Studies)
  • Close the early-language support gap: Staff felt it worked less well for pupils with SEN; there is no evidence it reduces EHC plans or overall SEND demand. (Education Endowment Foundation / RAND / University of Oxford)

Claims held back

  • Early language support reduces EHC plans or SEND demand — The trial measured language; it reports no SEND or EHC-plan outcome. Needed: An evaluation with SEND identification and plans as outcomes.
  • Brief threat cited to S39 (weakening access to plans) — S39 does not address this; the threat is sourced to S40 instead. Needed: None — re-sourced.

“Full text checked” means we read the report itself; “relevant passages” means the sections behind each figure; “summary or abstract only” means we could not read the full study, so no number from it is published here without another source.

Other options compared — not on the shortlist (3)

Other options compared

Options from earlier work on this page that are not on the shortlist. They remain valid choices; their evidence is shown as before.

  • preventionStatus: announced

    Earlier, evidence-based support in mainstream schools

    Aims to:
    Common needs — especially speech, language and communication — met early in ordinary classrooms, so fewer children wait for a plan to get help.
    How:
    Schools receive an inclusion grant to deliver proven programmes such as small-group language support, with staff trained to use them, and (proposed) an individual support plan for each child with SEND.
    Who decides:
    DfE; schools and trusts; councils.
    Main constraint:
    School budgets and staffing; quality depends on training and fidelity to the programme.
    Evidence:
    Moderate evidence — evaluated, with limits on scope or transfer
    See the trade-offs and evidence
    What the evidence shows
    Some specific programmes are well evaluated: the EEF’s trials of the Nuffield Early Language Intervention in reception found two to four months’ additional progress in language. Whether a national inclusion grant reduces demand for EHC plans has not been evaluated.
    Policy status
    £1.6bn inclusion grant over three years from 2026–27 and £200m for training announced February 2026; individual support plans need legislation not yet introduced.
    Resources
    The grant; trained teaching assistants and teachers; specialist advice.
    Consent and decisions needed
    Parents’ confidence that support without a plan will be reliable; changes to legal entitlement are contested.
    Time
    Programme effects within a school year; any effect on plan requests over several years.
    Cost and yield
    £1.6bn over three years (announced, cash); no published estimate of savings.
    Trade-offs and who pays
    Money spread across all schools may be thin where needs are greatest; a weaker legal route could leave some children with less enforceable support.
    How we would know it worked
    Leading indicator: Schools delivering evaluated programmes; requests for assessment. Outcome: Attainment and attendance of pupils on SEN support. It would not be working if: Requests fall but outcomes for pupils on SEN support do not improve.
  • capacityStatus: announced

    More local specialist places

    Aims to:
    Children who need specialist provision get a place near home, with less use of costly independent schools.
    How:
    Capital funding builds special school places and specialist units (inclusion bases) in mainstream schools.
    Who decides:
    DfE (capital); councils (place planning); academy trusts.
    Main constraint:
    Building takes years; staff to run places are the same scarce specialists.
    Evidence:
    Limited evidence — plausible mechanism, little direct evaluation
    See the trade-offs and evidence
    What the evidence shows
    The NAO found in 2024 that the system was not delivering better outcomes despite a 58% real-terms rise in high-needs funding, and that demand for specialist places outstripped supply. Whether new places improve outcomes or costs has not been evaluated nationally.
    Policy status
    £3.7bn for more than 60,000 specialist places announced February 2026.
    Resources
    Capital; sites; specialist teachers and support staff to run the places.
    Consent and decisions needed
    Local planning for sites; families’ preferences for placements.
    Time
    Several years from funding to open places.
    Cost and yield
    £3.7bn capital (announced, cash); running costs are extra.
    Trade-offs and who pays
    Specialist places can draw children and staff away from mainstream inclusion.
    How we would know it worked
    Leading indicator: Places opened; share of placements in independent special schools. Outcome: Suitable placements found without long waits. It would not be working if: Places open but waits and independent placements keep rising.
  • structuralStatus: proposed

    Put high-needs funding on a stable footing

    Aims to:
    Councils can fund the support plans specify without building deficits that threaten other services.
    How:
    Government decides how accumulated high-needs deficits are met and sets allocations that match statutory duties — or changes the duties.
    Who decides:
    HM Treasury, DfE and MHCLG; councils.
    Main constraint:
    Fiscal rules; councils’ wider finances; legal duties that are open-ended.
    Evidence:
    Limited evidence — plausible mechanism, little direct evaluation
    See the trade-offs and evidence
    What the evidence shows
    The NAO estimated in 2024 that council high-needs deficits could reach £4.6bn by March 2026, and found no consistent improvement in outcomes since 2019 despite rising funding. More money has not on its own improved outcomes; stability is a precondition rather than a fix.
    Policy status
    Deficits held off council accounts by a temporary accounting arrangement (the “statutory override”); a long-term settlement was not in force at the verification date.
    Resources
    Funding to clear or write off deficits; better data on what is bought.
    Consent and decisions needed
    Treasury decisions; any change to entitlements needs legislation and is contested.
    Time
    Funding decisions take effect from the next financial year.
    Cost and yield
    No official costing of a settlement; deficits estimated at up to £4.6bn by the NAO.
    Trade-offs and who pays
    Writing off deficits rewards overspending; capping entitlements shifts risk to families.
    How we would know it worked
    Leading indicator: Councils’ high-needs deficits. Outcome: Support delivered and outcomes, not just spending. It would not be working if: Deficits stabilise because support is rationed rather than delivered better.
The options side by side
OptionResourcesTimeEvidenceOutcome to watch
Earlier, evidence-based support in mainstream schoolsThe grant; trained teaching assistants and teachers; specialist advice.Programme effects within a school year; any effect on plan requests over several years.moderateAttainment and attendance of pupils on SEN support.
More local specialist placesCapital; sites; specialist teachers and support staff to run the places.Several years from funding to open places.limitedSuitable placements found without long waits.
Put high-needs funding on a stable footingFunding to clear or write off deficits; better data on what is bought.Funding decisions take effect from the next financial year.limitedSupport delivered and outcomes, not just spending.

Plan reviewed 2026-10-21. How we judge evidence.