Delays in assessing SEND needs and issuing education, health and care plans “is making children more vulnerable” to serious youth violence and putting them at greater risk of harm, inspectors have warned.
A group of inspectorates including Ofsted warned there was evidence of a link between “SEND and an increased risk of exploitation” and violence.
Children wait “too long” for needs to be assessed, then face delays in access to support services and variation in the quality and timeliness of EHCPs.
A new report on agencies’ responses to serious youth violence said these factors were “making children more vulnerable”, because “problems can escalate while they wait for an assessment or support”.
Delays in assessing needs “are putting these children at greater risk of harm”.
Of the 36 children whose experiences they tracked in detail, 16 had a diagnosis of a disability and/or an EHCP. A further 15 had additional needs identified and were waiting for an assessment.
In three of the areas visited by inspectors, children had to wait at least two years for a neurodevelopmental assessment, such as autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
But in one area children had to wait a “shocking” 10 years for a service – by which time they would be adults.
A failure to identify and address a child’s SEND needs is “highly likely” to limit their ability to “engage in and benefit from education”, the report added.
“Many of the children we reviewed who were out of education, or excluded, were awaiting these assessments. Being out of full-time education further increases a child’s risk of being affected by serious youth violence.”
National approach needed
Inspectors were also concerned about waiting times for speech and language assessments, because if professionals are not clear on the best way to communicate with youngsters “this may reduce their ability to engage with and help children who are being harmed”.
While some areas have introduced measures to try to reduce waiting times, these can “realistically only be addressed at a national level if harm to children is to be reduced”.
The watchdogs said a “holistic response” was needed for youngsters affected by youth violence, as “in too many cases, professionals did not focus sufficiently on all aspects of children’s needs”.
In one case, they had “adultified” a “highly vulnerable child with SEND” who was criminalised “as a result of a failure to assess his special educational needs and to address and understand that he was a victim of exploitation”.
In another, professionals carrying out reviews to support children did not consider the EHCPs of those on child protection plans or looked after.
“This meant that children’s holistic needs were not being addressed, even though we know that education is a protective factor against exploitation and violence.”
The watchdogs said the government and local agencies “must prioritise” the needs of children who are disproportionately at risk of harm from serious youth violence, such as those with SEND.
It was “clear” from inspections that “much more is needed” at a national and local level to better understand and address the factors that make some youngsters at “disproportionate risk” of harm from violence.
School ‘is key element’ to protect kids
The inspectorates said when education representatives were at strategic meetings and “fully engaged” in developing a multi-agency appacoh, they saw it “made a real difference for children”.
“Children received better, more coordinated responses to their needs when education was seen as a protective factor. Education was clearly recognised and prioritised in some, but not all, areas as an essential element in approaches to prevent and minimise the risk of serious youth violence.”
Training for staff was “essential” to help them better understand the issue and child criminal exploitation.
Where a child is excluded, “coordinated multi-agency work” to reintegrate them into mainstream education “needs to be seen as a priority by all professionals”.
But in areas where school staff did not have the training, children who were excluded and at risk of serious violence remained in alternative provision for “too long”.
“There was no planning to help them transition into further education or apprenticeships. This meant that educational opportunities for these children were not prioritised, leaving some of them at further risk.”
The inspectors concluded that keeping children in education “is a key element of a protective approach” to serious youth violence.
The inspectorates included Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, HMI of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services and HMI Probation.
They carried out joint targeted area inspections in Leeds, Coventry, Somerset, Manchester, Merton and Lancashire between September 2023 and May this year.
Your thoughts