Why cutting SEN Services and EHCPs is a false economy

The government’s recent proposals to scale back Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) services — including reducing access to Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) — pose serious risks. What might appear as cost‐cuts now will likely lead to greater losses in opportunities, wellbeing, and public finances in the long run. Evidence & key data Here are some of the latest statistics and findings that underline why maintaining, not cutting, these services is crucial: • Rising numbers of EHCPs: Since 2018 the number of EHCPs has increased by about 80%. As of the latest reports, around 1 in 20 school‐age children in England have an EHCP. (The Guardian) • Requests for assessments denied or delayed: In 2024, 15.2% of decisions on requests for EHC needs assessments were not communicated within the statutory six weeks. Of the requests, about 65.4% proceeded to full assessment, meaning over one quarter were refused initially. (Explore Education Statistics) • Tribunal & appeal outcomes: o For the 2023-24 academic year, there were ~21,000 registered SEN appeals — up 55% from the previous year. (GOV.UK) o Of those appeals, 27% were over refusal to secure an EHC assessment; 59% concerned the content of EHCPs. (Schools Week) o When cases proceed to decision, an overwhelming majority of appeals are decided in favour of the families/claimants. (GOV.UK) • Appeal rates & “missed” opportunities: The official appeal rate (actual appeals filed vs all appealable decisions) in 2024 is reported around 5.3%, though some estimates suggest the real rate could be considerably higher, due to many opportunities being lost (e.g. through procedural issues or failure to inform families of rights) in annual EHCP review processes. (Research Briefings) Why these cuts are harmful Using this data, here are concrete reasons why cutting EHCPs/SEN services is counterproductive: 1. Legal risks & costs The number of appeals is already rising dramatically. When local authorities refuse EHCP assessments or produce EHCPs that don’t meet needs, they frequently lose in tribunal. That not only causes delays for children but means authorities incur legal costs, administrative burdens, and are legally compelled to rectify deficits. 2. Delayed intervention = more costly support later Evidence shows that early intervention and proper support reduce later need for crisis services (mental health, social care, more intensive schooling or special settings). When EHCPs are delayed or denied, children are more likely to disengage or develop secondary difficulties, increasing costs to the state in the form of remedial education, health interventions, or social services. 3. Educational & wellbeing losses Without EHCPs or adequate support, children risk falling behind academically, experiencing anxiety, exclusion, or other negative outcomes. These are not just “soft” harms — they often translate into poorer life chances, increased health/mental health burden, and lower productivity over time. 4. System pressure & backlog The surge in appeals and increasing number of children with unmet needs puts strain on both families and the tribunal system. Delays, backlogs, and rising conflict saps resources and trust. For example, many parents are now waiting much longer for assessments or for tribunal outcomes. (Special Needs Jungle) 5. Equity & inclusion Denying or reducing access disproportionately affects the most vulnerable children — those with more complex needs, younger children who may have fewer voices, and families with less capacity to navigate bureaucratic or legal processes. Cuts tend to exacerbate existing inequalities. Conclusion The statistics show that: • A large number of assessment requests are being refused or delayed. • Appeals are increasing, and families win the vast majority of them. • Legal obligations are being stretched — and failures carry costs, both financial and moral. Cutting EHCPs and SEN services may appear to reduce spending in the short term, but the evidence points to greater costs later — in legal fees, crisis interventions, lost potential, inequality, and societal wellbeing.