Introduction
This case study from West Sussex County Council highlights how local authority scrutiny can play a vital role in improving services for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).
In this example, the scrutiny process has been instrumental in driving improvement by consistently challenging the service to make progress, particularly around Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and resident-facing communication.
We are sharing it to showcase a strong example of how local scrutiny can be impactful, inclusive, and improvement focused. It reflects the kind of thoughtful oversight that strengthens local governance.
Background and context
By Katherine De La Mora, Senior Advisor – Democratic Services
In 2019, the ILACS inspection exposed major challenges across children’s services and wider organisational culture. In response, scrutiny efforts focused heavily on the resulting improvement programme in children’s social care. While education and skills were part of the committee’s remit, they received less attention, and SEND, though recognised, wasn’t a key focus.
By 2023, the landscape began to shift. A SEND local area inspection was due in November, prompting early engagement from officers with the scrutiny committee. At the same time, a new chair with lived experience of SEND, both personally and through family, was appointed. This brought renewed emphasis to the topic.
These developments raised the profile of SEND within scrutiny. The inspection went ahead in November 2023, with outcomes published in early 2024. The inspection found inconsistent experiences and outcomes for children and young people with SEND and identified five key areas for development and improvement. Scrutiny has since taken a more active role in supporting and holding the system to account, recognising the need for continued focus.
Challenges and Opportunities
Challenges
One key challenge for scrutiny in SEND is the scale and complexity of the issue. With national attention on SEND, the committee needed to go beyond reacting to reports and instead focus on enabling meaningful scrutiny that supports improvement.
Reviewing inspection outcomes without a clear strategy has limited impact. Our approach was to work with the committee to shape how their time could be used most purposefully, not just by looking at outcomes, but by influencing positive change.
SEND is also a multi-agency issue, not solely the County Council’s responsibility. Health services and education providers are critical partners and to be more robust, scrutiny must take a system-wide view and ensure all key voices are included
Scrutiny must also be constructive. While holding services to account, it must do so as a critical friend, not a source of criticism. At least one instance of well-meaning but more adversarial scrutiny highlighted the importance of sensitivity, particularly when services are under pressure.
Information management is another challenge. Officers leading improvements are already stretched, so requests for updates must be purposeful and not add unnecessary burden. Scrutiny should support better outcomes for children and young people, not obstruct progress.
Ultimately, scrutiny must be collaborative, strategic and impact-focused. With the right people in the room and a shared commitment to improvement, scrutiny can make a really meaningful difference to SEND outcomes.
Opportunities
Scrutiny offers a valuable chance to highlight issues that might otherwise be overlooked. In SEND, members were increasingly hearing from parents and carers facing delays, particularly with the low number of EHCPs completed within the 20-week statutory timeframe. This pointed to a systemic problem that required attention.
Scrutiny provides a public and transparent forum to raise these concerns, bringing lived experiences into open discussion and encouraging accountability from services.
For us, the Youth Cabinet have worked really well… it’s building up that relationship so that they’re comfortable in coming and understand what it [the scrutiny process] can be used for.
There was also an opportunity to apply learning from the Children’s Social Care improvement journey. Rather than trying to scrutinise all of SEND at once, the committee adopted a more focused approach. Specific areas for improvement were identified and used to create structured strands of scrutiny.
This thematic method allowed for deeper examination of key issues, better targeting of attention, and more meaningful outcomes.
These experiences showed that scrutiny can be more results-driven when it is strategic and collaborative. By continuing to align with improvement priorities and focusing on defined areas, scrutiny can help drive real progress.
Initiatives and actions taken
To make sure scrutiny made a meaningful contribution to the SEND improvement journey, we worked closely with officers to develop a structured and responsive approach. An initial scrutiny session was held in the summer, allowing members to review the inspection outcomes report early. From that discussion, the committee identified key concerns that aligned with the formal areas for improvement.
Rather than trying to address everything at once, the committee agreed to incorporate these focus areas into their ongoing work plan. Each meeting would include at least one identified SEND improvement theme, allowing for continuous oversight. This also enabled scrutiny to align with delivery milestones and officer workstreams, improving coordination and relevance.
Recognising that SEND services span multiple agencies, including health, we took steps to strengthen cross-cutting oversight. As the Children and Young People’s Services Scrutiny Committee does not hold a direct health remit, we established a joint task and finish group with members from both the health scrutiny committee and the children’s committee. This group was created specifically to explore health-related aspects of SEND provision in more detail.
The task and finish group provided an informal yet focused space to examine complex issues such as commissioning arrangements and service responsibilities. Many members developed a clearer understanding of shared accountability between the local authority and health partners. This helped to challenge common misconceptions, such as the assumption that the local authority is solely responsible for all aspects of SEND delivery. As a result, scrutiny of health contributions became more targeted and insightful.
Engagement of People with Lived Experience and Service Users
For us, the voices of children, young people, and parent carers in scrutiny makes it more authentic, accountable, and responsive to those it affects, particularly in the context of SEND.
A standout example is the ongoing involvement of the Youth Cabinet in the Children and Young People’s Services Scrutiny Committee.
The insight from Youth Cabinet representatives with a direct experience of SEND has brought a depth of understanding that cannot be achieved through reports alone. Committee members have regularly commented that hearing directly from young people has been one of the most valuable parts of the process.
This engagement has been successful largely due to the investment in building strong, trusting relationships over time and helping young people understand the role and purpose of scrutiny. Although not formally co-opted, Youth Cabinet members have standing invitations and contribute to discussions, asking questions and sharing their perspectives.
We have also attended Youth Cabinet meetings and delivering tailored sessions that explain local governance, the function of scrutiny, and how their contributions can shape outcomes. The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee has also participated in these sessions, offering his own insight into the value of their engagement. This has helped to ensure that their involvement is informed, purposeful, and impactful. Participation varies per meeting, but their involvement remains consistent and informed. This has significantly improved the relevance and inclusivity of scrutiny.
We also align scrutiny topics with Youth Cabinet priorities where possible. For instance, an upcoming item on mental health is being developed with input from the Youth Cabinet, reflecting a key manifesto concern. They are contributing evidence and research to strengthen this discussion.
This relationship-building work is not limited to a single point in time. It is sustained before, during, and after the formal scrutiny process. We ensure young people understand not only why they are being invited to participate but also how their contributions have been used and what outcomes have followed. Feeding back to the Youth Cabinet has been a critical part of maintaining their engagement and reinforcing the value of their input.
Similarly, with health partners and other service stakeholders, we have recognised the importance of ongoing relationship-building. Often, scrutiny can be perceived as an additional burden, particularly when it involves preparing reports or attending meetings. To address this, we have worked to explain the role of scrutiny in supporting democratic accountability and service improvement – not simply as a forum for critique, but as a process with real-world impact.
Clarifying expectations and demonstrating the benefits of engagement, for young people and health colleagues alike, has helped us bring the right voices into the room. This has enriched scrutiny discussions and supported a more complete understanding of the issues facing children, young people, and families with SEND.
Although this is an ongoing journey, we have seen clear benefits from sustained and meaningful engagement. As a result, scrutiny is better informed, more inclusive, and more impactful in driving improvement across the SEND system.
Outcomes and impact
The scrutiny process has played a significant role in holding services to account and driving improvement within the SEND system. One of the clearest outcomes has been the increased accountability placed on service leads to demonstrate progress, particularly in relation to the EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan) process and communication with families.
Committee members have consistently and constructively challenged services to provide updates, evidence of action, and clearer explanations of how improvements are being delivered. This has included requesting clarity on the EHCP process, including how cases are prioritised, what the decision-making framework looks like, and how services are addressing delays. These discussions have not only taken place in public forums but have also led to the production of briefing notes for councillors, enabling them to better support and inform residents who raise concerns.
In terms of communication, scrutiny has influenced how the local authority engages with families. Member feedback, rooted in what they hear directly from constituents, has helped shape more responsive and accessible communication strategies. Services have since adopted a wider range of channels and formats, and scrutiny has played a part in steering this development to ensure families receive timely, clear, and supportive information.
A further tangible impact has been the integration of key SEND performance indicators into the Council Plan. This includes measures such as EHCP timeliness and the efficiency of SEND placements in both mainstream and specialist settings. These indicators are now reported on quarterly through the Council’s Performance and Resources Report. Although it is difficult to attribute these changes solely to scrutiny, it is clear that scrutiny played an instrumental role in raising and sustaining focus on these priorities. Their presence in the Council Plan ensures these areas remain visible and subject to regular monitoring by both officers and members.
Additionally, scrutiny has helped refine how performance is measured. For example, instead of relying solely on the percentage of EHCPs completed within 20 weeks, scrutiny has encouraged the inclusion of complementary indicators such as the average number of weeks taken. This provides a more nuanced picture of performance and helps avoid data being skewed by outliers.
While some of these impacts are indirect, their significance should not be underestimated. Scrutiny has also contributed to wider influence by helping to raise national issues. Members have supported efforts to lobby government on SEND funding and policy reform, including contributing to the F40 group’s work and encouraging MP engagement. This demonstrates that scrutiny is not only supporting local accountability but also contributing to shaping the national conversation.
Although improvements are ongoing, early signs of positive change are emerging. Performance indicators show signs of gradual improvement, particularly in EHCP timeliness and service responsiveness. The committee continues to monitor progress rigorously, ensuring sustained focus and oversight.
It is often challenging to draw a direct causal link between scrutiny activity and service outcomes. However, the combination of public accountability, informed challenge, and focused monitoring has clearly contributed to a culture of continuous improvement, supporting better outcomes for children, young people, and families.
Katherine's top tips for scrutiny of SEND
The SEND system is complex, with multiple layers of legislation, commissioning arrangements, and responsibilities across agencies. Pre-meeting briefings help members build a solid understanding of how services work before the formal scrutiny session. This enables members to avoid spending valuable committee time asking for basic clarifications and allows for a more informed and focused line of questioning.
Given the breadth of SEND issues, attempting to scrutinise everything at once can be overwhelming and unproductive. Focus scrutiny on clearly defined improvement areas where the committee can have the most impact. This targeted approach allows for deeper exploration and more meaningful outcomes.
The inclusion of lived experience is vital. Where possible, bring in children and young people to share their views. In our case, regular involvement from the Youth Cabinet has provided invaluable insight, particularly from members with direct experience of SEND. Their perspectives add authenticity and help keep the focus on real-world outcomes.
SEND is a multi-agency responsibility, not solely that of the local authority. It is crucial to involve key stakeholders such as health partners and parent carer forums. This ensures a complete picture and allows scrutiny to hold all relevant agencies to account, not just the council.
Holding informal pre-meetings for members prior to the formal scrutiny session allows them to review key lines of inquiry, discuss areas of concern, and identify any additional information they may need. These meetings help keep scrutiny focused and ensure that time in the public meeting is well-used.
Where direct testimony from service users is not possible, consider including case studies in reports to bring real-life experiences into the room. This helps members better understand the user journey and the impact of services on individuals and families.
Where members require factual or background information to support their scrutiny, this can often be dealt with outside of formal meetings. This avoids using committee time on information-gathering and allows members to stay focused on strategic issues and outcomes during sessions.
Lessons learned
One of the key lessons we’ve learned is that scrutiny genuinely adds value not only by holding services to account, but by raising the profile of key issues through public discussion. Simply putting a topic like SEND on the agenda in an open and transparent forum creates a powerful opportunity for challenge, reflection, and change. Sometimes, the act of talking about an issue publicly can itself be a significant outcome, especially when it leads to greater visibility and clarity for residents.
Another learning has been the importance of preparing Members effectively, especially for a complex and emotive topic like SEND. Ensuring Members are well-briefed ahead of meetings is vital to enable meaningful scrutiny, avoid time being spent on basic clarification, and support more focused and impactful questioning. For some Members, this has required ongoing support and relationship-building to help them feel confident and equipped to take part.
We also learned, through experience, the importance of setting the tone for scrutiny particularly when dealing with sensitive issues. On one occasion, the meeting became more critical than productive, which reminded us of the value of pre-meetings and briefings. These sessions can help align Members around the purpose of scrutiny and reinforce the role they play as critical friends rather than adversaries. Being mindful of tone and approach helps ensure scrutiny contributes to improvement, rather than unintentionally creating tension or defensiveness.
Overall, these experiences have reinforced the importance of careful preparation, respectful engagement, and balancing openness with sensitivity. These elements are essential for scrutiny to achieve meaningful outcomes, especially when dealing with complex and personal areas such as SEND.
Future directions
Looking ahead, SEND remains firmly embedded within the scrutiny work programme. Members have identified key areas where ongoing oversight is essential, ensuring a continued check and balance on progress over time. These areas are treated in the same way as other long-term priorities—remaining on the agenda to allow for sustained focus and review.
Scrutiny members also continue to monitor performance through the Quarterly Performance and Resources Report, which includes specific SEND-related KPIs. If areas of underperformance or concern are identified through these reports, they have the flexibility to bring those items back for deeper scrutiny at future meetings. This allows scrutiny to remain responsive and proactive, rather than reactive.
Additionally, in West Sussex, we have a unique mechanism through our Core Business Planning Groups, where five members from the committee meet to plan the work programme. As part of those meetings, the Cabinet Member with support of officers provide updates on the SEND improvement journey, helping members identify new and emerging areas for scrutiny. This ensures that SEND remains a live and evolving priority, rather than something reviewed once and then set aside.
By combining formal performance monitoring with flexible work planning and ongoing officer engagement, scrutiny is well-positioned to maintain oversight of SEND and continue supporting improvement across the system.
NOTE
At CfGS, we support local government improvement by working closely with councils to highlight the great work being done.
All case studies