Proposed by Facts Count

An EBSA support hub: a named worker, tuition and SEMH support

Offer children struggling to attend because of emotional distress a named worker, suitable tuition and social, emotional and mental health support, working with the child, family and school on a safe education plan, including adjustments or another suitable setting where needed.

In five minutes

The evidence

Severe absence (pupils missing at least half of possible sessions): 3.55% of pupil enrolments; England 2.39% (School year 2024/25), State-funded schools in Portsmouth.

Issue: Schools, SEND and attendance. Related findings: “Children need support before absence deepens”.

Proposed by

Proposed by Facts Count A proposal, not a council decision or commitment.

Proposed lead

Portsmouth City Council education inclusion and attendance service (suggested; not agreed), with schools, educational psychology, the SEND service, health partners and families; commissioning and provider roles are still to be agreed

Cost and funding

None assumed: a time-limited annual pilot. Set-up effort sits inside the coordination, evaluation and premises lines. Planning allowance about £470,000 a year for up to 30 children at a time (£426,000 plus 10% contingency, rounded). Illustrative Facts Count planning allowance in 2026 pounds. Not a quotation, market evidence, an allocation or a council commitment. No named organisation has agreed to lead, fund or deliver this proposal. Each extra tuition hour a week for every child in the pilot adds £57,000 a year before contingency. Unallocated: no funding identified or committed. This is an estimate for planning only. Lawful commissioning routes and contributions from education, inclusion and health partners would need to be assessed. Statutory provision costs must not be moved into an optional pilot, and no NHS contribution is assumed.

EstimateAllocatedSpentUnknown

First move

Ask the council to publish what it already provides for children unable to attend because of emotional distress, with anonymised numbers, so the pilot can be sized and so existing services are not duplicated.

Success measure

Agreed before the pilot starts and published with the evaluation: time to first support; education offered and actually received; child-reported safety and wellbeing; family experience; learning progress; sustained engagement in suitable education; school adjustments and transition outcomes; repeat referrals; cost per child supported. Returning to school is reported separately and is not the only successful outcome. No baseline results are invented.

Suggested stages

A proposed sequence, not deadlines or funded commitments. Starting an action is not the same as its benefits arriving.

Start soonBuild nextLonger term

Start soon

Establish a baseline and a map of current services from attendance data and case information, and keep EBSA, health-related absence, severe absence, EHE and children missing education distinctLead: Education inclusion and attendance service with educational psychology (proposed)Output: Baseline note and service map, anonymised and disclosure-controlled
Co-design referral, safeguarding, tuition-quality and clinical-escalation arrangements with existing services, schools and familiesLead: Council with schools, health partners and Parent Voice (proposed)Output: Agreed referral route with an accessible family entry point and written pilot success and stop criteria

Build next

Commission a one-year evaluated pilot for up to 30 children at onceLead: Council commissioning (proposed)Output: Pilot running with named coordinator, tutors and SEMH workersDepends on: Funding source identified; staff and tutor availability confirmed
Review delivery each quarter, including education actually received and each child's planLead: Pilot coordinator with school leads (proposed)Output: Quarterly review reported publicly in aggregate

Longer term

Evaluate before renewal or expansion and publish the result, including cost per child and outcomes other than return to schoolLead: Council with an independent evaluator (proposed)Output: Published evaluation and a continue, change or stop decision

Why, and the trade-off

Severe absence in Portsmouth is above Southampton, Hampshire and England and has risen in every published year. Portsmouth's own guidance for school staff recognises emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA) and describes what schools and professionals can do, but guidance is not the same as a child-level service with a named worker and tuition. No published local count of children in this position was found, so the size of the group is not stated here.

Trade-off: Tuition and specialist staff are scarce. A separate hub can fragment education or duplicate services; an integrated service using existing premises is preferred. A 30-child pilot will not meet citywide demand.

Baseline No published local count of this group; severe absence 3.55% of pupil enrolments in 2024/25 (a different measure).

Full appraisal

Problem, options against the current approach, costs, risks, who gains and who pays, and how progress would be judged.

Full delivery plan: problem, options, costs, risks and how to judge progress

The problem and who is affected

Who is affected: Children and young people who struggle to attend school because of emotional distress, their families and schools. Elective home education, children missing education and children who cannot attend for health reasons are different groups that overlap with this one and are not interchangeable counts.

Starting point: measured figures
Measure	Value	Period	Area
Severe absence (pupils missing at least half of possible sessions) Severe absence has several causes. It is not a count of children with emotionally based school non-attendance (EBSA).	3.55% of pupil enrolments; England 2.39%	School year 2024/25	State-funded schools in Portsmouth
Size of the EBSA group in Portsmouth EBSA, authorised health-related absence, severe absence, elective home education, children missing education and education otherwise than at school overlap but are not interchangeable counts. No published local EBSA count was found; the pilot would first establish a baseline from current attendance data and case information.	Not published	Not available	Portsmouth

What this would change

Aim: Help children who cannot attend because of emotional distress to receive suitable education and support quickly, and to move towards sustained engagement in suitable education, whether or not that is a return to their previous school.

What success would mean: Agreed before the pilot starts and published with the evaluation: time to first support; education offered and actually received; child-reported safety and wellbeing; family experience; learning progress; sustained engagement in suitable education; school adjustments and transition outcomes; repeat referrals; cost per child supported. Returning to school is reported separately and is not the only successful outcome. No baseline results are invented.

A time-limited, evaluated pilot for up to 30 children at once, with referrals through existing services and an accessible family route, chosen by unmet education and support need and urgency, not diagnostic status alone. The offer: a named coordinator; a child- and family-led assessment; qualified, suitably checked tutors; trained SEMH workers; home, community, small-group or online options; school adjustments and supported transitions; help with exams and learning materials; and reviews of the education received and wellbeing. SEMH workers do not replace clinical mental-health care, and referral, safeguarding, tuition-quality and clinical-escalation arrangements would be set up with existing services. Elective home education families could be offered voluntary advice, but no home-educating family would be required to return to school and EHE is not treated as failed schooling. Support is not conditional on a diagnosis or a successful return to the previous school. The three tuition hours used in the costing are a cost assumption, not a limit on a child's entitlement or a claim that three hours is suitable education.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council education inclusion and attendance service (suggested; not agreed), with schools, educational psychology, the SEND service, health partners and families; commissioning and provider roles are still to be agreed. Partners: Schools and academy trusts, Portsmouth Educational Psychology Team and Mental Health Support Team, Multi Agency Behaviour Support and the SEND service, NHS children's mental-health services, Portsmouth Parent Voice and families, Portsmouth Education Partnership.

Powers: The council has duties to arrange suitable education for children who cannot attend school because of illness, including mental-health needs, and to identify children missing education (see the Department for Education guidance). It must also meet its other statutory duties. It cannot direct academies or NHS providers. Statutory provision costs must not be moved into an optional pilot.

Options

Current approach: Keep the current approach. School-level guidance and existing council services, with individual cases dealt with through existing routes. No added cost; the gap between guidance and a named worker with tuition remains.
Proposed response: Evaluated one-year pilot for up to 30 children. An integrated service using existing suitable premises, with a named coordinator, tuition and SEMH workers. A 30-child pilot will not meet citywide demand by itself.
Alternative: Strengthen school-based support instead. Spend on school-level mental-health and attendance support. Reaches more children earlier but does not give an out-of-school option for those already unable to attend.
Alternative: A separate stand-alone hub. A dedicated site. Can fragment education, duplicate existing services or become a long-term destination without sufficient learning, so the integrated option is preferred.

Tuition and specialist staff are scarce. The local size of the group, the existing service map and what existing services already provide are not yet published, so the pilot size and balance of options are provisional.

Delivery plan

Proposed sequence. A suggested sequence, not agreed dates. A one-year pilot is the proposed length.
Stage	Task	Proposed lead	Dependencies and decisions	Output
Start soon	Establish a baseline and a map of current services from attendance data and case information, and keep EBSA, health-related absence, severe absence, EHE and children missing education distinct	Education inclusion and attendance service with educational psychology (proposed)	—	Baseline note and service map, anonymised and disclosure-controlled
Start soon	Co-design referral, safeguarding, tuition-quality and clinical-escalation arrangements with existing services, schools and families	Council with schools, health partners and Parent Voice (proposed)	Decision: Agree success criteria and expansion or stop decisions before starting	Agreed referral route with an accessible family entry point and written pilot success and stop criteria
Build next	Commission a one-year evaluated pilot for up to 30 children at once	Council commissioning (proposed)	Depends on: Funding source identified; staff and tutor availability confirmed · Decision: Funding and commissioning decision	Pilot running with named coordinator, tutors and SEMH workers
Build next	Review delivery each quarter, including education actually received and each child's plan	Pilot coordinator with school leads (proposed)	—	Quarterly review reported publicly in aggregate
Longer term	Evaluate before renewal or expansion and publish the result, including cost per child and outcomes other than return to school	Council with an independent evaluator (proposed)	—	Published evaluation and a continue, change or stop decision

A first practical step: Ask the council to publish what it already provides for children unable to attend because of emotional distress, with anonymised numbers, so the pilot can be sized and so existing services are not duplicated.

Costs and funding

One-off costs: None assumed: a time-limited annual pilot. Set-up effort sits inside the coordination, evaluation and premises lines.
Recurring costs: Planning allowance about £470,000 a year for up to 30 children at a time (£426,000 plus 10% contingency, rounded). Illustrative Facts Count planning allowance in 2026 pounds. Not a quotation, market evidence, an allocation or a council commitment. No named organisation has agreed to lead, fund or deliver this proposal. Each extra tuition hour a week for every child in the pilot adds £57,000 a year before contingency.
Capital or revenue: Revenue (staff, tuition and running costs).
Funding status: Unallocated: no funding identified or committed. This is an estimate for planning only. Lawful commissioning routes and contributions from education, inclusion and health partners would need to be assessed. Statutory provision costs must not be moved into an optional pilot, and no NHS contribution is assumed.
Affordability: Not assessed. Three tuition hours a week is a costing assumption only, not a limit on what a child is entitled to or a claim that it is suitable education. Additional provision needs separate costing. Combined with the SEND hub the year-one allowance is about £800,000, then about £584,000 a year if the pilot continued.
Costing still needed: Local tutor, SEMH worker and psychology rates and availability; supervision, cover and qualification requirements; VAT; referral volumes from existing services; premises that already exist.

Illustrative Facts Count planning allowance in 2026 pounds. Not a quotation, market evidence, an allocation or a council commitment. No named organisation has agreed to lead, fund or deliver this proposal.

Annual pilot planning allowance (up to 30 children at a time) (GBP, 2026 prices)
Assumption	Amount
30 children × 3 tuition hours a week × 38 weeks × £50 an hour	£171,000
Two SEMH workers at £70,000 loaded cost each	£140,000
0.5 FTE coordination at £70,000 full-time loaded cost	£35,000
0.2 FTE educational psychology at £100,000 full-time loaded cost	£20,000
Flexible premises, materials and IT	£30,000
Travel and access support	£15,000
Evaluation and data reporting	£15,000
Subtotal	£426,000
10% contingency	£42,600
Planning allowance (rounded)	£470,000

Annual pilot planning allowance (rounded): £470,000
Each extra tuition hour a week for every pilot child, per year (before contingency): £57,000
Combined with the shared SEND hub, year one: about £800,000; each later year if the same pilot continued: about £584,000. Linked proposal: shared-send-hub. No funding has been secured and no offsetting savings are assumed.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Children could get a named worker and suitable education sooner, families a clearer route and schools a partner. Benefits are not shown for Portsmouth: the pilot would measure them.

Risks:

Tuition and specialist staff are scarce, so the pilot may not recruit.
A separate hub can fragment education or duplicate existing services.
It could become a long-term destination without enough learning, if not reviewed regularly.
Selection by urgency could leave other children waiting; 30 places will not meet citywide demand.
SEMH workers do not replace clinical care, so clinical escalation routes must work.
Statutory provision could wrongly be treated as optional pilot spending.

Who could gain or lose: Children with unmet needs and families who struggle to navigate services could gain most. Home-educating families keep a separate status and are not required to return to school. Children outside the 30 places do not gain from the pilot.

Capacity: Depends on tutors, SEMH workers, educational psychology time and school cooperation, all of which are scarce, and on the council finding funding.

How to judge progress

Proposed measures. Gaps show where no baseline or reporting arrangement exists yet.
Measure	Definition	Starting point	Source and area	How often · who reports
Time to first support	Days from referral to first contact with a named worker	No published baseline Gap: No baseline was found; it starts with the pilot.	None found · Portsmouth	Quarterly (proposed) · Pilot coordinator (proposed)
Education offered and actually received	Hours offered and received per child compared with the plan, reported in aggregate	No published baseline Gap: No baseline was found.	None found · Portsmouth	Quarterly (proposed) · Pilot coordinator (proposed)
Child-reported safety and wellbeing, family experience and learning progress	Agreed measures, designed with children and families	No current baseline found Gap: No regular measure exists.	None found · Portsmouth	Each term (proposed) · Evaluator (proposed)
Sustained engagement in suitable education, school adjustments, transitions and repeat referrals	Reported separately; return to the previous school is reported on its own and is not the only success	No published baseline Gap: No baseline was found.	None found · Portsmouth	Annual (proposed) · Evaluator (proposed)
Cost per child supported	Actual pilot spend divided by children supported, with contingency and overhead stated	Not applicable before a pilot Gap: The planning allowance is not an actual cost.	Pilot accounts · Portsmouth	Annual (proposed) · Council finance (proposed)

Reassess when: The council publishes an attendance or EBSA service map, the Local SEND Reform Plan or the refreshed SEND strategy changes how inclusion support is delivered, or national attendance or health-needs guidance changes.

Where things stand

What is known:

Portsmouth's Educational Psychology Team, Mental Health Support Team and Multi Agency Behaviour Support authored January 2025 guidance for school staff that covers EBSA.
Department for Education guidance sets council duties to children who cannot attend school because of health needs, and is separate from elective home education guidance.
The Local SEND Reform Plan describes an Inclusion Hub and Experts at Hand early-support offer for schools, and a developing Support Hub through Family Help. Neither is described as a tuition and SEMH service for children unable to attend.

What is not known:

How many Portsmouth children are in this position, and for how long.
What the council already provides for them, including health-needs education and alternative provision.
Local tutor, SEMH worker and psychology availability and rates.

Decisions needed:

Whether to establish a baseline and service map first.
Whether a one-year pilot is the right form, and for how many children.
Who would commission and fund it, and on what lawful route.

Existing work:

Attendance, the tip of the iceberg? Portsmouth guidance for school staff (Educational Psychology, Mental Health Support Team, Multi Agency Behaviour Support): Published January 2025; guidance for schools, not a child-level service (as of 2026-11-11).
Local SEND Reform Plan: Inclusion Hub, Experts at Hand and developing Support Hub (official programme; separate from this proposal): Approved plan; advice and early-support offer (as of 2026-11-11).

UK Facts context: Special educational needs in England (National picture; national reform is set by government, local delivery by the council and partners.) · Attendance and missing education (National absence trends; schools and the council act locally.)

Next review: When the council publishes a service map or baseline for these children, or when the refreshed SEND strategy is published (planned January 2027). Evidence last checked 2026-11-11.