I follow your reasoning here, Mick, but I think you're describing what
should be a non-problem providing DOs have robust systems to ensure that
support is only provided appropriately. In the first instance, support
should not be provided unless the student provides evidence of disability
(e.g., a letter from a GP or consultant). At the same time, the student
should complete the DSA form. This seems quite straightforward: if the
student will not co-operate, then the institution is not in a position to
offer support. The DO can then use the evidence to claim for support; if
the evidence is valid and the support is reasonable, why need anyone else
be involved? The purpose of these systems is to prevent fraud of one kind
or another. Where there is clearly no fraud taking place, the strict rules
and procedures are simply obstructive and should be reviewed (and I have
known several LEAs who did this, much to everyone's benefit).
Regards, Bernard
Quoting Michael Trott <[log in to unmask]>:
> There does appear to be a number of inconsistencies.
>
> The fact is that LEAs are responsible for handling DSA funding. They do
> not
> need to ask for an assessment at all.
>
> But, it is not correct to say that they only need an assessment for
> equipment. They can ask for an assessment just for non medical help.
>
> While many LEAs will agree to fund support without an assessment some
> will
> not. The reasons for this are various and include auditors' requirements
> and
> previous experience of agreeing to fund support for which no evidence or
> inadequate evidence to justify the support was provided by the student.
>
> I have encountered a few of cases where once the student has received
> the
> support they do not make an application for DSA or they refuse to go for
> a needs
> assessment. The university and or the LEA are then unable to reclaim the
> costs
> of support. Hence, the LEA adopts strict rules and procedures.
>
> I am sure that there are some cases of not understanding the rules or
> inefficient processing but it might be that there are good reasons for
> LEA reluctance
> to agree to support without evidence or an assessment.
>
> Mick Trott
>
|