The Evidence
What are people telling us?
Two kinds of evidence sit side by side here — never mixed without a label.
2 experiences documented so far.
All 2 stories are from real submissions
What published research tells us
Published statistics and research from credible external organisations. These are not from Your Story Matters — they provide wider context.
NHS Constitution for England
Department of Health & Social Care
Sets a maximum 18-week wait from referral to the start of consultant-led, non-urgent treatment. A key national benchmark for NHS waiting times, including CAMHS and therapy services.
View sourceChildren and Families Act 2014, section 36
legislation.gov.uk
Requires local authorities to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issue a plan within 20 weeks, where one is needed.
View sourceEducation, Health and Care Plans: England
Department for Education
Latest official statistics (2026 release, covering 2025): 718,800 children and young people had an EHC plan as at January 2026 — up 12.5% in a year. Only 46.1% of new plans were issued within the 20-week statutory timescale (down from 50.3% in 2023), and 10.3% took over a year. The mean time to issue a plan was 24.0 weeks.
View sourceChildren and young people's mental health waiting lists
Royal College of Psychiatrists
As of November 2025, around half a million children in England were on mental health waiting lists. 30% (165,887) had been waiting over two years and 53% (289,722) over one year.
View sourceCommunity health services waiting lists
NHS England
Official quarterly statistics on waiting times for community health services, including children and young people's mental health and therapy services. From 2025 the breakdown includes waits over 104 weeks (two years).
View sourceSolving the SEND Crisis (5th Report, HC 492)
House of Commons Education Committee
Over 1.2 million children and young people receive SEN support, and nearly half a million have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Committee's September 2025 report called for a culture shift and funding to make mainstream education genuinely inclusive.
View sourceLocal Government and Social Care Ombudsman — Annual Report
LGO
In 2024-25 the Ombudsman dealt with 22,010 complaints and enquiries and carried out 4,441 detailed investigations. Upheld complaints highlight systemic issues in SEND and social care.
View sourceThe Children's Plan
Children's Commissioner for England
Sets out a vision for reform based on what a million children have told the Children's Commissioner, including children with SEND and those in care.
View sourceCare Act 2014
legislation.gov.uk
Sets local authority duties to assess and meet eligible care and support needs, including for disabled children transitioning to adult services.
View sourceWhat people have told us here
Aggregated, anonymised information submitted through Your Story Matters. Every number below is generated from real receipts — never estimated.
Filter the evidence
Experiences shared
2
Experiences involving waiting
2
Experiences affecting education
2
Experiences affecting work
2
Experiences affecting family life
2
Experiences affecting trust
2
Questions people say were never asked
1
About these figures. These figures represent experiences submitted to Your Story Matters. They should not be interpreted as population-level statistics unless explicitly stated. Where sample sizes are small, the number of responses is shown. Percentages are always accompanied by the underlying number.
Early data — read with caution. With fewer than 25 real, consented stories, these figures are illustrative, not statistically representative. Example records are shown to demonstrate how the platform works — they are never counted toward these statistics. The aggregate picture becomes meaningful as more real people contribute.
Systems represented
Systems and services people mentioned
(n=2 responses)The systems or services people said were involved in their experience. A person can name more than one.
Most reported impacts
Most affected life areas
(n=2 responses)Life areas where people reported high or severe impact. Count = people reporting high or severe; the number who rated the category at all is shown too.
Recurring themes — what could have helped
What people say could have prevented the impact
(n=0 responses)Factors people identified that might have prevented some of the impact they experienced.
No consented responses yet.
Only responses where the person explicitly consented to aggregation are counted. Written notes are never published — only grouped, recurring themes.
Recurring themes — what helped
What people say actually helped
(n=0 responses)Themes from people who said something genuinely helped reduce the impact. Derived by keyword matching from consented notes.
No consented 'what helped' responses yet.
Only responses where the person explicitly consented to aggregation are counted. Written notes are never published — only grouped, recurring themes.
Recurring missed questions
The questions people wish had been asked sooner
(n=1 responses)Themes derived by keyword matching from consented Missed Question responses — indicative, not exhaustive.
Only responses where the person explicitly consented to aggregation are counted. Written notes are never published — only grouped, recurring themes.
Geographic distribution
Where experiences come from
(n=2 responses)Local authority areas with at least three experiences — a minimum threshold so no area or person is identifiable. Broader county-level only.
Not enough experiences in any single area yet (a minimum of three is needed to show an area).
Human Impact Index
Distribution of reported impact
71
average index (0–100)
The Human Impact Index summarises the severity, duration, breadth, trajectory and circumstances each person reported. It is not a clinical or legal assessment. (n=2 scored)
2 experiences scored. Each bar shows how many fell within that reported-impact band.
By system
Reported impact by system or service
Average Human Impact Index and reported waiting time, grouped by the system each person said was involved. Systems with fewer than 3 experiences are not shown. (n=0 experiences)
Not enough data yet to compare systems.
By waiting time
Impact by how long people waited
How many experiences fell into each waiting-time band, and the average Human Impact Index within that band.(n=2 with a time period)
12–26 weeks
1
avg index 67
Over 1 year
1
avg index 74
Over time
Changes over time
Experiences recorded each month, grouped by when the documented delay concluded. A line chart makes the trend easier to read than a table — the underlying count is shown on hover.
2 experiences in the last 12 months.
How this evidence works
A plain-English explanation of what the platform data is, how it is produced, and what it can — and cannot — tell us.
What data is collected
People share experiences through stories and Human Impact Receipts. Receipts record the decision or delay, the time it took, the life areas affected, the circumstances of the family, and optional reflections — the question they wish had been asked, what could have prevented the impact, and what actually helped.
How categories are assigned
Impact categories (Sleep, Mental wellbeing, Education, and so on) and systems (SEND, CAMHS, Social Care, and so on) use fixed lists chosen by the person sharing. Reflection themes are derived by keyword matching against free text — they are indicative, not exhaustive, and never replace what someone actually wrote.
How anonymity works
Every number is aggregated and anonymised. No individual is identifiable. Written responses are never published — only grouped, recurring counts. Reflections are counted only where the person explicitly consented to aggregation, and consent is unbundled from saving a private receipt. Geographic detail is shown only where at least three experiences come from the same area.
How calculations work
Counts are direct counts of real records. Percentages are calculated against the number of relevant responses. The Human Impact Index combines severity, duration, breadth, trajectory and circumstances into a single 0–100 score using fixed weights. Waiting times are converted to a common unit (days) before averaging.
Limitations
Submissions are voluntary and self-selected, so they do not represent every family. Small numbers are unreliable, so where fewer than 25 experiences have been shared we say so openly. Keyword-derived themes can miss nuance. A person can name more than one system or impact, so category counts can exceed the total number of experiences.
What the data can and cannot demonstrate
It can show patterns within the experiences shared here — what keeps happening, what it costs families, and what might have helped. It cannot prove how widespread an issue is across the whole country, nor establish cause. For population-wide conclusions, read it alongside the national evidence below.
Your Story Matters does not claim that voluntary submissions represent every family's experience. It helps make patterns within the experiences shared here visible.
Methodology & trust
Every figure here comes from a real person
These statistics are generated from Human Impact Receipts submitted by people who chose to document what happened to them. No claim is made that this is a population-level sample. Where consent was given, reflection responses (the Missed Question, what could have prevented impact, and what helped) contribute to grouped themes only — written notes are never published. This dashboard is designed to be shown to MPs, NHS organisations, local authorities, charities, researchers and commissioners as evidence of lived experience, not as a substitute for formal research.
2 experiences underpin this dashboard.