If you're new here, you may want to:
Head over to our boards and introduce yourself or just check out what we're talking about today!
Or check out these useful posts:
What to do First
How to Get a Statement
Glossary of Terms

Thanks for visiting!

In some areas, Social Services will only accept a referral if the client has an IQ of 70 or less. This is one of those developments that many SS employees assume is supported by the law, but isn’t.

CarerQuie has researched this information for us:

“There is no eligibilty criteria in childrens’ services.

Under section 17 (10) of the 1989 Childrens’ Act,the only criteria for a ‘child in need’ is that the child IS DISABLED.If they refuse on the grounds that they don’t meet the criteria,point out that the law states the only criteria for initial assessment is that the child is disabled and that you expect them to carry out their statutory duty and complete the initial asessment within 7 WORKING DAYS (as the legislation requires).

Under the same section,if a core assessment is then carried out,it should be completed within 35 working days.

Eligibilty criteria does exist for adult services,though.“

For adult services, it may be worth pursuing the argument that IQ doesn’t refer to ‘useful intelligence.’

In its advice to parents applying for the Disability Living Allowance, the National Autistic Society says,

“People with autism may do well in abstract intelligence tests but sometimes cannot apply their intelligence in a useful way in the real world. An IQ test can give a misleading impression of ‘useful intelligence‘.

To support your claim for ’severe mental impairment’ due to problems with ‘useful intelligence’, you could mention that:

• your child’s condition is on the autistic spectrum (ie the range of disability levels associated with autism)
• autism is believed to be caused by brain damage or arrested brain development
• your child cannot make a sound and safe judgement, and then act on it, because of poor communication and social skills, together with obsessional behaviour and clumsiness (if relevant).

Give examples, such as:

• not understanding that emergency vehicles can travel on both sides of the road
• lack of attention caused by obsessions (eg reading car number plates without paying attention to traffic)
• phobias (eg of dogs or crowds)
• abnormal responses to sensations (eg difficulty judging distances and speed of cars or responding to loud noises by covering the ears and refusing to walk on).”

These arguments almost certainly apply to social services; they are accepted as valid by the DWP.
This is on a slightly different aspect of the topic, but:

In 2002, Lord Justice Simon brown ruled in an appeal against a DLA decision,

“I conclude that whilst in every case the claimant’s IQ as conventionally tested is likely to be the essential starting point for considering the impairment of intelligence, and whilst it is perfectly reasonable to take an IQ of 55 or less as the prima facie touchstone of severe impairment, that test and that score will not invariably prove decisive. Rather it should be recognised that an IQ result may give a misleading impression of the claimant’s useful intelligence and that in some cases at least an impairment of social functioning will shade into an impairment of intelligence. Tribunals and Commissioners will accordingly need to admit and consider evidence other than a mere IQ score.“

When the Social Security Commissioner commented on that ruling in 2003, he referred to Uta Frith (”Autism - Explaining the Enigma” 1989)

“There is a real difference between “test intelligence” and “world intelligence”. IQ tests are purposely constructed so as to be as independent of social context as possible. Some people have difficulty in solving problems in tests for their own sake outside a real-life context; they, therefore, score badly in IQ tests. Autistics, however, at least in certain tests, score unusually highly just because they are being tested outside the real-life context. Their success in IQ tests, in short, is not a true indication of what one may call their useful intelligence and it is surely the impairment of the claimant’s useful intelligence to which the regulation is directed.“

Granted, this ruling does not apply to social services criteria - but the principle behind it is sound and, in my opinion, transferrable.

“The DRC can give advice on the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995.
This issue is not within the scope of the DDA as it involves Local Authority Social Services carrying out their public function.
This means it is not a service that is available to members of the general public.“

Which means that government agencies are exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act when delivering public services.

It goes on to say,

“Social Services will have duties under the Disability Equality Duty which comes into force on the 4th December 2006.
Under this they will need to take into consideration the needs of disabled people when carrying out their function.“