House of Commons - Health

Select Committee on Health Second Report

CHILDREN LOOKED AFTER BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

The Rights of the Child

201. Children are more vulnerable than adults, in many different ways. This means that special attention must be paid to securing their rights. Our predecessors in the last Parliament commented on this in their report on the specific health needs of children, published in March 1997:

"Socially, physically and psychologically, children are amongst the most vulnerable members of any community. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by the UK Government in 1991, recognises that children are a vulnerable group, entitled to special care and assistance.[232] The younger the child, the more wholly dependent he or she will be on adults for physical and emotional care and protection. ... Children are less able than adults to choose or control their environment. Furthermore, children are less likely to be able to articulate clearly what is troubling them. It is ... important that children are listened to and their views taken into consideration."[233]

202. If children in general are a vulnerable group, children looked after by local authorities are acutely vulnerable. It is all the more important that their voice should be heard by people in positions of authority. During our inquiry we met children and young people in various contexts: during our visits to children's homes, in a meeting with members of Birmingham Young People's Forum, and in an evidence session with young people who had formerly been in care.

203. One message came across very clearly from these meetings. Children feel there is a stigma attached to being looked after. They feel they are looked down upon and discriminated against in all kinds of ways. A common complaint is that people have preconceived ideas of what a child in care or a fostered child is like.[234] It is assumed that children in care must have been abused, or—an even more widespread assumption—must be criminals. Ms Sharon Leatham, one of our panel of young people who used to be in care, said that "it is almost as if it's written on your head, you're labelled".[235] Mr Paul Kefford, another member of the panel, gave an example from his experience doing a temporary job in the civil service:

"I was working for a permanent secretary. We had a chat one afternoon and he said: 'What's your background?' I told him a bit, my mother had died when I was 16 and I had been placed in care. He said: 'You're so normal'. I said: 'What do you mean by normal anyway?' This label, it means you cannot possibly be at all articulate or reasonable ... ."[236]

One member of the Birmingham forum told us that he found it easier to play along with the assumption of criminality than admit to emotional vulnerability: he decided to tell people "yes, I nicked a car" rather than "my mother didn't want me".

204. Another member of the forum told us that she had changed school, and when she arrived at her new school she found that all the other pupils had been told by a teacher that she was in care. Unsurprisingly, she resented being singled out and made to feel conspicuous in this way. Ms Leatham, asked to comment on this case, told us that "it is the small things sometimes that mean the most". She said that a lot of professionals "get caught up with the process" and "take very little time to understand you as an individual, to understand where you are coming from, to look at issues like confidentiality and who you would like to be informed about your past experience".[237]

205. Mr Mark Tierney, a former looked-after child who subsequently became a residential social worker, wrote to us to claim that untrained residential staff "seem unable or unwilling to recognise that their own behaviour can be more childlike than the residents", and that the lack of respect shown to children, particularly with regard to privacy, can trigger disturbances: "I would argue that the unacceptable and 'out of control' behaviour we can see from young people in our residential homes is actually a kickback reaction from the way we treat them". He added that "there are inadequate mechanisms and safety nets in place to make sure that young people are listened to and basic rights are respected".[238]

206. We learned from our own meetings that children's relationships with their social workers are sometimes bad. We have quoted above the young man from the Birmingham Forum who told us that looked-after young people in general "hate their social workers with a vengeance", and that this was because they hardly ever saw them—perhaps only once in several months. In some cases this may be because of insensitivity or poor training on the part of the social worker. Rather more often, we suspect, it is pressure of work and the sheer weight of other responsibilities to be attended to which prevents social workers developing the personal relationships with looked-after children that the governing legislation clearly envisages. A survey of looked-after children in 1993 found that 41% of those in residential care expressed positive views about their social workers, 30% said they were "OK" or "all right", and 20% said they were "bad", "selfish", "don't understand" or disliked something about them.[239]

207. One way for children to be given a greater voice within the system would be if better trained and better resourced social workers were to rediscover their traditional role as confidants and champions of the interests of the children they look after. It is desirable that this be done, and we hope our recommendations on redefining social workers' roles, if implemented, will contribute to this end. The role of the social worker should remain crucially important in relation to safeguarding children's rights.

208. It is, however, arguable that further measures are necessary. Ms Hedy Cleaver of Leicester University argued that teenagers required both a 'champion' or advocate to promote their interests, and a trusted and supportive mentor to counter isolation, loneliness and low self-esteem, and to stay in touch when the young person has left the care system.[240]

Ms Cleaver said that the champion could and normally should be the child's social worker, but there were sometimes difficulties in the way of this, particularly when the social worker was appointed to another post.[241] Alternatively, the responsibility might fall to a foster carer, relative or befriender. The role required long-term commitment, sympathy with the young person's plight, and a knowledge of their needs and wishes. The mentor or mentors could be drawn from a wider pool: their role would be to listen, be dependable and available, and prepared to support the young person through thick and thin. Ms Cleaver claimed that research indicated that a trusted mentor could play a strategic role in changing anti-social behaviour, such as drug abuse or offending.

209. We asked some of our other academic witnesses about the concept of champions and mentors. Professor Mike Stein of the University of York said that research in the United States showed that people in such positions could have a role to play, but that it should be supplementary to rather than in substitution for the role of the main social worker. He thought that informal arrangements involving family members might be preferable to creating further formal positions.[242] Professor Roger Bullock, Director of the Dartington Social Research Unit, agreed that there was a case for looking at the wider family, including grandparents and siblings, as a source for adult friends and mentors for the child. One drawback to appointing formal mentors was that the vetting necessitated by considerations of child protection meant that the process of appointment could take six or seven weeks, and so it all became rather cumbersome.[243]

210. The Directors of Social Services from whom we took evidence agreed that it was very regrettable if children were so alienated from their social workers that they needed other individuals to fill the role the social worker had traditionally played. Mrs Moira Gibb of Kensington and Chelsea said that "I feel the care management approach which I know some departments have used has allowed social workers to withdraw from a direct relationship with the young person".[244]

211. The panel of young people from whom we took evidence supported the concept of formally recognised mentors or champions.[245] Mr Paul Kefford emphasised the need for them to stand outside the care system. He said that he had had a mentor and there had been "great conflict between my social worker and this other person". He had asked for his mentor to attend a review meeting with him but was told this was not possible because the mentor was not an "authorised person".[246]

212. The Children Act 1989 provides for a system of independent visitors who can act as mentors. The local authority is required to appoint volunteers who will have a "duty of visiting, advising and befriending the child", where they conclude that the child's own parents or guardians are not in communication with him or her and that appointment of a visitor would be in the child's best interests. The appointment cannot proceed if the child objects (subject to the local authority being satisfied that the child has sufficient understanding to reach an informed decision).[247]

213. A recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the National Children's Bureau, based on research carried out in 1996, shows that only a third of local authorities in England and Wales (40 out of a total of 120) were using independent visitors, despite it being a legal duty for them to do so. At the time of the survey, only 235 children and young people in England and Wales had an independent visitor. The vast majority of independent visitors were white women; difficulties were reported in recruiting men and volunteers from minority ethnic groups. Concerns expressed by visitors included lack of funding to pay for schemes, and a perceived lack of independence in schemes run by social services as opposed to a voluntary agency. Children interviewed were very positive about having an independent visitor: they viewed them as friends to talk to and supporters in placement review meetings. However, they did not expect the visitors to solve their problems or help them make complaints, as they thought this was the social worker's role.[248]

214. Sir William Utting told us that he envisaged the independent visitor system being developed to provide champions and mentors for any looked-after child who wanted it. The traditional role of the field social worker, as being the one single person who had an overall responsibility for a child on a long-term basis, had been eroded by various factors, including the purchaser-provider split and the introduction of care management. What had happened, he said, was "not the result of a lack of interest in children on the part of social workers, but the fact that this job had been squeezed out and was not given a sufficiently high priority any longer by the employing authority". He believed that every child should have someone to play the role of long-term adult friend: if not their own parents or an independent visitor it might be a local authority children's rights officer.[249]

215. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr Boateng, told us that he accepted the principle of each child in care having a single person to act as a "focal point", someone responsible for them and whom they can relate to, whatever happens to them in terms of individual placements. He said that "until we have that, I am afraid it is my view that we will continue to fail children taken care of in relation to their education and in relation to health and other aspects of their development". He added that Government policy on this issue was being developed in the context of the comprehensive spending review and the drafting of the forthcoming White Paper on social services.[250]

216. We are convinced that children need to have the option of having an adult "friend" who will:

(1) always be interested in and concerned for them

(2) share their joys and sorrows

(3) celebrate their achievements and boost them after disappointments

(4) fight for their best interests

(5) offer sound and frank advice.

217. For some, perhaps many, children looked after, like other children, that adult friend will be a parent. Of course, parents will not always fulfil every aspect of the role: all adults have strengths and weaknesses. But most parents hope to do it well enough, and that remains true in the case of parents who may, for a time, not be able to look after their child. We therefore wish to endorse the expectation of the Children Act 1989 that parents of looked-after children should be assisted and encouraged to play the biggest possible part in their lives that is consistent with their welfare.

218. Some parents cannot play this befriending role adequately. The local authority must then ensure that someone suitable takes it on. We believe that it will often be possible to help the child to nominate that person from amongst those already known to him or her: perhaps a relative, a former neighbour, a youth worker or foster carer, or, at the child's particular request, the child's own social worker. Subject only to essential checks against unsuitability (we are painfully aware of the attractions of this role to paedophile intent), and safeguards against undue emotional pressure, we believe it will be right to respect the child's choice.

219. In some children's lives, sadly dislocated and isolated, there may be no-one available to take on this responsibility. The local authority should then recruit suitable volunteers who can assist these few, especially vulnerable, children. We believe that there will be people willing and able to do this. It will be a tough and challenging role. These children have taken many hard knocks and often will place no trust in adults. Their confidence will be hard to win. These volunteers will therefore need training and support, but it must not be provided in such a way that they become part of the "care system". Their distinctive contribution must be their freedom to champion the child, free from the dilemmas facing SSD staff over resources, priorities and community expectations.

220. We recommend that local authorities should be required:

(1) to ensure that every looked-after child has the option of having a recognised adult "friend" who will actively promote their best interests

(2) where appropriate, to assist a parent to play that part; if this is not possible, to identify, in partnership with the child, a suitable adult, known to them to be willing and able to take on the responsibility

(3) where there is no adult known to the child who is willing and able to do this, to make suitable volunteers available as "adult friends".

221. These proposals overlap significantly with the Children Act's provisions for "independent visitors". We have been disappointed to find that so few independent visitors have been appointed. Given the costs involved, local authorities clearly have not regarded this as a priority. If the appointment of "adult friends" is effectively left to the discretion of local authorities, we suspect that very few will be appointed. We recommend that every authority should be required to show that it is able to make "adult friends" available; that every statutory review of a looked-after child should be required to consider whether an "adult friend" is needed and, where necessary, ensure that the need is met; and that the Social Services Inspectorate should report on an authority's arrangements in this respect when they carry out inspections in connection with looked-after children.

222. There will be some resource implications. It is in part because these have not been faced up to in the past that the best intentions of legislation have not been realised. We do not think the resources required will be huge. Although it would be wrong to draw up strict lines of demarcation based on age, it is clear to us that older children stand in greatest need of, and will benefit most from, this special friendship. For younger children, the whole aim of "care" should be to restore or establish a "good enough" parenting relationship. Whilst many older children are looked after in the course of a year, few of them are deeply isolated and likely to need looking after in the long term. It is only those few for whom new costs will arise from our proposal.

223. The "adult friend" must be encouraged fully to participate in the local authority's work with the child, especially its planning and decision making, without in any way compromising his or her independence and role as the child's champion.

224. The role of an "adult friend", as we envisage it, should be seen as complementary to the role of the child's field social worker. Both roles are essential, though there may be healthy tension between the two at times. The social worker should champion the child, but must do so within the constraints imposed by the policies and priorities of his or her employer, the local authority, and by the expectations and rights of others such as parents, the community, other children and the courts. Where the social worker also acts at the "adult friend", the local authority would need to adjust responsibilities to take account of this.

225. We would be very concerned if the role of the "adult friend" was interpreted as releasing the field social worker from direct involvement in championing the child. Indeed, we have been worried by the evidence we have received that social workers spend less and less time with children looked after. Too many children feel that their social workers are remote and inaccessible.

226. The growing demands of care co-ordination, accountability reporting, and planning systems have taken the social worker away from direct work with the child. Those demands are legitimate, but there must be enough social work time in total to allow for proper contacts with the child. The child must feel that the person with responsibility for their life in care, and for planning their future, is someone with whom they have a strong direct personal relationship. That relationship can only be built upon time spent together: time spent not just in formal planning and decision-making forums, but in getting to know and trust each other, and in shared activity and interest. That is the distinctive and essential contribution of the social worker. It is that which calls for the use of social work skills. Without it, the care system becomes a faceless and inhuman bureaucracy.

227. We acknowledge the resource implications of this analysis and the challenge for social services management. There can be no convenient "either/or": the social worker who has healthy, direct, face-to-face contact with the child must also be planning and co-ordinating and accountable through reporting systems. The review of the responsibilities of field and residential social workers which we recommend in paragraph 194 above must take account of both these imperatives.

232 See HC (1996-97) 307-II, Ev p11. Back

233 Health Committee, Second Report of 1996-97, The Specific Health Needs of Children and Young People (HC 307-I), para 12. Back

234 Q776. Back

235 Q773. Back

236 Q776. Back

237 Q773. Back

238 Ev p 395 (Appendix 19). Back

239 Barbara Fletcher, for the Who Cares? Trust and the National Consumer Council, Not Just A Name: The Views of Young People in Foster and Residential Care (1993), p 20. Back

240 Ev p 159. Back

241 Q472. Back

242 Q537-58. Back

243 Q537. Back