House of Commons - Looked-after Children - Children, Schools and Families Committee

Looked-after Children - Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents

6 Extending the scope and rigour of corporate parenting

145. The concept of "corporate parenting" was introduced with the launch of the Quality Protects programme in 1998. The principle is that the local authority is the corporate parent of children in care, and thus has a legal and moral duty to provide the kind of support that any good parents would provide for their own children. This includes enhancing children's quality of life as well as simply keeping them safe.[381]

146. Although improvements in corporate parenting must be led by each local authority's Director of Children's Services and Lead Member for Children's Services, guidance makes it clear that looked-after children are not the sole responsibility of a local authority's children's services function.[382] Barnardo's expressed a concern that the measures proposed in Care Matters to strengthen the role of the corporate parent focus mainly on children's services, and fail to address the responsibility of other local services for children in care. They proposed that all the relevant services—which include health, housing and police—should be formally required to promote the wellbeing of children in and leaving care.[383] Warwickshire County Council's Director of Children's Services, Marion Davis, told us that multi-agency corporate parenting training for all Children's Trust partners was crucial to enacting the council's belief that "looked-after children should be everybody's business".[384]

147. The joint chief inspectors[385] noted in their 2008 report on arrangements to safeguard children that the corporate parenting role was not yet fully understood by all council officers or elected members.[386] District councils in particular may not yet grasp the full implications of corporate parenthood, although they are responsible for leisure and housing services, both of which are vital to improving the experience of children in and leaving care.[387]

148. Promoting the wellbeing, achievement and happiness of looked-after children and care leavers is a responsibility that must be shared and understood by all local services. Children's Trusts are in a position to lead this process.[388] We are concerned that the scope of corporate parenthood as usually understood leaves bodies other than schools and children's services too much leeway in the priority they give to looked-after children. If corporate parenting is to emulate family life, it must not be compartmentalised, nor truncated at age 18. We recommend that all Children's Trusts take responsibility for multi-agency corporate parenting training, to include managers within adult health and social care services, and officers and members of district councils where relevant.

Health and wellbeing of children in care

149. The physical and mental health of looked-after children is known to be significantly poorer than that of the general child population.[389] A survey by Meltzer and others (2003) showed that 45% of looked-after children aged 5 to 17 were assessed as having a mental disorder compared to 10% of the general child population. Two-thirds of all children in care were reported by their carers as having at least one physical complaint.[390] Looked-after young people experience a significantly higher rate of teenage conception and teenage motherhood when compared to the non-care population; they may be more vulnerable to involvement in risky sexual activity, or exploitative and abusive relationships. Young people in care are also thought to be four times more likely than their peers to smoke, use alcohol and misuse drugs.[391]

150. Several factors contribute to the markedly poor health of children and young people in care. Around two-thirds of children who come into care do so because of abuse and neglect, and these experiences can have a long-term impact on their health and development, physically and mentally.[392] Health inequalities arising from poverty have a disproportionate impact on children in care. It is known that children in care are much more likely than the general population to have missed immunisations and the general development checks that are designed to identify health problems at an early stage. Their health records are more likely to be incomplete and difficult to trace.[393] Separation from family can itself cause emotional trauma, vulnerability, and impaired ability to form trusting relationships with adults—factors which may then be compounded by placement breakdowns and frequent moves while in care.[394]

HEALTH BODIES AS STRATEGIC PARTNERS IN CORPORATE PARENTING

151. The Government announced its intention in the Care Matters White Paper to re-issue the guidance Promoting the Health of Looked After Children (Department of Health 2002) on a statutory footing for both local authorities and healthcare bodies. Previously this guidance, which addresses health assessment, planning, health promotion and the roles of designated looked-after children's doctors and nurses, held statutory status only for local authorities.[395] The role of PCT Chief Executives in ensuring that the health of children in care is an identified local priority will be included in the revised guidance, and the Government stated it will "explore how the portfolio of the senior lead for children and young people in PCTs can be developed to address further the needs of vulnerable groups of children—including children in care."[396]

152. The Local Government Association told us that the Government's proposals to sharpen health partners' focus on looked-after children in care are inadequate and lacking ambition.[397] The National Children's Bureau (NCB) and the Care Matters Partnership welcomed the Government's intention to publish statutory guidance, but the latter cautioned that only a primary statutory duty to assess needs and provide services would lend sufficient priority to looked-after children in health services.[398] Dr Rita Harris of the Care Matters Partnership told us that good will is at present the main basis of co-operation between health bodies and local authorities; the NSPCC called for such co-operation to be made a statutory duty.[399] Helen Chambers, NCB's Principal Officer, Wellbeing, commented that responsibility for children in care's health falls between health services and children's services, because "The health of looked-after children is everybody's business, but actually it is nobody's business."[400]

153. Sue Dunstall, Policy Adviser for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), told us that, while there are often excellent networks at practitioner level, the delivery of health services for children in care is hampered by "the rather less excellent partnerships at commissioning level." Champions are needed at senior strategic levels, among those "who actually hold the money streams and can commit to services".[401] The NCB argued that PCTs should be required to identify a named commissioner for looked-after children, to oversee and coordinate how the PCT will meet the health needs of looked-after children in its area.[402]

154. We asked Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Young People and Families, what levers are available to ensure that sufficient priority is given to children in care in the NHS. She told us:

403

Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs) are carried out by councils and PCTs to inform commissioning of services. One of their purposes is to provide a basis for the selection of targets for Local Area Agreements (LAAs).[404] The Care Matters White Paper stated that "one of the factors likely to emerge in the JSNA will be the mental health of children and young people in care" and that the Local Area Agreement "provides a major opportunity for local authorities and their partners to increase the focus on CAMHS services and to promote the mental health of children in care more broadly."[405] However, only five out of a possible 150 local authorities have chosen National Indicator 58 (NI58), on the emotional and behavioural health of children in care, for their first Local Area Agreement.[406]

155. The National Service Framework (NSF) for Children, Young People and Maternity Services (DoH 2004), the NHS Operating Framework 2008-09 and Public Service Agreement 12 all contain standards and statements of relevance to looked-after children. However, the lack of specific references to or priority for children in care is notable; often they are referred to as one of a number of groups under the rubric of "children in special circumstances".[407] The NSPCC expressed the belief that lack of co-operation at strategic level between health and other services, and lack of recognition in Local Area Agreements, is at least partly due to the performance framework containing too few incentives for NHS bodies to prioritise the needs of children in care.[408] Dr Catherine M. Hill, Chair of BAAF's Health Group Advisory Committee, told us:

409

Dr Hill emphasised that "performance indicators help to dictate and support where resources go in the health service".[410]

156. We note that the child health strategy Healthy lives, brighter futures, published after we had completed our formal evidence-gathering, appears to reinforce the message that it is local authorities who are primarily accountable for analysing need and commissioning health services for looked-after children.[411] We are persuaded that the task of local authorities in promoting the health and wellbeing of children in their care would be made easier if this responsibility was explicitly shared. Looked-after children must have a higher profile in NHS performance frameworks. Children in care need 'champions' in senior strategic positions in the health service, and corporate parenting training should be mandatory for relevant senior NHS officers and board members with relevant responsibilities.

VARIATION IN HEALTH SERVICES FOR LOOKED-AFTER CHILDREN

157. Witnesses to the inquiry drew attention to the variation in the structure, conduct and availability of health services for looked-after children around the country. Since the launch of Quality Protects and the 2002 Department of Health guidance on Promoting the Health of Looked-after Children, many local health teams dedicated to working with looked-after children have developed. There is, however, inequity across areas; Dr Catherine M. Hill told us that "from one PCT to the next, there may be an enormous difference in the provision, not only in terms of man and woman hours but in terms of diversity—that is, whether a health team is a lone nurse or whether it is a group of nurses, doctors, clinical psychologists etc."[412] Dr Rita Harris of the Care Matters Partnership and Helen Chambers of the National Children's Bureau agreed that the system is characterised by patchiness of provision.[413]

158. When a child enters the care system, they should receive a health assessment by a registered medical practitioner within 14 days. This provides the basis for a health plan which is then reviewed at least annually. We heard that there are many different models of how health assessments are done, and a great variation in the expertise of those undertaking them; some are so "light-touch" that they happen over the telephone, and the outcomes are inconsistent.[414] Delivery of the services that are needed to fulfil health plans can be patchy, particularly for children placed out of their home area who may find that the services they need are not available where they are placed.[415]

159. Promoting the Health of Looked-after Children (2002) set out the roles of the designated doctor and nurse for children in care, and these posts have been adopted fairly widely. Witnesses were enthusiastic about these roles; Helen Chambers told us that looked-after children's nurses were some of the "greatest champions" for children in care at practitioner level.[416] Young people say that consistent support from a specialist doctor or nurse is very valuable in an otherwise unstable life.[417] However, there are worries that the long-term future of these roles will be jeopardised by insecure funding, and that their effectiveness may be compromised if their particular remit is diluted by greater involvement in child protection work.[418]

SPECIFYING SERVICES AND STRUCTURES

160. Care Matters has introduced a range of imaginative and well-received initiatives to ensure that looked-after children are well-supported in their education, some of which have been legislated for in the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. In every local authority, children in care will benefit from the oversight of "virtual school heads",[419] statutory designated teachers, priority in school admissions and insistence that placement moves must not disrupt education. This is a stark contrast with health services, where designated health professionals have not been mentioned in legislation, access to services is patchy and difficult to secure, and children not in stable long-term placements may find themselves ruled out of receiving mental health services altogether (for reasons discussed below). Three indicators measuring the educational success of looked-after children have been included in the set of mandatory Local Area Agreement targets, while as we have seen, the one indicator on looked-after children's emotional health has no such protection. This is particularly curious because, as Dr Rita Harris pointed out, "What is the point of going to school if children are totally distracted and unable to concentrate or learn anything because of their emotional turmoil?"[420] The lack of provision in the Children and Young Persons Act relating to health and wellbeing was a concern for the Association of Directors of Children's Services.[421] The NSPCC agreed that "the availability of appropriate services for children in care must be supported by legislative change—a sustainable lever to drive reform."[422]

161. By comparison with its policies for the education of children in care—virtual school heads, designated teachers, priority in admissions and mandatory performance indicators—the Government has seemed timid in specifying what looked-after children should be able to expect from health services. The Government should seek to specify a range of good practice, in particular the roles of designated doctors and nurses, as a matter of urgency.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR LOOKED-AFTER CHILDREN

162. The Care Matters White Paper states that the Government "will use statutory guidance to ensure CAMHS [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services] provide targeted and dedicated provision that appropriately prioritises children in care."[423] The White Paper points to the role of the Director of Children's Services in ensuring that local joint commissioning arrangements are able to secure adequate CAMHS for children in care.[424]

163. There is, said the NSPCC, a "startling discrepancy between assessed need and service provision" for mental health. It is estimated that up to 17,000 children in care who have mental or emotional health needs received no support from CAMHS in 2006-07, leaving them reliant on patchy voluntary sector provision.[425] There appear to be particularly severe problems in securing therapeutic support for children who have experienced abuse or neglect.[426] The Association of Child Psychotherapists drew attention to the variable availability of services around the country; it reported that 35 out of 50 PCTs in the north of England do not commission child and adolescent psychotherapy.[427] The Care Matters Partnership estimated that 90% of children who have experienced sexual abuse receive "no substantial support", and described the consequences: "Untreated children who suffer from abuse […] can be at increased risk of adult depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, relationship difficulties, participation in harmful activities, negative self-image and attitudes towards other people."[428]

164. A number of factors were suggested to explain this mismatch of needs and services. Assuming that a child's need is identified through the health assessment or otherwise—not a foregone conclusion[429]—they will still face very high thresholds for referral to overstretched mental health services, and long waiting lists.[430] Lack of time and resources forces CAMHS to be essentially reactive, especially to overt behavioural problems such as conduct disorders at the expense of less apparent difficulties and of long-term remedial work.[431] Many CAMH services do not provide treatment at all for children in short-term placements or those deemed not stable, despite the fact that behavioural or emotional problems may prevent a child achieving stability.[432] Children going through court proceedings or awaiting adoption or reunification with their family may be similarly disadvantaged.[433] Access to CAMHS is often difficult for looked-after children, especially those placed outside their home authority.[434]

165. Maxine Wrigley, Chief Executive of A National Voice, told us

435

Dr Rita Harris reasoned that "in the same way that looked-after children are given priority for school admission, they should be given priority for the health services that they need", but she pointed out that this would require sufficient funding to ensure that the services were actually available.[436] Helen Chambers concurred: "In theory, prioritising looked-after children within CAMHS would be great", but "I was wondering whether we have sufficient CAMHS staff to meet the needs of looked-after children if they were prioritised".[437]

166. Witnesses suggested that specialist teams and practitioners can improve the service children in care receive from mental health services, providing, for example, fast-response assessment, consultation to carers and social workers, placement support and invaluable advocacy as well as treatment.[438] Dr Rita Harris told us that it is much more effective to have dedicated CAMH services for looked-after children rather than "to expect them to fall into the general melee of a CAMHS referral".[439] She cautioned, however, that specialist teams "are tricky to set up and take a huge amount of time and finance."[440] The NSPCC warned that "there is no certainty that targeted [CAMHS] teams, many of which were developed as pilots, or for limited periods subject to continued commissioning, will be sustained."[441]

167. Children and young people in care should have guaranteed access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, and resources must be provided to ensure that this is achievable. Urgent action must be taken to address the shortage of therapeutic services for children in care. We recommend that the Government should assess how specialist mental health teams for children in care can be put in place and sustained in all areas.

A HOLISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF WELLBEING

168. The Care Matters White Paper recognises that "the task of improving health should be approached holistically—it is not the concern of the NHS alone. Factors such as secure attachment, friendships and engagement in positive leisure activities also promote health and wider wellbeing".[442] This approach provides a welcome basis for involving all services in improving wellbeing for children in care and ensuring they have opportunities to enjoy life. The National Children's Bureau's Healthy Care Programme is a multi-agency framework for partnership working in this area.[443] There are over 90 local Healthy Care Partnerships. Dr Catherine M. Hill told us that the Healthy Care Programme "has given people a model in the field and in practice that has lifted us from statutory must-dos and the Promoting Health suggestions to saying, 'Here is how you can do it and start to achieve this.'"[444] The Programme was funded originally by the Department of Health, and then by the DfES from 2004. National funding has been discontinued and it is now dependent on regional support; the NCB believes that the Programme will consequently lose the breadth of its coverage, especially in areas which most need the external stimulus to focus on the health of looked-after children.[445]

169. The Government's support for a holistic view of the wellbeing of children in care is very welcome, but it sits oddly with the withdrawal of national funding for the Healthy Care Programme, which appears to embody this principle. We recommend that the Government monitor the impact of the end of national funding for Healthy Care Partnerships on local collaborative working and the priority that looked-after children are given in services.

Leaving care

Age of leaving care

170. In the year to 31 March 2008, of the young people who left care aged 16 or over, 39% were aged 16 or 17, and 61% left on their 18th birthday.[446] These figures probably underestimate the numbers leaving before 18.[447] It is well known that the average age of leaving home for most young people in the UK is now 24.[448] It is perverse—and a matter of great concern to many of those who gave us evidence—that we expect some of the most vulnerable and damaged young people to cope with life on their own at a much earlier age that the average young person.[449] Professor Mike Stein told us that, in the long run, the young people who have the worst outcomes tend to be those who leave care at 16 and have little support to help them cope.[450] Martin Narey, Chief Executive of Barnardo's, commented:

451

Professor Ian Sinclair described the process of leaving care as "the Achilles heel" of the care system;[452] it has the potential to undo whatever good has been done by the system up to that point.

171. Although rare, and not recorded in official statistics, it is possible for young people to stay in care placements past their 18th birthday. Placements in these circumstances are not at present subject to regulation, and carers are not eligible for allowances, so they depend largely on the good will of foster carers.[453] In the past such arrangements have typically been discouraged by local authorities under pressure to free up placements for young children.[454] Residential homes, meanwhile, are not usually set up to cater for post-18 placements, and there is widespread expectation on young people to start thinking about their future independence from age 14 or 15.[455] Maxine Wrigley, Chief Executive of A National Voice, told us about the effect that looming independence can have on how young people think not only about their future but about their time in care:

456

One young person put it to us that, "at 18, you're basically thrown out".[457]

172. Several witnesses pointed out to us that some young people in care—especially in residential placements—are in fact eager to leave as soon as possible, and, even given the opportunity to stay, this would always be the case.[458] This may be the result of an unhappy time in care.[459] The problem is that in many cases, no-one will try to persuade them to stay.[460] There are also young people who end up leaving care prematurely because their placements break down and it seems too late to attempt to settle in another one.[461] Martin Hazlehurst, Service Manager of the National Leaving Care Advisory Service (NLCAS), told us that local authorities differ in the priority they place on preventing young people leaving care at 16: "In some local authorities that would be unusual as there is a culture—and a clear direction from the top—that young people will not leave until they are 18. In other local authorities, [leaving care at 16] is the norm and tolerated".[462] Steve Goodman, Deputy Director of Children and Young People's Services at Hackney Council, agreed that "the chief obstacle is culture". He reported that Hackney has been prompted to review its stance on the age of leaving care by the emphasis placed on it by Care Matters.[463]

173. Care Matters recognised the need for reform in transitions to adulthood, stating that "any good parent will continue to offer love and support to their children well beyond 18, giving them the greatest head start in life that they can. The Government expects no less for young people in care".[464] The Minister, Baroness Morgan, told us:

465

We welcome the Government's assertion that it should become exceptional for a young person to leave care before they turn 18, and hope that it will precipitate a culture change in local authorities. We recommend, however, that the Government show more ambition by making a commitment to narrowing the gap between the average age of leaving care and the age of independence for other young people. Remaining in care in some form until at least age 21 should become routine.

174. The White Paper introduced two pilot projects to address the issue of too many young people leaving care before they are ready:

'Right2BCared4' effectively provides for a veto for young people over decisions to move them out of care. The Children and Young Persons Act 2008 requires that a statutory review take place before a young person is moved from a care placement to independent living.[466] Any young person for whom independence has been proposed will be supported by an independent person, nominated by them, throughout the review process.
'Staying Put: 18+ Family Placement' aims to enable young people to stay in foster placements up to the age of 21 if they wish.

175. These initiatives have generally been welcomed—indeed the most common criticism we have heard is that the need for these provisions is so well-known that a pilot phase is unnecessary.[467] The Government's response has been that post-18 placements may have complex legal and financial implications that need to be clarified through the pilots before any national roll-out.[468] The Minister told us that action will be taken in the next spending review period to ensure that any care leaver "can have a reasonable expectation" that they can stay in a family placement after age 18.[469] We welcome the Right2BCared4 and Staying Put pilots, and urge the Government to make their benefits available to all young people in care—including those in residential placements—at the earliest possible opportunity.

176. The Fostering Network, however, told us they were disappointed with the lack of ambition in the Government's proposals.[470] It is not clear whether or how residential care will be affected; the Government has so far committed only to assessing whether there is demand for post-18 placements from young people in residential care, despite what we know about the greater vulnerability of this section of the care population.[471] As already noted, a much greater supply of foster placements and a much greater investment in fostering support will be necessary to make the option of "staying put" universally available.[472] The pilots will need to explore the type of support that will be needed by young people and their carers to overcome the placement breakdowns that so often hasten the end of a child's time in care.[473] The success of statutory reviews as a mechanism for preventing premature independence will depend—as with all looked-after children reviews—on the effectiveness of Independent Reviewing Officers and the individuals supporting the young person through the process.[474]

177. The success of efforts to ensure that young people stay in care for longer will depend on factors the Government has not yet fully addressed, such as supply of foster placements, support to prevent placement breakdowns, and the effectiveness of Independent Reviewing Officers and review processes. Local authorities must be given all necessary assistance to achieve these changes.

178. It is not only the age of leaving "home" which makes the transition to independence different for young people who have been in care. Martin Hazlehurst of the National Leaving Care Advisory Service told us that

475

Maxine Wrigley described the sort of support that most young people take for granted, but is not often available for care-leavers: "I have friends in their 30s who know that they can go back any time; they can still take their washing back or if they are skint they can borrow £100."[476] Eighty-eight per cent of young people in care surveyed by Rainer in 2006 thought that care leavers should have the option of returning to supported accommodation if a move to independent living is not successful at first.[477] The process of learning about adult life needs to be gradual, flexible and experimental, with a "safety-net" attached, and should recognise that young people progress and mature at different rates.[478] Flexibility is also needed in the way preparation for leaving care is delivered, as many young people automatically become the responsibility of specialist leaving care teams at age 16, even if they have good relationships with their existing social worker.[479] The Right2BCared4 and Staying Put pilots should be used to explore how more flexibility can be built into the process of leaving care, so that young people who find they are not yet ready for independence are able, and encouraged, to revert to a higher level of support.

179. Children in and leaving care are often vulnerable to sexual exploitation, partly because of the young age at which they are expected to become independent.[480] Care leavers may find themselves accommodated in areas where sexual exploitation is known to take place; Roger Morgan told us of young people who reported to him that they had been placed in a hostel that was locally well-known for prostitution, and there is evidence of organised, targeted exploitation of girls in residential homes and hostels.[481]Premature independence compounds the legacy of pre-care experiences such as abusive relationships, and the care system's failure to compensate for them, in contributing to young people's vulnerability. Going missing from home or care is a key early indicator of risk of sexual exploitation, and significantly increases young people's exposure to potentially risky situations.[482]Other risk factors or related issues, including drug and alcohol abuse, mental health problems, and non-attendance at school, are also more prevalent among the looked-after population. We are particularly concerned that where young people lack stability in their care placements, or lack the knowledge that a trusted adult has a personal interest in their life and future, they will be more likely to put themselves at risk and less likely to disclose problems where they occur. Many adults who are involved in prostitution report that they spent time in care, and many became involved in sexual exploitation when they were children or young teenagers.[483]The Government issued draft guidance on Safeguarding Children and Young People from Sexual Exploitation for consultation in July 2008. The guidance emphasised the importance of Local Safeguarding Children's Boards developing a protocol and leading multi-agency work including the health services, social care, housing, schools and the police.[484] The vulnerability of care leavers to sexual exploitation is a matter of great concern to us. We urge the Government to analyse any ways in which features of the care system itself expose young people to greater danger, and take urgent steps to protect care leavers from this sort of exploitation.

LEAVING CARE PREPARATION AND SERVICES

180. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 defined "care leavers" as young people aged 16 to 21 who are or were in care for a total of at least 13 weeks since reaching the age of 14. The Act conferred on local authorities duties to provide various forms of support to care leavers where previously they only had discretion to do so. Two of the most important forms of support are "pathway plans", which replace care plans for young people turning 16 and should map out the journey to independence, and the provision of a Personal Adviser for each young person leaving care, to co-ordinate a package of support and assistance for them. The Act imposed a duty on local authorities to keep in touch with care leavers until they are at least 21, and to assess and meet the their needs up to that age. Ring-fenced funds were made available for implementation that improved the services available in many areas. The Act was described by Pam Hibbert of Barnardo's as "a brilliant piece of legislation" that has improved support for care leavers, but which has left still more room for improvement.[485]

181. Ofsted told us that arrangements for preparing and helping young people to leave care have improved, but we heard from witnesses that the support available to care leavers still varies considerably in its quality and content.[486] Around 14% of eligible young people are not provided with a pathway plan.[487] A peer research project in 2006 found that 38% of the young people surveyed felt they were simply left to "get on with it" without any preparation or support when the time came to live independently.[488] The Children's Rights Director, Dr Roger Morgan, reported that

489

John Hill, National Manager of the What Makes The Difference? Project, also reported that many local authorities still do not provide Personal Advisers, or if they do, they may provide two advisers for as many as 80 care leavers.[490] We heard some dissatisfaction with the content of leaving care preparation services, which typically cover practical issues such as cooking and budgeting, but put less effort into preparing young people emotionally for the isolation they may face when living independently.[491]

182. Lack of resources may be one reason for the variability of services.[492] Martin Hazlehurst argued that the low profile of leaving care services in regulation and inspection allows some local authorities to accord them a lower priority; there are no statutory standards for leaving care services, and the only inspection has been in the much broader context of Joint Area Reviews. He proposed that the DCSF should take a stronger line on identifying underperformance and "should ensure that there are sanctions to go along with that, but that does not happen much".[493]

183. There is also evidence of large differences in the leaving care grants and other financial support available to care leavers; leaving care grants in 2005 varied from £400 in some local authorities to as much as £2,000 in others.[494] Professor Mike Stein told us that the financial and personal support given to care leavers in higher education varies without obvious reference to the needs or circumstances of the young people involved, a situation that "can generate a sense of injustice".[495] For all young people in care who go on to higher education, the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 introduced a minimum grant (set at £2,000).[496] The Government's only proposal in Care Matters to address the more general inequity in financial support to care leavers is to invest £100 per year in the Child Trust Fund of every child who spends the year in care, starting in 2008.[497] Barnardo's welcomed this plan but told us that, in view of the small proportion of the current care population who will benefit, there should be a minimum level of leaving care grant for every young person.[498] We asked other witnesses whether there should be more standardisation in these grants across the country. While cost of living variations around the country and differences in the needs of young people make complete standardisation undesirable, John Hill and Martin Hazelhurst agreed that local authorities should be required to be more open about the financial assistance they offer and the criteria on which decisions are made, perhaps through the Pledge.[499]

184. We recommend that national standards for leaving care services should be developed with local authorities so that these services can be objectively assessed. The standards should include a greater degree of consistency and transparency in the financial support available to care leavers and the criteria on which it is determined. Each authority should include details of what it will provide in its Pledge.

185. John Hill told us that most care leavers with disabilities receive no personal adviser service and no pathway planning process, and that "they get one of the rawest deals among the care-leaving population." Disabled care-leavers are often passed over to adult services, missing out on the elements of leaving care services which are about promoting independence; they become the responsibility of a care manager who will commission services for them but whose role is far removed from that of a Personal Adviser or a social worker.[500] The Care Matters White Paper acknowledged the additional complexity of the needs of disabled young people leaving care, but did not propose any specific measures to take this into account. Access to a Personal Adviser after age 21 is mentioned, but the legislation provides for this benefit only if a young person is engaged in or planning education or training. The White Paper says that "for those young people whose disability results in needs sufficient to warrant access to adult community care services we do not anticipate replacing that support with PA [Personal Adviser] support".[501] We are concerned that the benefits of specific support to enable young people with disabilities to move on from care, as distinct from the care services related to their disability, have not been recognised in the Care Matters programme. Equal access to all features of effective leaving care support must be guaranteed to care leavers with disabilities.

186. John Hill told us that care leavers' vulnerability means that "you are going to have to hang on in there—if anything, in an ideal world, for much longer than you would ordinarily with your own children".[502] Barnardo's identified as one of the weaknesses of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 the fact that it does not provide for long term support beyond age 18, and has not led to improvements in the transition between children's and adult services.[503] Professor Mike Stein concurred that services can "disappear" after the period of immediate transition.[504] The importance of continuity in health services for care leavers, up to and even beyond the age of 25, was affirmed by several witnesses, although administrative boundaries can pose problems.[505] NCH wrote that care leavers are often "confronted with a 'cliff-face' at key transition stages whereby services end entirely or change considerably."[506]

187. The Children and Young Persons Act 2008 extended the duty on local authorities to appoint a Personal Adviser, and through them to keep the young person's pathway plan under regular review, to any care leaver aged up to 25 who is or is planning to be in education or training.[507] Martin Hazlehurst gave his view on this reform:

Care Matters

508

The duty to provide a Personal Adviser should be extended to all care leavers until age 25, not just those who have education or training plans. The terms on which this provision has been extended risk excluding some of the most vulnerable young people from continuing support. The role of the Personal Adviser should include facilitating access to health and social care services when needed. We recommend that the Government explore ways of ensuring that care leavers have full and proper access to health, social care and education services, commensurate with their needs, until they are 25 years old.

ACCOMMODATION FOR CARE-LEAVERS

188. A dearth of suitable accommodation for care leavers is an area of huge concern to many of the organisations that have given evidence to the inquiry.[509] Research shows that the situation worries many young people too. Thirty per cent of care leavers interviewed by A National Voice for their publication No Place Like Home did not feel safe where they were living. Twelve per cent were living in bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation, and more than half felt they had had no real choice in the accommodation offered to them.[510] Maxine Wrigley reported that one in ten care leavers end up "sofa surfing" at friends' houses, often because while they had a flat of their own, "it was in such a dodgy area that they did not feel safe or want to go round there".[511] Care leavers are all too often allocated accommodation in very disadvantaged areas, where their inherent vulnerability is compounded by proximity to problems such as substance abuse, exploitation and crime.[512]

189. A National Voice surveyed leaving care workers and personal advisers, and found that about half of them felt that it was not possible for their authorities to provide safe, damp free, decorated accommodation in a location that was without risk from anti-social neighbours.[513] Local authorities told us that a lack of affordable accommodation in many areas was principally to blame for the problems experienced by care leavers.[514] Rainer attributed the problem partly to poor planning and lack of co-operation between children's and housing services: "Often it is simply a failure to plan for something that it is known that almost all young people will need."[515] Martin Hazlehurst told us that some authorities put a great deal of effort into commissioning accommodation and associated services, while others appear to look for accommodation "on a wing and a prayer". He suggested that the new duty on local authorities to secure sufficient local placements for children in care be extended to cover supported accommodation for care leavers.[516] Barnardo's recommended that joint protocols between children's services and housing authorities should include arrangements to give care leavers priority in accommodation allocation[517] Marion Davis, Director of Children's Services at Warwickshire County Council, suggested that private and voluntary sector providers need more reassurance that support will be available to maintain a young person's tenancy.[518]

190. The Care Matters Green Paper proposed the establishment of a capital investment fund to support the provision of dedicated accommodation for care leavers.[519] Although the White Paper stated that the Government remained committed to this proposal, the fund does not appear in the Care Matters implementation action log published in March 2008.[520] We seek reassurance from the Government that funding will be made available to local authorities that experience particular difficulties in finding suitable accommodation for care leavers due to local housing shortages. We recommend that the Government extend the new 'sufficient placements' duty to include supported and independent accommodation for those leaving care.

191. When we asked Baroness Morgan about the Government's role in ensuring that there is sufficient accommodation for care leavers, she told us:

521

Accommodation for 16 and 17 year olds can fall between regulatory regimes, and is not subject to assessment against clear standards.[522] We put it to the Minister that care leavers do not at present have a choice of suitable accommodation. She told us that in new statutory guidance on accommodation:

523

We do not consider that these proposals amount to a robust framework of standards for care leavers' accommodation. A quality assurance framework for care leavers' accommodation should be developed so that housing options can be assessed against nationally agreed standards; it should not be left up to a young person to say that the accommodation they are offered is unsuitable. No care leaver should be placed in bed and breakfast accommodation, and the availability of suitable accommodation must be considered a prerequisite for a move to independent living.

192. Over a third of young people report being homeless at some time in the year after leaving care according to research quoted by Rainer.[524] The Care Matters White Paper said that homelessness should be avoided through implementation of a young person's pathway plan, but "where such arrangements break down, the homelessness legislation provides an essential safety net".[525] Sixteen and 17 year olds and young people aged between 18 and 20 who have been in care have priority need for accommodation under the Homelessness Act 2002, meaning that local authorities must secure suitable accommodation for them if they become homeless through no fault of their own. Chris Callender of the Howard League for Penal Reform described how the legislation affects care leavers in practice:

526

Martin Hazlehurst told us that although the situation is slowly improving, "We still hear of places where the recognised route into housing is, 'Go and pretend that you are homeless'".[527] A young person may find themselves being deemed intentionally homeless because of a wide range of circumstances that are more likely to apply to vulnerable or under-supported care leavers—significant rent arrears, leaving a tenancy unexpectedly or a spell in custody, for example.[528] Rainer suggested that the main reason care leavers typically feel they have no choice about the accommodation offered to them is that a refusal could lead to them being declared "intentionally" homeless.[529] They concluded that there should be a presumption against declaring any care leaver intentionally homeless except in extreme circumstances.[530]

193. The Government issued guidance in May 2008 on joint working between housing and children's services to prevent youth homelessness.[531] We heard how effective joint working between housing and children's services can forestall problems by anticipating the difficulties that might lead to a terminated tenancy and by taking young people back into supported accommodation when necessary.[532] There are practical difficulties in making such joint working a reality, however. John Hill told us that

533

Martin Hazlehurst described the "constant juggling act" of an upper-tier children's services authority dealing with district councils as the housing authorities: "Some district councils just will not contemplate the very idea that there are any young people in care in their districts".[534] There should be a presumption against declaring any care leaver intentionally homeless. Every children's services authority should be required to adopt a joint working protocol with the relevant housing departments or authorities, to ensure that care leavers are given every possible support in maintaining tenancies. Key managers within housing departments should be included in corporate parenting training.

Preventing involvement in the criminal justice system

194. Although the overall numbers are small, children in care are disproportionately likely to be brought into contact with the youth justice system and to enter into custody.[535] In 2007, looked-after children aged 10 or over were more than twice as likely to be convicted or subject to a final reprimand or warning as other children of this age.[536] Looked-after children are in general more likely to have been exposed to the risk factors associated with youth offending, such as lack of parental support and poor attendance at school, and can exhibit challenging behaviour as a reaction to the circumstances that led to them becoming looked after.[537] We received some evidence indicating that certain features of the care system itself exacerbate the chances of looked-after children becoming involved with the criminal justice system.[538] Young people have told us, for example, that if they are not settled in a good placement, they are more likely to spend time out and about and at risk of getting into trouble.[539] Greater placement stability and measures to reduce the number of out-of-area placements (a known risk factor for offending), should help in the long run to reduce the numbers of looked-after children who offend.[540]

195. There are specific issues with the way in which carers, particularly in residential homes, deal with incidents such as property damage, or young people going missing.[541] Bob Ashford, Head of Youth Justice Strategy at the Youth Justice Board (YJB) told us:

542

Dr Di Hart, NCB's Principal Officer, Youth Justice and Welfare, suggested that the very nature of residential care was part of the problem: "Various people have suggested that the worst thing to do with a turbulent, troubled adolescent is to accommodate them in a residential home with lots of other turbulent, troubled adolescents."[543] She suggested that the difference between looked-after children and others is not necessarily in their behaviour, but in institutional responses to that behaviour; magistrates, for example, may treat looked-after children more harshly, such as being unwilling to bail a young person who lives in a children's home.[544]

196. The Care Matters Green Paper included a commitment to develop a protocol on how children's homes should work with the police and Youth Offending Teams to manage offending or anti-social behaviour while avoiding criminalisation whenever possible.[545] The Youth Justice Board told us that protocols of this type have been operating in some places since 2001, and there are indications that in combination with other measures they can effect significant reductions in the number of recorded offences by looked-after children.[546] There was little, however, in the White Paper about the links between the care system and offending.[547] In July 2008 the Government published its cross-departmental Youth Crime Action Plan. The action plan put a great deal of emphasis on the role of parenting in preventing offending, yet it did not address the responsibility of corporate parents for children in their care.[548] We asked the Minister, Baroness Morgan, what can be done to address this issue explicitly in planning for children in care. She told us that it was important for all professionals to create "the right environment, in which these young people would flourish and which would not trigger […] offending behaviour".[549]

197. To some extent, we recognise that general improvements in the care system—stable placements that are properly supported, help to achieve at school, and a gradual transition to independence—will help to prevent looked-after children offending. However, opportunities have been missed to take further specific steps to address this. We ask the Government to revisit the Youth Crime Action Plan to address explicitly the state's responsibility as corporate parent for the disproportionate criminalisation of young people in care.

Looked-after children in custody

198. Although we know that young people in care are disproportionately likely to commit offences, it is not known at a national level how many looked-after children are in the youth justice system or specifically in custody.[550] Pam Hibbert, Assistant Director-Policy at Barnardo's, estimated that around half of children in custody have some experience of the care system.[551] Custodial sentences can be very disruptive and destabilising for looked-after children.[552] Children who are looked after under section 31 care orders and then enter custody retain their looked-after status, while children who are voluntarily accommodated under section 20 lose this status upon entering custody. The Care Matters Green Paper acknowledged that "many of these [voluntarily accommodated] children require just as much support while in custody as those in care under a care order", and proposed that local authorities be required to carry out an assessment of their needs when entering youth custody, "with an expectation that they will continue to be supported as a child in care. In most cases this will entail a social worker, a care plan, and continued support as a child in care on leaving custody."[553]

199. In the White Paper this proposal was replaced by a commitment (now legislated for in the Children and Young Persons Act 2008) to extend the requirement to visit children in care to those children who were voluntarily accommodated immediately before entering custody.[554] The White Paper explains that this is intended as "a mechanism to identify those young people who should have a needs assessment so that where necessary local authority children's services makes proper plans for them on release; which could include […] readmitting the young person to care."[555] NCB and the Youth Justice Board expressed support for the commitment to ensuring that local authorities maintain a relationship with all looked-after children who go into custody, though both sought assurances that the visits would be conducted by children's services social workers.[556] However, the new requirement was a cause of disappointment for several organisations, who described it as "watered down" and "a missed opportunity".[557] Bob Ashford of the Youth Justice Board and Chris Callender, Assistant Director (Legal) of the Howard League for Penal Reform, both told us they would like voluntarily-accommodated children to retain their looked-after status in custody, because of the entitlements to assistance that this would bring.[558]

200. Di Hart of the NCB commented on the impact of the loss of looked-after status on voluntarily-accommodated children when they go into custody:

559

We heard that some authorities do not actively continue their parenting role even with children on care orders who enter the secure estate, despite already having a statutory responsibility to do so.[560] Inspections have revealed that a quarter of authorities do not provide an adequate service for children in custody who retain their looked-after status, with some inappropriately transferring their care responsibilities to Youth Offending Teams.[561] Di Hart reported that looked-after children in custody overwhelmingly

562

201. Some of our witnesses attributed the lack of contact with looked-after children in custody to local authorities wishing to divest themselves of financial responsibility for children's care, and the practical difficulties of visiting children who are placed in institutions some distance away.[563] However, Caroline Abrahams, LGA Programme Director for Children & Young People, refuted these claims: "I do not think that anyone has any evidence that stacks up that suggests that [the cost shift] influences the decisions that local authorities make."[564]

202. We asked the Minister how we can ensure that local authorities do what they are supposed to do, specifically with respect to visiting in custody. She told us:

565

We recommend that children accommodated under voluntary agreements should retain their looked-after status when entering custody; we consider that this would be a greater safeguard of the continuity of each young person's care than the new requirement to continue visiting children. We are concerned that even children on care orders may not be receiving the services they are entitled to when in custody, and we seek reassurance that inspection will be an adequate tool for enforcing the new visiting requirements when it has apparently failed to enforce existing requirements.

203. The Howard League for Penal Reform expressed concern that many young people who enter the criminal justice system have never received the protection or assistance of looked-after status, despite having very similar needs to those in the care system. They might have been abused or been homeless, but have never been identified as needing assistance. Youth Offending Team workers may recognise these needs, but are unable formally to designate a child as "in need" or to instigate accommodation on behalf of the local authority, and many children's services departments are unwilling to accept referrals from YOTs for assessments.[566] We recommend that the Government identify and implement a mechanism for automatically triggering a needs assessment by the relevant children's services authority when a child comes into contact with the criminal justice system.

204. We heard concern from several quarters that the care and youth justice systems do not always work well together, either because they have different aims and values, or because of administrative divisions.[567] Bob Ashford disagreed with the characterisation of a "welfare/justice divide" but told us that "many local agencies, such as children's services, now see young people who are offending and who are also looked after as the remit of the local youth offending team."[568] Chris Callender put it more bluntly; children's services, he said, "dump on Youth Offending Teams".[569] Di Hart argued that social care services interpreted the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (which established YOTs) as "letting them off the hook" in terms of responsibility for young people who offend.[570] We recommend that the lead responsibility of children's services for looked-after children in the youth justice system be re-asserted, so that extremely vulnerable children are not denied the support they need by being excluded from mainstream services when they come into contact with Youth Offending Teams.

205. In 2005 the Youth Justice Board established and funded posts for social workers in each of the 25 Young Offenders Institutions (YOIs) in England and Wales. The YJB's evaluation indicated that this was an important specialist service that dealt with a previously unmet need.[571] Bob Ashford told us that "in terms of the contacts, knowledge and expertise of those social workers within youth custody, it has been extremely valuable."[572] In January 2008 the DCSF stated that local authorities with YOIs in their areas should fund the posts from 2009-10 onwards.[573] The Howard League for Penal Reform told us that uncertainty about the funding had contributed to recruitment and retention problems, with only 10 of the 25 posts filled in January 2008.[574] Bob Ashford told us that the YJB "have some concerns—I will be quite frank—about how, if and when local authorities will be able to pick up that responsibility, given the other budgetary pressures in social services."[575] We ask the Government to guarantee future funding for social workers posts in Youth Offending Institutions.

Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children

206. In 2007, 3,525 unaccompanied children aged 17 or under applied for asylum in the United Kingdom.[576] The Care Matters White Paper confirmed the Government's policy that it is appropriate for the majority of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to enter local authority care. At 31st March 2008, 3,500 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were looked after, 66% of them aged 16 or over.[577] Baroness Morgan told us that "when unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arrive in this country they are looked-after children and should benefit from all the services, support and care that any looked-after child should expect."[578] There are however, obvious differences in the circumstances of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children which set them apart from the majority of the care population, principally that their care and pathway planning must take into account the likelihood of their asylum claim being refused.

207. The Fostering Network, children's charity NCH, and the Association of Directors of Children's Services all expressed concerns to us about the place of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the care system, and whether they are guaranteed to receive the same types and level of support as other children in care.[579] Lisa Nandy, Chair of the Refugee Children's Consortium, argued that while Care Matters is a largely welcome package of reforms, policy on this specific group of looked-after children has generally gone and is going in the opposite direction, and "their asylum-seeking status has become the overriding element that determines the way in which they are treated and supported".[580] The Refugee Children's Consortium argued that the primacy of immigration control over children's welfare is at least partly a consequence of the fact that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are the only group of children in the UK for which responsibility lies entirely outside the DCSF's remit.[581] The UK Border Agency, Lisa Nandy told us, "has a completely different set of skills and experience and a completely different ethos" to the DCSF.[582]

208. The Government has announced its intention to change the law to require the UK Border Agency to safeguard children by making it subject to section 11 of the Children Act 2004.[583] This is a welcome step, but one that will have little impact on the experience of asylum-seeking children already in the care system. We share the concern of witnesses to the inquiry that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children be considered as "children first and foremost",[584] and wish to see the Government take steps to ensure that this principle is reflected in policy and practice. We heard encouraging reports about the impact that the joint unit for youth justice has had in bringing together the DCSF and the Ministry of Justice since its launch in November 2007.[585] We recommend that the Department for Children, Schools and Families assume formal joint responsibility with the Home Office for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

209. In January 2008, the UK Border Agency published Better Outcomes: the way forward; improving the care of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Lisa Nandy told us that some of the proposals in Better Outcomes are at odds with the intentions of Care Matters (and in fact with the wider Every Child Matters agenda), specifically that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the care system should leave their foster placements at age 16.[586] The very patchy support available to these children upon leaving care at 18, and the difficulty of obtaining funding for higher education are further points of concern.[587] Clear guidance must be given to local authorities that all of the provisions of Care Matters, and the principles of good care planning, apply equally and without exception to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We are particularly anxious that the Government resolve the contradiction between the importance that Care Matters places on continuity of care for looked-after children older than 16, and the expectation that young asylum-seekers will leave their foster placements at that age.

210. Lisa Nandy described the lack of support available to unaccompanied children as they progress through the asylum system:

588

We heard of children having to instruct their own solicitors, and having to ring round schools to find themselves a place.[589] The Refugee Children's Consortium argued that a guardian should be appointed for every child in the asylum process, to ensure that they get a fair hearing.[590] Children's rights organisation ECPAT UK's 2007 report Missing Out identified 80 suspected or confirmed child trafficking victims, 60% of whom had gone missing from local authority care.[591] Information obtained by the Care Leavers' Association from local authorities, published in December 2008, showed that up to 389 children had gone missing from care since 2000 and had not subsequently been traced—a high proportion of these were unaccompanied asylum-seekers.[592] We support the idea of appointing guardians for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, to ensure that they are properly supported through the asylum process, and that swift access to services such as education is arranged on their behalf. We are concerned about the particular vulnerability of this group of children to trafficking, and would like the role of guardian to include a remit to ensure that children do not go missing.