6 Staying Put
Leaving
care at the age of 16 or 17
69. There is a declining trend in the
number of young people who leave care aged 16 and 17, with more
staying until they are 18:Table
1: children aged 16 years and over who ceased to be looked after
during the years ending 31 March
| Year
Age on ceasing (years)
| 2009
| 2010
| 2011
| 2012
| 2013
|
| 16 |
1,890 (22%) |
1,920 (21%) |
1,940 (19%) |
1,740 (17%) |
1,640 (16%) |
| 17 |
1,490 (17%) |
1,530 (17%) |
1,770 (18%) |
1,700 (17%) |
1,510 (15%) |
| On 18th birthday
| 5,310 (61%)
| 5,680 (62%)
| 6,270 (63%)
| 6,570 (65%)
| 6,800 (68%)
|
Source: Department for Education, Children
looked after in England, including adoption, December 2013[139]
Despite this positive trend and the
statutory guidance that "No young person should be made to
feel that s/he should 'leave care' before s/he is ready",[140]
there is still a concern that too many young people leave care
at the ages of just 16 or 17. Natasha Finlayson, CEO of The Who
Cares? Trust, told us:
It absolutely is a concern [that
young people continue to leave care at as young an age as 16 or
17], without a shadow of a doubt. Far too many young people are
leaving care aged 16 and 17 and they are not ready; they say they
are not ready. They know they are not ready.[141]
70. Marie Tucker, an independent social
care consultant, told us she was concerned that "some young
people […] feel forced to leave care".[142]
Professor Mike Stein agreed, "They are forced […] in
that there is a context of pressure and expectation".[143]
BASW reported:
All the young people our member
spoke with said that they felt they had to get out as soon as
possible after their 16th birthday as they knew that
young people are no longer wanted in children's homes. This belief
seemed to be firmly inculcated in the young people […].[144]
[This] prevailing culture is also
apparently subscribed to by the residential childcare workers
in this setting.[145]
71. The Minister told us, "It is
difficult to know [whether the numbers of 16 and 17 year olds
leaving care are still too high] without knowing the reason behind
each case".[146]
He pointed us to recent DfE efforts to reduce further the number
of 16 and 17 year olds leaving care, such as Staying Put and the
new requirement that the Director of Children's Services sign
off the decision for any young person to leave care, a change
which he said was made in order to "ratchet up the oversight,
and the responsibility for decisions".[147]
72. While we
welcome the reduction in the number of 16 and 17 year olds leaving
care, we are concerned that there are still too many young people
who leave care before they are ready to do so. We are particularly
concerned that some 16 and 17 year olds feel pressured to leave
care, because they believe themselves to be too old to stay in
a children's home or other placement. Even more troubling is that
this view may be held by professionals working with young people.
Leaving care at 16 or 17 should be an exception rather than expectation
and local authorities must continue to have close oversight and
scrutiny of such decisions.
Returning to care
73. Care leavers participating in our
seminar said that at the age of 16 or 17 many young people feel
ready to move to greater independence, though reflecting on their
own experiences, they recognised that they may not have been ready
for such a transition. For example, one young person told us,
"For the large majority of 16 year olds, living alone is
unrealistic. I felt ready at 16. I've been living by myself […]
but I don't think it's right". The Children's Society noted:
[...] young people feel that once
the decision has been made [to move to semi-independent or independent
settings] there is no way to return to other arrangements, if
things do not go as well as expected.[148]
Care leavers at our seminar agreed with
this perspective and emphasised a desire for some kind of "safety
net", as argued for by Barnardo's, who told us:
[...] care leavers should be given
the option to return to care, or return to accommodation provided
by the local authority, up to the age of 21, even if they have
previously decided to leave care.[149]
Natasha Finlayson supported the view
that young people should have the option of returning to care:
[...] some [16 and 17 year olds]
think they might be ready [to leave care] because they are not
happy in their care placement and would rather be somewhere else.
Often they then change their minds and want to come back. It is
very important that we look at the right to return to care.[150]
74. Though The Fostering Network was
in favour of enabling young people to return to care, "[…]
if for instance their circumstances change, or they find that
they are not coping with independent living",[151]
it recognised that this would present some challenges. For example,
foster carers may have taken on another child or retired from
fostering. Similarly, in residential care, there is no guarantee
that it would be possible for a young person to return to their
original care setting.[152]
Prospects argued that, although it is sometimes "helpful
and necessary" to have the capacity to readmit young adults
to residential children's homes in the case of an emergency, it
should not be "routinely encouraged".[153]
75. The DfE's position was set out in
its supplementary written evidence to our inquiry:
Local authorities can and should
allow a 16 or 17 year old to return to care if they were not coping
outside the care system and meet the legal criteria. For care
leavers, our Transitions guidance expects local authorities to
act as good corporate parents and provide on-going support to
their care leavers. This means that local authorities should have
a flexible approach in how they respond to the individual needs
of each care leaver i.e. enabling young people to return to more
supported accommodation if they are not coping with independent
living.[154]
Andrew Christie, of the ADCS, said that,
given the statutory duties already in place, enabling more young
people to re-enter the system was a matter of practice rather
than legislation.[155]
He admitted that, "I cannot tell you whether it happens in
all 150 authorities regularly",[156]
although Sally Morris, of Catch22, considered that, "Good
local authorities are doing that".[157]
76. Despite often
believing themselves to be ready to leave care and wanting to
move to independent living, young people need to know that they
have a safety net on which they can rely if life takes a turn
for the worse. We acknowledge that legislation provides an option
for young people to return to leaving care services or the care
system when required. Local authorities must retain their sense
of corporate parenting responsibility as a young person leaves
care and transitions to adulthood, working with them to ensure
that they are supported during this potentially turbulent time.
77. We recommend that the DfE remind
local authorities of their duty to accept young people back into
their care if a young person's decision to move to semi-independent
living, leave care, or decline leaving care services proves to
be premature. Local authorities should make young people aware
of this option whenever they move to different levels of support
and independence.
Maximising support, minimising
disruption
78. Prior to the revision of Transition
guidance (May 2014), witnesses to our inquiry took issue with
the fact that the then guidance required local authorities to
provide support and assistance to the age of 25 for all former
relevant children who were in full-time education or training,
but only to the age of 21 for those not in full-time education
or training. The ADCS told us that this distinction "is in
some ways illogical".[158]
79. When responding to concerns raised
during our inquiry, the Minister announced his intention to change
guidance in order to extend support to the age of 25 for care
leavers "who want to get back into education, but are not
currently in any education or training".[159]
We were concerned that the revised guidance would apply only to
young people who "are looking to get into education and training"[160]
or "have a clear ambition to get back into some form of education
or training",[161]
hence continuing to exclude those who may be most in need. The
Minister reassured us:
In fact it is the contrary—it
is trying to ensure that those who do need that extra support
do get it. […] those who are struggling, and so far have
not had statutory guidance written in a way that benefits them,
are the ones that I want to capture.[162]
80. Revised guidance was published on
20 May 2014. Its wording makes clear that support is conditional
on young people intending to return to education or training:
Local authorities should ensure
that all their care leavers (including those who live out of authority)
are aware of their entitlement to a PA up to age 25 if they
wish to return to education and training. Local authorities
should also provide information (a letter or leaflet) on how to
get in touch in the future.
Many young people will be experiencing
a number of practical and emotional difficulties in their lives
as they navigate the complexities of adulthood, which mean that
they would be unable to return to education or training immediately.
Local authorities should explain that they will support them
to overcome these difficulties so that they can return to education
or training up to age 25 if this is their wish. They should
in particular encourage all young people who are not in education,
employment, or training (NEET) to take up this offer of support.
Local authorities should make it
clear that this entitlement to resume the pathway planning
process and a support relationship with a named personal adviser,
starts from the time the young person informs the local authority
of their intention to resume their education or training and
ends with the completion of the course.[163],[164]
81. We
acknowledge the change to guidance, intended to extend leaving
care services to the age of 25 for young people who are not in
education or training, but it is not enough. We are concerned
that the extension is restricted to those who demonstrate an ambition
to return to education or training, either immediately or in the
future. Care leavers who are neither in education or training,
nor have any intention of returning to such activities, may be
some of the most vulnerable in society and therefore the most
in need of support.
82. We recommend that the DfE extend
leaving care services to the age of 25 for all care leavers, regardless
of whether they wish to return to education or training.
DISRUPTION TO LOOKED AFTER YOUNG
PEOPLE MID-WAY THROUGH AN ACADEMIC YEAR
83. During our informal discussions
with young people and care leavers, several spoke of their frustration
with placements being disrupted partway through an academic year,
as a result of an age-determined change to their care and support.
The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) drew attention
to this issue:
[…] school leaders report that
local authority support tends to be withdrawn 'early' from those
approaching 16, both because there is a natural tendency to concentrate
on younger children and because provision is usually changed at
birthdays, rather than necessarily when it would make more sense
in relation to the young person's circumstances and needs. There
is a similar tendency at age 18 […].[165]
This disruption is of particular concern
when it occurs as young people are approaching important public
examinations. Witnesses from YMCA England, Catch22, the ADCS and
the ICHA all agreed that changes in placement and support should
apply at the end of the school year following a given birthday.
The ASCL argued that such a change would:
[…] reduce the instances of
young people being disrupted just before they take important examinations
such as GCSEs, A levels, BTECs and vocational qualifications.[166]
84. Regulations are in place to govern
decisions on placement changes during Key Stage 4, when young
people are preparing for their GCSEs. The regulations minimise
disruption and ensure that any change made is in the interest
of the young person. This is strengthened by statutory guidance
explicitly stating that local authorities have a duty to ensure,
so far as is reasonably practicable, that young people do not
have their education disrupted by placement changes,[167]
recognising the particular importance of stability during Key
Stage 4.[168]
85. For young people who do not have
a Staying Put arrangement, the age-determined requirement to leave
care when they turn 18 can be equally, if not more, unsettling
than a placement change and they risk having their education or
training greatly disrupted. Young people also spoke to us about
how even the thought that this might happen had an unsettling
effect on them, with uncertainty around current and future placements
negatively affecting their education, training and employment.
This will be particularly problematic for those whose 18th
birthday falls partway through the academic year. This was the
case for one young person with whom we spoke. Despite important
exams falling shortly after her 18th birthday, she
was put under pressure to move and had to fight hard to prevent
this. She told us that this was unnecessary stress during a time
at which she needed to be as calm as possible so as to concentrate
on her exams. The ASCL argued:
Given the policy of raising the
participation age to 18 […] it is imperative that these vulnerable
young people be given the support they need to engage in education
and training after age 16.[169]
86. The Minister told us:
The guidance is clear that where
a young person is halfway through an academic year and has exams
coming up, they should not be leaving their placement during that
period.[170]
We note, however, that there is no regulatory
framework to ensure minimal disruption to education or training
beyond Key Stage 4, nor does the revised Transition guidance (May
2014) contain an explicit statement on postponing a young person's
transition out of care to the same effect.
87. There is
a risk that disruption before important exams could widen the
already unacceptable gap in educational attainment between looked
after children and all pupils. In addition, some children in care
may be taking exams slightly later as they may have repeated a
school year. Except in exceptional circumstances, it is unacceptable
for a young person to be asked to change placement when they are
partway through an academic year leading to public examinations.
We are aware of regulations and guidance that minimise such disruption
for young people in Key Stage 4.
88. It can also
be highly unsettling for a young person to be made to leave care
altogether when they turn 18. We are disappointed that there is
no regulation, nor an explicit requirement in the revised guidance,
to ensure stability in education or training as a young person
approaches their 18th birthday. This is particularly
anomalous given the raising of the participation age. Leaving
care, or any other change, where it is neither the choice, nor
in the best interest of the young person, must be postponed until
after the end of the academic year in August.
89. We recommend that the DfE remind
all local authorities of their statutory duty to postpone any
unnecessary and disruptive placement change during Key Stage 4.
We recommend a similar duty be introduced to ensure that a young
person's transition out of care is also postponed until after
the end of an academic year following a given birthday, including
those decisions that are age-determined, where such a change is
not the expressed choice of the young person.
Extending Staying Put
90. While more young people are staying
in care until they are 18, the Children's Rights Director's Report,
After Care (2012), still found that "46% of
[care leavers] thought they had left care too early".[171]
This is underlined by Demos's recent finding that "The average
age at which young people leave home in the general population
is 24".[172] Staying
Put has been widely welcomed on the grounds that it enables looked
after young people to stay in care longer, bringing greater stability.
Barnardo's explained that:
Many young people experience disruptive
placement changes whilst they are in care, so the principle of
'staying put' and the stability it brings in the transition to
adulthood is an important development.[173]
There is comparable consensus that the
current policy is inequitable, as it does not apply to looked
after young people living in residential children's homes or 'other
arrangements'. Professor Mike Stein told us:
You have to have consistency because,
at the moment, there is a danger where you have Staying Put in
foster care to 21. I think the word 'discriminatory' has been
used. [...] A real priority is to get the consistency within the
legislation for different groups.[174]
Witnesses, including Barnardo's, believed
that the inequity of this policy is particularly problematic given
that looked after young people living in residential children's
homes are often the most vulnerable, hence the most in need of
extended care and support.[175]
RESIDENTIAL CHILDREN'S HOMES
91. Evidence from the DfE set out the
Government's position with regards to extending the Staying Put
policy to children's homes. Its key points were:
Too many children's homes are not
of sufficient quality and our immediate priority is to significantly
improve the quality of residential care […].[176]
The evidence for placing such a
duty on supporting staying put arrangements for young people in
foster care is robust […] We do not have the evidence for
children's homes as they were not covered by pilots. [177]
There are also a number of practical
and legal issues we would need to consider and test out […]
You would have vulnerable adults living in homes with much younger
vulnerable children. Also a children's home accommodating three
care leavers and one child would no longer technically be a children's
home.[178]
When giving oral evidence, the Minister
also acknowledged that "money has to be a factor to be taken
into consideration".[179]
Nonetheless, the DfE recognised that these challenges "shouldn't
be viewed as insurmountable barriers". It is working with
the National Children's Bureau and The Who Cares? Trust to look
at some of the issues associated with extending Staying Put to
residential children's homes.[180]
Natasha Finlayson, CEO of The Who Cares? Trust, confirmed that
this work is progressing.[181]
92. Many witnesses questioned the requirement
to improve the quality of children's homes and the Government's
emphasis on practical and legal barriers. The Every Child Leaving
Care Matters (ECLCM) campaign group contested the view that the
quality of children's homes needs to improve before an extension
of the policy is possible. They cited Ofsted data, which "shows
that most children's homes are already functioning to a good or
better standard".[182]
In particular, the ECLCM group pointed to Ofsted's findings from
inspections of 400 children's homes, completed by June 2013:
· Overall
effectiveness: 65% were good or outstanding; 7% were inadequate.
· Outcomes
for young people: 67% were good or outstanding; 3% were inadequate.
· Quality
of care: 74% were good or outstanding; 6% were inadequate.
· Safeguarding
children and young people: 69% were good or outstanding; 6% were
inadequate.
Jonathan Stanley, CEO of the ICHA, agreed:
We do not need to have pilots; we
can go forward with it now, on the basis that there are many children's
homes that are already "good", and sustainably "good",
or better […].[183]
93. BASW also questioned the validity
of viewing the quality of residential children's homes as a barrier
to extending the policy, given the accommodation in which some
care leavers can find themselves living:
Michael Gove has reservations about
extending the age a young person can remain in residential care
due to variable standards but how much more risky to place our
young people in unregulated accommodation where the minimum requirement
is that they are visited every 6 weeks. The DfE itself found that
11% of care leavers in England live in 'unsuitable accommodation'
upon leaving care […].[184]
94. The majority of those that supported
an extension of the Staying Put policy acknowledged the challenges,
particularly in children's homes. Most did not see the obstacles
as insurmountable; some questioned their significance altogether.
For example, Marie Tucker, an independent social care consultant,
and the ECLCM campaign group rebutted safeguarding concerns. Marie
Tucker considered that, "The concern about children being
placed with adults is unfounded",[185]
and ECLCM argued that they:
[…] struggle to see how a young
person who is settled in a children's home and enjoys positive
relationships with staff and peers should suddenly become a safeguarding
risk at 18 when they never were before.[186]
Jonathan Stanley echoed this position:
I do not understand how, if you
are 17 years old and 300-odd days, you are not a safeguarding
problem and you are being safeguarded, and then, when you get
your birthday, you become a safeguarding problem. The relationships,
the risks assessments, are all in place for that young person
[…] It is not going to be their home forever; they will be
moving on sooner or later, but we know about the risks. Moving
to another place, we do not necessarily know the risks.[187]
95. Several submissions argued that,
although extending the age at which all young people leave care
might present an upfront cost, it was an area where local authorities
could spend to save.[188]
This is based on evidence that increased stability of placement
can lead to better long-term life chances and improved outcomes.
For example, St Christopher's Fellowship claimed:
Continuing care and support until
21 will offer [young people] the best opportunity of success in
further and higher education, leading to enhanced employment prospects
and reducing the need for state support throughout their lives.[189]
The Fostering Network referred to "evidence
from studies in the USA […] that there are significant financial
savings if young people can remain longer in care".[190]
96. Not all witnesses agreed that extending
Staying Put to the residential sector would be appropriate. St
Basils and Homeless Link argued:
[…] extending residential care
is not a helpful option for the majority of young people. Young
people in residential care will be better integrated into communities
if they live in more mixed provision with other young people who
have not all had a care experience.[191]
While not opposed to the notion of extending
Staying Put to residential children's homes, The Fostering Network
believed, "[…] just as Staying Put was piloted in foster
care, it should be piloted in residential care".[192]
The ECLCM campaign group understood this position, but was of
the view that:
[…] young people currently
in placement who are settled and who will benefit from remaining
in placement to 21 should [not be made to] leave and move elsewhere
simply pending further research.[193]
97. We
recognise that the extension of Staying Put to residential children's
homes presents some practical and legal difficulties but these
are not insurmountable. We welcome the DfE's work with the National
Children's Bureau and The Who Cares? Trust to understand better
the issues around extending Staying Put to the residential sector.
98. We are not
convinced by the DfE's argument that the quality of children's
homes must improve before young people are able to 'stay put'.
Many young people are settled and thriving in residential children's
homes. Forcing them to move at the age of 18 from a home judged
'good' or 'outstanding' by Ofsted to unregulated, sometimes unsuitable,
settings is not only illogical in policy terms, but potentially
harmful to the individual in question.
99. We recognise
the resource constraints faced by local authority children's services
departments. Nonetheless, the young people in question have already
experienced troubled and disrupted childhoods and are far too
important for their welfare not to be prioritised. Extending support
for these vulnerable young people should be considered an investment,
which will lead to better outcomes for the individuals in question
and for society as a whole.
100. Young people living in residential
children's homes should have the right to remain there beyond
the age of 18, just as young people in foster now have the right
to Stay Put until the age of 21. We recommend that the DfE extend
Staying Put to residential children's homes.
OTHER ARRANGEMENTS
101. Extending Staying Put to 'other
arrangements' appears to be less problematic, not least because
current legislation already authorises continuing accommodation
support for care leavers up to the age of 21 living in such accommodation.
DfE data shows that 37% of 19 year old care leavers are in independent
accommodation (year ending 31 March 2013) and that "the rest
are spread over a range of accommodation",[194]
which includes semi-independent and transitional accommodation,
supported lodgings, community homes and foyers.[195]
YMCA England argued that given the challenges posed by extending
Staying Put to children's homes:
[…] a more suitable alternative
[…] would be for young people to move to semi-independent
living through supported accommodation providers within the local
area.[196]
102. The DfE told us:
We have strengthened the legal framework
so that local authorities have a duty to provide all care leavers
with practical support which includes helping them find and live
in a safe and secure place until they are 21 [...].[197]
The revised 'Planning Transition
for Adulthood for Care Leavers' statutory guidance (2011) says
care leavers up to 21-or 25 if still in education and training-must
be supported to live in safe and suitable accommodation, e.g.
supported housing and foyers.[198]
103. While young people are entitled
to receive support to stay in alternative accommodation to the
age of 21, the Howard League for Penal Reform asserted that, "The
problem is that local authorities consistently misinterpret or
fail to apply the law"[199]
and that the Staying Put policy as it stands:
[...] may inadvertently result in
local authorities rowing back on current duties to care leavers
who are not in foster care.[200]
The Howard League for Penal Reform argued
that the policy must therefore:
[…] be accompanied by the clear
message that this bolsters, and is in addition to, existing duties
to provide accommodation that meets young people's needs […]
until they are 21 so long as their welfare requires it.[201]
104. Professor Mike Stein put forward
"the provision of supported accommodation attached to children's
homes" as an option that might mitigate the immediate challenges
of extending Staying Put to children's homes.[202]
This reflects the concept of 'Staying Close', which was suggested
by representatives of children's homes during our visit to Ipswich.
The idea is that semi-independent accommodation could be attached
to a children's home, or located near enough for support and relationships
to be maintained. The ADCS suggested a similar model based on
maintaining connections with the home:
We would envisage that in most cases
the most appropriate response for children in residential placements
would be to begin early planning for a new placement as a care
leaver but with a better focus on maintaining contact with either
staff or other children from the child's existing placement, or
other relevant staff or peers who can provide some of the support
and continuity. Something akin to staying put but without the
focus on providing the exact same accommodation placement could
be explored.[203]
Catch22 referred to models that provide
"both continuity of support and relationships and increasing
independence". It argued:
There is a need for expansion of
these models of residential care that harness the expertise and
experience of residential care providers to provide appropriate
support and care of older young people […] there have been
many examples of homes with 'training flats' to allow young people
more experience of independent living.[204]
The Minister gave an example of a model
in North Yorkshire, called No Wrong Door, which reflects the concept
of Staying Close. In this model a children's home serves as a
'hub' for young people who have moved on to semi-independent or
independent living, where:
They still have outreach support,
whether it is health-including mental health-education, mentoring
or the continuity of [...] relationship[s] [...] so that they
get that continued corporate parenting oversight as they go through
the transition into adulthood. I think that is a really smart
and creative way of addressing the problem [...].[205]
Young people told us of their desire
to have such continuity of support alongside their move to greater
independence. For example, through staff from former placements
visiting them in their new accommodation, helping them decorate,
or picking them up and taking them back for Sunday lunch.
105. Legislation
currently entitles care leavers to continuing accommodation support
up to the age of 21. However, we believe that the provisions are
unclear, insufficient and all too often overlooked, resulting
in too many young people having much needed support terminated
at the age of 18.
106. We recommend that the DfE issue
explicit guidance on young people's right to stay in 'other arrangements'
until they are 21.
107. Staying
Close, properly implemented, can be a valuable and, for some young
people, preferable alternative to Staying Put. When young people
move on from a residential children's home to semi-independent
or independent living, greater opportunity should be provided
for them to stay close, in terms of physical proximity, continued
provision of professional support and consistent personal connections
with supportive friends and staff in the home.
- We recommend that the DfE examine
models such as 'No Wrong Door' in North Yorkshire. If they are
shown to lead to improved outcomes for young people, the DfE should
issue best practice guidance on a model of Staying Close.
139 Department for Education, Children looked after in England, including adoption,
December 2013 Back
140
Department for Education, The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 2: Care Planning, Placement and Case Review,
March 2010, Para 5.25 Back
141
Q1 (Natasha Finlayson) Back
142
Q3 (Marie Tucker) Back
143
Q3 (Professor Mike Stein) Back
144
British Association of Social Workers (16P 22) para 20 Back
145
British Association of Social Workers (16P 22) para 21 Back
146
Q161 Back
147
Q212 Back
148
The Children's Society (16P 30) para 3.2 Back
149
Barnardo's (16P 16) para 4.4; see also The Fostering Network (16P 23)
para 5 and Professor Mike Stein (16P 1) para 2.3 Back
150
Q1 Back
151
The Fostering Network (16P 23) para 21 Back
152
The Fostering Network (16P 23) para 25-27 Back
153
Prospects (16P 18) para 3.4 Back
154
Department for Education (16P 38) p 4 Back
155
Q153 Back
156
Q152 (Andrew Christie) Back
157
Q152 (Sally Morris) Back
158
Association of Directors of Children's Services (16P 31) p 1 Back
159
Q164 Back
160
Q212 Back
161
Q216 Back
162
Q217 Back
163
Department for Education, The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 3: Planning Transition to Adulthood for Care Leavers,
October 2010, para 3.53-3.55 Back
164
Emphasis added Back
165
Association of School and College Leaders (16P 9) para 13 Back
166
Association of School and College Leaders (16P 9) para 14 Back
167
Department for Education, The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 2: Care Planning, Placement and Case Review,
March 2010, para 3.15 - 3.17 Back
168
Department for Education, The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 2: Care Planning, Placement and Case Review,
March 2010, para 3.18 - 3.20 Back
169
Association of School and College Leaders (16P 9) para 15 Back
170
Q221 Back
171
Ofsted, After Care: Young people's views on leaving care, Reported by the Children's Rights Director for England,2012,
p 35 Back
172
Demos, In Loco Parentis, 2010, p 135 Back
173
Barnardo's (16P 16) para 3.2 Back
174
Q76 (Professor Mike Stein); see also Care Leavers Association
(16P 27) para 12, The Fostering Network (16P 23) para 3, British
Association of Social Workers (16P 22) para 24, Barnardo's (16P 16)
para 3.4, Every Child Leaving Care Matters (16P 4), and St Christopher's
Fellowship (16P 3) p 1 Back
175
Professor Mike Stein (16P 1) p 5; see also Barnardo's (16P 16)
para 3.6; St Basils and Homeless Link (16P 9) para 19; Association
of School and College Leaders (16P 9) para 3 Back
176
Department for Education (16P 29) para 33 Back
177
Department for Education (16P 29) para 34 Back
178
Department for Education (16P 29) para 35 Back
179
Q227 Back
180
Department for Education (16P 29) para 35 Back
181
Q80 Back
182
Every Child Leaving Care Matters (16P 4) para 19 Back
183
Q142 Back
184
British Association of Social Workers (16P 22) para 13 Back
185
Marie Tucker (16P 6) para 2.c Back
186
Every Child Leaving Care Matters (16P 4) para 26 Back
187
Q143 Back
188
Newham College (16P 8) para 6; see also the Association of School
and College Leaders (16P 9) para 2, and Youth Justice Board (16P 11)
p 1 Back
189
St Christopher's Fellowship (16P 3) p 1; see also Professor Mike
Stein (16P 1) p 1, Every Child Leaving Care Matters (16P 4) para
29, Youth Justice Board (16P 11) p 1, Barnardo's (16P 16) para
3.10, The Foyer Federation (16P 21) p 4, and The Howard League
for Penal Reform (16P 25) para 1 Back
190
The Fostering Network (16P 23) para 43 Back
191
St Basils and Homeless Link (16P 19) para 5 Back
192
The Fostering Network (16P 23) para 13 Back
193
Every Child Leaving Care Matters (16P 4) para 25 Back
194
Catch22 (16P 26) para 6.a Back
195
Department for Education, Children looked after in England, including adoption,
December 2013 Back
196
YMCA England (16P 20) para 3.6 Back
197
Department for Education (16P 29) para 37 Back
198
Department for Education (16P 29) para 38 Back
199
The Howard League for Penal Reform (16P 25) para 32 Back
200
The Howard League for Penal Reform (16P 25) para 4 Back
201
The Howard League for Penal Reform (16P 25) para 28 Back
202
Professor Mike Stein (16P 1) p 5 Back
203
Association of Directors of Children's Services (16P 31) p 1 Back
204
Catch22 (16P 26) para 5.5 - 5.d Back
205
Q180 Back
| 
