Conclusions and recommendations
Planning and preparation
1. Despite
strengthened guidance from the DfE and more rigorous scrutiny
of young people's readiness to leave care by local authorities,
evidence to us suggests that the quality and effectiveness of
planning and preparation for a young person's transition to greater
independence is too often inadequate. We therefore welcome Ofsted's
single inspection framework and believe that it has the potential
to bring about improvements, by including an assessment of early
planning and preparation. It is essential that the testimony of
young people and other sources are used to complement evidence
from tracked and sampled cases of looked after young people and
care leavers, to ensure that Ofsted has a comprehensive picture
of the quality of pathway planning and preparation for all young
people. (Paragraph 17)
Having a voice and a choice
2. The
improved availability of independent advocacy services is central
to ensuring that young people have a voice in the process of pathway
planning and a real choice in where they live. We welcome the
DfE's work with the National Youth Advocacy Service and Voice
to ensure better advocacy services. Greater availability of independent
advocacy must be accompanied by efforts to increase awareness
among young people of their right to access such services and
to improve their knowledge of how and where to do so. There are
also issues around young people's general lack of awareness of
all their rights and entitlements. (Paragraph 23)
3. The
DfE must ensure that looked after young people approaching independence
are fully and effectively informed of their rights and entitlements
and given a genuine choice of accommodation; and the DfE must
do more to ensure and monitor the take-up of best practice amongst
local authorities. (Paragraph
24)
The appointment of Personal Advisers
4. The
automatic appointment of a Personal Adviser as a separate and
new role can in some cases be a source of disruption for young
people and an inefficient use of stretched resources. (Paragraph
30)
5. We
recommend that the DfE clarify and strengthen guidance to the
effect that local authorities must consider, as a first option,
appointing an existing carer or other professional with whom a
young person has an established relationship as a Personal Adviser,
and involve the young person in this decision. Wherever possible,
the same Personal Adviser should offer consistent support throughout
a young person's preparation for and transition to independence.
(Paragraph 31)
Maintaining positive relationships
6. We
acknowledge that existing regulations on pathway planning require
the identification of, and support for, young people to develop
and sustain "appropriate family and social relationships".
In meeting this duty local authorities must look beyond relationships
with carers and professionals and recognise that looked after
young people may have established positive relationships with
a range of people, including siblings and friends. We believe
that in order to fulfil their purpose of promoting, developing
and sustaining such important relationships, the pathway planning
regulations should specifically refer to siblings. (Paragraph
37)
7. The
pathway planning guidance must be altered so as specifically to
include relationships with siblings. We recommend that the DfE
review how well pathway planning guidance fulfils its purpose
to encourage, develop and sustain positive and stable family and
social relationships. (Paragraph
38)
'Other arrangements': Suitability, regulation
and inspection
8. 'Other
arrangements' for looked after 16 and 17 year olds are too often
neither safe nor suitable, a situation exacerbated by the lack
of a regulatory regime for this kind of accommodation. The diversity
of the provision presents difficulties for the implementation
of stronger, universal regulation, but the challenges are not
so great as to justify the continuation of inadequate and ineffective
quality assurances for 'other arrangements'. (Paragraph 51)
9. While
we welcome the emphasis that the single inspection framework places
on the experience of individual children, we are concerned that
a methodology based on tracking a sample of cases will fail to
ensure the suitability of all 'other arrangements'. This would
not be an acceptable approach for other settings, such as schools
or residential children's homes, and it should not be acceptable
for the accommodation in which some of society's most vulnerable
young people are housed. (Paragraph 52)
10. Quality
standards will not suffice as a guarantee of safe and suitable
accommodation. By focusing on and overcoming the obstacles to
more comprehensive regulation, the Minister could demonstrate
his commitment and determination to "do whatever it takes
[...] to make sure that children themselves get what they deserve".
(Paragraph 53)
11. There
are measures to ensure the quality and safety of settings for
children and young people right across provisions: childminders,
foster carers, residential children's homes, secure training centres,
schools, sixth form colleges and further education colleges are
all inspected. Yet accommodation that falls within the category
of 'other arrangements' is not subject to individual regulatory
oversight. What makes this distinction all the more illogical
is that the 22% of looked after 16 and 17 year olds who live in
such accommodation are among the most vulnerable young people
in society. It is unacceptable for these young people, still legally
defined as 'children' and in the care of their local authority,
to be housed in unregulated settings. (Paragraph 54)
12. We
recommend that the DfE consult on a framework of individual regulatory
oversight for all accommodation provision that falls within the
category 'other arrangements' to ensure suitability while allowing
for continuing diversity of provision.
(Paragraph 55)
Banning the use of B&Bs
13. Statutory
guidance is clear that B&Bs are unsuitable for young people
in care and should only be used in very particular, emergency
situations. Nonetheless, we are deeply troubled by the continued
use of B&Bs. Far from being merely unsuitable, B&Bs can
present an environment which feels unsafe and threatening to a
young person. (Paragraph 65)
14. We
recognise that a hastily introduced ban on B&Bs could lead
to the unacceptable situation in which no placement can be offered
to a young person who requires emergency accommodation. Nonetheless,
an outright ban on B&Bs should be the long-term objective,
to be achieved through stronger enforcement of the sufficiency
duty, which explicitly requires the provision of surplus placements
to meet emergency need. The creation of commissioning consortia
should continue to be encouraged to assist with local authorities
fulfilling this duty. (Paragraph 66)
15. We
recommend that the DfE consult urgently with local authorities
on a reasonable timeframe in which to introduce a total ban on
the use of B&Bs, alongside a strengthened requirement for
local authorities to commission sufficient alternative emergency
facilities. We also recommend that the DfE look further into models
of emergency provision, such as that in Wiltshire, and consider
contingency carers, as one way to mitigate the possible negative
consequences of banning B&Bs. In the meantime, while setting
up and running the consultation, the DfE should reiterate the
message that B&Bs must only be used in extreme, emergency
circumstances and for a very limited period of time, no more than
a few days. (Paragraph 67)
16. The
DfE should require local authorities to report on their use of
B&B accommodation for looked after young people, to include
the length of stay, the age of the young person and the reason
for being placed there. (Paragraph
68)
Leaving care at the age of 16 or 17
17. 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. (Paragraph 72)
Returning to care
18. 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. (Paragraph 76)
19. 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.
(Paragraph 77)
Maximising support, minimising disruption
20. 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. (Paragraph 81)
21. 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.
(Paragraph 82)
Disruption to looked after young people
mid-way through an academic year
22. 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. (Paragraph 87)
23. 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. (Paragraph 88)
24. 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.
(Paragraph 89)
Residential children's homes
25. 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.
(Paragraph 97)
26. 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. (Paragraph 98)
27. 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. (Paragraph
99)
28. 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. (Paragraph 100)
Other arrangements
29. 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. (Paragraph 105)
30. We
recommend that the DfE issue explicit guidance on young people's
right to stay in 'other arrangements' until they are 21.
(Paragraph 106)
31. 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. (Paragraph 107)
32. 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.
(Paragraph 108)
| 
