Children and Young People
Response to Care Matters Green Paper Item no: 4
on children in care
Report by: Mike Scott Job title: Policy Officer
Date: 6 December 2006
Contact Officer: Mike Scott
Telephone: 020 7934 9839 Email: mike.scott@londoncouncils.gov.uk
Summary This paper provides the draft London Councils‟ response to the
consultation on Care matters: transforming the lives of children and young
people in care, the DfES Green Paper on Children in Care published on 9
October 2007.
Recommendations That Members comment on the draft response and agree any changes
for recommendation to the London Councils‟ Executive on 22 January
2007.
The DfES deadline for response is 15 January 2007 but DfES has agreed
a short extension for London Councils to enable political sign off.
1. This paper provides the draft London Councils‟ response to consultation on Care matters:
transforming the lives of children and young people in care, the DfES Green Paper on
Children in Care published on 9 October 2006.
2. At its meeting on 11 October 2006, the London Councils‟ Children and Young People Forum
debated the implications of the Green Paper for London and comments have been used to
draft the response. The draft response was circulated to borough officers for comment by 28
November 2006 and a period of active consultation has included engagement with:
Association of London Directors of Children‟s Services (ALDCS) - 27 November 2006.
Key points raised were:
- concerns around funding for Green Paper proposals, especially supporting
young people to stay in care potentially until 24;
- concerns over proposed independent social care practices;
- the need to strengthen the role of elected members as corporate parents;
- lack of foster care capacity in London;
- problems with recruitment and retention of foster carers and social workers.
Directors have been asked to support the London Councils‟ response and will consider
sign up at their meeting on 22 January 2007.
London Education Protects officer network - 3 November and 22 November.
– Highlighted the importance of keeping all children in care engaged in education
and expressed concerns over proposed independent social care practices.
London Inter Authority Admissions Group (LIAAG) - 16 November.
- The group discussed the implications of the new arrangements for cross border
admissions and suggested a common minimum standard for local authorities.
Young London Matters Children in Care Strand group - 8 November.
- The group established which key Care Matters proposals that should be piloted
in London, including the pledge for children in care and virtual head teacher.
What Makes The Difference consultation event for young people leaving care - 22
November.
- Young people leaving care stressed the importance of lead professionals and
placement stability in improving the quality of their lives.
3. Further consultation will take place with London children‟s sector voluntary and community
organisations on 7 December and Senior Child Care Managers at Assistant Director level on
14 December 2006. There is also a need for a response from young Londoners in care and
London Councils is supporting Government Office for London (GOL) to provide a suitable
forum for this.
2
4. The draft response includes the examples of best practice identified by lead Members
following the last meeting of the Children and Young People Forum. Contributions have
included:
Family Group Conferencing Project to support families and prevent young people
coming into care (Barking and Dagenham)
the work of Looked After Children Education teams in improving outcomes and raising
aspirations (Croydon, Haringey)
a drop in centre for children in care improving educational and health outcomes
through interim educational provision and access to multi-disciplinary support (Ealing)
improving children‟s health through outreach and flexible approaches to assessment
and review (Hammersmith and Fulham)
helping care leavers to access employment and training opportunities through the
council (Islington)
training foster carers to manage difficult behaviour (Southwark)
supporting children in care and care leavers with a package of accommodation,
training on independent living skills and careers advice (Wandsworth).
5. The DfES deadline for consultation responses is 15 January 2007. London Councils‟ officers
have agreed an extension with DfES in order to submit the final London Councils‟ response
to the Executive for clearance on 22 January 2007.
Financial Implications for London Councils
Adequate funding is key to making a success of the services outlined for councils in the Green
Paper. The Government must ensure that the additional money needed to fund its proposals is
made available to local authorities and their voluntary and community sector partners.
Legal Implications for London Councils
There are no legal implications.
Equalities Implications for London Councils
London‟s children in care are a highly diverse group. A 2005 national survey of care leavers
revealed that 44% were from ethnic minority groups.1 27% of London‟s children in care have a
1
Barn et al (2005) Life after care: the experiences of young people from different ethnic groups. Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
3
statement of special educational needs (SEN). Nationally, over 60% of children in care have
some identified special educational need (against 17% of all children).
Appendices
London Councils‟ response to Care Matters Green Paper on Children in Care
Background Papers
Barn, Andrew and Mantovani (2005) Life after care: the experiences of young people from
different ethnic groups. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
„Children in Care‟, London Councils Children and Young People Forum, 11 October 2006.
DfES/ONS (16 Nov 2006) Children looked after in England (including adoption and care leavers):
2005-2006 SFR44/2006.
DfES/ONS (11 May 2006) Outcome Indicators for Looked after Children, Twelve months to 30
September 2005 – Local Authority Tables, V03/2006.
London Challenge (November 2005) Local authority toolkit: children missing from education.
RSe Consulting (March 2006) Improving commissioning and outcomes for LAC in London.
Special Needs Consultancy (February 2006) A review of out borough placements in the London
region.
4
London Councils’ response to Care Matters
Green Paper on Children in Care
Summary of recommendations
Workforce – London faces severe shortages of social workers. Young people in care want
continuity and one key social worker to support them through their time in care but recruitment and
retention issues make this difficult in the capital. A flexible range of models is needed for both
children and carers to address the pressures in London.
Foster carers - London Councils and the Association of London Directors of Children‟s Services
are leading a project to counter inter-authority competition for carers through more effective
strategic commissioning of placements across London. The aim is to promote a sub-regional
approach to foster care across London in order to manage the market and achieve economies of
scale. It will build on existing initiatives to recruit, retain and train foster carers. The Government
needs to work with councils to make foster caring more attractive to Londoners.
Social worker practices – the proposals will create two tiers of social workers giving greater
autonomy to some but not all. There is a risk this will lead to even greater turnover of social
workers in traditional roles. Social workers would be best served by reducing bureaucracy, but the
proposed introduction of new budget-holding responsibilities will actually increase burdens.
Admissions – London Councils welcomes the increased powers for local authorities to direct the
admission of children in care made statute through the Education Act, particularly as this includes
schools out of borough. However, this should specify that there must be a maximum time limit
imposed for a child to be placed in order to protect children from lengthy bureaucratic processes.
Funding – London Councils welcomes the proposal to enable young people to stay in foster care,
residential homes and supported accommodation longer where that is suitable and appropriate.
However it is not clear how the Government will meet the additional costs of this extension,
potentially until the age of 24. London Councils would like to work with the DfES to identify the
additional cost pressures for authorities.
Asylum seekers must be included in this wider consultation on the needs of children in care.
Almost 17% of children in care in London are asylum seekers and it is not appropriate to discuss
their needs in a separate consultation.
Role of elected Members – there is a need to strengthen the role of elected members as
corporate parents and this is not evidenced in Care matters.
Introduction
1. London Councils welcomes the opportunity to respond to consultation on Care matters
and acknowledges the Government‟s recognition of the important role of councils in
improving the life chances of children in care. We would also emphasise the wide range
of successful practices being implemented by the London boroughs, all of which are
improving outcomes for this very vulnerable group of children.
2. London has the highest regional population of children in care, with 69% of England‟s
unaccompanied refugee and asylum seeking children. Although education results for
children in care are still too low, more young people are getting 5 good GCSEs in London
than elsewhere in the country. Many of the other measures of the success councils are
already achieving are set out as „good practice‟ in the green paper, as echoed by the
LGA.
5
3. If the London boroughs are to continue building on success in improving outcomes for
children in care then adequate resourcing from Government must be made available to
support the delivery of proposals set out in Care matters.
4. Local flexibility should be built into implementation of the proposals in recognition of the
fact that each local area would have its own unique needs not served by a standard set
of policies for all.
Chapter 1 - The need for reform
5. The Home Office consultation on unaccompanied asylum seeking children should have
been conducted in tandem with the Green Paper consultation. Almost 17% of children in
care in London are asylum seekers and it is not appropriate to discuss their needs in a
separate consultation.
6. While recognising the diversity of the care population, the Green Paper has also avoided
reference to meeting the needs of children with special educational needs (SEN) and
refers to children with disabilities almost exclusively in the context of commissioning
placements. This is unhelpful given the context of high levels of SEN in London‟s care
population and its relatively high unit costs around children‟s social care in particular.
7. London Councils advocates a London regional pledge for children in care, to be
developed and piloted in consultation with Lead Members and Directors of Children‟s
Services. The pledge should include some local flexibility. London Councils is a member
of the Young London Matters strand focussing on children in care and endorses the
support for this model put forward by that group.
8. Support for the development of Children‟s Councils is welcomed and London Councils
would ask the Government to build on existing good practice implemented in many
London boroughs.
Chapter 2 - Children on the Edge of Care
9. There is a lack of detail in the Green Paper with regard to early intervention. It is essential
that the Government invests in preventative work to support families approaching or
already in crisis. We welcome the support for Family Group Conferencing outlined in the
paper which will further spread good practice.
Barking and Dagenham runs a Family Group Conferencing Project working with
children, young people and their families who may need extra support from Children‟s
Services. The project has achieved the operational targets set at the beginning of the
year of 24 conferences by an outstanding 229%. This has been achieved through a
systematic approach to good partnership working and a high standard of
professionalism. This has been recognised, not only by the findings of a recent
evaluation, but also by referrers and families alike, who have consistently commented on
the approach to achieve high practice standards.
Other London boroughs working to this model include:
Camden, which runs a set of family conferences on children who are on the verge
of going into care.
Wandsworth, which provides respite days for families to help prevent them from
breaking up. This is a very effective but expensive model.
Merton, which focuses on family intervention, reducing numbers of children in
care by approximately 25% in four years.
6
Chapter 3 - The Role of the Corporate Parent
10. London Councils is concerned about the proposed social care practices and how this will
empower social workers to deliver better outcomes for children in care.
11. It is not clear how the independent practices will link to local authority responsibilities. If
social workers are to be more autonomous then the issue of safeguarding children will
need to be at the forefront of proposals. The Government will also need to clarify how it
intends to measure and then meet the additional costs the proposal will incur.
12. London Councils is not convinced the social worker practices would address the key
issues for social workers of heavy caseloads, perceived lack of trust in professional
judgement and the amount of time spent on bureaucracy. The system needs to be
simplified, not confused and there is a risk that the introduction of new budget-holding
responsibilities will actually increase burdens.
13. One of the main challenges we face in London is a severe shortage of social workers with
almost one in three social worker posts in London currently covered by temporary staff.
The increased number of teachers in the capital has proved that a key worker shortage
can be overcome if it is given a high enough priority. If the Government is serious about
the aspirations in this Green Paper, proposals need more work to ensure we have the
right number of social workers and other care staff in London.
14. Local authority control and direction of care for each child must be retained as central to
effective practice.
15. There is a need to strengthen the role of elected members as corporate parents and this
is not evidenced in Care matters. The profile of Member responsibilities in relation to
children in care should be raised and quality training provided to ensure valuable
interventions by councillors. London Councils would be keen to support DfES with a pilot
across London.
London Councils supports voluntary roll out of the Barnet „Education Champions‟ model of
corporate parenting to all London local authorities, in which councillors and senior borough
officers act as „pushy parents‟ to champion the education of children in care. In general, an
emphasis on the importance of role models, mentoring and modelling success and
behaviour, will result in increased numbers accessing university and making successful
transitions to adult life.
Chapter 4 - Ensuring Children are in the Right Placements
16. The London boroughs spent £398 million on children in care in 2003/04, a 29% increase
from 2000/01, and an average of £12 million per borough. The average expenditure on
each child looked after during this period was £20,537 against a national average of
£18,601. The variance in average expenditure per child in care between London
boroughs is marked.
17. Demand for services has been rising, particularly for foster care. This has not been
matched by growth in the supply of foster carers with a resulting rise in unit costs: 45% in
four years for inner London. The average unit cost per child in foster care per week is
£478 in London against a national average of £350.
18. The residential care market is less capacity constrained, with lower utilisation of available
placements, and costs have not been rising in excess of inflation. The average unit cost
of children‟s homes is less in London (£1,935) than the national average (£2,069). There
7
are gaps in specialist areas, however, such as residential units for those with mental
health needs.
19. These trends mean that authorities may face increased expenditure of up to 25% over the
next four years unless new ways of working are found.2 To address these issues and to
improve outcomes for children in care, London Councils is supporting the Association of
London Directors of Children‟s Services (ALDCS) to improve services for children in care
and children with SEN through more effective strategic commissioning of residential and
foster care and SEN placements at regional, sub regional and local levels.
20. This collaborative project will provide support for the reduction of demand for out of
borough and residential placements by improving local provision and will ensure better
outcomes for children. There will also be cost and efficiency savings for local authorities.
21. London Councils officers have drawn up a detailed specification to progress this initiative
and a multi-agency London SEN and Children in Care Commissioning Board (the Board)
has been established to support its implementation. To build on this work, the lead on
development of the regional joint commissioning unit proposed in the Green Paper should
be allocated to the Board along with appropriate resourcing and support. This proposal
has been supported by the Young London Matters Children in Care Strand group, of
which London Councils is a member.
22. We support the LGA in advocating a tiered model of placement types and a qualifications
framework as it will formalise arrangements that already exist in many local authorities.
This practice will need to be pulled together and payments standardised. The Department
for Work and Pensions must ensure there is not a disincentive in terms of benefit
entitlement.
23. We support proposals for a „special measures‟ regime empowering local authority
intervention where standards are not met in children‟s homes. This must be matched by
support from Ofsted in conducting specific inspections against outcomes for children in
care.
24. In order to improve outcomes for children in care it is essential that the Government
tackles the severe shortage of foster carers in London, as well as the issue of retention,
and training in parenting skills. Schemes already underway at sub regional level in
London should be supported through the Green Paper proposals. Additional training
opportunities for foster carers should be funded by the Government. In France, for
example, foster carers are required to undertake 240 hours of training, as against 3 days
in England. This deficit needs to be addressed by the Government with new funding and
support for innovation in the boroughs. The importance of the role of the carer needs to
be re-emphasised and making this a professional role with appropriate pay scales and
peer support with qualification requirements are essential in achieving this.
25. In London we need to better match children‟s needs with foster carers skills and take the
views of foster carers into account when planning services for children in care. Emphasis
should be placed on recognising the value and impact of education in improving
outcomes for children and foster carers should be recruited, trained and rewarded
accordingly.
2
RSe Consulting (March 2006) Improving commissioning and outcomes for LAC in London.
8
The Behaviour Changes course is an example of training foster carers for managing
difficult behaviour. This has been achieved through multi agency partnership working
between Southwark Social Care, Southwark PCT and South London and Maudsley
Trust.
The programme has been running since 1999 and is offered bi-annually, spanning 10
weeks. Foster carers must have children already in placement and the programme
includes kinship carers. Groups have been run for carers in the following categories:
teenagers, 8-12 years and under-5s. The programme is rated extremely highly by
carers, 60% of whom have received training in the last 7 years.
Findings from the training course are the subject of a BAAF handbook Fostering
changes: how to improve relationships and manage difficult behaviour. This is the
first full evaluation of a fostering training programme in the UK.
The principal trainer from this programme is now also working one day a week as part
of a dedicated service supporting foster carers through Carelink, Southwark‟s
specialist service for children with emotional/ mental health difficulties.
26. The issue of engaging with independent fostering agencies in relation to training and
minimum standards is one that will be partly addressed through the work of the London
SEN and Children in Care Commissioning Board. The Government should provide
appropriate support to this work.
27. It is also essential to engage with London‟s diverse communities and their resources in
promoting foster care as there is a particular shortage of Muslim carers as well as those
from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities as a whole. This is a
particular issue for London given its higher than average BAME demographic.
Bromley has a surplus of BAME foster carers and has entered into an agreement
with Croydon to share capacity and better match the placement needs of Croydon‟s
many BAME children in care, many of whom are unaccompanied asylum seeking
children.
28. Care is needed not to deter potential foster carers from applying through the introduction
of proposals to extend care beyond 16. A flexible range of models should be introduced
for both children and carers.
29. The Green Paper does not address the safeguarding of children in care. Particular
concerns exist for London authorities in safeguarding sexually active teenage girls who
persistently run away from their care homes. The Government must best assess how to
meet the needs of this particularly vulnerable group in promoting effective models of care.
The London Safeguarding Children Board should be central to this process.
Chapter 5 - A First Class Education
30. Children in care have poor experiences of education and their educational outcomes
remain significantly lower than for all children. 60% of children in care in London achieved
just 1 GCSE/GNVQ in 2005, compared with 60.2% of children in care nationally and 96%
of children in the general population.
31. 13% of London‟s children in care achieved five GCSEs (or equivalent) at grade A* to C,
compared with 10.8% of children in care nationally and 55% of children in the general
population.
32. We welcome the increased powers for local authorities to direct the admission of children
in care made statute through the Education Act, particularly as this includes schools out
of borough. However, this should specify that there must be a maximum time limit
imposed for a child to be placed in order to protect children from lengthy bureaucratic
processes. The power to direct should also apply to City Technology Colleges to ensure
9
equality and avoid confusion. In the case of academies, clarification should be provided in
relation to timescales for appeals to the Secretary of State.
33. The proposed admissions powers must be considered in the context of the wide range of
schools in London, such as faith schools, academies and grammar schools. In addition,
there are high numbers of placements to schools out of the local borough. London faces
the highest levels of pupil mobility in the country.
34. Placements should be made in the best local school for the child, in line with the Schools‟
White Paper proposals. This may not always be the best attaining school but rather the
most supportive placement for the child.
35. With regard to cross border direction of admissions, London Councils is concerned that
where the corporate parent in one local authority is seeking a place in a school
maintained by another, the local authority could be directing schools for which they have
no responsibility. The London Inter Authority Admissions Group (LIAAG) suggests that as
a minimum the approach should be made via the maintaining local authority which must
then support a direction to one of their schools. This should apply even where the
school‟s governing body is the admission authority.
36. London Councils is concerned that pressures on social workers to direct children to the
best attaining school may introduce a perverse incentive whereby children might be
moved to try to get them into particular schools irrespective of the care placement which
should be the primary concern. To prevent this, in cross border cases school places
should be identified and secured before the child arrives in the area.
37. Additionally, schools will need to be supported and directed to maintain placements for
children in care given existing disproportionality in fixed term and permanent exclusions of
children in care. Schools should therefore be made answerable for exclusions targets, not
the local authority. At present, 1% of London‟s children in care are permanently excluded
every year.
38. 25% of children in care in England are currently educated in non-mainstream settings or
at home. Alternative education provision, where necessary, should therefore be
supported for children in care. Equally, they should be encouraged to stay on at school
beyond 16, to take GCSEs and equivalents to age 21 and have these qualifications
recognised and their achievements valued.
10
Ealing established a drop in centre for children in care and care leavers in February 2000
with Quality Protects funding. This provides a joined up, youth-friendly meeting place for all
children in care and care leavers to convene and access a range of support. Young people
are involved in planning service delivery and outreach services are provided to children
placed out of authority.
Every morning during term a dedicated team of one coordinator and 4 teachers at the centre
target improving educational outcomes for young people. Children currently not in school
access interim education and some young people take GCSEs and equivalencies. Other
services include after school and half term study support, as well as arts, cultural, music,
film making and sports programmes during evenings and holidays.
A team of 2 full-time and 3 part-time youth workers are also based at the centre. They
undertake outreach work with NEETs and Connexions and careers advice is provided
weekly through the centre. Health Services input through a dedicated LAC nurse and the
substance misuse team. Advice regarding teenage pregnancy, sexual health and sex
education is also provided. Mentoring is provided from peers through the centre and Aim
Higher Project.
The drop in centre is moving to newly refurbished premises following a £500k investment.
Improved facilities will include a kitchen area for training youngsters in domestic skills, a film
studio and dance area.
39. If class sizes at Key Stage 1, in particular, are exceeded, then councils should be given
additional resources to support schools.
40. Communication with schools and admissions bodies will be key, given the relatively small
numbers of children who will be affected by the new proposals. Engaging constructively
with schools will be vital to ensuring stable and successful school placements, particularly
for unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
41. London Councils advocates a pan-London approach to implementation of the virtual head
teacher proposal. A London model of a virtual ombudsman for children in care should be
developed and agreed with ALDCS and pilots properly resourced, with allowance for local
flexibility of approach. This should build on proposals made by the Young London Matters
Children in Care Strand group. Designated Teachers could be included as part of the
virtual staff team.
42. Clarification over the role of the Designated Teacher in terms of the statutory function is
welcomed. The role itself needs to be fully developed and appropriate resources allocated
according to numbers of children in care enrolled at the school. Children in care could be
factored into schools‟ funding formula, releasing funding for Designated Teachers to fulfil
their duties to children in care (including non-contact time). The Government should now
ensure that the Section 52 duty is now applied to London schools in order to ensure that
all stakeholders are working towards ensuring the best possible outcomes for children in
care.
Croydon runs Designated Teachers network meetings (usually two per year) and training
sessions to help Designated Teachers, as well as visiting schools themselves to offer
support.
43. Further to this, London Councils emphasises the importance of every London child in care
having a Personal Education Plan (PEP) which is agreed with the child and updated
regularly setting challenging but realistic targets. There is scope for developing PEPs for
use by all London authorities at pre-school, primary and secondary level, which will help
standardise practice and ensure clarity and transparency in relation to children‟s
entitlements. This will serve to mitigate against some of the impact of high levels of child
mobility in London. PEPs for Year 11 children in care should be modelled on SEN
Transition Plans.
11
Croydon’s Looked After Children Education (LACE) team tracks names of all children in
care, regardless of placing authority, and ensures PEPs are completed. This means that
support from LACE can be targeted and schools with large numbers identified. This list
goes to inspectors and Connexions to ensure that Key Stage 4 children are getting good
advice and help regarding sixth form college places. Other LACE initiatives include:
• a Reading Champion who works with primary children in care and children‟s homes on
developing literacy skills (this is funded by Paul Hamlyn Foundation).
• extensive information held on the education of children in care on www.croydon.gov.uk
to aid multi-agency working, including training dates, PEP formats, guidance and links to
national documents.
• an annual award ceremony held to celebrate the achievements of children in care.
• LACE operating as a “Virtual Head” with team members working in phases of education.
• weekly or fortnightly surgeries for social work teams who have the opportunity to discuss
cases face to face with a team member.
• a primary-secondary transfer specialist working in the team to ensures that all Croydon
children in care are carefully monitored and supported through Years 6 and 7.
44. London Councils welcomes the proposed bursary system but advocates a top-up for
London‟s children in care given the high costs of living in the capital. This should come
exclusively from Treasury resources. The £500 entitlement should apply to all children in
care, not just those in Years 10 and 11. Evidence suggests that stability and extra support
provided for example in Year 6 can impact dramatically on subsequent Key Stage
outcomes.
45. Given the additional costs and constraints of planning school transport in London, which
often involves travel to a school out of borough, the needs of children in care will need to
be given particular attention in planning free school transport. This will be partially met by
the free home to school transport proposals outlined in the Schools‟ White Paper3 as well
as the under-16s travel scheme brought in by the Mayor of London. Without exception,
the Government must ensure that every child in care is afforded free school transport.
This entitlement should be extended to young people in care beyond the age of 18, in line
with proposals for extending foster care.
46. A principal consideration should be the needs of children with SEN for whom provision of
mobility training is essential. Recommendations from recent the recent London Councils/
DfES research on procurement of home to school transport for pupils with SEN in London
should be piloted in this context. The Government will need to meet the costs of planning
effective free school transport for children in care.
47. Further clarification is required on proposals for support for school governors, particularly
in relation to parent governors who work on a voluntary basis. London Councils supports
proposals for tailored governor training and lead governors for children in care.
48. London Councils would welcome the opportunity to provide inputs into planning boarding
school support pilots in London but questions the appropriateness of independent
3
A proposed entitlement “to pupils on free school meals or where families are in receipt of maximum level
Working Tax Credit, to free school transport to any of the three suitable secondary schools closest to their
home, where these schools are more than two and less than six miles away".
12
boarding provision given the potential for further stigmatisation of children in care and the
absence of 52 week wraparound care available at these schools.
49. There is little mentioned in the Green Paper about children missing from education. This
is a particular problem in London with 11% of London‟s children in care missing 25 days
of school or more per year. The London Challenge Local authority toolkit: children
missing from education (2005) should be disseminated as best practice in this regard.
Chapter 6 – Life outside school
50. Children in care need to be given greater access to a wide range of cultural and leisure
services, as well as to volunteering, with its obvious links to the Youth Green Paper and
Opportunity Card. They need to be able to access services in groups with their friends
and not necessarily with other children in care which often leads to further stigmatisation.
It is uncertain who would supervise these activities, nor whether transport to these
opportunities had been considered. Wraparound extended school services still need to
be given greater substance, with clear incentives for schools and local authorities in
London.
Haringey Looked After Children Team In Education has developed some specific
activities to facilitate building relationships with young people in care and to provide
them with a variety of experiences. Some of these have been achieved in partnership
with Tottenham Hotspur Foundation, such as activity days, football coaching after
school for those in Key Stages 1 and 2. Carers have received training on transition to
secondary school.
Haringey has recently held its third annual awards event for children in care, who were
nominated under four categories by teachers, social workers and carers. The team has
also consulted with young people and allowed them to take on support and mentoring
roles at some of its events. This provides younger children with positive role models
and encourages them to have aspirations for their own futures. Haringey has also
developed a homework club to support success in school and provide additional
assistance in relation to coursework and exam preparation.
51. Access for children in care to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)
provision must be improved as a matter of urgency to avoid lifetime damage from the
experiences that have brought children into care in the first instance. Borough Children‟s
Services should be given proper access to CAMHS funding to address this issue.
Hammersmith & Fulham has encouraged children and young people in care to attend
their health reviews through providing outreach services and adopting a flexible, non
judgemental approach and engaging constructively with foster carers.
Islington PCT provides a dedicated clinical team to promote the health of children in
care; they provide regular health assessments and health advice. In addition, the PCT
provides a specialist child and adolescent mental heath service for children in care.
Islington‟s children in care have one of the highest levels of up-to-date health
assessments and dental checks in the country.
52. The Government should increase current levels of support for young people leaving care,
including unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
Chapter 7 – The transition to adult life
53. London Councils welcomes proposals for a veto around leaving care and pilots for
extending foster care to age 21. Clarification between leaving care and moving
placement will be necessary with regard to the veto, as well as to whether care will be
extended for those in residential placements and supported living.
13
54. We welcome proposals to provide bursaries for children in care to access university,
whilst calling for the Treasury to make new funding available to ensure delivery of this
promise. The benefits are obvious.
This autumn eight young people in care in Ealing started university, bringing the
total from that borough at university to 30.
Islington currently provides a bursary of £3000 per annum for care leavers going
to university.
55. In modelling and building on this good practice it will be important to consider how
children in care can practically access the available bursaries proposed in the Green
Paper and whether the offer could be extended to other forms of education and training,
including vocational pathways and entitlements for late developers. This should be
offered over and above that set out in the White Paper Further Education, Raising Skills,
Improving Life Chances (March 2006).
56. Young people in care attending university should be supported to graduate without any
debts accrued through tuition fees, 52 week accommodation and academic books.
There would be an expectation that these young people would contribute to costs
through gainful employment, community volunteering in exchange for credits and match
funding from Government grants linked to the Frank Buttle Trust kitemark for care
leavers at university. Currently six universities hold this status.
57. With regard to employment opportunities for children leaving care, London local
authorities should be supported to engage further with the private sector to provide
apprenticeships. Incentives should be offered to encourage the private sector to offer
appropriate work experience schemes. Jobs for care leavers should also be set aside in
the public sector. Many of London‟s unaccompanied asylum seeking children may wish
to move on to work at 16; they should also be supported in this way.
Islington provides support for young people leaving the council‟s care to access
opportunities for continuing training and employment. It offers a package of support to
help these young people to enter and stay in employment, targets opportunities with
external employers, and helps care leavers access work experience and employment
opportunities through a council employment scheme. A further offer involves the
council‟s partners and major contractors to secure a similar commitment.
Lewisham and Southwark also show good practice in this area.
58. Young people leaving the care of London authorities face additional pressures and
barriers to employment given the high cost of social housing in the capital and the
likelihood that they will become council tenants at age18. This leaves our care leavers
particularly vulnerable to the benefit and poverty trap.
14
Wandsworth Independent Living Scheme (WILS) provides an example of a service
model relevant to the Care Matters proposals. The service includes:
a model of „social care practice‟: working with children in care commissioned by but
independent of local authorities.
access to expert careers and careers advice.
the development of practical independent living skills.
addresses the accommodation needs of young people leaving care and has an
established capital investment fund to support the provision of dedicated
accommodation for care leavers.
The service combines care management responsibilities for all children in care and care
leavers (excluding disabled children) aged 16 plus and up to age 23 if in education. In
addition the service provides, through contracted arrangements with the Council‟s
Housing Department and Supporting People arrangements, a range of accommodation
from supportive lodgings, independent training flats and supportive accommodation.
Key Strengths of the Service Arrangement:
Young people view WILS as separate from children‟s social services, particularly
important for children in care who see themselves as having had a poor care
experience.
It provides a phased transition from care through to independent living – WILS works
with carers and young people from 16+, working on developing adult living skills,
maintaining the young persons relationship with carers, either by living with the carer
in a „supportive lodgings‟ type arrangement, through to the carer supporting the young
person (e.g. university holiday accommodation, weekly contact – visiting and phone
contact) often into the young adult‟s mid/late twenties.
Provides a consistent focus (with practical and learning support) on further education,
higher education including post graduate and vocational training.
WILS is a multi-disciplinary team with established links to the local key agencies
including the YOT, Mental Health Trust, Hosing Department, local employment
agencies and other Rainer teams.
59. It is vital therefore that transition support is made available for care leavers. This could
take the form of a support package, involving a review of the threshold for withdrawal of
housing benefit. There are also barriers to part-time work because of the 16 hour
benefits rule which impedes access to part time work for those on benefits. Extended
help with travel costs and an employment grant for care leavers are other entitlements
that should be considered.
Islington has a contract with Shaftesbury Homes and Arethusa to provide on-going
support (practical, financial, emotional, help with employment, health, accommodation)
for young people leaving the council‟s care up to the age of 21 and later if they are still
in full-time education. The council‟s policy is that young people should remain in care
until they are 18; they only leave care earlier if it is demonstrably in their best interest to
do so.
60. These proposals carry with them substantial cost and human resource implications. The
extended care offer will mean greater competition for residential and foster care places,
as well as on supported living provision, already troubling issues for London. Alongside
new funding for these extended services, a portion of the Supporting People budget
could be released for maintaining supported accommodation for young people leaving
care. All those leaving care, regardless of status and setting, should be offered a
specifically designed package of support to complement existing pathway plans.
15
Chapter 8 - Making the system work
61. We support the LGA‟s concerns around yet another tier of inspection being imposed on
local authorities. Where possible, outcomes for children in care should be inspected on
against the current framework, without imposing additionalities.
Chapter 9 - Delivering our Vision
62. There is little mention of the voluntary and community sector in the Green Paper.
London Councils promotes the importance of joint working with the sector in
improving outcomes for children in care.
Conclusion
63. London Councils would welcome the opportunity to continue to work closely with the
DfES in developing and piloting proposals set out in the Green Paper through
contributing to the four working groups: Future of the Care Population; Social Care
Practices; Placement Reform; and Best Practice in Schools.
64. London faces many unique challenges in improving outcomes for children in care.
Given its strategic regional importance London should be considered for piloting
Green Paper proposals. As shown in this submission, many examples of good
practice exist in London that could be replicated in other areas. The London
boroughs should therefore be consulted on and properly resourced to lead on this
process through London Councils and ALDCS.
Mike Scott
Policy Officer, Children‟s Services
020 7934 9839
mike.scott@londoncouncils.gov.uk
16