Written evidence from Bernardo’s (CFA0129)

HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY

Written Submission to the House of Lord Select Committee on the Children and Families Act 2014

29 April 2022

Nicola Smith, Senior Policy Adviser

Nicola.smith4@barnardos.org.uk

About Barnardo’s

Barnardo’s is the UK’s largest national children’s charity. In 2020-21 we supported 382,872 children, young people, parents and carers, through almost 800 services and partnerships. Barnardo’s has a long history of providing services to children and young people not living with their parents – we were founded to provide food, shelter and skills to children living on the streets of Victorian London. Today we provide support to families who are struggling; we are the largest voluntary provider of adoption and fostering services; and we provide support to care leavers up to the age of 25.

The 2014 Children and Families Act introduced some important changes to the way that the care system operates in England and the support we give to children. Given the forthcoming review of the Independent Care Review in England we feel this is a very timely inquiry and we welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the committee. We do not seek to answer all the questions posed but have concentrated our answers on those issues where we feel we have the most expertise – particularly those relating to adoption and support for children in the care system.

Summary

•                  Many of the provisions of the Children and Families Act produced positive changes which benefit vulnerable children; many of these could be expanded further. The Children and Families Act introduced several important measures which have helped improved support for children in the care system, e.g., virtual school heads, and the provision for children to stay with their foster carers until 21 (Staying Put). These important developments have successfully improved support for some of England’s most vulnerable children. Overall, these initiatives have been successful and we now believe consideration should be given to expand them further - through the introduction of virtual mental health leads and a statutory “Staying Close”[1] scheme for young people in residential care (building on the pilot).
•                  Since the Act the care landscape has changed significantly, including a change in the profile of children in the care system – any new legislation should address these new challenges. There have been a range of fundamental changes to the way that the care system operates. These include an increase in the number of teenagers coming into care, more children coming into the system as a result of abuse that happens through exploitation both online and offline, and an increase in kinship care. New social care legislation should seek to look at how we can improve protection and support in light of these new challenges.
•                  The number of adoptions has decreased since the Act came in. A key focus should be to understand why this is and to ensure those who do adopt have the right level of post adoption support. Despite the changes in the Act, the annual number of adoptions has decreased since the Act was passed and children are on average waiting longer for adoption. The reasons for this are complex however we believe that the complications caused by the introduction of Regional Adoption Agencies played a part. Ensuring access to good quality post adoption support is essential if the system is going to operate effectively for the most vulnerable.
•                  Further changes are need to parental leave to increase support for self-employed adopters. Changes to family leave contained in the Bill were welcome but further changes are needed particularly the introduction of an “adoption allowance” equivalent to “maternity allowance” to help self-employed parents who want to adopt but don’t qualify for the current adoption play.

Full Evidence

1.              To what extent has the Act improved the situation for the most vulnerable children, young people and families in England?

The Children and Families Act introduced some important reforms which have made a significant difference to the lives of children and young people. Two particular improvements Barnardo’s would identify are outlined below: virtual school heads – introduced by s99 and Staying Put introduced by s98. We believe that both of these provisions could be built on to improve outcomes for vulnerable children further.

s99 Virtual School heads

To help tackle the long-standing underperformance of children in care in education s99 of the Act introduced a system of virtual school heads for looked after children. These individuals are responsible for promoting the educational achievement of all the children looked after by the local authority they work for. 

This followed an initial pilot of virtual school heads in 11 local authorities which showed that over the period of the pilots, the authorities performed well compared to the national average and most showed improvement in GCSE results[2]. While educational outcomes have been significantly impacted by the pandemic there is some evidence of improvement in educational outcomes of looked after children since the Act has passed. The average “progress 8” score of looked after children raising from 19.0 to 23.2 between 2018/19 and 2020/21 – although this is still significantly behind the average score of all children, which is currently 50.9.[3] Ofsted have also looked at the role of virtual school heads commenting that where virtual heads were strong leaders and had the necessary “clout” to be able to access resources they were highly valued by schools and other professionals[4].

Given the indicators that the introduction of strong leadership can be helpful in improving children in care’s educational outcomes, Barnardo’s believes that we could learn from this approach when looking at other outcomes for looked after children. Data suggests that almost half of all Looked After Children have a diagnosable mental health disorder[5] – compared to some one in six children in the general population[6]. It is therefore critical that the right services are available locally to meet the needs of this population.

Effective local leadership is a key factor in improving access to support[7]. Therefore, learning from the approach taken with virtual school heads we would like to see s99 extended to also include a requirement on local authorities to introduce a virtual mental health lead. This individual would play a key role in co-ordinating action from different stakeholders in children’s mental health, including CAMHS, mental health support teams in schools and community health services.

s98 Staying put

S98 of the Act states: “to support young people to remain with their former foster carers to age 21 where both the young person and carer want the arrangement to continue”. The proportion of 19- and 20-year-olds who ceased to be looked after on their 18th birthday in 2021 and who were still living with their former foster carers (‘Staying Put’) was 30% and this has increased steadily over the years (the number was 23% in 2015/16). Outcomes from the scheme have generally been shown to be positive – the ‘Staying Put’ pilot which ran from 2008 to 2011 for example found that young people who ‘stayed put’ were more than twice as likely to be in full-time education at 19 than those who did not[8]. This chimes with the experience of young people supported by Barnardo’s who have “stayed put”. For example, one young person we interviewed for a recent research report about the experiences of leaving care explained how by not facing such a dramatic change to independent 16 living at 18, they had been able to concentrate more on their studies:

“I am happy it turned out this way, I have the opportunity to get the apprenticeship, if I came out of foster care and straight to living by myself it would have been too much of a drastic change.”

Given these positive outcomes Barnardo’s believes that there is potential to expand the scheme to allow more to benefit from it. Currently most children in the care system are in foster care (around three quarters) but there are some young people who are accommodated in residential care settings. There are also some for whom staying with their current foster parent after they reach 18 is not practical however they would benefit from moving to a different foster home rather than into independent accommodation.

The Government set up a pilot of a scheme called “Staying Close” which sought to introduce a similar scheme for residential care and has recently announced[9] that this will be expanded after positive results. However, we would also like to see further changes to the 2014 Act. Changes we would like to see include:

•                  Extend eligibility for the scheme to any young person who would benefit from being in foster care post-18, irrespective of whether they currently live with the carers who would providing the ‘Staying Put’ support.

•                  Place the ‘Staying Close’ scheme on similar legislative footing to ‘Staying Put.

2.             If there were to be a Children and Families Act 2022, what should it include and what might be the barriers to implementation?

There have been significant changes that have taken place within the care system since the 2014 Act was passed. Therefore any new Act seeking to improve the lives of these children would therefore need to take into account what legislative reforms are needed to respond to these changes.

Improving the systems response to protecting children from new types of harm.

Older teenagers are making up a growing proportion of the care population. In England those who are 16+ years made up one in five of all children in the care system in 2008, now the number is closer to one in four. We are also seeing a growing number of children – often in this older category who are referred into social care, not because of a risk from inter-family harm but wider harms within society - such as risk from gangs and trafficking. These have increased by 69.9% and 45.4% respectively over the past two years.[10]

If we are serious about protecting children from this type of abuse, then intervening at critical moments is vital. The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel’s report[11], detailed the importance of not missing opportunities to safeguard. In addition, when a risk is identified cases involving exploitation are often forced to fit into definitions of harm and risk developed in a domestic context. Referrals are couched in terms of ‘emotional abuse’ or ’neglect’, focusing on a parenting deficit and not on the wider risk of harm to the young person. This can be confusing for parents, many of whom are trying hard to keep their children safe but finding pressures from gangs and exploitation too much for them to overcome on their own.

Barnardo’s believes that any new Children and Families Bill should introduce a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation[12]. Introducing such a definition would help professionals working in the system gain a better understanding of this type of abuse. It would also enable the development of bespoke pathways into the child protection system for children at risk of abuse through exploitation.

Barnardo’s has developed the following definition which would achieve this: ‘Child criminal exploitation is when another person or persons manipulate, deceive, coerce or control the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence where the person is under the age of 18.’

Improving support for kinship carers

More and more children in the care system are being placed in kinship care– there has been a 200% increase in special guardianship orders in England between 2009-2020 and over 80 percent of these are granted to relatives or friends[13].

While the trend towards greater use of kinship care arrangements is welcome, these children have often experienced or have been at risk of experiencing significant harm which they will need time and support to recovery from. Yet there is currently a lack of consistent process for offering support for kinship care arrangements with offers differing significantly between different local authorities. The system needs to draw on current good practice to enable a better understanding of what effective support for kinship carers looks like. There are many different models available. For example, in Monmouthshire in Wales Barnardo’s is delivering the ‘Families Together’ service. This service involves bespoke short term support plans for kinship care families and longer-term support including training and support groups. Any new legislation should look at the potential for a new legal entitlement to support for kinship carers such as is available for those who adopt - this would help ensure more models of support such as those outlined above are developed.

As well as more practical support, any new legislation should also address greater financial support for kinship carers. We would like kinship carers to have a legal right to paid time off at the start of the placement (similar to maternity or adoption leave). It can be very difficult particularly at the start of placement for carers to maintain a job, while settling a traumatised child into a new home - most reports suggest that somewhere between 30% and 40% of carers leaving employment completely when taking on a child in kinship care arrangement. Any new Act should introduce a legal right for kinship to paid time off work at the start of a placement this would allow time to establish a child in placement and support them with the transition.

3.             Is the Act enabling faster, more secure and stable adoptions which are in the best interest of the child?

•                  What has been the effect of the provisions on fostering to adopt?
•                  What has been the effect of the repeal of the requirement to consider ethnicity, religion, race, culture and language in England when placed a child for adoption? Are any further legislation or other measures needed to address disparities?
•                  What effect has the suspension of the Adoption and children Act had on the matching process
•                  Are families receiving the right information, budgets and support to assist them post-adoption?

Overall, it is difficult to conclude that adoption is working better in 2022 than it was in 2014. while the number of children coming into care has risen significantly in that time - in England the number of children in care reached 80,850 in March 2021 – an increase of nearly a quarter in a decade,[14] there have been significant reductions in the number of adoptions. In England 2870 children werenadopted in 2021, compared to 5050 in 2014 when the Act was passed. Children are also waiting longer to be adopted - it now takes 2 years and 2 months for a child to be adopted which has increased from 1 year and 11 months in 2018.

There have been some positive changes introduced to the adoption system as a result of the Act. For example, Barnardo’s welcomed the introduction of ‘foster to adopt’ which has helped to provide positive benefits for children adopted as babies. The scheme places children with their possible future adoptive parents in fostering care arrangement while plans for their long-term future are finalised. It means children are able to benefit from good quality, uninterrupted and consistent care while detailed assessments of their birth family are completed. However, it is important that ‘foster to adopt’ is not seen as a ‘panacea’ to ensure a successful placement. Evidence shows that the factors which impact on whether an adoption will succeed are complex and even for a child placed early and with limited disruption, issues can arise further down the line. The system needs to build in long-term planning for all children including allowing for access to adoption support therapies when and where a family needs them as outlined below.

Other changes to the adoption system however have not been so positive. In particular the development of Regional Adoption Agencies (RRAs) have presented significant challenges to the sector and have not, to date, resulted in the level of improvements that we hoped for. RRAs brought the adoption function from within individual councils together into a single regional body. There are now 29 of these bodies operating in England. While the overall intentions of the programme were expected to bring benefits to children, the programme has been significantly fraught with technical challenges. The setting up of new bodies, with new legal structures has taken time and resources that may otherwise have been spent on helping children. The process has also often marginalised voluntary adoption agencies despite them having expertise in recruiting adopters particularly for children with more complex needs. In addition, the programme has separated adoption from other elements of children’s services, and this has resulted in staff outside of adoption services having a limited understanding of it as a permanency option. This has likely contributed to the reduction in adoption numbers and increased wating time for children.

For many children post-adoption support is essential if adoption is going to be a viable option. Post-adoption support has improved significantly in recent years. The introduction of the Adoption Support Fund has helped increase the profile of adoption support and its role in helping families support their children to overcome past trauma. Therefore the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Education for a three-year funding settlement is very welcome – previous short term one-year funding settlements have made the delivering of effective therapy difficult. However, while the fund has been an important start it is quite limited in its use for families with the most complex needs. There is a cap on therapy support children can receive from the fund of £5000 and costs can be significantly higher for some children. AdoptionPlus (a service which forms part of the Barnardo’s group) report that the cost of providing a year’s work of therapy to a child with a complex trauma history is more than £10,000 a year. Also while there is some expectation that there should be matched funding available from local authorities in relation to the scheme, we have found that that limited funds within local authorities means this is often not available.

The fund has also been beset by issues of short-term funding - families who are granted funding need to spend it within that financial year and can find that there is no guarantee funding will be delivered in the next year creating significant stress.

Barnardo’s would like to see more flexibility in how the scheme operates, with a higher level of funding available to children and families who need it. We would also like to see a commitment by the Government that adoption support will be part of the adoption system longer term. Since the introduction of the Adoption Support Fund, local authorities have cut their own budgets for adoption support with an expectation the money will be available from the national scheme. Any decision to end the national scheme in three years’ time, could leave a significant gap.

4.             Is the system of shared parental leave and statutory shared parental pay functioning adequately? Is the system of flexible working functioning adequality?

The Act introduced some important changes to the parental leave system which helped improve the position particularly in relation to adoptive parents. Following changes to the law adoptive parents who are both employed for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks before the week they notified that they have been matched with a child can take 39 weeks paid leave – with the possibility of the leave period being split between them. This is paid at the same rate as Statutory Maternity Pay. However, birth parents who do not qualify for maternity pay may be entitled to maternity allowance. This is paid to parents who have given birth who have worked or been employed for at least 26 weeks in the previous 66 weeks and earned more than £30 a week in 13 of those weeks. This provides a right to pay for those who are self-employed or who have not worked for their current employer long enough to qualify for maternity pay/shared parental pay. There is however no equivalent “adoption allowance” for self-employed adoptive parents or those who do not meet the minimum continuous employment threshold with their current employer.

Those who do not qualify for financial support for paid time off following placement can sometimes get some financial support from their local authority, but this is discretionary, and rates and entitlements differ between different areas.

Barnardo’s is calling for statutory reform to improve financial support for newly adoptive parents who are either self-employed or who do not meet the current requirement of 26 continuous weeks employment. This would involve the introduction of an “adoption allowance” similar to the “maternity allowance” available to self-employed birth parents.

May 2022

7