CONSULTATION RESPONSE
30 January 2007
Green Paper: Care Matters
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 1
Introduction
SCIE
welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposals set out in Care Matters.
We are in
no doubt that there are a number of areas that require significant
improvement
in the way we provide services for looked after children. We support the
premise
for the proposals that our goals for children in care should be the same as our
goals for
our own children.
However,
we are concerned that the case for reform is made partly on the basis that
children
in care are over represented in vulnerable groups such as young offenders,
drug users
and prostitutes. We would emphasise the heterogeneity of the 60,000
children
and young people in care at any one time who are from different backgrounds,
are at
different life stages and who follow different care pathways. We are alarmed at
the
implied causal link between short term-care and adult outcomes and between
later
care
careers and adult outcomes. To make a link between a week spent in care as a
baby and
ending up in prison as an adult is a gross distortion which stigmatises and
devalues
young people who live in care and the people who care for them.
Nonetheless,
to its credit, the Green Paper has highlighted a range of problems in the
current
planning and practice of child care social work and outlined some innovative
proposals
to deal with them. In the body of our response we have evaluated many of
those
proposals and the basis on which they are formulated. Our views are informed by
our
extensive and relevant work in this field and we would be delighted to share
more
detailed
learning and practice points with the DfES as they finalise their proposals for
change.
In our
response, we have also drawn on the views of delegates from our ‘Care Matters
expert
seminar’, which was held in January 2007. The seminar was attended by over
40
delegates including policy makers and practitioners and representatives from
national
youth organisations, schools and research institutions. We would like to
express
our sincere thanks to all who attended and especially to those delegates who
contributed
presentations and stimulated such lively and informed debate about the
issues
raised in the Green Paper.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 2
Chapter 1
1. Are the elements we suggest for our pledge the right ones?
We welcome
a systematic approach to gathering children’s views and using these to
inform the
pledge. SCIE is reassured to see in appendix A that the Green Paper has
taken
account of a range of resources about what children want from care. The latest
‘Children’s
Views’ report from the Children’s Rights Director, Roger Morgan, which
addresses
adoption, was published after the commencement of the Care Matters
consultation
period so we would recommend this for consideration by the DfES
consultation
team.
We would
also alert the team to the work of A National Voice, an organisation run by
and for
care experienced young people. Their recent report, ‘There’s no place like
home’
presents findings from their survey of 300 care leavers and a further 300
professionals.
The report centres on respondent’s views about Care Leaver’s
accommodation
and support. As the pledge must address issues around transition, we
strongly
recommend that these views be incorporated in the final version.
In terms
of the specific elements of the pledge, at this stage, they still seem fairly
random.
However, we are pleased to see the focus on physical health, particularly the
dental
checks, because we share the concern that the continuing health care needs of
looked
after children may be overlooked. Our Fostering Practice Guide (2004)i points
out that
when they are in foster care, children nearly always receive treatment for
acute
health
needs but chronic health problems and dental care may be neglected. We would
therefore strongly
endorse health assessments and dental checks for all looked
after
children.
We also
lend strong support to the part of the pledge which promotes the rights of
looked
after children to have their voices heard and to influence the work of the
local
authority.
SCIE firmly believes that children and young people should play a
fundamental
role in the planning and delivery of services that affect them. To this end
we have
published practice guidanceii offering a framework
for systematically
developing
the effective and meaningful participation of children and young people in
the
design, delivery and review of their services. This guidance is especially
critical in
supporting
organisations to involve looked after children because as a group, they are
often
marginalised, facing particular barriers to having their voices heard. The
guidance
promotes a
whole systems approach to participation providing specific guidance for
organisations
on; developing a culture; a structure for participation and effective practice
for
participation as well as effective systems for participation.
Although
we are supportive of certain elements of the pledge, we are concerned that
looked
after children are being treated as a group apart and that there seems to be
some
discrimination in resource allocation. We would question why many elements of
the pledge
shouldn’t be made for all children and young people, particularly those on
the edge
of care.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 3
2. Are there other key barriers to attainment which we should address
in order to transform outcomes?
SCIE
strongly supports the emphasis on outcomes although we believe there needs to
be a
clearer, shared understanding of exactly what is meant by “outcome”,
particularly
in this
context. Our knowledge review on the research literature in foster careiii defines
an outcome
as the ‘desired end result and intended improvement after a specific period
in the
well-being of children and/or families’. It ‘relates to the impact, effect or
consequence
of a particular service intervention’.
The review
makes a helpful distinction between:
• Final
outcomes, which are generally agreed to be of value (or deleterious) in their
own
right.
They may occur after foster care, for example, ‘settling down in adult life and
having
satisfactory relationships’. However, they may also be in a sense part of
foster
care and
occur at the time – for example, whether or not a child is unhappy while
fostered,
or does well at school.
•
Intermediate outcomes, which are not seen themselves as intrinsically valuable,
but
are ‘steps
on the way’ to others. For example, it might be argued that an unstable care
career is
not in itself a ‘bad thing’. It is, however, undesirable because, among other
things, it
affects educational progress.
• Process
outcomes, which are concerned with the way foster care is provided. They
would
include, for example, the degree to which the child was consulted over what
happened
to her or him. They may be valued because of their effect on final outcomes
or for
other reasons – for example, because they are seen as rights, or because they
are valued
by children.
These
distinctions will help to clarify what kind of outcome is looked for in what
context
and focus
on the range of barriers preventing attainment of all three types of outcome.
Although
we recognise the worrying, relatively low educational attainment of looked
after
children, we think that the green paper focuses disproportionately on this
aspect of
children’s
lives. We would point out that children and young people’s experiences of
growing up
include but are about more than educational attainment. Growing up is also
about,
being able to develop fully, about keeping safe and, in some cases, staying
alive.
For looked
after children, these will be especially pertinent.
We do not
think there is sufficient emphasis on strategies to improve outcomes. One of
these is
focusing on the strengths of young people, which research shows as crucial to
future
outcomes.iv ‘Resilience’ refers to the qualities that cushion a
vulnerable child
from the
worst effects of adversity and that may help a “child or young person to cope,
survive
and even thrive in the face of great hurt and disadvantage.”v While it may not
always be
possible to protect a child from further adversity, finding ways to boost a
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 4
child’s
resilience should enhance the likelihood of better long-term outcomes. SCIE
thinks
that the green paper should give more attention to approaches which boost
children
and young people’s resilience. Local authorities should pay attention to
resilience-enhancing
factors because they are the sorts of things in a child’s or young
person’s
life that help them to cope in unfavourable circumstances or times of
difficulty.
Important
factors include having at least one interested and committed adult in the
child’s
life.
Another is
being happy and doing well at school and every effort should be made to
ensure
that their experiences are positive, including encouraging them to take part in
school
activities that they enjoy to help build their self-esteem.
A sense of
direction is also very important to young people in troubled circumstances
because it
can provide stability and control. This involves working with young people to
build up a
picture of what the future may hold: to develop goals and plans for reaching
them.
Some of
the things we mention here, including involvement in school activities, are
included
in chapter 2 as means in themselves of achieving positive outcomes for looked
after
children. However, we also highlight their importance as resilience enhancing
factors.
Local authorities should concentrate on boosting children and young people’s
resilience,
thereby equipping them to cope with the difficulties and barriers they face.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 5
Chapter 2
3. What more can be done to reassert the responsibility of parents and
help them to fulfil those responsibilities?
SCIE has
carried out detailed work on the difficulties parents face and the kinds of
help
that are
effective. So far we have focused on parents with learning disabilitiesvi, parents
with
physical or sensory impairmentsvii, parents with mental
health, drug or alcohol
problemsviii ix and on families with a parent in prison (work in
progress), so this is the
evidence
we draw on. SCIE is also currently undertaking further work to develop the
NICE
guidance on parenting programmes for a children’s services contextx.
We
strongly consider that the parenting responsibilities and role of disabled
parents
need to be
recognised, and policies developed across community care services to
support
this role. Our work with both groups identified potential barriers to the
development
and maintenance of specialised and/or multi-agency services for disabled
parents
which included limited funding, a lack of skills among professionals for
assessing
the needs of disabled parents, and entrenched attitudes about the respective
services’
responsibilities towards children and adults. Furthermore, for parents with
learning
disabilities, we identified negative attitudes among professionals about their
parenting
potential.
The
parents covered by SCIE’s work on physical disabilities are those with
conditions
such as
arthritis, asthma, cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, end
stage
renal
disease, neuromuscular diseases, spinal cord injury, and also those with
various
degrees of
deafness and blindness. These parents do not constitute a clearly
homogenous
group, but their parenting has particular common themes, such as a
potential
need for assistance with looking after children, domestic tasks and
transportation.
The
research reports that parents with physical or sensory impairments can
experience
great
difficulty in performing a range of domestic and child care tasks. However,
parents
do develop
coping strategies, and there are environmental and physical means of
supporting
these parents in their roles. Direct payments are also valued by parents
because
they can arrange help to suit their own needs, rather than having to accept the
less
flexible support provided by other services.
Some
solutions to supporting parents with physical or sensory impairments are
outlined
below
although we would point to the references in our research briefing for further
detailed
information.
Physiotherapists
and occupational therapists have identified several solutions to enable
parents
with arthritis to fulfil their parenting role more in accordance with their own
expectations.
These include techniques to avoid pressure on joints, alternative methods
of lifting
and handling children, and advice on changes in and to the home, such as
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 6
adapting
furniture. The provision of appropriate, adapted equipment to help parents in
their
parenting, especially of young children, is a constant theme of the research.
The
research
has also found, however, that there is a lack of appropriate products to
support
certain
aspects of parenting, for example, pushing a pram or buggy, or carrying a baby
when the
mother is in a wheelchair.
The
research has consistently found that modifying the home, to make it more
accessible
to the parent, makes parenting easier, especially in the performance of
domestic
household tasks, which mothers consider to be an important part of being a
parent.
However, parents may be prevented from implementing such modifications by
financial
or practical restrictions. In such cases, a possible solution is to provide
mothers
with some form of home help. The research has also emphasised that parents
need to be
encouraged to seek support from statutory and voluntary services. Medical
solutions,
such as the provision of effective drug information and management, are
important
for parents with debilitating physical conditions, such as arthritis and
asthma:
parents
who receive appropriate treatment are more able to perform their parental role
than those
whose condition is managed less well.
Although
question 3 asks us to consider ways of supporting parents in fulfilling their
parental
responsibility, SCIE believes it is critical to highlight some of the barriers
to
being able
to do so. Solutions such as the ones highlighted above and detailed in our
research
briefing will have limited effect if the current policy and practice contexts
are
not also
addressed.
One of the
principal barriers to the provision of support to parents with physical or
sensory
impairments is the blurring of responsibilities between adults’ and children’s
services.
Children’s services tend to focus exclusively on assessing children’s needs
and
welfare, including child protection issues; adult services tend to focus only
on the
provision
of personal services to disabled adults. The needs of disabled parents
therefore
often fall between these two services, but “professional agendas can be
divergent
and sometimes contradictory, and knowledge about the work of other
professionals
is often limited”xi.
Generally,
SCIE advocates a “whole-family” approach, which seeks to address the
needs of
the parent and child together rather than separately. The potential barriers to
the
development and maintenance of specialised and/or multi-agency services for
disabled
parents have been identified as limited funding, lack of skills among
professionals
for assessing the parenting needs of disabled people, and entrenched
attitudes
about the respective services’ responsibilities towards children and adults.
Our
research
briefing concluded that multi-agency working needs to be very carefully
structured
and co-ordinated in order to promote consistency and continuity of
information
and services between the many professionals involved.
As noted
above, when we consider the experience of parents with learning disabilities,
there is a
particular additional problem which is other people’s perceptions. Parents
with
learning disabilities often need to overcome preconceived ideas among other
people
about their ability to parent. For example, there may be a willingness to
attribute
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 7
potential
difficulties they may have parenting to their impairment rather than to
disabling
barriers
or to other factors that affect the parenting of all parents.
This has been
described
as the “presumption of incompetence”:
However,
parents with learning disabilities face more than an image problem. Several
factors
have been demonstrated to have an adverse effect on all parenting: these
include
low socio-economic status; unemployment; and social isolation or exclusion. All
of these
factors make parenting difficult, and parents with intellectual or learning
disabilities
are at greater risk of experiencing one or more of these disadvantages than
other
groups.
SCIE’s
research briefing highlighted interventions which have been found to be
effective
in
supporting the parenting role of people with learning disabilities and
overcoming
some of
the barriers they face. However, we would also point out that the research has
limitations
which are discussed in our briefing and which should be considered as a
background
to the findings.
Relevant
interventions (whether formal or informal) are described below under three
main
headings; parent training programmes, teaching and social support networks.
Parent
training programmes
Parent
training programmes are often developed for parents with learning disabilities,
and
evaluation of their effectiveness is a common subject of the research. Most
parent
training
programmes tend to focus on child care, child safety, and mother-child
interaction.
However, the results of research into parent training programmes aimed at
parents
with learning disabilities are inconclusive. The research points out that the
generalisable
nature of what is being taught to parents is very important, in other words,
that the
parent can take what they have learned and apply it to real world situations
and
to
instances beyond the examples used in training. We found the most effective and
potentially
generalisable type of parent training for parents with learning disabilities is
education
undertaken in the home. Home-based programmes do demonstrate some
success
and are known to be preferred over “centre-based” programmes as a form of
education,
but many such interventions may not be particularly effective. For example,
the home
environment may offer too many distractions; and parents with learning
disabilities
who live with their own parents or other family members may not have
sufficient
personal control over their domestic environment and the parenting of their
children
to apply what they have learned.
Teaching
Teaching
which is delivered only verbally, or based on observation or hypothetical
situations
can prove inaccessible to parents with learning disabilities. Information and
training
has been found to be most effective when it is tailored to the abilities of
individual
parents. The most effective forms of education are interactive, practical,
involve
repetition or “reinforcement”, and use pictorial materials. However, parents
with
learning
disabilities can find too much repetition both boring and condescending.
SelfTRANSFORMING
THE LIVES
OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 8
learning
manuals are also effective for teaching child care and child safety skills to
parents
with learning disabilities; they offer a “minimal involvement”, low-cost,
homebased
alternative
to the more systematic, professionally-led parenting programmes.
This
enables the parents to retain a sense of control and self-help in the learning
process.
Services and training programmes should be developed in conjunction with
parents
and their advocates and training and support should be as non-intrusive as
possible
and allow parents to retain a sense of self-help and control.
Social
support systems
The
research has found a strong association between supportive social networks and
the
positive psychological well-being of parents with learning disabilities. We
found that
some
parents with learning disabilities have said that they like support groups
because
they give
them confidence, improve their self-esteem and assertiveness, and enhance
feelings
of control. Such groups can act as a social support network, which is often
missing
from the lives of parents with learning disabilities. It has been argued that
the
improved
confidence and sense of well-being engendered by an increased sense of
self-worth
among these parents may positively affect parenting. Social support
networks
may also be important because families and others can provide practical help,
such as
child care and taking children out: parenting therefore is not carried out in
isolation.
Social support networks may also have an indirect effect on parenting
experience
because parents have a greater network of people with whom to share
experiences,
concerns and solutions; this has been described as “informal social
learning”.
Such social support is often lacking for parents with learning disabilities.
Measures
to develop social skills and expand social networks can therefore be an
important
part of a “family-centred” approach to supporting parents with intellectual or
learning
disabilities. However, we would point out that there is currently little direct
or
indirect
evidence to demonstrate that increased self-esteem, confidence or more
extensive
social networks have a positive effect on the parenting of parents with
learning
disabilities; specific research has yet to be done on this topic.
Just as we
did for parents with physical and sensory impairments, we believe it is
crucial to
highlight some of the barriers to being able to support people with learning
disabilities
in their parenting roles. Many of the problems are the same and indeed
relate to
difficulties in supporting all parents in their parenting roles. The main
culprits
are the
operational structures of health, social and children’s services.
Although
research into parents with learning disabilities found that parents with
learning
disabilities
require specialist support services, as stated above, it is questionable
whether
health and social services are always in a position to provide this support.
There is
currently little specialist provision to parents with learning disabilities.
One
barrier to
the provision of effective parent training is the division and blurring of
responsibilities
between adults’ and children’s services. Children’s services tend to
focus
exclusively on assessing children’s needs and welfare, including child
protection
issues;
adult services tend to focus only on the provision of personal services to
adults
with
learning disabilities. The needs of parents with learning disabilities
therefore often
fall
between these two services, but “professional agendas can be divergent and
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 9
sometimes
contradictory, and knowledge about the work of other professionals is often
limited”
(Woodhouse et al, 2001).
4a. Do you agree that there is a need for a more systematic approach
to sharing effective practice in children’s services?
SCIE
unreservedly agrees that with this proposition. SCIE’s own role is to develop
and
promote
knowledge about good practice in social care and we do this systematically by
identifying
useful information, research and examples of good practice. Using this
information,
we produce resources which evaluate practice in a particular area of social
care, draw
out key messages for good practice and identify areas where more research
is needed
to inform good practice.
We feel it
is critical to make the distinction between information sharing and sharing
effective
practice. SCIE shares effective practice through its practice guides which are
free
online resources bringing together information, research and current good
practice
about
particular areas of social care, including children’s services. The guides give
front-line
practitioners, their managers and the whole organisation the opportunity to
develop
knowledge about what works well and apply it effectively in day-to-day work.
Practice
guides are developed on the basis of the results of ‘Knowledge reviews’ which
pull
together knowledge from service users, research and practice.
More
broadly, dissemination and promotion of good practice material is not on its
own
sufficient
to achieve and sustain practice change and improvement. Ensuring maximum
impact
requires a strategic approach to coordinating education and training,
commissioning
contracts with outcome targets, registration and inspection standards,
performance
indicators, and the other carrots and sticks available to strengthen
incentives
for continuous improvement.
4b. If so, how can we ensure maximum impact in supporting evidence
informed commissioning and practice?
Carrying
out knowledge reviews and developing practice guidance is of limited use if the
resources
do not make an impact on commissioning and practice. When SCIE
published
its fostering practice guide we also undertook the ‘fostering collaboratives
project’
to help front-line staff make use of the Fostering Guide in their own daily
practice.
The practice groups focused on contact arrangements for Looked After
children.
We found that, once practitioners were applying the evidence base to
practice,
this then required a review of how the organisation commissioned contact
services.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE consultation
response 10
5. What more can be done to support links between adults and
children’s services, particularly in relation to drug abuse and mental
health support?
SCIE
agrees unreservedly with the message in chapter 2 of Care Matters which
suggests a
need for greater joint working between children’s and adult’s services. SCIE
also
agrees that families experiencing drug abuse and mental health problems require
particular
attention. However, there are also significant issues for disabled children and
their
families when making the transition from children’s to adults’ social care,
education
and health
services, reflecting different standards, criteria, resource levels and
expectations
of adult services which can cause considerable disruption at a vulnerable
point in
young people’s lives.
Parents
with mental health problems are one of the four groups of adults with mental
health
problems least likely to access core services for themselves and their
children.
In their
report on mental health and social exclusion, the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU)
highlighted
that this group face barriers to getting their health and social care needs
metxii. The SEU also made recommendations for supporting these families.
There is
clear evidence that the cross generational impacts of not intervening
successfully
in and out of crisis leads to serious public health issues. Indeed, the
following
extract from ‘Crossing Bridges’xiii highlights
the potential impact of mental
health on
parenting, on the child, over time and across generations:
Between
one in four and one in five adults with experience a mental illness during
their
lifetime.
At the time of their illness, at least a quarter to a half of these will be
parents.
Their
children have an increased rate of mental health problems, indicating a strong
link
between
adult and child mental health. Parental mental illness has an adverse effect on
child
mental health and development, while child psychological and psychiatric
disorders
and the stress of parenting impinge on adult mental health. Furthermore, the
mental
health of children is a strong predictor of their mental health in adulthood.
(Falkov, A
1998:1)
The needs
of the whole family should be viewed individually but also together in the
ways that
the different needs and behaviours of different family members interrelate and
impact on
each other, for example parent and child, parent to parent and cross
generational.
This should also include the measurement of longer term impacts if the
individual
or family do not meet the criteria for service.
At
present, specialisation in health and social care services mean that families
are not
treated as
a whole and their interrelatedness is not recognised. This separation has led
to a
situation where staff in adult mental health services focus on the adult with
insufficient
attention paid to the adult as a parent with responsibilities and aspirations
for
their
dependent children. Staff in children’s services put insufficient emphasis on
the
mental
health needs of parents and the potential adverse impact on children.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 11
Increased
specialisation has emphasised the importance of ensuring effective
communication
and collaborative working. Recommendations from both adult
homicide
inquiries and child death reviews are remarkably similar – improving
communication,
coordination and collaboration within and between all services and
agencies
to better support mentally ill parents who a re struggling to meet the needs of
their
children including their safety (Falkov, A 1996, Woodley 1995).
However
the problems are perpetuated by current national strategies and operational
frameworks
of which there are an increasing number aligned to core specialist areas. A
national
based approach to raising standards and improving outcomes for all family
members
does not exist. As a result, local managers and practitioners are faced with
the
challenge of searching for these, then translating them into cohesive family-based
policy
locally. Often, the search is to support individual decisions and is not
translated
by
organisations into strategy and policy, this means practitioners and managers
have
repeatedly
to argue decisions on a case by case basis
As
families do not divide in the way that services and professionals do, sorting
through
the muddle can lead to fragmented and diluted service responses with
practice
guidance that does not have a ‘must do’ element or which is not recognised as
authoritative
across the various groupings that make up children’s services.
Now with
the responsibility for children’s services moved to the Department for
Education
and Skills (DfES) and mental health services remaining with the Department
of Health,
there is even more impetus to support ‘joined up thinking’ and ‘working
together’
at a national level to create guidance and standards that cross health and
social
care and mental health and children’s services.
We would
also point out that universal services need to include staff and community
education
programmes to raise awareness and to encourage staff and the public to
consider
the impact of multiple stressors in the family on the individual and the family
as
a whole.
Standard one of the National Service Framework for Mental Healthxiv
recognises
this need as it points out that mental health problems can result from a
range of
adverse factors including; unemployment, drug and alcohol problems,
domestic
abuse and homelessness. Children from a very early age have access to
social
education and awareness and age appropriate understanding of these issues can
act as a
‘protective’ factor encouraging children and their families to seek help at an
early
stage1.
SCIE has
clear views about tackling the problems outlined above so that links between
adult and
children’s services are strengthened and crucially, the need for care is
prevented.
1 We will be addressing this issue in the Parental Mental Health and Child
Welfare
systematic
review and guideline development programme and would be delighted to
share our
emerging findings throughout 2007 with our finalised guidance due to be
published
in January 2008.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE consultation
response 12
Early
identification of the potential ‘at risk’ population is essential. Education is
a key
issue here
for professionals, the public and service users. SCIE’s Parental Mental
Health
(PMH) systematic review will be reviewing qualifying and post-qualifying
training
and
occupational standards and requirements for health and social care
professionals
working
with PMH families. The problem of the specialisation of services highlighted
above is
relevant here because staff in neither adult mental health teams nor children’s
services
are detecting the problems of other family members soon enough. SCIE’s
commissioned
review of professional education will address these issues from the
perspective
of how qualifying and post qualifying education and professional standards
and
frameworks address the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed by professionals
to
work
effectively with parents with mental health problems and their children and to
work
effectively
as part of a multi-disciplinary team or multi-agency service.
Standard
one of the national service framework for mental health should also ensure
earlier
intervention with the recognition that mental health problems can result from a
wide range
of factors. Standard 6 is also relevant to addressing problems before they
become
acute as it is concerned with assessing the care, physical and mental health
needs of
individuals caring for a person on a CPA. This would be particularly welcomed
by families
where one or both parents have mental health problems. Currently, children
and young
people caring for a parent with mental health problems are the group of
carers
most likely not to be offered a ‘carers’ assessment of their needs
from either
mental health
or children and family services (Dearden et al, 2004).
However,
even more could be done and earlier. Care Programme Approach (CPA)
forms and
formats and the new Children’s Assessment Framework (CAF) and forms
should
include specific reference to identifying which adults with mental health
problems
have
children. This factor should be referenced for consideration throughout
assessment
and review frameworks.
The CPA is
the core assessment and care planning framework for adults with Severe
and
enduring Mental Illness (SMI) and therefore inclusion of the needs of adults as
parents
into this programme would go a very long way into introducing the concept that
adults
with mental illness may be parents and that this needs to be taken account of
during
assessment and care planning and identifying whether the children are also in
need. This
should include need of protection due to the direct or indirect impact of the
parental
mental illness.
To date
there has been a glaring omission in the CPA in its attention to the needs of
the
adult as a
parent and his or her dependent children. SCIE feels strongly that the fact
that an
adult is also a parent should be addressed at every stage of the assessment,
care
planning and review process as should the needs of the wider family e.g. well
parent,
children and so on. With the Children’s Assessment Framework being piloted
and the
CPA being reviewed, now is a critical time for this call for evidence to
influence
change in
this extremely important area.
SCIE is
also commissioning research reviews on prevalence, detection and
interventions
in parental mental health and child welfare, the results of which will also be
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 13
relevant
to this issue. The first review, which has two parts, seeks to uncover what we
know about
the prevalence and types of Parental Mental Health Problems (PMHPs) in
the United
Kingdom (UK) for the whole populations of parents and children; and for
population
sub-groups. The second part will describe what range of systems, tools and
opportunities
are in place for detecting PMHPs during child care screening and mental
health
screening, including cross agency referral and multi agency systems. The
second review
focuses on the accessibility, acceptability and effectiveness of
interventions
used in the UK and overseas that support children, whole families,
parenting
and/or couple relationships in families with children, where a parent already
has a
mental health problem. The findings from these reviews will be finalised in
July
2007 and
SCIE would be delighted to share the emerging results of both reviews.
6. What more could be done to support family, friends and carers?
SCIE
agrees with the proposition in chapter 2 that there is a need to see solutions
within
the young
person’s natural family or social network. For example we should consider
whether
the child or young person could stay with relatives or family friends for a
period
with the
intention of keeping them out of the care system altogether. Delegates at our
Care
Matters seminar representing A National Voice strongly supported this notion of
providing
support within the context of families or local communities as a means of
avoiding
entering the care system. As the green paper points out, securing placements
with
family and friends often leads to greater stability. This approach to placing
children
and young
people has been described as ‘Kinship Care’ and research has highlighted
some very
positive findings about it.
In 2001,
for example, researchers from DeMonfort University’s Children and Families
Research
Unit carried out a study in the London Borough of Wandsworth Social
Services
Department exploring the experiences and views of young people in ‘kinship
care’. The
study findings echo the assertion in the green paper about kinship care
placements
being more stable and longer term. Furthermore, the children in kinship
care were
overwhelmingly positive about their placement: they reported feeling loved,
settled
and safe. The kinship carers were also broadly positive about this approach.
Almost all
carers believed that the overall impact of the placement had been positive in
terms of
improving the young person’s feeling of security, behaviour, educational
achievement
and links with the birth family. However, around half the carers were
struggling
to cope with the difficult behaviour of the young person and there were
problems
concerning money, loss of freedom and overcrowding. Consequently, carers
wanted
more financial and social work support. Indeed, there appeared to be a strong
argument
for kinship carers getting the same level of financial support as that devoted
to foster
carers.
The
research also highlighted the need for Kinship Care to be recognised in a
policy
framework.
In policy terms it was hardly recognised and social workers pointed out that
Kinship
Care scarcely featured in their training. In practice, other interventions were
prioritised
so that where kinship placements did occur, responsibilities were very
unclear.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 14
SCIE
therefore welcomes the green paper’s recognition of the potential benefits of
looking
for a care alternative within the young person’s family circle. However, for
any
of the
DfES proposals to be effective, Kinship Care must be embedded in the policy
framework,
addressed in social work training and routinely considered as a realistic care
alternative
preventing vulnerable children and young people from entering local
authority
care. Apart from cases where there is a safeguarding concern, this after all,
is
the
outcome we should be working toward. We know from listening to delegates from A
National
Voice, that this is their priority.
There are
of course numerous other family support services and Home Start represents
one of the
largest. However it is also one which illustrates the problem of investing in
programmes
which appeal to our common sense. Established over thirty years ago,
Home Start
offers volunteer home visiting support to families under stress with children
under five
years of age. On the face of it and because of its apparent similarity with the
notion of
family group conferencing, Home Start sounds as though it would deliver the
outcomes
we want from early intervention schemes for families at risk. However, using
a
comparison group, the results of one studyxv did not in
fact support the view that
Home-Start
had made a significant difference to the mothers over the eleven-month
period of
the research, relative to the experiences of the families in the comparison
group.
This does not mean that Home Start and schemes like it are redundant; far from
it.
Mothers who received the support of a Home-Start volunteer valued the service
and
considered
that it had made a positive difference to their lives. However, mothers in
both
groups showed similar levels of improvement, even though there was no evidence
of any
other comparable family support service being received by the comparison group
during the
intervening period. The receipt of Home-Start services also pushed costs for
the study
group to a higher level relative to the comparison group. Combined with the
outcome
results, the evidence did not therefore point to a cost-effectiveness advantage
for
Home-Start
7. Is it right for us to work towards an increase in the number of
younger children supported in families and, as a result, a small
younger care population with more complex needs?
As stated
above, it is right to work towards an increase in the number of children and
younger
people supported in families. The difficult judgements are in relation to
children
at risk of
abuse or serious neglect, and those likely to be involved in offending, where
both
staying at home and entering care may have damaging consequences, and the
choice is
about the lesser of two evils. Even where the best thing for the child is to
enter
care, the importance to children’s identity of continuing membership of and
involvement
in their own families should not be underestimated.
It is not
clear that the second part of the question follows from the first. Whereas the
Green
Paper seems to assume more support for families will divert more young people
from
entering care, in fact adolescence is the time when parental and family
influence is
diminishing,
and the risks to young people are becoming more extensive. Involvement
in
delinquency and violence related in many instances to drug and alcohol abuse,
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 15
experience
of bullying and adverse peer pressure. Vulnerability to sexual exploitation
and
premature pregnancy, are often linked to severe neglect and chaotic lifestyles.
Some young
people run away from home to escape the pressures and threats they feel
there.
These young people also have “complex needs” which may not be met by
increased
family support, and may require new and innovative strategies to develop
alternatives
to care.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 16
Chapter 3
8. Do the proposals in this chapter add up to sufficient strengthening
of the corporate parenting role? If not what more should be done?
This chapter
seems to be confused about the concept of the “corporate parenting role”,
and this
is further reflected in the loose way it uses the terms “corporate parenting”,
“embodying
the corporate parenting role”, “parental role” and “parent” more or less
interchangeably.
The confusion is already apparent in the opening statements “As the
corporate
parent of children in care the State has a special responsibility for their
wellbeing”
and “The State takes on an immense responsibility for these children by
agreeing
to undertake the parental role on a day to day basis”. The position in law,
policy and
guidance is not that an impersonal “State” takes on responsibilities, but that
a
designated
local authority is accountable for fulfilling the role of corporate parent.
The social
worker’s role, which is absolutely critical, is to exercise many of the
responsibilities
a parent would exercise, on behalf of, and in conjunction with, the local
authority.
Some parts of the parental role and responsibilities will in many cases go on
being
performed by the child’s own parents, others by the carers with whom the child
may be
placed, and others again through the local authority’s accountability
arrangements,
themselves defined in some detail by central government, and taken into
consideration
by the local court when deciding whether or not to make a care order.
The social
worker oversees and coordinates all these elements, which will vary in detail
from child
to child. It is important to grasp that the social worker herself is not the
corporate
parent, and that in this context the definition of “social care practices” as
“small
groups of social workers…wholly independent of local authorities” is a
contradiction
in terms. Later chapters seem to be clearer about this.
With that
major caveat, SCIE believes some of the proposals in the chapter have merit.
We comment
on the model of independent social care practices below. The proposals
for the
social worker as lead professional to hold a budget would create scope for more
flexible
and creative responses to the care needs of individual children and young
people.
Care would be needed in considering the budget control and accountability
arrangements
for these budgets, otherwise they may have the opposite effect to that
intended,
and lead to budgetary considerations over-riding the welfare of the child.
Guidance
on the creation, content, management and use of children’s care plans may
help
promote consistency and good practice, but similar guidance in the past on, for
example,
assessment has resulted in excessively rigid, bureaucratic procedures a long
way from
the reduction in bureaucracy other proposals are seeking. Working with
experienced
professionals and young people on these two proposals could be helpful in
producing
flexible, user-friendly devices they can use in partnership to achieve
outcomes
they have agreed.
Other
chapters are also relevant to strengthening the LA’s corporate parenting role,
including
those encouraging the local authority to draw on all its resources and
functions,
as education and activities provider, significant local employer, and potential
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 17
funder
supporting young people’s higher education, career and housing ambitions, to
give the
child in their care the best possible start.
9. Would a ‘social care practice’ help give social workers more
freedom to support children?
There was
a strong feeling at our expert seminar that greater freedom to support
children
in a more flexible way is desirable. Social workers employed by local
authorities
feel constrained from responding creatively to the needs of looked after
children
by various factors, including limited professional time and supervision,
resources
insufficient and often in the wrong places, excessive caseloads of children,
young
people and families with complex needs, and lack of access to specialist
services
like CAMHS
and remedial education. Voluntary sector schemes however, have greater
freedom to
spend their voluntary investment on innovative approaches where the
statutory
sector is sometimes slow to change established practice and too concerned
with the
risk associated with new ways of working. We therefore see there is some
case for
piloting social care practices, particularly if located in the voluntary
sector.
However,
there are serious problems with the Green Paper’s concept of a social care
practice
which need to be addressed.
• As
indicated above, the blurred relationship between the practice and the local
authority
offers scope for confusion, conflict, and lack of clear accountability for
safeguards
and standards.
• The
evidence from a range of other human services settings is that it is extremely
difficult
to implement effective commissioning and contract arrangements even
for
standard off-the-peg services, still less for services personalised to
individual
needs of
highly vulnerable children and young people.
• The
argument that the practices could cut loose from local authority bureaucracy
ignores
the fact that much of the procedural complexity stems from central
government’s
requirements for safeguarding, consistent decision-making, audit
trails and
protection of public funds, and these requirements would presumably
also need
to be met by the practices.
• Independent
practices would be susceptible to exploitation by unsuitable people
seeking
access to vulnerable children.
• The
proposal for profit-taking in this field is problematic, could create perverse
incentives,
and may put members of a practice in serious conflicts of interest, as
we have
seen in other private provision for children.
This said,
the SCIE seminar did identify potential benefits of the green paper model for
groups
with highly specialised or complex needs forming a very small proportion of a
local
services’ work, for example a pan–London practice for deaf-blind children.
However
there needs to be a much clearer rationale for applying it in social work with
all
children
in care. GP practices are predicated on large patient populations that are not
all active
at one time. Again, the green paper model will stand or fall on its financial
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 18
security.
As a seminar delegate put it: ‘all children adopted, in credit; all children in
secure
accommodation, bankrupt’.
We are
also concerned that there is no reference to what happens to the rest of child
care
social work, such as child protection and working with disabled children and
families.
As one delegate at our expert seminar put it, with social care practices taking
work with
children in care out of local authorities; what happens about the ‘rump’ of
child
care
social work left behind and how do practice expertise and standards influence
the
work
remaining?
Further
concerns were raised at our seminar. Although delegates agreed that local
authorities
had not always been good, supportive employers of social workers, they felt
the
proposals for an independent social care practice jarred with what is being
attempted
in Every Child Matters. They suggested there may be more mileage in
building a
virtual team of different specialists around the practitioner with lead
responsibility
for the child.
In light
of our misgivings about the proposed social care practice model proposed, we
urge the
government to consider other models for arranging child care social work. We
highlight
as an example, the work of Glasgow social services.
SCIE has
visited Glasgow SSD about its changes to its front-line social work service (as
referenced
in the Scottish Executive 21st Century Review) and
interviewed a wide range
of the
department’s staff. Briefly, the department has returned its first line
managers to
practice,
with small practice teams comprising an experienced, expert practitioner (the
former
manager); a less experienced social worker and two social care workers. The
department
did this to improve their recruitment and retention and allocation difficulties
and
considered that they were wasting the practice expertise of their managers and
perpetuating
a dependent, over managed workforce. Although the department has
improved
staffing levels, staff at all levels report a considerable decrease in
’managing
up’, more
confident decision making at practice level and increased understanding,
interest
and contribution to strategic planning.
We
therefore welcome the green paper’s analysis of the organisational strictures
on
effective
practice but would suggest it is worth considering a range of models to
overcome
this. We would strongly support identification and piloting such a range.
10. Should the Independent Visitor role be revitalised and renamed as
‘independent advocate’ to introduce advocacy as a key element of the
role?
In the
context of discussions about this issue at SCIE’s expert seminar, there was a
concern
about the level of intrusion in young people’s lives. In particular, A National
Voice
pointed out that if the social worker and the LA as corporate parent were
fulfilling
their
role, there would generally be no need for an independent advocate. A National
Voice had
support from other stakeholders in warning against having too many
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 19
professionals
in young people’s lives, and thought the arrangements proposed in Care
Matters
should in part be judged against whether they ensure minimal intrusion. On this
basis,
some seminar delegates saw no justification for individual advocates.
Debate
around the independent advocate also stimulated discussions about the role of
the social
worker as many felt that the advocacy role had been fundamental to the
traditional
social work role, and tallied with the Green Paper’s emphasis on the social
worker
being as active and focused on the needs, interests and wishes of the child in
care as a
natural parent would be. Delegates regretted the loss over recent years of
some of
the key elements in the role social workers traditionally played in relation to
children
and their families, and felt that if the role could be reframed for a 21st
Century
context,
there would be less need for a separate independent advocate as another adult
in the
child’s life.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 20
Chapter 4
11a. Should a ‘tiered’ approach to fostering placements be
developed?
Delegates
at the SCIE seminar representing A National Voice supported a tiered
approach
and suggested it might be applied beyond fostering to include residential care.
However we
would want to add that a tiered approach should be balanced with children
and young
people’s needs. Support services or placements should be person centred
and fitted
around the needs of the individual rather than the child or young person
having to
fit within a rigid tiered system. Requiring a child to move placements because
his
changing needs had redesignated him to a different tier would be counter-productive
and likely
to harm the child’s wellbeing.
On a
related point, there was a strong feeling among experts at our seminar that
social
workers
who had the responsibility, in consultation with the child, family and other
colleagues,
for deciding where children’s needs would be best met, should be able to
make that
judgement separately from budget considerations. People felt that in the
current
system, budgets paralyse decision making that is truly person centred.
11b. If so, should this be underpinned by a formal qualification
framework?
The
training of foster carers has become an established part of fostering practice
and
preparation
training before approval as a foster carer is now universal.
After
approval, nearly all agencies across the public, independent and private sectors
provide
NVQ training. Some agencies have further developed their programmes and
provide
specialist training in the areas that foster carers request such as:
• managing
contact between foster children and their birth families
• managing
children’s behaviour
•
supporting education and liaising with schools.
However,
SCIE’s work for the fostering guide, cited above, found that training by itself
is
not
sufficient to create and retain experienced carers. Also training should be integrated
into the
service as a whole and not just limited to foster carers. For example, if
carers
receive
training in using a particular approach to children’s difficulties, social
workers
must also
know and use the same approach. SCIE’s collaborative work on foster care
also shows
that foster carers could benefit from some of the same training as social
workers,
for example, on child protection, but are they not included in this.
Although
there is plenty of evidence to suggest that carers appreciate training, no
clear
relationship
between the level of training provided and placement success has been
demonstrated.
More research in this area is required.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 21
Under the
Fostering Service Regulations 2002 and the National Minimum Fostering
Standards
the fostering service provider is already subject to statute and regulations
for
training
foster carers. We already know that preparation training is universal and
ongoing
training is delivered by nearly all agencies across the public, independent and
private
sectors. The question is whether there is any need for a formal ‘qualifications
framework’
to underpin a tiered approach to placements, as set out in the green paper.
At SCIE’s
expert seminar, there was a general feeling against such a move. Delegates
accepted
that foster carers require the support in their role that current training
provides.
However,
they felt that moves to professionalise fostering might undermine the
importance
of the requisite love and compassion which characterise foster carers.
Some were
concerned that this would even deter potential foster carers and considering
the
reliance of the green paper proposals on an expanding workforce, this is an
alarming
proposition.
12. How can we increase placement choice without increasing
financial burdens on the system?
Partnership
working and joint commissioning is a developing area designed to tailor
services
by creating placement choice. Many independent fostering providers and local
authorities
are developing specialist schemes, partnership arrangements and service
agreements
within their own agencies and with others to increase the number and
suitability
of available placements.
Local
authorities, independent fostering agencies and voluntary childcare
organisations
are
replacing spot purchasing of placements with service level and partnership
agreements.
Some are extensive, involving large numbers of agencies where costs,
services
and standards are agreed and monitored.
Children
and young people placed in these schemes include those with particularly
challenging
and difficult needs, such as young offenders, those with learning or physical
disabilities,
those in sibling groups or those who require long-term foster carers
SCIE’s
practice guide on fostering provides a number of useful practice examples
where
local authorities worked to increase placement choice through partnership
working
and innovative commissioning. They are outlined below:
DERBY
CITY, DERBYSHIRE, LEICESTER CITY, LEICESTERSHIRE,
LINCOLNSHIRE,
NOTTINGHAM CITY and NOTTINGHAMSHIRE commissioned
Barnardo’s
to assist them in recruiting foster carers in that region. They have also
worked
together to construct service level agreements with a small number of
independent
fostering agencies involving agreed inspection and accreditation
arrangements
to increase placement choice, quality and value for money.
SOUTHAMPTON
CITY COUNCIL'S HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE DIRECTORATE
commissioned
tenders from independent fostering agencies for ten foster placements.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 22
They found
that the previous spot purchasing arrangements were expensive,
uncoordinated
and lacking in any quality assurance mechanisms.
SEDGEMOOR
independent fostering provider was selected following an extensive
process of
scrutiny of policy and procedures, and interview. This process was driven by
considerations
of quality, cost and partnership working. Joint staff groups manage and
deliver
the service and local authority staff have been seconded to the agency.
CHRYSALIS
CARE, an independent fostering agency, has entered into an agreement
with one
London Borough and is negotiating with another to recruit independent
fostering
agency foster carers in those authorities, which will then be available to
offer
local
placements. This initiative was developed to avoid London children from the two
local
authorities being placed long distances from home.
WALTHAM
FOREST and WESTMINSTER are among those authorities which have
negotiated
the pricing, and procurement, of placements outside the local authority
provision.
The
Community Placement Scheme is a specialist fostering project for teenagers in
Belfast.
It was established in 1997 as a joint initiative between SOUTH and EAST
BELFAST
Health and Social Services Trust and Barnardo’s. It offers an alternative to
residential
care for young people displaying seriously challenging or offending
behaviour.
It offers intensive support to its foster carers, and its social work staff set
out
to
"try to make things work and grease the wheels”. The scheme sees carers as
partners
in this process and treats them with respect.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 23
Chapter 6
18. Have we set out the right features in the comprehensive model of
health care for children in care?
The model
of health care for children in care is comprehensive but also difficult and
complex to
understand, requiring the young person to find their way round a fragmented
system
based on multiple specialities. This makes the lead health professional the key
proposal
in this section, with a remit to establish a relationship of confidence with
the
child and
young person, to act as navigator and advocate round the system, and to
provide
reliable and stable source of personal health advice.
20. Is the approach to supporting children in care who enter youth
custody the right one?
The
corporate parenting role continues when children in care enter youth custody,
as it
should.
This section may need strengthening. The limitations and risks of youth
custody
are well known; limited access to education, training and development
activities,
unmet mental and physical health needs including risks of self harm and
undiagnosed
depressive and bi-polar conditions, significant levels of drug abuse and
bullying
and high rates of reoffending. A good parent would be doing all in their power
to ensure
their child suffered minimum damage from this process and to direct them
from
further offending after discharge. The local authority and social worker need
to
find ways
to carry out this role for young people who are in their care who are among
those most
vulnerable to these factors.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 24
Chapter 7
22. Should young people be allowed to remain in their foster families
up to the age of 21, including when the young person is at university?
SCIE
strongly supports this proposition although we do not think the plans go far
enough. We
believe that the period of support for young people should be extended
into their
twenties. This reflects the real situation for the wider young adult
population.
As the
green paper points out, the average age for leaving home is 24 but young adults
in the
general population can normally expect the support of their parents at later
stages,
including when they themselves become parents. We are concerned about why
this level
of support should not be extended to young people in care if it is what they
want. This
will be particularly relevant for young people in care facing certain issues
such as
mental health, drug problems or lone parenthood. This would clearly have
implications
for social workers and the foster caring workforce which would have to be
properly
worked through.
24. Are there any other ways in which we can increase the number of
children in care progressing to university?
We endorse
the plans in the green paper to support more children in care progressing
to
university. The high levels of debt incurred in undertaking higher education
under
present
arrangements will clearly deter young people from care, as they do others from
disadvantaged
backgrounds. The lack of parental support in cash and practical help
(e.g.
childminding) is another gap a good corporate parent should consider.
However,
particularly in terms of the suggested bursary to study in higher education, we
strongly
believe that the same financial incentive and other supports should be offered
to young
people in care to move into further education or to undertake apprenticeship
training.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 25
Chapter 8
25. Should we introduce a new power for local authorities to intervene
in schools performing poorly for children in care?
We are not
convinced about the need for a new power for local authorities because we
would have
thought that this is something Ofsted could already be expected to pick up
on.
26. What more should we do to give children in care a greater say in
decisions which affect them?
We should
be clear about the range of reasons why children in care do not have a
greater
say in decisions that affect them. Most decisions are based on negotiations
between
adults in their lives including natural and substitute parents and a variety of
professionals.
The forums for these negotiations from case conferences to court
hearings
are not designed to facilitate children and young people expressing their own
views
especially when there is conflict with adults with whom they have strong,
ambivalent
or fearful relationships. These structures for decision making may need
radical
change driven by the views of young people to give them at least equal status
to
have their
say. Our rigid service structures, financing systems and procedures can also
squeeze
out the views of children and their families.
27. How can Independent Reviewing Officers be made more
independent and their role strengthened?
Following
our response to question 26, the role of the IRO would be strengthened if they
were
accountable for ensuring the voice of the child is heard, recorded and given
proper
weight in
the decision making process.
28. What key outcomes should we measure to assess whether we are
being successful in transforming the lives of children and young
people in care?
The Green
Paper is based on the laudable premise that our goals for children in care
should be
exactly the same as our goals for our own children. As Alan Johnson points
out, these
goals encompass more than educational success and therefore SCIE
maintains
that measures of success should be about far more than qualification
attainment.
After all, as many at our expert seminar pointed out, we want more for our
own
children than simply a good education. Delegates felt therefore that exam
results
should by
no means be the sole indicator of success in transforming the lives of children
and young
people in care. We would strongly suggest that this is approach should not
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 26
be
misinterpreted as having low educational aspirations for looked after children.
Furthermore,
lots of children in care make progress which is not necessarily reflected in
exam
results. There should be hard progress measures which are broader than
educational
attainment and these, for example levels of physical activity, have already
been
usefully coined as part of the Every Child Matters agenda.
29. General comments
SCIE is
concerned that Care Matters does not give enough attention to looked after
children:
with
disabilities;
who are in
the youth justice
have
asylum seeking or refugee status
We are
also concerned that there is neither enough focus nor sufficient funds to
sustain
a
preventative approach to supporting children and young people at risk of
entering the
care
system. We would welcome a more coherent strategy of keeping children within
their own
familial and social networks; we know this is what they want. However, we
realise
that strengthening this approach is not simply about increasing funding; it is
about
using current resources in a more imaginative way. SCIE would endorse the use
of person,
or ‘family centred’ early intervention where the young person and their birth
families
chose from a continuum of short term support that might include for example,
short term
fostering placements or kinship care.
SCIE
believes that the DfES have a responsibility to consider the proposals set out
in
Care
Matters within the context of the existing legal framework for supporting
looked
after
children. There was a widely held view among delegates at our expert seminar
that much
of the green paper proposals can be implemented within the framework of
existing
legislation. We would urge the DfES to examine how much we can achieve for
looked
after children if only we use the powers that are already in place. If we can
improve
the stability and continuity of children’s social work we can achieve much of
what Care
Matters seeks to achieve.
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 27
References
i SCIE (2004) Practice Guide 3: Fostering London: Social
Institute for Excellence
i
i Wright, P., Turner, C., Clay, D. and Mills, H. (2006) The
participation of children and
young
people in social care London: Social Care Institute for Excellence
i
ii Wilson, K., Sinclair, I., Taylor, C., Pithouse, A., and Sellick, C.
(2004) 'Fostering
success:
An exploration in the research literature in foster care',
Knowledge Review 5,
London:
Social Care Institute for Excellence.
iv Bostock, L. (2004) Resource guide 4: promoting resilience in fostered
children and
young
people London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
v
Gilligan,
R. (1998) ‘Beyond permanence? The importance of resilience in child
placement
and planning’, in M. Hill and M. Shaw (eds) Signposts in adoption:
Policy,
practice
and research issues, London: BAAF.
vi SCIE (2005) Research briefing 14: helping parents with learning
disabilities in their
role as
parents London: Social Care Institute for Excellence
vii SCIE (2005) Research briefing 13 (2005) Helping parents with a
physical or sensory
impairment
in their role as parents London: Social Care Institute for Excellence
viii Kearney, P., Levin, E. and Rosen, G. (2003) Report 2:
Working with families with
alcohol,
drug and mental health problems London: Social Care Institute for
Excellence
ix Kearney, P., Rosen, G. and Sainsbury, M. (2003) Resource Guide 1:
Families that
have
alcohol and mental health problems: a template for partnership working London:
Social
Care Institute for Excellence
x National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and Social Care
Institute for
Excellence
(2006) Parent-training/ education programmes in the management of
children
with conduct disorders London: NICE
xi Woodhouse A., Green G., Davies S. (2001) Parents with learning
disabilities: service
audit and
development. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29 (4), 128-132.
xii Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) Mental Health and
Social Exclusion, Social
Exclusion
Unit Report London: ODPM
xiii Falkov, A., Ed, (1998) Crossing Bridges – Training
resources for working with
mentally
ill parents and their children – Reader London: Department of Health/ Pavillion
TRANSFORMING
THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE
SCIE
consultation response 28
xiv Department of Health (1999) National Service Framework for Mental
Health London:
HMSO
xv McAuley, C., Knapp, M., Beecham, J., McCurry, N. and Sleed, M. (2004) Young
families
under stress: Outcomes and costs of Home-Start support, York: Joseph
Rowntree
Foundation