Care leavers in England are over ten times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training (NEET) in their 21st year, major new analysis shows.
Overall, nearly one-third were NEET compared to just 2.4 per cent in the general population and 13 per cent of 21-year-olds. The vast majority of these were defined as ‘economically inactive’ due to disability – including mental health issues – or caring responsibilities. Among those care leavers who were working, over two-thirds were in precarious roles that were short-term, part-time or poorly paid.
The study was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and based at the Rees Centre at the University of Oxford. It was led by Dr Neil Harrison (now at the University of Exeter) and Jo Dixon (University of York).
Neil Harrison said: “This is the first study of its kind to explore over time what happens to care leavers and other care-experienced young people in early adulthood. We have been able to document the acute challenges they face in making positive transitions towards stability and wellbeing.”
“What we clearly see in the data is that the legacy of earlier disadvantages, such as childhood trauma or disruptions to schooling, gets cemented in early adulthood. While around a quarter of care leavers were able to access higher education or stable work by their 21st year, the majority were reliant on benefits or precarious employment. Urgent action is needed to remedy this.”
Researchers used data, including the newly available Longitudinal Educational Outcomes, or LEO, dataset for young people born between 1st September 1995 and 31st August 1996. A total of 3,850 out of the 530,440 individuals were care leavers and 28,810 had some experience of the children’s social care system. They also interviewed 28 care leavers and 41 professionals across five local authorities, including personal advisers, leaving care team members, virtual school staff and carers.
The research shows a strong link between economic inactivity and higher levels of special educational needs during Key Stage 4, including attending a special school. This was particularly marked for care leavers, of whom 62.4 per cent were identified as having a high level of need.
Neil Harrison said: “Good GCSE grades – especially in English and mathematics – had a very strong role in determining which onward pathways were available. However, many care leavers were not able to attain as highly as they might due to what was going on their lives. This reinforces the vital importance of ‘second chance’ pathways, especially through further education colleges.”
Those interviewed said the support of extended family and other social networks was essential to them finding jobs and transitioning to adult life. Care leavers and professionals reported practical barriers in accessing youth employment schemes like Kickstart. They supported care leavers being given preferential access to employment opportunities by councils as part of their ‘corporate parenting’ responsibilities.
Jo Dixon said: “More can be done to remove barriers and disincentives to work for care-experienced young people. This includes addressing the impact of low minimum wage rates for under 23s in employment and apprenticeships, who are without parental support and thus carry financial responsibility for rent and living costs. This is a particular priority for young people in expensive supported accommodation, which can make taking up work-related opportunities unviable.”
“There is already scope to implement ring-fenced and supported work-related opportunities specifically for care-experienced young people. Guaranteed interviews, targeted and supported work-experience schemes and dedicated employment opportunities should be on offer. Utilising corporate parenting and corporate social responsibility in this way will benefit care-experienced young people and the local labour market.”
Rob Street, Director of Justice at the Nuffield Foundation said: “This important study highlights the range of challenges that young care leavers face in accessing the education, employment, and training opportunities that underpin transition into adulthood. The report makes a number of well-evidenced, practical recommendations to national and local policymakers and others for measures to assist this often multiply-disadvantaged group of children and young people”
Recommendations from the study include:
- Providing strong routes for young people to go into (and back into) post-16 education and training
- National government should provide additional ‘top up’ funding for care leavers to participate in apprenticeships and other schemes to ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged
- Young people leaving care between 14 and 16 should be considered as an ‘at risk’ group with respect to complex transitions into adulthood.
- Stronger links with local employers to improve young people’s knowledge of the range of opportunities available to them.
- Targeted pre-employment and pre-apprenticeship support to prepare young people with the most complex needs to take steps towards work-related opportunities.
- Education providers and employers should have greater awareness of trauma and mental health needs for care leavers and other care-experienced young people.
Co-authored by: Professor Leon Feinstein, Professor Geraldine MacDonald, Professor Paul Bywaters, Dr John Simmonds, Professor Karen Broadhurst, Professor Donald Forrester, Dez Holmes
A reflection on evidence and implementation
As members of the Evidence Group supporting the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care (IRCSC), a number of us have received requests to share our views on the evidence base underpinning the Review’s recommendations. In responding to these requests, our intention here is to offer a high-level and constructive perspective for those now tasked with thinking about implementation.
The first thing that should be clarified is that the Review is not a systematic review of all research evidence that might be relevant, it is a framework for policy and practice reform. Though informed by evidence, the recommendations are not all tightly linked to research evidence of intervention effectiveness – as might be the case when producing, say, NICE Guidelines. This is not a criticism. There are many types of review and it is entirely usual for policy and/or practice reforms to draw on multiple sources of knowledge (for example, from research, practitioners, families and individuals) and for the evidence base to be incomplete and/or contested. As such, the Review drew on multiple types of knowledge and evidence. Those now focused on implementation will need to consider some of the complications this approach brings.
There is much to welcome in the Review, and many have called for urgent action to ensure reforms are not delayed. The need for improvement in services and positive change for children, young people and families is widely recognised and so there is an understandable drive to ‘do something’. Given the scale of reform proposed, there is an equally strong argument for thinking carefully about a number of the issues raised before progressing at pace. The Review was undertaken in a relatively short time-scale, working to a very broad scope and with an ambitious goal of system change. Implementation colleagues will need to recognise and grapple with the risks that result from ambiguous, conjectural or partial evidence. Taking time to interrogate the wider evidence base not reflected in the Review, to consider unintended consequences and manage interdependencies, would be time well spent. As with so many important decisions, one might approach in haste and repent at leisure.
For example, the structural reforms proposed in relation to Regional Care Cooperatives is an area where implementation colleagues will find very limited evidence to draw upon. The creation of Regional Adoption Agencies might be somewhat comparable, and the DfE-funded evaluation to date presents ‘a complicated picture’ with very mixed evidence of success against intended outcomes[1]. Given the Review’s intention to strengthen leadership and accountability, care will need to be taken that these structural reforms do not dilute local accountability mechanisms. With ever-increasing pressure on the care system, it is unclear that the mechanisms proposed have the capacity to resolve the issues within the ‘market’, as it is often referred to. As with all structural change, and particularly in light of learning from NHS reorganisation, implementation of RCCs – if this idea is progressed – will need to ensure that this does not become an expensive distraction[2]. The proposed reforms to inspection will require similar attention; much of what is presented as unpopular or unhelpful within the Review can equally be seen as essential checks and balances that are necessary within a system that exerts immense power over citizens’ lives.
The Review’s emphasis on family help is in the spirit of the 1989 Children Act and welcome to many who recognise that families in contact with children’s services too often describe a punitive approach to their difficulties[3]. As was explored in the first report from the review team, there is firm evidence of the socio-economic drivers which are associated with family involvement in child protection services[4]. Colleagues involved in implementation activity will be acutely aware that achieving a responsive and effective family help system depends less on restructuring children’s services and more on radical efforts by national government to reduce poverty, improve health, education and other services and reduce inequalities in living standards. At present, the foundational economy which is vital for family wellbeing is stretched beyond capacity. Moreover, restructuring alone, without fundamental consideration of the mission of children’s social care and changes in the power dynamic between families and services, is unlikely to bring the required change.
The proposed bringing together of Early Help with Child in Need and Child Protection is not wholly illogical; after all, support and protection are not neatly delineated. However, there are potential consequences that must be avoided: such a proposal could pull resources, expertise and the focus of attention away from family support; it could create confusion regarding existing legal thresholds and drive inconsistent practice with families. The proposals will also concern those who remember Munro’s commentary on the previous Information Commissioner’s query that “When looking for a needle in a haystack, is it necessary to keep building bigger haystacks?”[5] Against a backdrop of concerns that professionals are missing children facing serious risk[6], could this proposal inadvertently exacerbate the situation? It might lead to an ever-widening investigative net, with decreasing resources available to do the kind of work required to develop trusting and purposeful relationships to support families. These are just some of the issues that implementation colleagues will need to grapple with.
The Review makes a number of recommendations regarding workforce, and few would argue that skilled, knowledgeable practitioners are essential to a functioning system. The proposals to develop an Early Career Framework do not have a wealth of research evidence to draw upon, and there are potential risks of creating a separate system for early career child and family social workers and adult social workers. There are some insights from the evaluation[7] of the recently disbanded National Assessment and Accreditation System, which sought many of the same benefits as the ECF. In attending to training and practice guides we must not overlook the wider evidence that training has limited impact on practice without accompanying efforts in relation to organisational context and climate[8]. There is limited evidence that issuing prescriptive guidance has a positive causal effect on practice quality (put simply, we wouldn’t need these reforms if guidance to date had been effective), and the significant influence of supervision, leadership and culture deserve equal attention.
In the current political context, there is a risk that the kind of long-term sustainable resource needed to achieve whole system change will not be forthcoming – and so implementation could become focused on what can be done with what resource is available. Without attention to the wider interdependencies, this risks fragmenting the system further, and could lead to some recommendations being progressed with limited effect (or worse, negative consequences). What is required is not temporary support or piecemeal funding of boutique initiatives, but long-term investment. Government must act as a whole system itself if it desires system change for children and families; this requires government departments to share ownership of complex and intersecting social issues and ensure the wider infrastructure which supports family life does not further decline.
Ultimately, evidence can only address so many issues. For the Review to achieve its intentions of improving the experiences and outcomes of children, young people and adults who encounter social care, it will be vital in our view that rigorous attention be paid to rights. Many of those with current, or with previous, experience of social care services represent some of the most marginalised and simultaneously scrutinised in society; people whose voices and preferences have been overlooked for too long and for whom there has been a high degree of surveillance but not enough support. Proposed reforms, included those relating to the use of data, should be subject to assessment of their impact on equalities so that they do not inadvertently erode or undermine rights of children and adults.
Lastly, colleagues focused on implementing the Review’s recommendations may be interested in recent research focused on the implementation of policies and practices within health systems, which identified that trusting relationships – those characterised by empathy, authenticity and collaboration – seem to be key to effective implementation[9]. This suggests that to successfully lead the proposed change, government must position itself as an enabler to the sector, exercising humility and a collaborative spirit. Policy reform, like good social work, requires more than passion for change. It requires critical thinking, skill, judicious use of evidence, and is something can only be ‘done with’ and ‘not done to’ those it is seeking to influence.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1057530/Evaluation_of_regional_adoption_agencies_-_final_report.pdf
[2] Walshe (2010) Reorganisation of the NHS in England. BMJ. 341:c3843
[3] See for example, Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., Morris, K. & White, S. (2018) Protecting Children: A Social Model. Bristol: Policy Press.
[4] See for example, Bywaters, P. and Skinner, G. (2022). The Relationship Between Poverty and Child Abuse and Neglect: New Evidence. Nuffield Foundation.
[5] Information Commissioner (2005) Evidence Given to Select Committee for Education and Skills, House of Commons, London.
[6] Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (2022). Child Protection in England. HM Government. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-review-into-the-murders-of-arthur-labinjo-hughes-and-star-hobson
[7] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/938083/NAAS_delivery_evaluation_of_phases_1_and_2.pdf
[8] Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human resource development review, 6(3).
[9] Metz, A., et al. (2022) ‘Building trusting relationships to support implementation: A proposed theoretical model’ Frontiers in Health Services. Vol 2. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frhs.2022.894599
The views and experiences of over 7,500 children and young people in care on their contact with family members and impact on their wellbeing are uncovered in a new report published today by the charity Coram Voice and The Rees Centre at University of Oxford.
Staying Connected finds that nearly a third (31%) of children (aged 8-10) and a quarter (25%) of young people (aged 11-18) felt they were seeing their mothers too little, whilst over a fifth (22%) of children and 18% of young people felt they were seeing their fathers too little. 22% of children didn’t feel they had enough contact with their brothers and sisters, and this figure was higher for young people (31%). About one in five young people had no contact with either parent and this was particularly the case for those in residential care and boys.
Visits being arranged at inconvenient times, long distances, the costs of travel, their family’s circumstances, and workers failing to make necessary arrangements were among reasons cited by children and young people for seeing family less often than they wanted. Children in care who felt they saw family members too little reported feeling sad, angry and unsettled, while in contrast, those who felt contact arrangements were “just right” felt they were being listened to and looked forward to seeing their family.
One young person (aged 11-18) commented: “I want to see my family more. My social worker is supposed to be doing police checks. I have been here since September and the checks have not been done. It’s not like I can just visit. I live five hours from home.”
Whether children and young people felt that they saw parents often enough was statistically associated with length of time in care, type of placement and which local authority was caring for them. Analysis shows that young people (aged 11-18) in residential care more frequently reported that they had too little contact with family compared to young people in other types of placements. The number of placements experienced also had an impact, with 60% of young people who had only had one placement reporting they were satisfied with their contact frequency, compared to 39% who had experienced 11 or more placements.
In addition, 50% of young people surveyed did not feel involved in decisions social workers made about their lives, and half of the comments about involvement focused on contact arrangements. Children and young people commented on arrangements being inflexible, not changing as they got older or as their family’s circumstances changed. One child (aged 8-10) commented: “I used to see Mum and older brother three times a week. It has been cut down to once a week and this makes me sad. I don’t know why contact was cut down.”
Comments also highlighted that children and young people wanted to see extended family members, pets and other adults who were important to them, and that the key people in their lives were not always included in contact plans.
- Staying Connected is the latest report to be published as part of the Bright Spots programme* and it makes seven key recommendations to improve policy and practice:
- Work with all children in care to identify the key relationships in their lives
- Make arrangements for children and young people to maintain contact, develop relationships and reconnect with people who are important to them
- Listen to and involve children and young people in decisions about the arrangements to see and keep in touch with family and others who are important to them
- Keep children in care informed about their families, why they can or cannot see them, and what arrangements have been made for them to spend time together
- Ensure plans are regularly reviewed and reflect the current circumstances, wishes and needs of children and young people and their families
- Normalise family time whenever possible, minimising the use of contact centres and supporting children and families to meet in the community
- Make sure the workforce has the skills and knowledge to prioritise and confidently support children in care to stay connected to the people who are important to them
Linda Briheim-Crookall, Head of Policy and Practice Development at Coram Voice, said: “The recent Care Review suggested the primary objective of the care system should be promoting the formation of lifelong loving relationships around children in care and care leavers. This can only be achieved if more is done to build rather than break relationships with the people who are already important to children in care. Our research showed that there is still some way to go to make this happen. Services and workers must listen to children and young people about who they want to see, when and how and seek to make this happen. Children in care should have the opportunity to spend time with the people who are important to them doing everyday things like playing games, having a meal or going for a walk with the dog.”
Julie Selwyn, Professor of Education and Adoption at The Rees Centre at University of Oxford, said: “While previous UK research has emphasised that the quality of contact is more important than the frequency, from young people’s perspective frequency was equally, if not more important. Feeling contact was ‘just right’ was associated with higher levels of wellbeing. Staying connected to the important people in life is essential for children’s wellbeing. Greater efforts need to be made to ensure that this is achieved for all children in care.”
To read the full report, watch a video on the findings and download resources for agencies and local authorities, please visit coramvoice.org.uk/staying-connected-report.
We are delighted to announce that the University of Oxford’s Rees Centre, at the Department of Education is partnering with Become, the national charity for children in care and young care leavers to define a new measurement of success for care leavers
Organised by researchers Dr Nikki Luke and Dr Áine Kelly at the Rees Centre (Department of Education), this mixed-methods study will investigate what ‘success’ means to a range of stakeholders. Central to the work will be gaining the perspective of care leavers and those just about to leave care. There will be four phases of work, each developed with a care-experienced design group, named ‘Future of Care’, who will co-produce research materials and outputs. The research is particularly relevant following the recent publication of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, in which five ambitious ‘missions’ were suggested to bring outcomes for care leavers in line with the rest of the population.
Kudzai Zimowa, a young care leaver in the design group of the project, says:
“I have thoroughly enjoyed my experience on the Future of Care design group. It has been great working with other care-experienced young people to help define what success looks like for care leavers. It’s been a fantastic opportunity to work on a project that can make a material difference in the lives of many young people. Too often the narrative on what success means for care leavers is controlled by others. Become have done a great job in creating a collaborative space where care-experienced people can all share their perspective on what success looks like and hopefully rewrite the narrative.”
Katharine Sacks-Jones, CEO at Become, the national charity for children in care and young care leavers, says:
“If we are to ensure care leavers are offered the right support and opportunities to be happy and live fulfilling lives, we must know what ‘success’ really means to them.
Too often we make assumptions about what matters to young people without asking or listening to them. And so we focus on and measure certain outcomes without truly understanding what it means to that young person themselves to make a “successful” transition into adulthood.
This research will help us to address the gap of knowledge that exists in understanding the hopes and ambitions of young people in and leaving care. And it’s by hearing directly from young people that we can set meaningful measures for “success” going forward.”
Leon Feinstein, Professor of Education and Children’s Social Care and Director of the Rees Centre at the University of Oxford’s Department of Education, says:
“The concept of a ‘successful’ transition from childhood to adulthood is largely defined by traditional, formal routes to ‘success’ such as education and employment. Parents, carers, educators, policymakers, and other professionals all make assumptions about what a successful adult is and develop policies and practices to fit. This means that outcomes or success factors are at best assumed and imposed on young people, particularly for those in and/or leaving care.
Even where there are defined official measures of success for care leavers, the data is far from consistent and comprehensive. The government statistics that do exist only provide a partial picture of care leavers’ lives. They focus on objective measures and professional assessments i.e., whether the local authority is in touch with care leavers, if their accommodation is suitable, and if they are in education, employment, or training.
That’s why this research partnership is so important to help us understand how young people perceive their aspirations, personal achievements, and attainments. At the end of the 3-year project, we will have measures based on young people in care and young care leavers’ own criteria for success which feels right, timely and much needed.”
More information on the project can be found here.
Findings Report and Draft Guidelines Published
The full peer reviewed research report and draft guidelines, grounded in systematic research with 8 local authority areas and corresponding health trusts in England and Wales, are published today.
The research identified consensus among frontline practitioners and parents about what constitutes best practice when local authorities issue care proceedings at birth – but also uncovered numerous challenges, ranging from discontinuities, delays and resource constraints to risk-averse practice, shortfalls in a family-inclusive practice, insufficient professional specialism and poor inter-agency collaboration. The need for a more consistent sensitive approach to practice, underpinned by understandings of trauma is emphasised. The need for more training, supervision and support for professionals working in this emotionally challenging area of practice is also recommended.
The draft guidelines, grounded in the research include a series of aspirational statements for each stage of the parents’ journey and provide examples of how these statements can be translated into best practice. They consider how to overcome challenges at both a strategic level and in frontline practice. They also include examples of innovations from practice drawn from across England and Wales.
Between now and August 2022, the participating local authorities and NHS trusts are working with the team to test the feasibility of the guidelines. The intention is for the guidelines to be used as a basis for developing local area action plans and locality specific guidelines, within the context of national guidance. Findings from this feasibility study will inform a final version of the guidelines, which will be published later in 2022.
Accompanying reviews led by the Oxford Team also published 24th February
Two additional reviews undertaken as part of the research and led by the Rees Centre are also published today.
The first, a review of guidance in eight participating local authorities covers professional practice concerning parent/infant separation within the first few days of life. Whilst the second, an evidence review of families’ experiences of perinatal loss, identifies key messages that may be applicable to practice surrounding separation at birth. Both reports provide important background and context when considering improving practices surrounding separation at birth.
Read more about Born into Care on the project page. and on the University of Oxford website.
Ecorys, the Rees Centre at University of Oxford, and Ipsos MORI have been appointed by the Department for Education to explore the potential of a seminal study to independently research the needs, experiences and outcomes for children and young people leaving care on Adoption Orders (AOs) and Special Guardianship Orders (SGOs).
There is currently limited research around how these two routes to permanence affect children’s long-term outcomes as they progress into adolescence and adulthood. We hope to follow the lives of young people aged 12-21 growing up in adoption and special guardianship families.
The purpose is to help:
- Assess the long-term outcomes for children growing up in adoption and special guardianship families;
- Support improved outcomes for children by enhancing our understanding of what influences the support needs and outcomes for adoptive families and special guardianship families;
- Understand the role of key stakeholders in supporting outcomes for previously looked after children, and the impact this has on their outcomes; and
- Support improved decision making by LAs and courts on permanency options for children who cannot return home to live with their birth parents.
Over the next six months, we will conduct a feasibility study to explore how best to approach families and encourage involvement in a longitudinal study. We will consult with stakeholders from the adoption, Special Guardianship sector and families to help us design the research and make plans to pilot the next stage.
The final reporting is scheduled for 2028.
More information on the project can be found on the study’s project page.
We are delighted to announce that the Rees Centre has been appointed as the Department for Education’s research partner to deliver the evaluation of two new initiatives in Virtual Schools.
On 16th June, the Government announced more than £16 million for councils to extend the role of Virtual School Heads from September this year, meaning there will be a local champion for children with a social worker in every local authority in England. This will ensure that more focus is placed on children with a social worker, targeting support earlier on in these young people’s lives and helping improve how they engage with education.
A further £3 million in funding has also been confirmed for a new pilot, where Virtual School Heads will support looked-after children and care leavers in post-16 education. Launching in October, the pilot will enable Virtual School Heads to expand their work into further education settings.
Both programmes will build on the existing role of a Virtual School Head, who help champion and improve the educational outcomes for children in or on the edge of care, enhancing relationships between schools, colleges and local authorities so that pupils receive support from professionals that will help them develop and progress throughout their time in education.
The Rees Centre evaluation will help to build an evidence base of what works, which will be used to inform any future support for this cohort, including sharing learning and best practice identified through the Virtual School Head role extension programme and post-16 education pilot with all local authorities across England. The evaluation will be jointly led by Professor Judy Sebba, Dr Neil Harrison and Dr Nikki Luke.
Dr Neil Harrison, Deputy Director
For some years now, prospective students applying through the UCAS system have been given the option of declaring whether or not they are care-experienced. Aside from helping statisticians, this self-identification information is passed confidentially to their university when they join to help them to target additional support such as bursaries, accommodation, academic help and mental health interventions.
There has been concern about how effective this system is. For example, we know informally that some care-experienced students are reluctant to tick the box as they are worried about stigma or that it will negatively impact on their university application. Some applicants may not realise that they were in care if they were young or if it meant living with relatives in a kinship care arrangement. Furthermore, not all students enter higher education through the UCAS system.
Anecdotally, there are also some people who tick the box when they are not care-experienced. These applicants may not understand the question – perhaps think it’s about caring for other people – or tick it by accident.
False positives and false negatives
There are thus two issues. The ‘false positives’ who say they are care-experienced when they are not; these create a bit of extra work (to do the checking) and are potentially a source of error in statistics. However, the ‘false negatives’ are more concerning. These are students who should be entitled to additional support from their university, but who are not getting it because their university doesn’t know they are care-experienced. It is obviously useful for policy and practice to know how many false positives and negatives there are.
The data that we’ve assembled for one of our projects has enabled us to shine a partial light on the self-identification data. It doesn’t completely answer the questions as there are significant gaps in the data we have – we will touch on these later. However, it does give us some useful clues for the first time which we thought it would be useful to share informally.
Exploring the data
We have anonymous data for England relating to the cohort of people born in the 1995/96 school year and who remained in England between 11 and 18 – about half a million in total. We have been able to link data over time to combine care histories from the age of 8 (when the national data begins) and higher education up to the age of 21. Therefore, we know (a) whether the student’s university believes them to be care-experienced based on self-identification, and (b) whether they had indeed been in care.
To complicate matters, the university can allocate the student to one of two care-experienced categories. The definitions for these are very unclear, but we believe they are broadly intended to represent care leavers (meeting the statutory definition) and other care-experienced students.
The table above summarises what we have found, based on the data that were held at the end of the student’s first year. There isn’t space here to cover everything, but some basic observations:
- It’s clear that universities are not collectively using the two care-experienced markers appropriately, with nearly half of care leavers are actually recorded in the ‘wrong’ category. The national data is therefore poor at differentiating between statutory care leavers and other care-experienced students.
- However, about 85% of statutory care leavers are being appropriately classified as care-experienced through self-identification. The other 15% are split between those stating that they are not care-experienced (i.e. false negatives) and for whom the data are missing (perhaps due to refusal).
- The system is also reasonably good at identifying other students who were in care after the age of 14, with 75% self-identifying, although 17% had stated that they were not care-experienced and 32% have been wrongly classified as statutory care leavers.
- However, students who were in care between the ages of 8 and 14 were much less likely to self-identify as care-experienced – only 28% did so, with over half explicitly saying that they were not care-experienced.
- The ‘children in need’ group are not care-experienced (having been allocated a social worker, but not entered care), but there was a small proportion (3%) who had self-identified as such (i.e. false positives).
- The same was true for the general population. The proportion was very small, but this represented over 500 individuals. Some of these are undoubtedly false positives, but others may have been in (and left) care before the age of 8, including those adopted from care.
Implications for policy and practice
This small piece of analysis is not intended to be the final word and it is limited in some important ways. For example, we only have higher education data up to 2016/17 and the situation has almost certainly improved somewhat since then, with markedly more attention on care-experienced students over the last five years. We also only have data on younger students aged between 18 and 21, so the situation may be different for those entering higher education at a later stage. However, there are some useful lessons from the data:
- Firstly, the way in which data is being recorded by universities varies widely and this is likely to be leading to confusion, both in the provision of support and in understanding who is entering higher education. I am aware that the Office for Students is currently seeking to address this with the Higher Education Statistics Agency, UCAS and universities, which is a very positive step.
- Secondly, there is clearly some degree of incorrect self-identification – this is likely to be mainly accidental and probably reflects misunderstanding about what constitutes ‘care’ in this context. Nevertheless, this does mean that the self-identification data cannot be taken at face value and does need to be subject to confirmation by universities, creating a small administrative burden to ensure that support is correctly directed at those entitled to it. This requires universities to have a good understanding of care and a mechanism to enable students to evidence their status as sensitively as possible.
- Thirdly, a sizable proportion of care-experienced students of various categories are being missed by the self-identification system, especially among those who left care prior to their teenage years. This suggests that there is much more work to be done to ensure that care-experienced students are aware of the benefits of self-identifying and feel able to do so without stigma. Clearly, however, they must always have the right to not share this information about themselves if they prefer – or to do so at a later date.
A positive development in recent years is that many universities have broadened out their support – extending out beyond statutory care leavers and removing age thresholds. This is to be welcomed as it is not just younger care leavers who experience educational disruption and who can benefit from additional help to enter, and thrive within, higher education. These data suggest, however, that there is still work to be done to reach all those who are entitled to receive it.
I am delighted to chair the evidence group for Josh MacAlister’s review of the care system, described by the Secretary of State who launched it as a “wide-ranging, independent review to address poor outcomes for children in care as well as strengthening families to improve vulnerable children’s lives.”
Josh MacAlister and the review team published their opening position on Thursday 17th June, a statement on the case for change.
The review has heavy billing, not least as the level of government borrowing is higher now than when a previous Conservative chancellor demanded austerity. The current administration may be more inclined to spend but will they spend on children outside of universal services?
The review is also in the shadow of the recent review of the system in Scotland, which was much longer, was evidently led by those with experience of care, and reported into a devolved administration that has a clear articulation of its commitment to deliver the rights of children.
The pressure is certainly on. The case for change sets out Josh’s interpretation and that of the review team of what they have heard so far, in listening to and reading the evidence of personal testimony, academic research, expert views and from responses submitted to the review. From this, the case for change indicates where the review team think the system needs to change.
It is very welcome that the review is publishing the case for change so that everyone with an interest knows where the review will focus and is able to respond on the more specific issues. I know that Josh and the team are very open to all responses on these questions and I know that they are listening. People can respond here.
There are two old cliches about how those outside positions of power in government might best engage in the business of government. One cliché is the lift test, “what do you do if you find yourself in a lift with a senior figure?” How to cut through, what to say, how to be heard? The second cliche concerns a train leaving the station. You don’t get to decide when the train runs, your choice is whether to ride the train.
The Evidence Group is one of three groups providing support to the review. Of particular importance is the Experts by Experience Board, there to ensure a voice in the review for those who have had a social worker (either themselves or a child in their care). The Design Group will help guide how the review designs its recommendations.
In my work I have tried to bring good evidence to bear on policy and practice and help ensure it is used meaningfully and accurately. To do this we need a clear idea about what we mean by good evidence, by what counts as evidence, for who, about what, applied how? We might call this an episteme, a framework of agreement about what counts as knowledge and how it should be interpreted, which allows us to settle on truths or at least determine what we mean by truthfulness, in how we answer research questions intended to inform decisions.
As chair of the evidence group, I can say that the review team have had access to a great deal of high quality evidence of multiple sorts on multiple questions. In the time available Josh and the team have made their interpretation of what it says about what should change in the care system, focusing particularly on the side of problems and issues requiring attention, rather than the many daily successes and positive outcomes that make up so much of existing practice and experience.
The members of the evidence group appointed by the review have submitted their views on the review team’s reading of the evidence and on the team’s interpretation and representations of it. Ultimately the case for change is not primarily an evidentiary paper in the sense of being set up as a research or science project with a clear technical methodology to address a narrow scientific or social scientific question. It isn’t subject to formal peer review and approval in the way that a National Statistic or an academic paper might be. Neither I nor the other group members get to sign off the document. It is ultimately the view of Josh and his team and that is in part what is meant by an independent review. Another reviewer might have looked at the evidence differently and made a different case or called for different changes.
I hope it leads to a fruitful discussion. For what it is worth I think the field suffers from a lack of agreement about what counts as good evidence. Because of the nature of the evidence as yet available and the diversity of views on it, many of the issues in the case for change are subject to considerable uncertainty and disagreement so it is likely that debate will continue.
I don’t think the question of the appropriate balance between statutory care of children and wider support to families is resolved by the evidence available, nor do we know enough in aggregate about what structures best help people provide the right supports to which groups of children at the right times. I agree it is good to have a debate about these things. The available evidence can inform and there will be more evidence gathering in the next stages of the review.
I hope that the review goes on to make valuable and effective recommendations that address many of the issues and challenges raised in evidence to the review and that these lead to real improvements to the experiences of children, families and care experienced people. I hope that the review is able to address the clear call from those with care experience to be heard, not just in the review, but in perpetuity. Finally, I hope the review addresses the need to improve knowledge and understanding both in terms of about how the care system might be improved but also in helping the public and hence government recognise the work of and hear the voices of care experienced people, children, social workers, carers, directors of children’s services and others who are too often drowned out of the public debate.
We will all have differing views on all of this. I hope we will have more blogs in the weeks ahead.
Read more about the case here.