Existing evidence shows that kinship care is more prevalent in Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Children from these backgrounds are more likely to be in informal kinship care, where entitlements to support are at the most limited. However, there is a major gap in contemporary research on the prevalence and experience of kinship carers in these communities.
The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care highlighted addressing this research gap as a priority and we are grateful to be supported by the KPMG Foundation to undertake this research, the results of which will be published in September 2024.
Kinship is working with The Rees Centre at the University of Oxford to better understand the prevalence and reasons why children are in kinship care in these communities, as well as the challenges they face.
The research team will be led by Dr Priya Tah and supported by Professor Julie Selwyn.
Dr Priya Tah is of South Asian heritage and can speak both Hindi and Punjabi. She has over 10 years of experience in conducting qualitative research specifically with vulnerable groups, including children and young people accessing mental health care, foster children and foster carers (including kinship carers) from minority ethnic communities.
Professor Julie Selwyn is a leading children’s social care academic who has researched within this area of study for 30 years. She completed the first analysis of Census data that identified the number of children in informal kinship care and the extent of poverty their carers faced.
Once analysis of the research has taken place, Kinship will work with a social design agency, kinship carers and sector representatives to share insight and co-produce plans about the best ways to reach and improve support and services for kinship carers from Black, Asian and minority ethnic families.
Kinship’s CEO, Dr Lucy Peake said: “As the largest provider of kinship care support services in England and Wales, Kinship’s work is informed by evidence. However, the dearth of research and understanding about kinship care families from Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities means that we, and others, have gaps in our knowledge when developing services to meet the needs of these families. This is leaving thousands of vulnerable kinship families without support that is tailored to their specific needs and experiences.
“We’re delighted to be working with Dr Priya Tah and Professor Julie Selwyn and a Research Advisory Group that includes kinship carers, social workers, community development workers, and academics with expertise in kinship care, race and ethnicity and inequalities. Really importantly, we want to involve kinship carers throughout the project. We’re committed not only to ensuring that it informs the development of our own services but to working with local authorities and others to improve the design and delivery of services for Black, Asian and minority ethnic kinship families.
“We would like to thank the KPMG Foundation for their generous support and shared commitment to our vision of a society where all kinship carers and the children they care for are recognised, valued and supported.”
KPMG Foundation’s CEO, Judith McNeill said: “As the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care in England highlighted, there is a real urgency in addressing the lack of research into the experience of Black, Asian and minority ethnic kinship families, as the focus on improving support for kinship care grows.
“The KPMG Foundation is proud to be supporting this work to deepen understanding and influence the development of services across the sector that are inclusive and responsive to the diversity of the thousands of kinship families who do so much for the children they care for but are so often overlooked.”
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.
Madeleine provides professional support for the Rees Centre and across its portfolio of project grants. Madeleine also provides project support on a set of specified research projects and ensures the smooth running of projects and administrative procedures in line with University and funder policies and procedures.
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.
A new research study conducted by both The Department of Education, University of Oxford, and Barnardos Australia has revealed that children who were adopted had significantly better life outcomes when compared with children that remained in foster care, particularly when it comes to education and employment.
Professor Leon Feinstein, Director of the Rees Centre, Department of Education, at University of Oxford said,
“we are delighted to announce our partnership with Barnardos Australia on the book launch of a major research study on adoption, entitled ‘Outcomes of Open Adoption from Care’. The project, funded by Barnardos (Australia), with research undertaken by Emeritus Professor Harriet Ward and Helen Trivedi at the Rees Centre (Oxford), presents new and vivid findings concerning the extreme vulnerability of children placed for adoption from care, the impact and durability of face-to-face post adoption contact and adult outcomes of adoptees.”
Launched 6th April by Barnardos, this is the first longitudinal study of open adoption undertaken in Australia, examining the long-term outcomes of 210 children adopted through Barnardos between 1987 and 2013. The children in the study were permanently removed from their birth parents and placed in foster care due to severe abuse and neglect. By maintaining “openness” through contact with their birth family, these adopted children formed a healthy sense of identity and experienced greater stability and belonging, for life, compared to those in the unstable foster care system until the age of 18.
Key findings of the study include:
- 63% of adult adoptees completed Year 12 or higher, compared with 42% of adults who grew up in foster care.
- 62% of adult adoptees were engaged in full-time employment, education or training compared with 34% of adults who grew up in foster care.
These findings have important implications for government support and funding of open adoption in Australia. Currently only NSW and ACT have legislated for open adoption and Barnardos is the largest non-government provider of open adoptions from care Barnardos Australia CEO Deirdre Cheers said;
“This is a children’s rights issue. All children have the right to an education and to grow up in a stable and supportive environment. There are over 45,000 children are in foster care in Australia but only 171 children were adopted from foster care last year. Currently adults working in child protection are the making the decision as to whether a child can be adopted. Barnardos world-first research will serve to inform our state governments about the urgent need to bring about open adoption reform in order to improve life outcomes for the children and young people currently in foster care.”
This launch video features two of the authors of the study and two adult adoptees speaking about their experiences of foster care and open adoption.
Read the open access book: ‘Outcomes of Open Adoptions from Care’