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.
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.
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.
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.
This insight piece by Dr Lisa Holmes for the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory explores the nature, availability and use of child level administrative data at the local and regional level by children’s social care departments.
“It is evident that there is value in children’s social care data being analysed locally and regionally, as well as purely being exported by local authorities to meet the statutory reporting requirements, but that the capacity and capability of performance management teams impacts on the ease and frequency that this can take place. “
Use of these data are considered within the context of requirements to submit annual administrative data to the Department for Education. Consideration is also given to issues related to the capacity of local authority performance management teams which have been drastically reduced in many local authorities as a result of austerity.
Finally consideration is given to ways that local authorities may share learning and increase capacity and capability.
Full report Nuffield Family Justice Observatory 21/10/2019
Some of the UK’s most eminent education academics have collaborated to create a book offering a firm foundation for evidence-based, effective primary education. The book features work from department Professors Iram Siraj (Professor of Child Development and Education), Pam Sammons (Professor of Education), Edward Melhuish (Professor of Human Development) and Kathy Sylva (Professor of Educational Psychology). Using the UK’s 17-year Effective Provision of Pre-school, Primary and Secondary Education research study (EPPSE, 1997–2014) as the core source, this research-led book combines qualitative and quantitative research findings to shine a spotlight on teaching in effective primary schools.
Sir Kevan Collins, Chief Executive Education Endowment Foundation, says “The history of education is littered with ideology, headline-grabbing here today, gone tomorrow policies and the hyped ideas of education gurus. Cutting through the fads and fashions, this book, by some of the UK’s most eminent education academics, gives us firm foundations for effective primary education.”
The book reveals the pedagogical strategies that are the hallmark of successful schools and brings these strategies to life through detailed observations of classroom interactions. By taking the reader into the classrooms of skilful teachers, it offers an accessible, multi-layered insight into how to make learning more engaging and motivating for children. This in turn will influence their development and progress, and, therefore, their later life chances.
The book also features work from Brenda Taggart, Honorary Senior Research Associate at the UCL Institute of Education and Donna-Lynn Shepherd, Senior Research Assistant at Coventry University.
Teaching in Effective Primary Schools: Research into pedagogy and children’s learning
Iram Siraj, Brenda Taggart, Pam Sammons, Edward Melhuish, Kathy Sylva and Donna-Lynn Shepherd
£24.99, paperback, 220 pages 16th September 2019 UCL IOE Press
Find out more about this area of research here.
This article was first published on The Conversation on 24 May 2019.
Author: Dr Neil Harrison, Rees Centre.
After years of decline, school exclusions are on the rise again, according to official figures for the Department for Education. The Timpson review, carried out by former children’s minister Edward Timpson, also shows that children in care and other “children in need” are disproportionately likely to be excluded. This amplifies the educational disadvantages they already face.
There are around 75,000 children in care at any one time in England. Collectively, they have some of the lowest educational outcomes of any identifiable group for reasons that are complex and multidimensional. The 2016-2017 figures show they are five times more likely to have been temporarily excluded than other children. Children in need -– the wider group needing support from their local authority –- were nearly four times as likely to be temporarily excluded and twice as likely to be permanently excluded.
Among Timpson’s 30 recommendations, he argues that all teachers should be trained in attachment theory as a means of understanding and addressing behavioural issues in school. This isn’t the first time this has appeared in a government report, but it feels like momentum is building.
Indeed, there is growing evidence that one pathway to reducing exclusions is for schools to adopt an “attachment and trauma aware” approach. This has its origins in early studies emphasising how a child’s relationships with adults and feelings of safety guide their psychological development. More recent advances in neurobiology have revealed how adverse childhood experiences such as abuse and neglect impact directly on the structure of a young person’s brain.
There is now increased understanding as to how the legacy of trauma affects how young people experience the world. It particularly influences how they build trusting relationships, understand boundaries and manage their emotions. Childhood trauma can leave a long-lasting physical mark.
This is, of course, not to argue that these children are inevitably destined to be poorly behaved, nor that bad behaviour should be ignored or explained away. Attachment and trauma awareness is about action, not inaction – and about equipping people with knowledge and information to understand children who have experienced difficult circumstances.
Causes not symptoms
In 2015, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) explored the effectiveness of attachment and trauma awareness in supporting vulnerable children. Their assessment, based on research evidence from around the world, was unequivocally positive.
Inexplicably then, it has taken four years for attachment and trauma awareness to bubble onto the political agenda. Rather, the focus of government attention, strongly promoted by schools minister Nick Gibb, has been on a “zero tolerance” approach to behaviour. This manifests in strict rules, strong sanctions and even periods of isolation for minor transgressions. Crucially, given the recent rise in exclusions, it doesn’t seem to be working. This is perhaps unsurprising given its obsessive focus on symptoms rather than causes.
Between 2016 and 2018, the University of Oxford evaluated three local projects to train school staff in attachment and trauma awareness. In the main, staff and pupils reported improvements in well-being and behaviour, with most schools also showing rising attainment. Become, a charity for children in care, recently made attachment and trauma awareness its number one recommendation for how teachers can best support vulnerable children to thrive.
Transforming schools
The Attachment Research Community –- a charity working with schools –- collects case studies of schools that have been transformed through attachment and trauma awareness. The binding theme is a focus on ensuring that all staff, from headteachers to mealtime supervisors, are equipped to support young people to regulate their own emotions. They also typically make use of innovations like “chill out” rooms, nurture groups and “time out” cards to create a calmer environment for learning.
Hope School in Liverpool, which recently shared its new Ofsted report on social media, has been specifically commended for its attachment and trauma awareness:
Based on academic research you have developed a school that is sensitive to supporting pupils with attachment and complex trauma histories [and] removed reliance on external sanctions and rewards to control behaviour.
Ofsted’s report could not be clearer in its judgement. It concludes that “behaviour in school is exemplary and pupils make outstanding progress in their learning”. Specifically, “the emphasis [had] changed to understanding the internal reasons for behaviour”. In other words, attachment and trauma awareness works – even for already successful schools.
So with the current schools minister seemingly at odds with the former children’s minister (and now Ofsted), it remains to be seen how much longer the rhetorical “crackdown” on behaviour can survive. Education secretary Damian Hinds has accepted all 30 of Timpson’s recommendations on behalf of the government, albeit without firm commitments around teacher training. But, hopefully, attachment and trauma awareness is an idea whose time is finally coming.
Senior Researcher Sandra Mathers has been successful in securing joint funding for a ground-breaking project that aims to enhance socially disadvantaged children’s language skills. The project will be jointly conducted with Professor Julie Dockrell (UCL Institute of Education) and Professor James Law (Newcastle University).
Social disadvantage is closely associated with language delay and language delay impacts on social emotional and behavioural development and the ability to access the curriculum. Four-year-olds from the poorest 30 per cent of neighbourhoods are 11% less likely than their peers to reach expected levels in language and communication and 9% less likely to reach the expected level in social and emotional development.
Awarded by the Nuffield Foundation, ‘Empowering staff to enhance oral language in early years’ will build on the evidence-based Talking Time intervention, enhancing it to include professional development for teachers and their teams. The enhanced programme will support practitioners’ understanding and practice in relation to supporting young children’s oral language development. Taking place in the south east and north east of England, the project will begin in May 2019 and run until the end of 2020.
For more information: www.education.ox.ac.uk/research/empowering-staff-to-enhance-oral-language-in-the-early-years/