Young people leaving care: implementing the children (Leaving Care) Act 2000?

CHILDREN & SOCIETY VOLUME 19 (2005) pp. 371–384Published online 23 June 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/CHI.839

Young People Leaving Care:Implementing the Children(Leaving Care) Act 2000?

This article presents findings from a large empirical research study

which examines the ways in which the Children (Leaving Care) Act

2000 is being implemented. The evidence presented points to a

complex picture of ‘slower running’ and ‘faster running’ leaving care

services, modest achievements, ongoing problems, and mixed

outcomes. The author argues that compared with previous studies,

the increased number of young people leaving care entering post-16

education, employment and training is a significant development. It

is suggested that the overall progress in implementing the Act is

slower than might be expected three years after the Act was passed in

2000. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

The emergence of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 (CLCA2000) resulted from a specific government commitment(Department of Health (DoH), 1998) to implement Sir WilliamUtting’s recommendations contained in the Review of theSafeguards for Children Living Away from Home (Utting, 1997).After the consultation document Me Survive Out There (DoH,1999a) was published as a response and the Children (LeavingCare) Bill 2000, based on that consultation document, wasenacted in October 2000 and the CLCA 2000 introduced inOctober 2001. Its Guidance and Regulations which carrystatutory force (that is they must be followed by localauthorities), were issued in September 2001 (DoH, 2001), onemonth prior to the introduction of the CLCA 2000. Prior to theCLCA 2000 new responsibilities had been placed on localauthorities by the earlier Children Act (1989) and its regula-tions. Research studies in the 1990s reported young peopleleaving care facing continuing problems (Biehal and others,1995; Broad, 1994, 1998, 1999; Vernon, 2000) whilst alsopointing to gradual progress as a result of the Children Act(1989) and related initiatives (Stein, 1997). Many of thereported improvements after the introduction of the ChildrenAct (1989) occurred during a growth in the number and size ofleaving care teams. For example 52 per cent (or 29) of the 46

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Bob BroadDe Montfort University,Leicester

Correspondence to: Dr Bob Broad,

Director of Children & Families

Research Unit, Faculty of Health &

Life Sciences, De Montfort Uni-

versity, The Gateway Building, 4th

floor, Rooms 4.58 & 4.59, The

Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK.

E-mail: [email protected]

leaving care teams studied in Broad’s 1998 study started between 1990 and 1995 (Broad,1998: 76). Nevertheless according to that study’s conclusion, despite pockets of goodleaving care practice, and high levels of individual worker commitment:

Overall the availability and quality of services to young people leaving care remains a lotteryin terms of entitlements from the state, and local authority policies and implementation, as wasthe case in 1994 . . . leaving care work still remains unsafe in the hands of the Children Act 1989(Broad, 1998: 267).

Thus against a background of gradual but inconsistent progress in the provision, qualityand funding of looked after and leaving care services in the 1990s, and, more pressing, theUtting Report (1997) it was seen as vital to introduce new legislation into the leaving carefield.

According to the Guidance then the main purpose of the CLCA 2000 is:

to improve the life chances of young people living in and leaving local authority care. Its mainaims are to delay young people’s discharge from care until they are prepared and ready toleave; to improve the assessment, preparation and planning for leaving care; to provide betterpersonal support for young people after leaving care; and to improve the financialarrangements for care leavers (DoH, 2001: 1)

Origin, scope and methodology of current study

This study originated from the Action on Aftercare Consortium commissioning theUniversity’s Children and Families Research Unit to conduct a research project about howlocal authorities are implementing the CLCA 2000. The study is based on the responses toa comprehensive eight page questionnaire booklet distributed to 300 local authorities/leaving care teams/voluntary organisations in England and Wales (where the CLCA 2000applies). Responses were received from 52 leaving care teams representing a 17 per centreturn rate (Broad, 2003a, 2003b). This lower return rate for the current study, comparedwith the previous studies conducted by this author can most readily be explained by thequestionnaire for the current study being sent to 300 local authorities/voluntaryorganisations in England and Wales and not selected/known leaving care teams. In thesense that that the responses emanated from this wide and non-selective pool population,they are more likely to be representative of local authority practice following the CLCA2000. On the other hand the low overall response rate places limits on the extent to whichthese findings can be described as representative of all local authorities. Yet in describingthe work of one in six local authorities the study nevertheless fulfils its aim of undertakinga national overview of leaving care work. The 52 returned questionnaires were completedeither by leaving care team managers (in 55 per cent of cases), other leaving care teamstaff such as development worker, social worker, or personal adviser (accounting for38 per cent) or ‘not stated’ (7 per cent).

The questionnaire booklet (40 questions in total) included both pre-coded and open-endedquestions. Part 1 included questions about the leaving care teams, staffing, and the youngpeople and their legal status, their accommodation, occupation and local authoritypolicies. It contained similar questions to those asked in previous studies about young

372 Bob Broad

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 19, 371–384 (2005)

people’s life chance issues in order that some comparisons could be made across the threestudy periods, namely 1989–1994; 1995–1998, and 2000–2003.

Part 2 of the questionnaire contained targeted questions about the implementation of theCLCA 2000 so far as local authority and voluntary sector leaving care services areconcerned. Four main service areas formed the focus of Part 2. These were services foryoung people about their education/employment/training, occupation, financial sup-ports, and health. There were also separate sections on Pathway Planning, and personaladvisors. The answers to all the pre-coded questions were entered using SPSS forWindows software (version 8) to enable statistical data analysis to be undertaken. Thesignificant amount of information provided by respondents included nominal data (forexample about the accommodation, and education circumstances of young peopleattending the teams), ordinal data (here using responses with five point scales) and open-ended qualitative data, (for example as entered by respondents in open-ended ‘comments’boxes). All the questionnaires were returned between November 2002 and May 2003. Thusthe study presents a comprehensive overview of achievements, difficulties, trends, andpatterns, from the important perspective of leaving care teams, up to 18 months afterlegislative change was introduced in the field.

The key research questions raised in the study were as follows:

� What are the characteristics/life circumstances of young people leaving care who arereceiving help from leaving care teams/social services departments?

� How do these compare with a similar sample population of young people leaving carefrom the 1994 and 1998 research studies?

� What has changed since the CLCA 2000 was introduced?� How is the CLCA 2000 being implemented so far as policies and practice are concerned?� What post-CLCA 2000 funding, staffing and other resources are in place?� How do pre and post-CLCA 2000 services compare?

The research study received the approval of the Association of Directors of Social Services(research committee) and the University’s research ethics committee, and worked to anadvisory group from the Consortium.

The leaving care teams in the study

The research study collected statistical and qualitative information from 52 leaving careteams working with 6,953 young people affected by the CLCA 2000. This compares withearlier studies evaluating practice and policy developments, by 25 leaving care teamsworking with 1,538 young people, and 46 teams working with 3,308 young peopleleaving care after the Children Act 1989 (Broad, 1994, 1998). In the current study and ofthe 555 total staff working at these teams, 46 per cent were described as leaving caresocial workers, 24 per cent specialist personal advisers, 4 per cent Connexions staff,3 per cent education staff, 3 per cent specialist education/employment staff and just2 per cent health staff (a further 18 per cent of specialist staff were described as ‘other’).The 555 staff working with 6,953 young people represents a young person: staff: youngperson ratio of 1:12, comparing favourably with the 1998 study’s staff: young personratio of 1:15.

Young People Leaving Care 373


The young people

Of the young people attending the 52 leaving care teams:

� 40 per cent were ‘eligible’, that is, 16- to 17-year-olds who are still looked after;� 14 per cent were ‘relevant’, that is, 16- to 17-year-olds who have left care;� 16 per cent were ‘former relevant’, that is, 18- to 21-year olds who were previously

‘eligible’ or ‘relevant’; and� 30 per cent were ‘qualifying’, that is, young people who are under 21 and who have,

after the age of 16, ceased to be looked after, accommodated or fostered.

All those who are ‘eligible’, ‘relevant’ or ‘former relevant’ (that is 70 per cent of the youngpeople attending the leaving care teams within the study) are entitled to a personaladviser, a needs assessment and a Pathway Plan, in accordance with the CLCA 2000’sGuidance (Ss.19B, 23B, 23C). The 30 per cent who are ‘qualifying’ young people are notentitled to a personal adviser, a needs assessment or a Pathway Plan, but instead receiveassistance under the Children Act 1989.

Three per cent of the young people at the teams were reported as having a physicaldisability, 8 per cent a learning difficulty and 7 per cent were statemented. The significantproportion of young people with physical disabilities, learning difficulties and statementshas important implications for future service development, especially to meet the needs ofthose with mild learning difficulties who do not fall into an easily recognised category ofneed. Next and in terms of ethnicity by far the largest percentage of young people leavingcare attending these teams are white (83 per cent), with care leavers who are black andmixed race constituting 9 per cent and 4 per cent of the sample respectively.

Let us now examine the occupation of the young people paying particular attention tothe proportions of those working, in education/employment/training, and those notworking.

The occupation of the young people

Table 1 provides information about the occupation of the young people in the study andalso allows comparisons to be made with those young people attending leaving care teamsin Broad’s 1994 and 1998 studies.

Comment

As can be seen from Table 1, and in rank order, for the young people in the current study(right hand column) by far the largest grouping, 1,332 young people (or 31 per cent of thesample) are those in ‘post-16 education.’ This is followed by 1,271 young people (or30 per cent) ‘not in employment’, and 599 (or 14 per cent) ‘employed full time’. Comparedwith previous studies the most significant finding here is the much higher proportion ofyoung people in post-16 education, 31 per cent, compared with previous figures of17.5 per cent and 19 per cent. Linked to this finding, and comparing 1998 and the currentfindings, is the significant decline from 51.5 per cent to 29 per cent, in the proportion of

374 Bob Broad


young people leaving care not in employment. Apart from those findings, the figures areremarkably similar across the three study periods.

Also if one combines the percentages of those ‘not in employment’ with those in ‘post-16education’ the totals are very similar, 68 per cent (1994), 68.5 per cent (1998) and 60 per cent(current). What has changed are the higher proportions of young people leaving care inpost-16 education and the lower proportions not working. It is known from other research(Jackson and others, 2003) that approximately 1 per cent of young people leaving careenter higher education. Therefore, it is highly likely that the majority of young peopledescribed in the present study as being within the post-16 category are in further, nothigher, education. It should also be noted that the figure in another post-CLCA 2000 studyfor those young people not working/in training is higher, 38 per cent, compared with the29 per cent figure here (West Midlands Child Care Consortium (WMCCC), 2002: 15). It islikely that government encouragement and provision of financial incentives to supportyoung people entering and staying in training and further education most readily explainsthis finding.

Having described the circumstances of the leaving care teams and the young people let mebegin to examine how the CLCA 2000 is being implemented. This next section will focus,in turn, on the four key service areas of education/employment/training, accommoda-tion, financial supports, and health. These four areas were selected on the basis that theyeach represent critically important service areas for young people in their transition toadulthood, as reflected in the CLCA 2000 regulations (DoH, 2001).

The impact of the CLCA 2000 on services for young people leaving care

This part of the article records and analyses the ranked assessments provided by leavingcare teams about the four aforementioned service areas. Within each of those four serviceareas, five sub-categories were identified. These were ‘identification of need’, ‘serviceplanning,’ ‘service provision,’ ‘resources’ and ‘outcomes’. These five sub-categoriesresulted from a pilot study where respondents had asked for distinctions to be made aboutwork with care leavers in terms of needs assessment, service planning and outcomes. The‘identification of need’ was defined as ‘the formal identification of care leavers’ needs’ and‘planning’ as ‘the planning of services for care leavers.’ ‘Service provision’ was defined interms of ‘the amount, extent or volume of services provided’ and ‘resources’ were

Table 1: Occupation of young people leaving care compared with 1994 and 1998 studies

Occupation type 1994 Study—% 1998 Study—% Current study—%(number) (number) (number)

Employed full-time 9% (77) 11% (325) 14% (599)Employed part-time 4% (36) 4% (108) 4% (190)Training 13% (114) 10% (289) 8% (339)Post-16 education 19% (162) 17.5% (508) 31% (1332)Not in employment 49% (418) 51.5% (1497) 29% (1271)Not working on medical grounds Not available Not available 6% (237)Other 6% (52) 6% (178) 8% (336)Total number of young people (100%) 859 (100%) 2905 100% (4304)



described as including staffing and resources (examples included more job placements,housing units or training places). ‘Outcomes’ were defined as ‘what has actuallyhappened to care leavers/what differences have there actually been in practice’ as a resultof the CLCA 2000, that is not what was identified as a need or planned for, but whatactually happened.

Respondents were invited to rank each of those sub-categories against each service area, aseither having ‘improved significantly,’ or shown ‘a little improvement’ or ‘remainedthe same’, or had ‘slightly worsened’ or, finally, become ‘considerably worse.’ In thequestionnaire respondents were provided with examples to help respondents judge themeaning of these sub-categories. For example in respect of the ranking ‘improvedsignificantly’ and accommodation this was described as ‘a significant increase in theavailability/volume of appropriate housing stock since the CLCA 2000’. The researchproject’s steering group and those who contributed to the pilot study had expressed theview that these sub-categories should not be quantified. For example it could have beenpossible for the term a ‘significant increase’ to indicate an increase of X per cent, and ‘someimprovement’ to indicate a lower percentage increase of X. However this option was nottaken up and the use of exemplars was employed to act as a guide and provided ameasure, not perfect, of how judgements should be made. Overall then the instructions,examples, and the answers to the open-ended questions also helped to act as reliabilitychecks and meet the aim of assessment, planning and service delivery trends post theCLCA 2000.

Then, after summarising those responses, the next stage of the analysis compared thesepost-CLCA 2000 rankings with pre-CLCA 2000 baseline service rankings, where thesewere provided.

Education/employment/training

Figure 1 illustrates all respondents’ replies to the question ‘As a result of the CLCA 2000what is your assessment of education/employment/training in terms of ‘identification ofneed’, ‘planning’, ‘service provision’, ‘resources’ and ‘outcomes’?

Comment

Figure 1 shows that across the five sub-categories (identification of need, service planning,provision, resources, and outcomes) the largest numbers of responses were recordedagainst the category ‘a little improvement.’ In terms of percentage change respondentsreported that ‘education/employment/training’ had either ‘improved significantly’ orthere had been ‘a little improvement’ in 77 per cent of cases, and ‘remained the same’ ina further 22 per cent of cases since the CLCA 2000. It had only worsened in 1 per cent ofcases.

For a minority (25 per cent) of leaving care teams it was significantly less likely for there tobe any improvements to education/employment/training (that is, either ‘a littleimprovement’ or improved significantly’) since the CLCA 2000 without extra specialisteducation and training staff being in post. However for the majority (75 per cent) of all

376 Bob Broad


teams, improvements to education/employment/training since the CLCA 2000 did notappear to be associated with extra specialist staffing. Indeed those teams that indicatedthat they already provided either an ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ baseline service for education/employment/ training, were the only ones whose services either remained the same’ orimproved, that is they did not worsen.

The key finding here is that although both higher and lower rated leaving care teamsindicated improved services for young people about education/employment/ training,the lower rated services’ improvements remain at the lower end of the scale.

Accommodation

With just one exception all 36 of those leaving care services which already identifiedtheir accommodation baseline rating as either ‘excellent’, ‘good’ or ‘average’ before theCLCA 2000 reported that accommodation services had either ‘significantly improved’, or‘improved a little’ since the CLCA 2000. Of the remaining ten leaving care services thatidentified their accommodation service baseline as either ‘below average’ or ‘inadequate’before the CLCA 2000 only two had made any significant improvement. Four had showna slight improvement.

In relaying their views about accommodation (n¼ 32) respondents pointed to majorproblems, in 47 per cent of cases about ’lack of suitable accommodation’ and in 19 per centof cases respondents stated that better strategic relationships and planning betweensocial services and housing departments were now in place. The ‘lack of suitable

Figure 1: The impact of the CLCA 2000 on education/employment/training



accommodation’ answers included; ‘lack of follow-on accommodation’, ‘no privatelandlords,’ ‘no choice of accommodation’ and ‘problems accessing supported accom-modation �42 beds lost.’

It is too early to know whether Supporting People has increased the scope for permanentaccommodation for care leavers or not. However this author is aware that in some areasthrough Supporting People initiatives, once initial rents have been set, considerable rentincreases, charged to leaving care teams, have followed. The third key service area, againrecognised in the regulations and covered in this study is that of financial supports foryoung people (DoH, 2001: 16, 64).

Financial supports

Weekly allowances, leaving care grants and financial incentives

Respondents reported that the average weekly allowance paid to eligible, relevant andformer relevant young people was £27, £43, and just £18 respectively. The most frequentlylisted amount paid to all eligible and relevant young people, £42.70, is the same as theweekly state allowance paid to young people seeking work. From these findings andcontrary to what is stated in the Guidance (p. 79) it would seem that the vast majority ofweekly payments are being made at the minimum ‘benefits level.’

In examining the size of different local authorities’ leaving care grant it was found that theaverage amount to each young person was £1,156, and figures ranged from £400 to £2,000.Weekly allowances made by teams to young people averaged between £18 and £42depending on the young person’s status. Sixty eight per cent of all the leaving care teamsreported that they provide financial incentives to young people to stay in or move ontofurther education, training or employment. This raises important questions about theremaining 32 per cent of leaving care teams not providing incentives; such as on whatbasis and at what level do they receive financial support?

Next and in respect of financial incentives the research study found that 90 per cent of allteams (n¼ 45) offer these for education/employment/training. Examples included thefollowing:

� ‘£15 per week to remain in education/training’� ‘£50 vouchers for clothing if in education/employment/training’� ‘£70.34 (higher rate) is payable to young people in employment/education’

Examples of single payments included:

� ‘£100 bonus for those in education/employment/training’ and� ‘£10/£15 for young people participating in consultation events/research’

Overall the availability of financial incentives via Quality Protects funding mechanismsand the switch of monies from the benefits system to social services appears to haveenabled leaving care teams to link welfare and financial policies, and provide a muchclearer financial payment structure for supporting young people leaving care. This finding

378 Bob Broad


provides an excellent example of the consequence and impact of government policy andfunding structures. By this is meant the combination of values (rewards/sanctions forattending education/training, employment) policy, through DoH Guidance and backedup by dedicated funding. These findings do not confirm that the young people havesufficient levels of funding, or payments. However the research findings here indicate asystem of grants, incentive payments, on-off payments and financial assessments for allyoung people leaving care has been created by the CLCA 2000.

Health

The planning, availability and provision of health services received the lowest baselineassessment of all four service areas prior to the CLCA 2000, with 82 per cent ofrespondents’ (n¼ 48) rating health services for care leavers as either ‘average’ (42 per cent)or ‘below average’.

Furthermore ‘health’ as a service area/issue, did not feature in any of the 351 answersprovided by teams asked to identify ‘progress’ areas, or ‘problem’ areas, suggesting thathealth issues are very low on respondents’ agendas. These findings suggest that healthissues for young people leaving care, if they are being addressed at all, are much morelikely taking place outside the leaving care services. In the author’s 1998 survey it was alsofound that leaving care teams did not prioritise ‘health’, either as an issue with which todeal, or a problem. So it is should not be a surprise, though most disappointingconsidering the introduction of the CLCA 2000 and Guidance (DoH, 1999b, 2002a), that thelowest service baseline for leaving care services is about health. Figure 2 serves tohighlight the minimal impact of the CLCA 2000 on care leavers’ health.

Figure 2: The impact of the CLCA 2000 on health



Comment

As Figure 2 illustrates there have been very little or no improvements so far as healthservices for young people leaving care are concerned since the CLCA 2000. This is hardlysurprising when one considers that of the 555 staff working in the 52 teams, only 12(2 per cent) were health staff. It is also highly significant that whatever the position ofleaving care teams’ initial health baseline assessment there has been very little movetowards any improvements in any of the five categories. Also improvements were bothless visible and less common when moving from assessing and planning services toservice provision. This point is illustrated by the finding here that more health services hadworsened or remained the same than had improved, again from a low baseline.

Also, health strategies between social care and health for young people leaving care werefew and far between or were ‘still being discussed’. As an issue, health did not feature inany of the 351 answers provided by teams asked to identify ‘progress’ or ‘problem’ areas,suggesting that health issues are very low on respondents’ agendas. It is also the case foryoung people facing social exclusion, as another post-CLCA 2000 research study hasrecorded (Monaghan and Broad, 2003) that there remain significant gaps and limitedexamples of good practice in the provision of health and well-being services for youngpeople leaving care. These are especially in terms of improving the emotional health ofyoung people leaving care.

The mechanisms laid out in the Guidance for assessing and meeting young people’shealth, accommodation, and education/employment/training needs are needs assess-ments and Pathway Planning (DoH, 2001: chapters 1,3 and 5). The appointment ofpersonal advisors is also a statutory requirement. It is disappointing, therefore, that only60 per cent of the 3,233 relevant, eligible, and former relevant young people entitled to apersonal adviser have one. Further, the study found that only 63 per cent of eligible and60 per cent of both relevant and former relevant, young people have a comprehensiveneeds assessment. The study also found that 73 per cent of all the eligible, relevantand former relevant young people attending the teams have Pathway Plans completedwith them.

In other words these findings show that between 38 per cent and 40 per cent of thoseentitled to a comprehensive needs assessment, and 27 per cent of those entitled to aPathway Plan, have not had one. Furthermore, if there are 10 per cent to 13 per cent moreyoung people who have a Pathway Plan than a needs assessment, then on what basis arethe Pathway Plans devised? If there is not a comprehensive assessment, then this wouldseem to invalidate the Pathway Plan, described in the CLCA 2000 as being ‘pivotal forplanning and services’ (DoH, 2001, Regulation 8 applies).

Concluding comments

Comparing pre- and post-CLCA 2000 services

As we have seen all the leaving care teams were asked to provide both a baselineassessment of pre-CLCA 2000 services and a post-CLCA 2000 assessment across four keyservice areas for young people leaving care. Table 2 summarises these responses.

380 Bob Broad


Discussion

This study found that there are many noteworthy gains and achievements since the CLCA2000’s introduction, and compared with previous similar surveys, the increase in theproportion of young people leaving care entering education/training is significant.However for middle and higher performing leaving care teams, such gains were oftenmore to do with their existing high service baseline and staffing levels topped up with aQuality Protects grant (now ended) than post-CLCA 2000 improvements directly resultingfrom the Act’s Guidance. There was also considerable evidence that funding designed forleaving care services was being used elsewhere. For example the research study found thatbetween 64 per cent and 79 per cent of respondents indicated that ring-fenced monies forleaving care, via Quality Protects, was ‘always’ or ‘sometimes’ used for supportingresidential placements, and supporting fostering placements, and for supporting out-of-borough placements. Local authorities could also argue that they are using this funding todelay early discharge from care, a key objective of the CLCA 2000.

Year-on-year increases in the numbers of children looked after at any one time (DoH, 2003:5) are also a part of a wider trend that impacts on young people leaving care. Greater use ofother more creative models of family support, for example where appropriate, supportingchildren to live in a kinship care placement, and the provision of much greater support forfoster carers are two options (Broad et al., 2001; Triseliotis and others, 2002; Verity andBroad, 2003). Young people leaving care are not the focus of the green paper Every ChildMatters (Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2003a) and it seems most likely thatwith the renewed emphasis being given to child protection, leaving care services are againbecoming a lower priority service for local authorities.

Three service patterns

It was a significant finding that no matter which key area was examined, the levels ofimprovement, if any, fell away as one moved from assessment functions, assessing needs

Table 2: A comparison of pre- and post-CLCA 2000 leaving care service ratings

Service area Baseline ratings—Pre-CLCA 2000 Current ratings—post-CLCA 2000

Education/employment/training � ‘Average or ‘good’! � ‘Slight improvement’(59% of responses)

� ‘Below average’! � ‘Slight improvement’/(41% of responses) ‘remained the same’

Accommodation � ‘Average’ or ‘good’! � ‘A little improvement’/(73% of responses) ‘significant improvement’

� ‘Below average’! � ‘Slight improvement’/‘inadequate’ ‘remained the same’

(27% of responses)Financial support for young people � ‘Average’ or ‘good’! � ‘Significant improvement’/

(78% of responses) ‘slight improvement’� ‘Below average’! � ‘Remained the same’

(22% of responses)Health � ‘Average’ or ‘good’! � ‘Remained the same’

(55% of responses)� ‘Below average’ ! � ‘Remained the

(45% of responses) same’/slightly worsened’



and planning (the former two categories) to service provision functions (the latter threecategories). Apart from health (where policies and practice showed little improvement),both the lower and more highly rated leaving care teams have made some improvementssince the introduction of the CLCA 2000, as one would expect. If this trend continues, andif the best and least well-resourced teams continue to attract additional funding then theirperformance is likely to slightly improve each year. However, from the evidencepresented here, the lower rated services are unlikely ever to catch up with the higher ratedperformers. Thus, it is this author’s contention that the variation and gaps in service qualitywill likely remain, and that services will continue to be determined more by teams’ pre-CLCA 2000 baseline and happenstance than individual needs assessments.

Overall then the findings point to a need for well funded multidisciplinary leaving careteams with additional dedicated supported housing stock, and continued financialincentives for young people to enter and remain in post-16 education, and employmentand training.

The research findings suggest three patterns of service delivery post-CLCA 2000 whichmerit full acknowledgement.

The first pattern is the wide variation in service provision, service models, resources, andoutcomes across the different leaving care teams. For example in one leaving care teamwhere services are reasonably well resourced (and have been for some time), it continuesto attract funding, has a high staff: young person ratio, appears to have good staffrelationships, and enjoys good working relationships with other agencies. Yet in anotheradjacent borough the very opposite is the case, and that particular struggling leaving careteam’s work is reflecting a struggling local authority. Pai and Williams’ study across eightLondon boroughs also recognised both post-CLCA improvements and a pressing need forfurther resources (2004: 104).

The second pattern is about slower and faster running services. The implications for careleavers of leaving care services starting from different baselines are enormous and alsoproblematic in terms of the implementation of the CLCA 2000. An analogy about differenttrains (as leaving care provision) and tracks may help to make the point, in particular thedifferent services provided by slower trains and those provided by the more powerfulexpress trains. Simply put since the legislation, the slower trains still arrive at the station,mostly, and they are improving and getting slightly faster. However they never catch upwith demand, whilst the faster better equipped express trains deal better with increaseddemand. Meanwhile whilst the faster trains also never fully meet demand, they always ormostly leave the station ahead of the slower train and always arrive at the destinationfirst. If you miss the faster express there is also very likely to be another express trainbehind it, in accord with the timetable but if you miss the slower train, you may bestranded for some time.

So, according to this research, whilst many services for young people leaving care teamsare improving, the pace of change is very slow, especially in those lower performing andmore hard-pressed leaving care teams, where further improvements are largelydependent on continued external funding. Longer-term investment especially in termsof planning and service delivery from 2004 will become problematic, and a return to theinadequate pre-investment days appears a real threat.

382 Bob Broad


The third pattern is that there has been less progress in the ‘service delivery’, resources’and ‘outcomes’ (what happens to young people) areas than the ‘assessment’ and‘planning’ functions. However a significant percentage of respondents, between20 per cent–35 per cent, reported ‘a slight improvement’ in assessments, services andoutcomes for young people leaving care since the CLCA 2000 was introduced. This is animportant positive finding. However a majority of respondents, 55 per cent–65 per centoverall, reported that ‘assessments’, ‘services’ and ‘outcomes’ for young people leavingcare had ‘remained the same’ since the CLCA 2000 was introduced.

These findings have enormous implications for improving the life chances of youngpeople leaving care, not least because better assessments are simply not enough on theirown. The funding of preventive family support services for families in need is as pressingnow as ever. It is now the time to acknowledge that it is neither a new nor a surpriseresearch finding which records the provision and scope of leaving care services as beingakin to a lottery. If this is so then the establishment of selected, targeted and fundednational leaving care standards may well be the most realistic and productive wayforward for leaving care services despite targeted standards symbolising the abandon-ment of universal principles of state welfare for care leavers.

References

Biehal N, Clayden J, Stein M, Wade J. 1995. Moving On. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO):London.

Broad B. 1994. Leaving Care in the 1990s. RPSRainer: Kent.Broad B. 1998. Young People Leaving Care: Life after the Children Act 1989. Jessica Kingsley: London.Broad B. 1999. Improving the health of children and young people leaving care. Adoption andFostering 23(1): 40–48.

Broad B. 2003a. Young people leaving care: the impact of the CLCA 2000. Childright 199: 16–18.Broad B. 2003b. After the Act: Implementing the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. Children and Families

Research Unit (CFRU) Monograph No. 3, Leicester, De Montfort University.Broad B, Hayes R, Rushforth C. 2001. Kith and Kin: Kinship Care for Vulnerable Young People. National

Children’s Bureau/Joseph Rowntree Foundation: London.DfES. 2003a. Every Child Matters Consultation Paper. DfES: London.DfES. 2003b. The Children Act Report 2002. DfES: London.DoH. 1998. The Government’s Response to the Children’s Safeguards Review. DoH: London.DoH. 1999a. Me Survive Out There? New Arrangements for Young People Living in and Leaving Care.

DoH: London.DoH. 1999b. Promoting Health for Looked after Children, Consultation Paper. DoH: London.DoH. 2001. Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 Regulations and Guidance. DoH: London.DoH. 2002a. Promoting the Health of Looked after Children, Draft Guidance. DoH: London.DoH. 2002b. Social Services Performance Assessment Framework Indicators 2001–2002. DoH: London.DoH. 2002c. NHS Plan. DoH: London.DoH. 2003. Children Looked After by Local Authorities Year Ending 31 March 2002. DoH: London.DoH/National Statistics. 2002. Care Leavers, Year Ending 31 March 2002, England, Statistical Bulletin.

DoH: London.First Key. 2001. The CLCA 2000, Workshop Notes and Implementation Seminars June 2001. DoH: London.Fry E. 1992. Aftercare. Fostering Network: London.Gilligan R. 2001. Promoting Resilience, A Resource Guide on Working with Children in the Care System.

BAAF: London.



Harris J, Rabiee P, Priestley M. 2002. Enabled by the Act? The refraiming of aftercare services foryoung disabled people. In The RHP Companion to Leaving Care, Wheal A (ed.). Russell House: LymeRegis; 157–169.

HMSO. 2001. CLCA 2000. HMSO: London.Jackson S, Ajayi S, Quigley M. 2003. By Degrees: The First Year from Care to University. National

Children’s Bureau: London.Marsh P. 1998. Leaving care and extended families. Adoption and Fostering 22: 6–14.Monaghan M, Broad B. 2003. Talking Sense: Messages from Young People Facing Social Exclusion aboutTheir Health and Well Being. The Children’s Society: London.

Morris J. 1999. Move on Up: Supporting Young Disabled People in Their Transition to Adulthood.Barnardo’s: Barkingside.

National Foster Care Association. 1999. The UK National Standards for Foster Care. NFCA: London.Pai N, Williams A. 2004. Implementing the Children. (Leaving Care) Act 2000. National Children’s

Bureau: London.Roberts Trust. 2002. Report of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 seminar, 26 November. Roberts

Trust: London.Social Exclusion Unit. 2003. A Better Education for Children in Care. SEU: London.Stein M. 1997. What Works in Leaving Care? Barnardo’s: London.Stein M. 2002. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 One Year on: Reflections and Challenges. In Report ofthe Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 seminar, 26 November. Roberts Trust: London; 5–8.

Stein M, Carey K. 1986. Leaving Care. Blackwell: Oxford.Stein M, Wade J. 2001. Helping Care Leavers: Problems and Strategic Problems. DoH: London.Stein M, Sufian J, Hazelhurst M. 2001. Supporting Care Leavers: A Training and Resource Pack for PeopleWorking with Young People Leaving Care. First Key: London.

Triseliotis J, Borland M, Hill M. 2002. Delivering Foster Care. British Agencies for Adoption andFostering: London.

Utting Sir William. 1997. The Review of the Safeguards for Children Living Away from Home. DoH and theWelsh Office: London.

Verity P, Broad B. 2003. Moving Foster Care Centre Stage. Children and Families Research UnitMonograph No. 2, De Montfort University: Leicester.

Vernon J. 2000. Audit and Assessment of Leaving Care Services in London. National Children’s Bureau:London.

WMCCC. 2002. Review of the Implementation of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. Telford andWrekin Social Services: WMCCC.

Wheal A (ed.). 2002. The RHP Companion to Leaving Care. Russell House: Lyme Regis.Who Cares? Trust. 1999. Equal Chances. Who Cares? Trust: London.

Contributor’s details

Dr Bob Broad is Professor of Children and Families Research, and Director of the Children andFamilies Research Unit, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, at De Montfort University, Leicester.

384 Bob Broad


Documents

Young people leaving care: implementing the children (Leaving Care) Act 2000?