While We Are Waiting

The Education Committee has published its report Into independence, not out of care: 16 plus care optionsInto independence, not out of care: 16 plus care options

ECLCM will publish a response to this very positive report on this blog very soon.

While we were waiting!
A very short history of Government involvement in the ECLCM campaign:

December 2013

Early in December 2013, the government announced that children who were in foster care would be allowed and supported to remain with their foster carers until they were 21 years of age. Local authorities now have a legal duty to give families financial help for every young person who wants to stay with their foster parents until their 21st birthday. A pledge of £40 million extra funding for councils over the next three years has been allocated to support the change, which has been added to the Children and Families Bill.

As supporters of ECLCM know, this did NOT apply to all children in care, i.e. those in residential children’s homes would still have to leave at 18, although in reality this is often as young as 16. ECLCM then launched a petition which was set up by us with support from 38 degrees.

January 2014

Following the support of the petition, the Education Committee announced 22nd January 2014, that there would be an inquiry on 16 Plus Care Options into the provision of accommodation and care for looked after young people aged 16 and above.

As well as many other professionals, individuals, foster carers, care leavers, care home providers, social workers, we were asked to submit written evidence which we did.

We were asked to address the following points:

· The kinds of accommodation that are provided for young people aged 16 and 17 who are looked after by local authorities.

· The suitability, safety and regulatory nature of alternative accommodation provided for young people who are aged 16 and 17 and looked after by local authorities.

· Whether the Government’s announcement to extend local authorities duties to support young people wishing to stay with foster carers until the age of 21 should apply to those in residential children’s homes.

· Whether provision of alternative accommodation should be extended to the age of 21.

April 2014

30th April 2014 saw the Scrutiny into 16 plus care options where Ben Ashcroft, Chair of ECLCM and others gave evidence.

This was the first session in the Committee’s short inquiry into accommodation options for young people over the age of 16 in care. Issues explored included the types of accommodation provided for young people aged 16 and 17 who are looked after by local authorities and whether the Government’s announcement to extend local authorities duties to support young people wishing to stay with foster carers until the age of 21 should apply to those in residential children’s homes or alternative accommodation.

May 2014

16 Plus care options were explored further when the Education Committee continued its inquiry into 16 Plus care options on Wednesday 14 May.

Edward Timpson MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families, Department for Education, was questioned on issues that had arisen in the course of the inquiry, including planning and preparation for 16 and 17 year olds moving to ‘other arrangements’; suitability, inspection and regulation of alternative accommodation; commissioning accommodation; and the Staying Put policy agenda.

You can watch the session here: Parliament TV: Watch the 16 Plus care options session

There are now nearly 7,500 people who have actually signed our petition to support equality for children in residential homes to have support until 21, the same as those in foster care. (Thank you). We suspect there are thousands of others who would support it if they were fully aware of the issue.

The question we have always asked is, would extending support to ALL looked after children to 21 reduce offending behaviour, homelessness, drugs and suicide? We know the statistics:

• up to 40% of 18-21 year olds in custody have been in care
• 27-35% adult male prisoners have been in care
• 57% of women in prison have been in care
• 1 in 5 homeless people have been in care

We believe the answer is a huge fat resounding YES. This campaign has always been about demanding equality for all young people in care wherever they may be placed: in foster care or residential care.

With the support of our members and signatories to the petition we are getting closer to achieving justice for children in residential care


ECLCM is a campaign group, without funding or political affiliations with any other group, formed to stop Government discrimination against children in residential care who want support to 21, the same as those in foster care.

ECLCM Proposal

ECLCM amended Proposal

The ECLCM Campaign Group is a number of individuals who came together in response to the Government announcement in December 2013 in relation to the introduction of ‘Staying Put’ arrangements for children in foster care.

This proposal, that the age until which a child may routinely stay in foster care be extended to 21, is welcome by the campaign group. However, the group considered it to be discriminatory and an injustice that children in residential care should not be afforded the same opportunity as part of a range of support options available to them as they prepare to leave care.

After six months campaigning and the garnishing of considerable support for their action – support that is clearly informed including as it does many social work academics, practitioners, children and young people from care, care leavers and other professionals in related fields – the group now proposes the following resolution.

“The ECLCM campaign group propose that the Government in Westminster amend the legislation to facilitate children in residential care being offered the opportunity for 'continuing care' up to the age of 21 years.

In most cases guidance relating to existing regulations can facilitate this being established, as it should be, in the children's home in which they are living on the eve of their 18th birthday.

The guidance needs to assert that 'staying put' in a children's homes can be long term and need not be circumscribed by previous custom and practice of this being short term, weeks or months.

The guidance can also direct the necessary risk assessment, vetting and any other requirements for safeguarding. Equally the positive aspects of older young people further on in the development of their resilience should not be minimised and should be recognised as offering others positive  role modelling and a demonstration of permanence; stability, continuity and security.

Placements should only be possible in homes that are judged by OFSTED to be ‘Good’ or better.

In this regard the ECLCM welcome the comments of the Education Select Committee Report ‘Into independence, not out of care:16pluscare options’ in relation to the use of B&B and specifically:

“..an outright ban on B&B’s should be the long term objective, to be achieved through stronger enforcement of the sufficiency duty, which explicitly requires the provision of surplus placements to meet emergency need”

Care planning mechanisms are considered to be and are sufficiently robust to make such arrangements in a carefully planned manner. A placement rooted in the care plan can give stability, continuity and security for the years to 21.

Where this is not possible due to regulatory requirements as a consequence of there being a majority residents of the home over the age of 18 years, then an alternative local care setting should enable the young person to continue to benefit from the continuation of the close supportive relationship with their home.”

EVERY child leaving care matters

On Friday, ECLCM, travelled from various parts of the UK and met at Liverpool Hope University. Some members were meeting for the first time and it was fantastic to finally put a real face to the campaigners behind this diverse group.

Liverpool Hope University (Gateway Building)

ECLCM met to discuss the way forward and how to promote the campaign which wants to stop the discrimination against children in residential care. 

ECLCM will make detailed announcements about these very exciting developments and keep all supporters informed via Twitter @rescareto21 Facebook and this blog. 

In the meantime...

Competition time! Calling all artists out there. ECLCM are launching a competition for a new logo!! How would you represent Every Child LeavingCare Matters?

Send your design ideas via Twitter @rescareto21
Winner will receive a 'signed' copy of Ben Ashcroft's book 51 Moves

Competition deadline: 1st September 2014

Please continue to support this campaign, write to your MP, tweet and sign the petition.

ECLCM is a campaign group, without funding or political affiliations with any other group, formed to stop Government discrimination against children in residential care who want support to 21, the same as those in foster care.

A conversation with an MP

A conversation with a Member of Parliament

I was just reflecting on a discussion that sprang from nowhere between members of our Every Child Leaving Care Matters (ECLCM) team and an MP seeking to defend this government’s record in supporting care leavers. The ECLCM team have some regard for this MP, for unlike most MPs of all parties, he has openly shown an interest and some sympathy for the cause of equal support for all children leaving care, wherever they happen to be placed. He has our respect because he will debate and doesn’t hide or offer excuses not to meet like the ministers he so stoutly defends.

The ECLCM position is clear. The implementation and enshrining in law of ‘Staying Put’ arrangements that offer enhanced aftercare support to young people who are fostered, (including the opportunity to stay on with their carers until they are 21 by mutual agreement,) but deliberately exclude young people from other residential settings is immoral and discriminatory.  As we have said, which one of us would look after one of our children into adulthood and tell another they were not going to get the same support? Nobody – but this government is doing precisely that with young people leaving care. We want the same for ALL care leavers irrespective of where they are placed.

Our MP said we were unfair saying ministers did not care, because they had implemented the reforms of the Children & Families Act 2014 in March this year. Now young people from foster care were receiving support to 21. Er yes, this is where we came in – is it caring to discriminate against one section of vulnerable children who happen to be placed in children’s homes? We at ECLCM say “No, it isn’t”.

Our MP told us we were unfair because it is too soon for the impact of the changes introduced by the new Act and changes in March this year to be felt. We at ECLCM argue there are no significant changes for young people leaving residential care. That’s why we are campaigning.

Our MP reminded us that if a local authority wanted to discharge a 16 year old now, they would need the expressed consent of the Director of Children’s Services. This, he implied, will stop such young children being discharged from care without adequate support. That gives rise to a sobering thought; is he suggesting that the thousands of young people under 18 discharged from care since 1948 were all discharged by social workers acting on their own authority, without the knowledge or consent of senior managers or members?  Patent nonsense? We thought so too. With all due respect to DCS’s everywhere, this is not enough and nowhere near what we regard as supporting children leaving care adequately. Funding and legislative backing might help a little too?

We then have the Care Leavers’ Charter.  An inspirational document that many care leavers helped prepare and in which they invested great hope. Of course, this government has not made it mandatory to meet its recommendations, and we know of signatory councils across England who are not complying. Can we rely on the Charter to support young people leaving care? I’m afraid not! We would support any proposal to make it mandatory for councils to implement it in full, but that won’t happen under this administration.

We have asked repeatedly to meet directly with ministers responsible and put our questions to them directly. They declined due to ‘diary commitments’. Our MP said that we had been listened to because our Chair Ben had been invited to give evidence at the Select Committee (which appears to have gone unheeded). 

By what stretch of imagination does speaking to a select committee equate with meeting a responsible minister and challenging them face to face on behalf of the care leavers we believe they have abandoned?

We are prepared to meet the Minister at a time and place of his choosing and put our questions to him. For example, in claiming that children’s homes nationally were in too parlous a state to allow young care leavers to stay on up to 21 in the rare cases when that may be appropriate (as in ‘Staying Put’ for fostered children,) why did he choose to ignore the judgements on children’s homes of his own watchdog Ofsted which do not support such a statement? We have other difficult questions to ask too.

Our MP said that ECLCM had failed to work with government to gain equality of aftercare for all care leavers because we refused to become directly involved in one of the expensive pilots they have introduced. We profoundly disagree; the pilots are looking at alternatives to support young people leaving children’s homes but are not looking at implementing the ‘Staying Put’ arrangements now being offered to children leaving foster care. That is not equality.

If we may be clear - the suggestion is that children in foster care can stay with their existing foster carers. Of course, this is what they should do. At best children in residential homes can move to a different resource. Would anyone support a plan for children in foster homes being made to transfer to a different foster home at eighteen? 

It will be years before the pilots report back. How many young care leavers will have struggled to cope without adequate support before anyone gets round to listening to the outcomes of the pilots. Mr Timpson said that he would allow ‘Staying Put’ arrangements for children leaving children’s homes ‘in a flash’ if he believed children would be safe and better off there. Yet he never responded when asked if he would support such arrangements being introduced if the pilots suggested so?

We at ECLCM are concerned that the pilots are simply this government ‘kicking the ball into the long grass’ until a few years hence after the next General Election. That’s why we don’t support the pilots. We don’t want to get involved with the pilots because we believe they are a bad idea, but we are happy to talk to them and share any expertise our group may have. We did write and offer a local pilot scheme. We still await the reply.

ECLCM want all young people leaving care to have the same rights and support up to the age of 21. We won’t support or justify any differential support or what we consider discrimination against any group. Do we consider such discriminatory policy to be uncaring? Yes, I’m afraid we do. Actually let me re-phrase that – We’re proud that we do.

Hannah's tale

Hannah’s Tale

Those care leavers who survive into their adult life without having been homeless, in prison, used illegal substances or admitted to a psychiatric ward may consider themselves to be fortunate and arguably even exceptional. Far too many care leavers have not been so fortunate over the last forty years as the government’s own disadvantage statistics starkly illustrate.  

Some care leavers write books about their experiences, but most don't. Yet every care leaver has a story to tell that illustrates an often very difficult and traumatic struggle through challenge and adversity to survive into the world of adults. Here is Hannah's. 

By any measure, Hannah is an exceptional human being. She is a care leaver, although that would not be obvious to the people who see her daily and depend upon her. They see Hannah as a busy manager in a service providing support for adults with mental health difficulties. However, it might so easily have been different, and Hannah might so easily have been on the other side of this relationship, had it not been for her fortitude and resilience and the fact that in her latter years in residential care she came across two women who simply refused to ‘go away’.

Hannah’s earliest memories are not happy ones. It is only comparatively recently and with the aid of counselling that she has been able to understand and accept that the reasons for her unhappy early years are not her fault, but the responsibility of others. Put simply, her mother didn’t protect her as she should have done, nor did she protect Hannah’s brothers and sisters.

Hannah knows now that if she had been protected by her mother, as children have every right to expect, then she wouldn’t have been as vulnerable to the abuse she suffered. Her mother’s selfishness manifested in part by her “just keeping having children” who each in turn were not protected.

At an early age Hannah knew that her life was different from most of those who lived in the area. ‘Social Services’ were regular visitors but Hannah does not blame them – “It was hidden from them” she explains.

A harsher critic may ask “How hard did they look? Aren’t they supposed to be able to see through lies and look at the evidence before them?” Hannah does not ask this question. She does not blame Social Services.

Hannah was about two years of age when she first remembers Social Services coming. She was four or five years old when she first went into foster care. For several years things just seemed to get worse as Hannah became more and more angry, and more and more detached. In successive placements she never felt that she fitted in and had no confidence that she could fit in anywhere.

That’s where the vicious circle for children in care comes in. The child can’t make attachments because she is guarded and fearful of rejection. Because she is guarded, withdrawn, suspicious and maybe even rejecting of carers approaches, she is written off. This causes her to withdraw further and protect what she has, however small that may be, because it’s better than risking further rejection. Tragically, further rejection is often what she gets. As Hannah says “You think you’ve got a heart that swings like a brick – but its protection.” Naturally as a child she can’t work any of this out and by the time she can in later life –for those who can – it’s too late.

Hannah was eventually moved into a children’s home where staff imposed their will through physical restraint. This provoked further anger in her. She earned a growing reputation for fighting back – except that’s not how it was interpreted. To the ‘professionals’ she was just violent and aggressive. She was told by one staff member “No wonder your mum dumped you”.

She was now trapped in the vicious circle and her life was spiralling downwards. She wanted to be allowed to withdraw into her own space but that wasn’t acceptable to the adults around her. They wanted her to conform. She warned staff of the consequences if they tried to impose their will on her by moving her to where they wanted her to be but they seemed to find it important to be in charge. This could end in explosive outbursts, and Hannah is not proud when she recalls that she pushed a door in the face of a member of staff, and was responsible for another ending up at the bottom of the stairs with a broken leg. 

On the other hand, staff members didn’t spend the night in police cells for restraining Hannah even when at times the line between restraint and assault was a fine one. Hannah did.

School didn’t help. Hannah was and is extremely bright, as the string of qualifications she now holds testifies. However, to her school was “…a load of crap”. How might it have been if, at an earlier age someone had, in Hannah’s words “pushed me”. How would she have viewed school if someone encouraged her and believed in her? It didn’t happen. She was just trouble.

Hannah didn’t engage in school. She “bunked off” at every opportunity she could. She found it hard to be different in school – different because she was in a kid’s home. She was difficult and found herself at a Pupil Referral Unit and thereafter an even smaller ‘school’ run by Social Services that was more like some form of day care where there were no qualifications to be had. For a bright girl this seemed even more meaningless so why go at all? Another self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hannah got lucky. A new manager arrived to run the children’s home. Hannah understandably had very little time for her but became increasingly puzzled that the new manager seemed to have all the time in the world for her. She spent time unconditionally sitting with Hannah perhaps drinking coffee but often in total silence. No questions, no expectations and no judgements.

Over time she began to develop something approaching trust in this woman who seemed to expect nothing from her except what seemed to be in Hannah’s own interests. As the relationship grew Hannah’s excesses appeared to diminish and she began to start thinking of the future for she was now approaching sixteen with every expectation that she would have to leave her children’s home that remarkably seemed to have become her home.

Hannah knew she was not ready to leave but there was no choice, that’s what happened. 

Then amazingly for one who had not had too much luck so far Hannah got lucky again. A new social work team had been formed and Hannah had a new social worker who the manager said was OK. That was enough for Hannah not to instantly dismiss her.

Her new social worker recognised that Hannah was not ready to live entirely independently and started pushing for her to be considered for a new scheme that had been developed that provided care leavers with their own independent accommodation but within a supported project.

It was also suggested to Hannah that she apply for an exciting though challenging project to go to Africa to help others. Why, perhaps, she wondered did people suddenly feel that she was worthy of such support and care when previously it was absent?  She started to believe in herself a little more - if other people believed that she could do it then maybe she could?

And she did. She passed through the demanding selection processes, played her part in the considerable fund raising necessary for the trip to take place and found that, as a bonus she made friends along the way. No longer burdened by the label of being in care, she was simply another committed young person desperate to help others whilst finding herself.

It’s not been easy for Hannah since then but then it’s been no harder than it is for many young people making their mark in the world. Crucially she has people behind her - people who believed in her. Most significantly she had begun to believe in herself.

Hannah shouldn’t have needed to be lucky to find care professionals who actually cared but the reality is that many care leavers and those approaching the abyss that leaving care can be don’t have that kind of support.

What of Hannah’s family? Well she has the unconditional support of two people who she describe s as her ‘adopted mum and dad’. The ‘mum’ part of that couple being the now retired manager who many years earlier had just sat with Hannah and expected nothing but has been rewarded with so much. ‘Every Child Matters’ but only if someone decides that they matter to them

The student's view.

These comments were shared with the ECLCM team by a social work student following a placement with a care provider. We show them exactly as they were made: 

‘THIS ISSUE (the differential treatment of children in foster and residential care) IS A CLEAR CUT EXAMPLE OF A SOCIALLY MORAL AND ETHICAL DILEMMA and the manner in which it is resolved will serve to determine our belief in democracy and equality of treatment.

As with any socially moral/ethical dilemma, the question of social justice can be raised and discussed. But, little needs to be said before drawing a conclusion that injustice is apparent in this case.

Ultimately, the life chances of the children in residential units will be stifled to a greater extent than those in foster care - it makes no logical sense that a child who generally presents with greater complexities and requires more attention is entitled to less supported years in care than a child in foster care, who will generally present as less complex and yet is entitled to more supported years in care.

In my humble opinion, there exists a clear case of discrimination against children who reside in residential units and a callous disregard towards their healthy growth and development which is being unjustifiably limited in comparison to their fostered counterparts.

We live in a socially unjust society characterised by oppression, segregation and marginalisation, making it increasingly difficult for disadvantaged children to claim a respectable stake in society. The least that can be done to alleviate this problem would be to show some compassion to the most vulnerable children in society who reside in residential units and offer them similar rights to those children in foster care. In the spirit of humanitarianism, this would be the moral and ethical way forward’.

Natalie's story

This is the story of Natalie. Natalie is a care leaver who experienced a massively disrupted and unhappy childhood, but with support, hard work and determination successfully left custody and misery behind her and became a successful university graduate. 

As a result of family disruption Natalie was taken into care at 13 years old. She was a very angry, frightened young woman, who quickly focused her anger on those who were in authority. She was abusive and aggressive towards the police and other young people and often difficult for the staff at the assessment home to control. She had been placed in a short term children’s home for assessment which did not offer the care or stability she yearned for at that time. Although she admits that any carer would have struggled with her, she remembers wanting to be placed with a caring working class foster family who would offer her care and affection. She was clear that they needed to be ‘working class’; she was once placed with foster carers who had expensive cars and a big house, where she felt inadequate and excluded and didn’t settle. As it was, she was in a short term residential placement which quickly broke down and so began a series of care placements, 25 in about eight years. None of them were able to help or manage her behaviour and inevitably, police became increasingly more involved with her. Natalie began to accumulate criminal convictions related to her violent and aggressive behaviour.

Even though her care career was deteriorating, Natalie formed a close relationship with her social worker, who eventually became a personal friend and mentor. Initially, she had six social workers in 12 months of coming into care, adding to the chaos of her life. But her next social worker and Youth Offending Team (YOT) social worker formed a positive relationship and continued to support her into her adulthood. Natalie believes that she would not have broken the cycle of despair without the support this worker has given her over the years, even when things appeared at their most hopeless.

Drifting through failed placement after failed placement, Natalie was eventually discharged from care without prior notice on her 16^th birthday,  because her behaviour was so challenging. She was discharged on the street with nowhere to go, with her possessions in bin bags  and went to stay with friends overnight. She was later placed by Social Services in a B&B, which quickly broke down. She had no coherent care plan or pathway plan at that stage and was quite unprepared to cope with living alone.

Natalie did not have any consistent formal education in a school during her care career. She blames herself for this, recognising she was out of control. This altered when she spent time in secure children’s homes. There she attended school and found she enjoyed it, successfully taking GCSE’s and enjoying the praise and encouragement of her teachers, her social worker and YOT Worker, who constantly reassured her that she was bright and could do well academically.

Her education quickly became disrupted once she left custody, with no planned placement to support her. No supported lodgings would take her because of her record, and she drifted between friends and inevitably back into custody.

Whilst in prison, Natalie witnessed another prisoner take her own life. She heard the officers joking and talking about it in a matter of fact way, and resolved that she would change her life when she got out. It took a little longer, but Natalie kept her promise to herself and eventually managed to work her way through ‘Access’ courses and eventually to university, ready to fulfil the academic potential she knew she had.

Natalie does not blame the staff or carers for her failed placements. She blames herself, even though she was a child. She reflected though that if she had been placed in a caring foster family at admission, she may not have failed so dramatically in care. Even had she been placed in a settled long term children’s home, it would have been better than the short term assessment placement she endured.

Natalie regretted her education being disrupted, even though she again quickly blamed herself. She sees education as the route that eventually led her away from a life in prison. She feels that she might have coped better with care if she had had a stable educational placement and support throughout. Only her achievements in school in the secure children’s homes, reflected her academic potential during her childhood.

Natalie saw her social worker and YOT worker as the constants in her life who had the most positive influence on her. Nevertheless, she identified poor discharge planning when she was in custody as adding to her problems. She was never consulted or advised where she was going when she got out.  She did not blame her social worker or the secure units for this, but regarded social work managers as responsible for failing to allow resources or opportunities for her social worker and carers to support her.

Looking back, Natalie knows she must have been very difficult for her carers to manage and does not seek to blame them. She does feel that children and young people should be more involved and consulted in decision making than they are, even if they are presenting challenging behaviour. She also feels that young people are moved too quickly and too often, instead of being supported properly in planned placements they have agreed to. Also, that the right to a good and continuous education is too easily put aside when children are difficult for carers to manage.

Natalie was able to break the cycle of despair and create a successful and fulfilling life for herself and was fortunate to have people prepared to support her to do that when she felt strong enough. Too many care leavers are not so fortunate. That is why the ECLCM campaign demands equal aftercare support for ALL children leaving care now, no matter where they are placed.