Who Are The ECLCM Team?

It’s time for a little introduction to this rather varied and experienced mix of people!

Ben Ashcroft

I am a care leaver, author, advisor, speaker and campaigner.  This is my passion. I work as hard as I can to make a difference with Children in care & those working with Children in care.

I support this campaign because I was that Child in care that I am fighting for. I am now a proud father of one son and I could not ever see him out on the street at 16-18 without support or knowing he can't come home or lend money when he is short. Or if he needed someone to talk too. I know what that feels like and it isn't nice.

It's simple for me. I wouldn't kick my son out at such a young and vulnerable age. And I wouldn't do it to the most vulnerable young people who need that support at such a vital stage in their lives.

I was here from the very start and I will be here at the very end! My passion for this has no limits.

Rosie Canning

I grew up in a lovely house in Muswell Hill, North London. We had two cats Marmalade and Tinkerbell. I had piano and ballet lessons and learnt how to sew. We went to the cinema, theatre and at least twice a year we went on holiday. I had access to books and good old fashioned home-made food. I was in the children's home for 8 years. Children came and children went, some I don't remember others will stay in my heart forever.

I was assessed by an eminent psychiatrist who suggested the psychological damage was so severe that a residential setting would be the best place for me. His name was Dr Soddy! And he was right. For me, the children's home was a safe haven and I still go back there in my dreams.

After a number of years I was offered a foster placement. In those days kids weren't asked whether or not they wanted to go. I was one of the first children to be asked. I said NO!

I am a writer and a campaigner. I was a key player in the campaign to save Friern Barnet Library and have since written a book about the experience, ‘Occupied and Opened’.

When I heard the announcement about vulnerable care leavers, that children in foster care would get support until they were 21 but those in residential homes would still have to leave at 16, I was determined to fight for their rights, to fight for those without a voice, to fight for those too young to understand.

If there is injustice we have to stick together, we have to uphold care leavers integrity, and never give in until justice prevails.

I’m supporting the ECLCM campaign because I believe children in care no matter where they live should have equal support until they are 21.

Lisa Cherry

I am an author, speaker, trainer and coach with a long career in Social Work, Education and Social Inclusion. Up until 5 years ago, approaching my 40’s, I dealt with my experiences through an unconscious process of survival, denial, shame and ‘getting on with it’. When my recovery came to a halt because denying my trauma in its full entirety was no longer an option, I learnt not only deal with my past but to become proud of it as a part of my unique history.

I spent my adolescence in foster homes and children’s homes leaving care at 16 years old which was followed by two years living/surviving as a vulnerable homeless young woman, some of that was street homeless, with the final stop of that part of my life being made at an AA meeting, my last drunk, at the age of 20.

I am a mother of a 14 year old and 17 year old. I seek to pull together the personal and the professional and will campaign tirelessly on this matter. No-one, not one child, should have to endure what so many of us have and what young people continue to live, let alone be subject to legislation that actively encourages poorer outcomes for looked after children by definition of where they are placed.  

Ian Dickson

I am a widower devoted to my daughter and 4 little grandchildren. I am also a retired social worker. I spent almost 40 years in the profession in field work, residential work, inspection, regulation and advocacy.

The direction of my adult life was determined by a childhood in care, a miserable experience, leaving at 18 with nothing to show for it and no prospects. I was one of the lucky ones and life gave me a chance to have loving relationships, a good academic education and a normal life. Many of my peers never got that opportunity.

My career and adult life has been dedicated to ensuring other young people leaving care don't have to experience a childhood like mine in order to have a happy and fulfilled life.

I remain a passionate and uncompromising advocate for the rights of children in care and care leavers.

Louise Holt

Falling into the job of your dreams is not usually how the story goes but for me that is the reality.

Becoming a residential support worker was not the route I wanted to follow. I wanted to be midwife! Two and a half years down the line I am now an assistant manager and couldn’t think of working with any other group.

Never once have I felt the dread of getting up for work. I love the pace of the job, not knowing what I will face each day or how we will overcome this new challenge.

Anyone who works with young people in care know the rollercoaster you get on every morning of everyday. We laugh, we love, we disagree, we worry, we stress, we cry but my god, we care and somehow we make a dark day bright again for the kids.

I want to stay on the roller-coaster....it really is far more fun :)

Ed Nixon

I have spent a (working) lifetime bearing witness to the lives of children in care. I have been a social worker, a manager, a Chief Executive Officer. I remain a social worker committed to trying to make a contribution. I have earned my living and contributed to bringing up my family because I get paid to work with of children who have been abused, abandoned, taken into care and sometimes abused again, passed from one home to another and then sent on their way far too early. I am proud to say that I have always tried hard and occasionally ‘made the proverbial difference’.

I have twice carried or helped to carry the body of a child in care to its grave. One died as an infant and I was, with his mum, the only mourner; the other was murdered and I was privileged to be invited by his mother help him on his last journey.

Children in care are remarkably average, they are bright, challenged, skilled, clumsy, well-behaved, poorly behaved, tall, short, black, white and so on. Remarkably average. Except that they don’t get average chances. Children in care don’t ask to be rescued and we should never think that this is what we are doing. We should be trying to afford them an average, equal opportunity to become average adults. The average adult didn't leave home at 16 or 18 years of age. The average child in care shouldn't be made to either. Every Child Matters (even if they have been in care)….

This is why we are here and this is why we are not going anywhere until we improve outcomes for ALL young people in care through equal legislation! 

Comments on Mr Timpson’s Response to Craig Whittaker’s Speech Last Night....

We’ll start with Mr Timpson’s positive comments.  The Minister helpfully agreed that residential care is not a ‘last resort’ and young people should be able to remain in placement, when in their best interests to do so.  That is very welcome.

Mr Timpson’s commissioning of the National Children’s Bureau, The Who Cares? Trust and Catch 22 ‘to look at Staying Put arrangements in children’s homes over the coming year’ is also very welcome. 

However, the way the Minister described this step was ambiguous and this is an issue which needs clarity. The evaluation and discussion cannot be allowed to drag on interminably.

That said, this was the one significant new initiative.

Some of the Minister’s other comments relied on questionable or unreliable data. For example, Mr Timpson cited the Care Leavers’ Charter, saying over 120 authorities had signed up to support children in care up to age 21. He should have added this is entirely voluntary, unenforced by regulation and isn’t centrally monitored.

We are already aware of signatory councils who don’t implement the Charter: voluntary arrangements provide no sort of safety net for care leavers.

Mr Timpson spoke of ISA’s for young people leaving care; more generous leaving care allowances and the requirement for Directors of Children’s Services to sign off pathway planning.

Practical measures and support like this is commendable – but what about ensuring a statutory entitlement to the less tangible but nevertheless crucial emotional and parenting support for young people in care?

Mr Timpson said that local authorities are already able to support people beyond the age of 18 years in children’s homes and aware of some councils doing this. Also, that many young people left residential care to move into adult care.  We assume he is referring to young people with disabilities in both those instances. 

However, we are not aware of any local authority supporting young people beyond 18 in children’s homes.  And even if there were, there is no additional funding to support this.

Mr Timpson expressed caution about allowing young people to remain in children’s homes, lest they alter the registration status of the home. This is an interesting legal and regulatory issue which needs to be addressed: and as the Minister said, the difficulties presented are not insurmountable.

In response to Mr Whittaker’s comments about Ofsted’s positive judgements of 400 children’s homes, the Minister pointed out that this was under the old Ofsted inspection regime which was being enhanced to ‘push up’ quality and standards. 

While this may be factually correct, there is no evidence suggesting that Ofsted have failed to pick up on poor practice and poor standards in children’s homes. If anything, a new regime should ensure standards are improved further. One step in that direction would be for young people from care or young care-leavers to be part of the inspection team. How about it, Ofsted?

There is no routine follow up of every young person who has left care to review the success or otherwise of aftercare planning and outcomes.  Young people in children’s homes may still not be seen or spoken with by an Inspector, and questionnaires circulated by Ofsted may not include young people placed at the home at the time of inspection.

There is a great deal of scope to improve both monitoring and regulation by involving young people from care and young care leavers in inspection teams and in the routine “Regulation 33” monitoring visits each month. If Mr Timpson is looking for confidence that outcomes and standards of care given to young people are accurately assessed, this is the silver bullet which delivers it.

The Minister also expressed concern that there were ‘too many’ children’s homes still not operating at a good enough standard. Yet since Ofsted have regulatory powers to take enforcement action or even close children’s home in those cases, either few children’s homes are giving serious concern, or Ofsted are not doing their job.

We welcome genuine attempts to raise standards of care and safeguarding children and young people. This is why we seek similar initiatives for foster care.

Children and young people being fostered have the same issues as their peers in children’s homes. This is the core rationale behind the campaign for legal parity: before discrimination and the unintended consequence of a ‘two tier’ care system develops.

Mr Timpson recognises that many young people from residential care have been unhappy about arrangements to support them once they leave care. So are we – that’s why we seek parity.  

For now, though, we have a new inquiry by the Education Select Committee into post 16 care options specifically looking at residential care....this is good. This is very good!

Living At 'Home' Is Just Not An Option For Those Leaving Care

The BBC reported this week that there is a massive increase in the number of ‘twenty and thirty-something’s’ living at home with their parents. A sign, it is suggested, of the economic downturn. Being the BBC I am sure that they are right. These are difficult times to set off independently, with or without an income and a roof over your head. 

There have been radio phone ins, surveys and various commentators who appear mildly amused that such a large proportion of our ‘bright young things’ cannot afford to live independently in Britain 2014. It is, of course, very difficult for those perhaps Ed's own daughter who has spent three or four years in ‘under’ and then post graduate studies accruing considerable debt in the process. 

How fortunate then that the 3.5 million 20 -34 year olds (Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics) identified have parents and, or family homes to return to. How helpful that their degrees have at least increased their chances of being in employment as they weather this newly identified crisis in independence. This is a real concern and indicative of just how challenging life can be in Britain for relatively young people.

Imagine then the challenge for someone perhaps 10 years younger than the average member of the cohort studied by the ONS. Someone perhaps who is most unlikely to be heading towards university, or employment or an apprenticeship; a child who has no family on which to rely; an individual who has parents, but they are Corporate Parents, not quite identifiable because they sit in a council chamber and are generally inaccessible to ‘their’ children. 

What parents would consider it quite reasonable to tell their 16, 17 or at most 18 year old child that they must leave ‘home’ and never return because someone else will be sleeping in ‘their’ bed, ‘their’ room?  They cannot bring back their laundry at the end of term - there is no term for these children, except perhaps the long-term. 

They cannot visit at the weekend and enjoy a meal with their family – the family has changed. They may not borrow some money until the weekend to get them by, they are not the family’s responsibility any more. If they are cold and homeless and victims of exploitation then they should tell the police because their family is no longer their family. They are alone.

These are a large proportion of our society’s looked after children. Of course many fail – by reference to the usual measures, we seem to ensure that they do. Someone once said you can judge a society by the way it cares for its children and animals. Some might feel that one out of two isn’t bad. We don’t agree. Looked After Children should be supported until they are at least 21. Surely our looked after children deserve to be looked after at least ALMOST as well as those 3.5 million others? 

Edward Timpson Does Care

I can’t remember how I first heard about the government press release, ‘Children to stay with foster families until 21’, but, I do remember I felt bewildered by a press release that began ‘All children in care…’ but by the end of the first sentence had excluded over 6,000 children in residential care.

What is going on?

This was the new support that would be available to children living not in residential homes but in foster homes until they were 21 years of age. At the moment when a child in care reaches their sixteenth birthday, they begin the journey to leaving care – some do leave when they are only 16.

Almost immediately discussions ensued between Ben Ashcroft, Ian Dickson, Lisa Cherry, Ed Dixon, Louise Holt and myself and we decided to start this campaign: Every Child Leaving Care Matters.

We believe this statement 100% - EVERY Child Leaving Care Matters.

I’m sure Edward Timpson believes this too. His own family fostered nearly 90 children, and I imagine his parents will have supported many of the children they fostered. However, there is a reason he has campaigned for children in foster care to have support until they are 21. He has had first hand experience of seeing so many young children moved on, or asked to leave his family home and I can only imagine that he concluded that in some instances, this was wrong. I can only imagine that maybe there were some of those children whom he grew fond of and whom he wanted to support. In the government press release, Timpson said:

‘I know from the many foster children I grew up with how crucial it is for them to be given sufficient time to prepare for life after care.’

So, again, I can only imagine, that Edward Timpson, does care and is aware that children in residential care are even more vulnerable than those in foster care and also need that time and support to 21.

‘Young people leaving care are among the most vulnerable children in our society. Even those who have had a stable placement may have very high levels of need. Many children who have been in the care system have had a childhood full of instability and trauma, with over 62 per cent of looked after children being taken into care due to abuse or neglect.’

(Barnardos - Still Our Children. Case for reforming the leaving care system in England)

The government press release goes on to say: ‘Children in care typically have much lower educational outcomes and are more likely to be out of education, work and training.’ And as our previous blog showed, there are also all the awful statistics that show some care leavers end up homeless, in prison, with mental health problems, pregnant just after leaving care and worse still are four or five times more likely to commit suicide in adulthood. For me, this last statistic is the most worrying one of them all. Because once a young care leaver is dead, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to help that poor person ever again.

We have had a few worrying comments along these lines via the petition. Just recently, after Scotland announced that from 2015 they will be supporting ALL care leavers until they are 21, they put out this tweet:

As our previous blog mentioned, some care leavers, and others in the care industry prefer to align themselves with those that demonstrate the ‘positive’ portrayal of care leavers.

I believe 100% that positivity is the way forward. I am currently working on a PhD proposal that looks at this very subject, so I believe in the power of positive representation. I want to see an end to the public perception that children in care have done something wrong.

With support from the Scottish Government and Association of Directors of Social Work, Who Cares? Scotland’s 'Give me a chance: phase II' campaign is tackling the stigma and discrimination which children and young people in care and care leavers face.

Here are some podcasts made by some Scottish care leavers:

However, if we are to help the next care leaver who may kill themselves or worse be murdered – and we have been told about both of these distressing acts and have read about them in national newspapers – then we have to keep campaigning. Until there is support to 21 for ALL care leavers, we will have to continue letting the public know about these worrying negative statistics.

"Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving."-J K Rowling. Children in care are the same regardless of where they live.

Stop Press: There is to be an important Adjournment Debate in the House of Commons tonight Tuesday 20th January, 7.30pm, Watch Live: Craig Whittaker, MP will debate the Staying Put agenda for looked-after children in residential care. This will be a chance for Edward Timpson to once again show that he really does care.

After the debate, there will be a discussion on Twitter at 9pm via ECLCM @rescareto21 use the hashtag #rescareto21

Rosie Canning – was once a care leaver but doesn’t live there anymore.

Are There Two Types of Care Leaver?

Those of us who campaign for aftercare support for all young people leaving care until they are 21 do so because we have seen first-hand the disadvantages that care leavers can face.  We have seen how loaded the dice are against care leavers and how easy it is for them to suffer when they leave care.

We know that the overwhelming majority of children are admitted to care through no fault of their own (recent government statistics have shown that about 62% of young people admitted to care were abused or neglected and only 2% were admitted for socially unacceptable behaviour,) yet the number who appear in disadvantage statistics in adulthood is frighteningly high.

For example, recent statistics showed that, of the number of young people now aged 19 years who were looked after when aged 16 years:

•        34% were not in education, employment or training (NEET);

•        only 400 of the young people aged 19 years were in higher education;  6% of all former care leavers;

•        29 % of the former care leavers were in education other than higher ; and

•        23% of the former care leavers were in employment

Other statistics in recent years have added to this frightening picture. For example:

•        About 23 per cent of the adult prison population have spent some time in care;

•        around a quarter of those living on the street have a background in care;

•        care leavers are four or five times more likely to commit suicide in adulthood;

•        a quarter of care leavers were pregnant or young parents within a year of leaving care;

•        in 2011 just 12.8 per cent of children who had been in care for a minimum of one year obtained five good grade GCSEs, including English and Maths. For other children the figure was 57.9 per cent;

•        11% of care leavers in England live in ‘unsuitable accommodation’ upon leaving care; and

•        between 45-49 per cent of looked after children aged 5-17 years show signs of psychosocial adversity and psychiatric disorders, which is higher than the most disadvantaged children living in private households. Physical and mental problems increase at the time of leaving care.

The ‘Every Child Leaving Care Matters’ (ECLCM) campaign has often demonstrated its case by sharing this negative and frightening future faced by so many care leavers. However some care leavers argue that it might be more helpful to show a more positive picture of those leaving care. They argue quite reasonably that showing care leavers who have successfully left care and built successful and fulfilling lives would offer positive role models for young people in care and also offer a leaving care template for others to try and emulate. They want to show that good care can and does save lives and helps young people succeed.

Sometimes, these two ways of describing the leaving care experience can appear to be in conflict with one another – one is the right way, the other wrong. Indeed, there are sometimes lively debates between those who favour each way of presenting the care leavers’ case.

There is no conflict between the two approaches. Looking around the care leavers who form most of the ECLCM campaign team, we include a cross section of people who have experienced many of the disadvantages listed above. We have all been government statistics.  We have tasted the disadvantage & helplessness, the hopelessness and stigma of being in care.  We have been ‘failures’ of the care system.

A closer look shows that we also fit the second model. We include happy and fulfilled individuals, successful professionals, university graduates and opinion shapers.  Things have happened in our lives that have helped us to halt the decline to despair and rebuild our lives. In all our cases, this was after we were 18 and had been discharged from care.

A look at our wider care leaver acquaintances show they can be include doctors, lawyers, writers, teachers, academics, poets and artists, successful people in the professions and the arts.

We know that many of these people were also statistics. Like us, many knew homelessness and deprivation and sampled the agony and despair that hitting rock bottom can bring when they left care.

We argue that the care leavers who appear in the disadvantage statistics and the successful care leavers are not two sides of a coin. They are not different groups - they are the SAME people. Their stories show that at critical points in their lives, they received uncritical and unconditional care and support, and were encouraged to use the resilience and inner strength that most people have if only they are encouraged and enabled to use it.

That underpins our campaign. We believe that supporting young people leaving care at a critical point in their lives will give many of them the cushion they need to lean back on, and then the push they need to develop and grow, to become the ‘positive’ examples of care leavers.

There are not two kinds of care leaver, the deserving and undeserving.  There are only vulnerable young people who will succeed and graduate happily into adult life if we give them a vital hand.

The Facts About Residential Care and This Campaign

Yesterday, we came across an article that was so factually incorrect that we felt compelled to answer it point by point. We must ensure that if people are unclear about the actual reality of young people and children, in and leaving care, alongside the reality of residential and foster care provision, that we are in the very least informative.

We are a diverse group of campaigners and in no way align, as a group, to any political party or belief system. We are focused on the best possible outcomes for children and young people and do not concern ourselves with political lobbies or factions. 

The article in question appears in Conservative Home. To reiterate, the political affiliation of the magazine is not our concern, but the article certainly is.

The first paragraph tells us that "6000 children are placed in institutional care, children’s homes".  It is immediately obvious that the author has limited idea about his subject. Institutional care is not the prerogative of children’s homes. It may be present in poor children’s homes and foster homes anywhere in the country, and equally absent from good children’s homes and foster care. It is about the regime and the care, not the type of care on offer.

Harry Phibbs goes on to say “Wherever possible it should be avoided. Children are much better off in the family setting of foster carers and much better still with the permanent loving home that adoption offers.”  This is apparently a "widely accepted" wisdom. No, it isn’t. The author might refer to research at this juncture.

For the record and the author it seems, different children have different needs and not all want to live or would be better off living in foster care or being adopted.  Children in care, like other children, have feelings, wishes, and families.  Some have had very bad experiences in family settings and are unable or unwilling to live in a family placement at particular stages of their lives. They want and often benefit from, caring and positive residential care.  This is where asking those in care about their views might be helpful instead of telling them what is good for them! Phibbs might also pause for a moment and consider that many children are placed in residential care following multiple breakdowns of previous foster placements or because they have proved too challenging for a foster placement.

Our author continues.  “For any child to be kept in a children’s home unnecessarily is a scandal. Of the 6,000 there are 200 in “secure units” so that is understandable that they would not be deemed suitable for foster carers to cope with. Yet, on the other hand, many of 6,000 are able bodied and in mainstream schools. This survey found that 41 per cent were in mainstream schools or FE colleges.” It would of course be a scandal for any child to be kept in a children’s home, or foster care, unnecessarily. They are there because they are placed there to meet their assessed needs. Otherwise they would be at home or living somewhere else.

Apparently the 200 children placed in secure units would not be ‘suitable’ for foster care. Is he saying that children in secure units are ‘bad’ and ‘bad’ children don’t get placed in foster care?  This simply isn't true.

He makes reference to "able bodied children" which is confusing and could be perceived of as discrimination but we'll leave that for you to decide. 

Also, why is not acceptable for young people in children’s homes to attend mainstream school or FE college? Where on earth should they go?  Does the author want them to remain within the walls of the ‘institution’ and not mix with other people? A better question for me would be why only 41%? Why not more?

It is frankly astonishing that the author should think that a child in a children’s home would be more likely to ends up in a PRU as a consequence. Has he not seen the latest Ofsted judgements of children’s homes nationally that show a significant majority of children’s homes being judged good or better on all the indicators as opposed to a small minority being found to be inadequate. We are concerned that Phibbs has not taken any time to read the facts, the research and the evidence and then published an article as if it is the 'truth'. It is an article of his opinion. No more or no less.

The debate about closing all residential homes has been around for a long time. Those of us who have been around a while have seen them open and then close only to see them open again. Young people need choice and appropriate support as do foster carers when a placement breaks down. Children’s homes are part of the spectrum of choice and a resource that social workers are able to use to meet the needs of children. 

The author cites Leicestershire County Council.

“By placing more children with families rather than in children’s homes, being more cost-effective with care placements and re-shaping services, we’re proposing to reduce the budgets for children in care and safeguarding.”

 I’ll bet Leicestershire County Council signed the Care Leavers’ Charter to provide the best care for their children. Yet in the statement, they clearly intend to put fiscal concerns above the best interests of the child. What is the Charter worth, I ask?

This ill-informed and ill researched article has done nothing to further the cause of good child care based upon the needs of the child and we're certain that the Conservative party disassociate themselves from it.

Ben Ashcroft Shares His Passion For the Campaign

Why am I doing this? Why is a campaign like this vital?

Let me run a few statistics by you:

• 40% of 18-21 year olds in Prison or YOI are from care
• 57% of women prisoners are from care
• 1 in 5 homeless people were in care
• 72-75% Re-offend within a year
• It costs 100-200k a year to lock one person up
• Care leavers much more likely to commit suicide
• 80 × more likely a care leavers child would go in care

So with this information anyone can see that prison is expensive & ineffective.

If we supported young people in care until they were 21 there is no doubt in my mind that this would reduce the long term costs to government.

Another way of looking at it is this; if anything happened in your life and your child was taken in to care because there was no one to look after them, would you want them kicked out at 16 or 17 with no support? Isolated? On their own? No. And we are talking about some of the most vulnerable and damaged kids who have already experienced trauma and lack stability. 

All we are asking for, is that equality of support is available until a young person is 21 years old, just as it is for those young people who are fostered which becomes a part of legislation in April 2014. 

We dont discriminate against colour, gender ect so why does this government think it is ok to discriminate against kids in Children's homes who arguably need more support?

With regards to residential homes, recent research shows only 5% of homes are inadequate. 82% good or better. The Government need to do something about the ones that aren't up to standard and are expensive with poor outcomes. That is the right thing. Not punish ALL kids in residential care homes because a minority are inadequate. 

Shut the bad ones down by all means. I support that too. I work with some Children's homes and they are amazing with all the kids settled and happy. That is because there is a lot of great work being done by them.
I will ask you this. If you agree please sign and let's not let this government discriminate against kids in homes because of where they live!
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/equality-of-leaving-age-for-all-children-in-care

Ben Ashcroft