understanding permanence bruce clark and janet boddy cafcass and university of sussex
TRANSCRIPT
Understanding Permanence
Bruce Clark and Janet Boddy
CAFCASS and University of Sussex
Ian Sinclair Emeritus Professor, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York
June Statham Professor Emerita of Education and Family Support, Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education
June Thoburn Emeritus Professor, Centre for Research on the Child and Family, University of East Anglia
Caroline Thomas Honorary Research Fellow, University of Stirling and co-ordinator of the Adoption Research Initiative
The working group
To inform an understanding of permanence that addresses all children who fall within the public law functions of the Children Act 1989• addressing lifetime needs; and• based on the best available
evidence.
Our aim
Policy milestones
A diverse and dynamic population
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201240,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
Children looked after at 31 March, 1992-2012
‘The best possible care involves giving children security, stability and love through their childhood and beyond.’
(DfE: An Action Plan for Adoption, 2011, p6)
Understanding permanence
Residential child care
9%
Unrelated foster care64%
Family and friends foster care
11%
Placed with parents5%
Placed for adoption4%
Independent living/employment
4%
Other3%
Source: Children looked after at 31 March 2012, DfE
Where children live
Experiences vary by ethnicity Black Caribbean children more likely to experience residential care Mixed ethnicity children can be seen as ‘hard to place’
A diverse population: age
Under 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 15 16 and over
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2000
2008
2012
Source: Children looked after at 31 March, DfE
Children starting to be looked after
Attending to diversity
26%
9%
14%
5%3% Young entrants (0-11 yrs)
Adolescent graduates
Abused adolescents
Adolescent entrants
Young people seeking asy-lum
Disabled children
43%57%
The Pursuit of Permanence (Sinclair et al. 2007)
The purpose of placement?
(Quoted in Boddy et al. 2008 p130; p139)
‘If placed at this age [10-15 years of age] we’d see that as a failure. We try to keep them out, once in we try to get them out of care, if we can’t, then try for permanency.’
Senior social care manager, England
‘The law doesn’t say that placement should be the last option […] it can be a good option for older young people’
Senior policy advisor, Germany
‘When things go so wrong in a home that a child has to be placed, you can’t make changes so quickly at home that the child could go home in a few months.’
Social worker, Denmark
Pathways to permanence?Age at adoption
Under 1 1-4 years 5-9 years 10-15 years 16 and over0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2000
2008
2012
Source: Children looked after at 31 March, DfE
Children who ceased to be looked after through adoption1, special guardianship2 and residence orders3 – 1999 to 2011
Source: Westminster Government
Pathways to permanence?
Government review of adoption
Adoption and Children Act
2002 (in force 2005)
Special Guardianship
introduced
New statutory guidance on adoption launched in Feb 2011 promoting
adoption as an important permanence option for children
Messages from Fostering Now (and beyond) Matching and planning
• Child’s wishes; ‘chemistry and fit’
Quality of carers Child factors
• Age; behaviour; schooling
Contacts with birth family
Where children live
Unrelated foster careIntentionally short-term or time-limited
• respite; emergency; assessment; treatment foster care
Long-term, aimed at care and upbringing
Extensive local authority variation Most family and friends care is
informal or private arrangement Comparisons between approved
kinship carers and unrelated foster care Children have similar levels of need Carers older, in poorer health, less well
educated, financially worse off Children do just as well in outcomes and
placement stability
Source: Nandy and Selwyn (2012)
Family and friends care
Source: Nandy and Selwyn (2012)
A neglected sector, within the ‘family agenda’ of children’s services?
A declining sector? 19% of looked after children
in 1990 9% of looked after children
in 2012 High levels of need High levels of turnover A last resort or a specialist
service?
Residential child care
Census day
During the year
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Children in secure units, children's
homes and hostels
Source: Children looked after at 31 March 2012, DfE
Quality and continuity
‘Placement instability ... may compound existing difficulties and further reinforcement of insecure patterns of attachment’
(Munro & Hardy 2006, p2)
Short- and long-term placements? Planned and unplanned moves? What children want?
Permanence and return home?
37% of children who ceased to be looked after in 2012 returned to their parents
Return home most likely within first 50 days
Assumption that swift return home is better? 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Weeks in Care
Pe
rce
nt
Rowe et al (1989)
Sinclair et al (2007)
Quality and continuity
‘perhaps the most serious problem [facing the care system] has been the low expectation of success’
(Aldgate 1989, p32)
Return homeCase closure or permanence?
Messages from Safeguarding Children Across Services Addressing underlying problems?
• Time?• Evidence of change?
Overoptimism about reunification?• Likelihood of return to looked after system• Experience of further abuse or neglect• Poorer outcomes and greater instability
Quality and continuityWorking with families? Many children in care have weekly contact with a
parent• Less in long-term foster care• More for babies during care proceedings
Purpose and quality Beyond ‘contact’
• Involvement in everyday life?• Work on relationships (and ‘parenting at a distance’)• Intervention with underlying problems
Continuity and leaving care Disadvantage and instability The importance of self-continuity and
identity
‘a sense of belonging and connectedness’ Past and present discontinuities
Including: education, living arrangements, culture, personal possessions.
Contact with carers and birth families Support across the life course
In care, leaving care and into adulthood
ConclusionA differentiated understanding of permanence?
‘there is very little that is true of all the children who are looked after by the state’
(Sinclair et al. 2007)
Recognising this diversity, how do we ensure ‘security, stability and love’ For all children who come under the ambit of
CA89? In childhood and into adulthood?