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?