Extending Staying Put rights to children in residential care up to 21 may not have featured in the main parliamentary parties' election manifestos, but it has emerged as one of the few areas where there was clear water between them.
While the Liberal Democrats pledged to introduce it and the Conservatives said it was an option they were considering, Labour said it remained to be convinced that the move would improve outcomes for children.
Natasha Finlayson, chief executive of the Who Cares? Trust for the past seven years, admits Labour's stance caught her by surprise. Despite the lack of cross-party buy-in, she remains confident it is just a matter of time before the policy becomes law.
"Every party is persuadable," she says.
Some believe that to convince the remaining sceptics there needs to be a high-profile campaign launched to lobby for young people in residential care to be given the same rights as fostered children. But Finlayson remains unconvinced. "It needs the support of high-profile people so that momentum towards implementation is maintained with the next government. But I don't think it needs a campaign - the evidence is there."
A key part of that evidence was gathered from a scoping study put together by the Who Cares? Trust with the National Children's Bureau, Barnardo's, Action for Children, the Together Trust and Loughborough University, and that outlined practical ways that the policy could be implemented. Commissioned by former children's minister Edward Timpson, the study assessed four different options for young people to stay in residential care up to 21. These included staying in a children's home until 21, living in a separate building but in the same grounds, living in supported lodgings, and living independently but close to the children's home.
Finlayson says having the "menu" of options was vital "because young people need choice about where they are going to live and what level of support they will need". Young people were widely consulted for the study, with there being no consensus on the preferred option. "The only consensus was that it has to be tailored to their individual needs," explains Finlayson.
The study also estimated the cost of extending the right to residential care would be £76m a year, considerably less than some commentators had been suggesting. Finlayson describes the figure as "more of a guideline".
"It tells us what financial ballpark we're in, but who knows (how much it will cost) as we don't know what the take up will be," she says. "I don't particularly press the economic argument - for me, it is more about the morality of it."
She accepts that the cost to councils of implementing it would be "considerable", but maintains that is no reason not to do it. "I would always come back to the moral case: if the state is the parent of these children, then it has to spend money on them instead of other things. When setting the budgets, they need to be spending enough to implement these reforms, even if it means we don't get our bins emptied so often."
Safeguarding fears
The scoping study also addressed fears over safeguarding risks posed by having older teenagers living in the same home as younger children. This had been a major obstacle to getting ministerial backing, and was an issue picked up on by the young people consulted.
"The young people really opened our eyes to think about it in a broader way," says Finlayson. "The issues they raised were around drugs, alcohol, partners and friends coming back to the home.
"Most of these children have come from backgrounds where it's likely they have experienced that, so they know what they are talking about. They don't want people taking drugs, getting drunk or partying all night in their children's home because they want it to feel safe.
"They could see the positives of having older young people around too. They just wanted them in the metaphorical shed at the bottom of the garden."
Despite the strong case put forward by the report, you can detect Finlayson's frustration that the general election arrived before ministers had time to digest it and act.
"We were so nearly there in conversations with officials and ministers," says Finlayson, who has a passionate and persuasive style that was honed during her earlier career in the communications industry.
"Certain changes in the department helped them to be more open to this becoming law."
When pushed on what changed to enable the policy to be considered - it was initially dismissed by the then Education Secretary Michael Gove on the grounds that the quality of residential care was not consistently good enough - Finlayson takes a long pause before declining to comment.
Despite the election result being settled in the Conservatives' favour, it is still unclear if ministers and officials will be receptive to the idea. As such, Finlayson is not ruling out the possibility of a legal challenge.
"I know some people who are talking about the possibility of that," she says. "It could depend how it is done, because I really don't think an antagonistic approach to policy makers is helpful. So it would rather depend on the spirit in which it is done."
While Staying Put has dominated much of the recent debate on children in care, it is not the biggest concern for Finlayson. She says the "wicked" practice of local authorities "chucking out" children from residential care before they reach their 18th birthday must be tackled.
"Around 30 per cent of young people leave care at 16 or 17. There is an expectation that young people will leave at 16 and conversations start at 15.
"I would rather see that being prevented (than extending Staying Put)."
Both issues should be influenced by what Finlayson refers to as her "three Es" principle to "encourage, enable and empower" young people.
"We should absolutely be encouraging, enabling and empowering young people to stay in care as long as they need to. You can't raise the leaving care age to 18, but it's about not starting those discussions (about leaving care at 16).
"When I see local authorities openly talking about having a policy of reducing the care population, it makes me very nervous because we know the only way to do that is by not taking children into care in the first place who should be, or chucking them out. You shouldn't have a policy of reducing the care population because it is a burden on your budget."
Advice service to launch
To help counter decisions by council staff that Finlayson says "are not in the interests of young people", the Who Cares? Trust is to launch an advice service offering information to children in care about their rights. "Children and their carers often don't know about their rights and if you don't know what you're entitled to, you can't be asking for it, which you need to be if people aren't giving it to you."
Another important piece of work undertaken by the trust is its two-year review of what a child-centred care system should look like, the culmination of which is its Principles of Care report. Running over 80 pages, the document sets out where the problems lie with the current system and outlines what needs to change to ensure the care system provides looked-after children with a good childhood.
It is not a list of practical recommendations for change - but Finlayson says that is quite deliberate. "It's really important that charities are visionary. Our job is not to worry about all the challenges and obstacles about implementation - it is to remember this is what we need to do for these children.
"We put forward some ideas for what a care system would look like for children healing from trauma. Most didn't get the chance to be raised by people who do what good parents do and find out what their unique talents, fears, hopes and dreams are.
"Giving children in care a childhood is an abiding theme through it."
Another issue it highlights is the need to improve the skills of social workers, foster carers and key workers. Better training for professionals plays a key part in that, but it is the quality of foster carers that Finlayson believes to be "the most important issue for the care system".
She says the shortage of foster carers places huge pressure on local authorities to "approve people that perhaps aren't quite up to it", meaning children are sometimes placed with carers who are not best placed to meet their needs with potentially dire consequences.
"Until the quality of foster carers is consistently high and we're able to have a care system that supports and promotes really strong loving relationships between carers and young people, then lots of young people will vote with their feet and won't want to stay (until they are 21)."
- 2008 - present Chief executive, the Who Cares? Trust- 2007 Director of communications and policy, the Prince's Foundation
for Integrated Health
- 2006 Communications consultant
- 2003 Director of communications and policy, ChildLine
- 1998 Director of communications, ChildLine
- 1990 Press and PR manager, ChildLine
]]
