Fostering stocktake: six major recommendations for change

The foster care stocktake, conducted by Sir Martin Narey and Mark Owers, makes a series of wide-ranging recommendations to improve the system, but has received a mixed reception from the sector. Although many of the proposals have been praised, concerns have been raised about others, while some commentators have warned the recommendations fail to address a number of long-standing issues.

In total, the Foster Care in England review makes 36 recommendations, six of the most significant of which are analysed here.

1. AFFECTION

Recommendation: Guidance should be changed so carers are not "discouraged" from being physically affectionate to foster children.

Rationale: Although fostering regulations already set out that carers should provide a level of care, including physical affection, which is designed to demonstrate warmth, friendliness and positive regard for children, Narey and Owers say they found that all too often foster carers believe that demonstrations of physical affection are frowned upon.

The review concludes that these concerns and anxieties can result in some children in care not receiving the physical or emotional affection they need to thrive.

"We urge the Department for Education to make that clear in future guidance - so carers are in no doubt that, unless it is unwelcome to the child, they should not curb the natural instinct to demonstrate personal and physical warmth."

Sector reaction: The British Association of Social Workers welcomes the report's promotion of physical affection between foster carers and children. It says that this, alongside the call for increased use of delegated authority and the right of a child to an independent advocate, is an area that has been the subject of debate for many years and should by now be embedded in the care system, but more work needs to be done.

2. RECRUITMENT

Recommendation: There should be greater regional co-operation on marketing campaigns to recruit foster carers.

Rationale: According to the review, strategic recruitment, targeted at those most likely to have the skills needed to care for some troubled and challenging children, is not helped by the fact that 152 local authorities and 295 registered independent fostering agencies are all "competing against one another". It says that this can be counter-productive, increasing the costs of marketing and, in turn, the costs of fostering.

"Much greater regional co-operation could concentrate marketing expertise and make better use of recruitment budgets, and we urge local authorities to consider combining their recruitment efforts," adds the report.

Contrary to the wishes of many in the sector, Narey and Owers are not persuaded of the need for a large-scale national advertising campaign funded by government.

Sector reaction: The Adolescent and Children's Trust said it is disappointing the report has rejected the idea of a national advertising campaign.

"There is an urgent need to attract more people willing and able to care for sibling groups, teenagers and children with disabilities," it says.

3. REGIONAL COMMISSIONING

Recommendation: Local authorities should come together into about 10 consortia and negotiate with independent fostering agencies (IFA) to provide placements at significantly reduced cost.

Rationale: The report estimates that as much as £65m a year could be saved through better commissioning of the IFA sector. It points to the fact that some local authorities directly provide almost all their foster care, while others provide very little. Although it concludes that both positions are entirely legitimate, councils that commission and directly provide care do not necessarily do it coherently and robustly.

"Generally, commissioning needs to vastly improve," say Owers and Narey. There is a startling failure to obtain best value from a market in which the providers, not the purchasers, too often have the upper hand. We saw virtually no evidence of discount pricing for large numbers of placements from the same provider, and framework contracts set up after long and tedious processes. These were routinely ignored in favour of more expensive spot purchase arrangements."

Sector reaction: The Children's Services Development Group, which represents the independent sector, says the "in-house first" approach to commissioning by councils still needs to be addressed. "However, we are keen to work collaboratively with the government and local authorities to identify ways to reform the commissioning system and ensure vulnerable children and young people are able to access the right placement first time," it says.

4. LEADERSHIP BOARD

Recommendation: The report recommends that similar arrangements to those of the Adoption Leadership Board and the Residential Care Board should be introduced for fostering - effectively a Foster Care Board - with the three boards being overseen by a new "permanence board" chaired by the director general for children's social care.

Rationale: The report suggests that as well as overseeing and directing the work of the activity-specific boards, the new permanence board should be responsible for monitoring the whole of the children's care system and seeking to deliver permanence for more looked-after children.

Sector reaction: Alison Michalska, president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, says: "A shared language and holistic focus on permanence as a whole is long overdue and would be a helpful step away from the current silo approach."

5. Reviewing officers

Recommendation: The report suggests local authorities should be allowed to ditch the independent reviewing officer (IRO) role.

Rationale: The report notes that there has been considerable debate as to whether IROs are having the intended impact on service quality and improvement since all local authorities were required to employ them in 2004.

Narey and Owers say that although they heard from some witnesses who valued IROs, they overwhelmingly perceived a "sense of indifference to the role". The report estimates that up to £76m a year could be saved by scrapping it.

Sector reaction: Both children's guardians organisation Nagalro and the National Association of Independent Reviewing Officers, as well as a number of other organisations, have criticised the idea. Nagalro says it strongly believes that such a move "would put vulnerable children at real risk" as the task of the IRO is to give children "who cannot speak" a voice.

6. NATIONAL REGISTER

Recommendation: Narey and Owers see great merit in establishing a national register of foster carers - a database that could hold details of a carer's fostering agency, the date of their approval, where they live, the number of bedrooms in their home, the number of vacancies for children, their personal characteristics, and their level of training and expertise - and urges the DfE to evaluate the costs and advantages.

Rationale: The report argues that such a register would provide vital information, which could improve recruitment and provide a vacancy management system and radically improve matching.

Sector reaction: Narey and Owers point to the fact that a number of organisations, including The Fostering Network and FosterTalk, as well as some local authorities and foster carers have called for a national register of carers.

However, the Association of Directors of Children's Services say maintaining a national register would be a huge logistical task and require significant ongoing funding.

WHAT IT OMITS

• Curbs to profits made by independent fostering providers, following criticism of the practice.
• Recommending foster carers receive professional status, on a par with social workers for example.
• A review of foster carers' allowances as campaigners believe they are not adequately rewarded.
• An extension of the minimum fostering allowance to carers looking after young people aged 18 to 21 through Staying Put arrangements.
  
  

Inside View: ‘Report responds to the needs of children, carers and professionals'

By Mark Owers, co-author, the foster care stocktake

Sir Martin Narey and I feel confident that if our recommendations are accepted by the government, fostering will be much improved. This is the view of many in the sector who have welcomed our report.

At the heart of our review is a celebration of the many extraordinary families fostering children, and the many children and young people who view foster care positively. It is pleasing to see widespread recognition across the sector that we need to treat foster parents professionally and do more to support and involve them to enable children in their care to enjoy family life fully. Similarly, recommendations designed to better match children to foster parents, prepare for moving to a new placement, maintain existing relationships and to promote physical affection have all been well received.

However, the National Association for Fostering Providers is disappointed that we consider it sensible for local authorities to seek to place children with their own carers first. To be clear, we believe that authorities should approach independent fostering agencies without delay when they conclude that they do not have an in-house foster parent or one best suited to a particular child.

There was disappointment too from The Fostering Network about our views on financial compensation and reward for foster parents. Few carers majored on pay when we met them. And significantly, none of the foster carers who wrote to us with ideas for the review have written negatively about our observations on pay.

One of the most warmly welcomed recommendations is our call to focus on permanence as a whole and the establishment of a national permanence board. With the sector's support, we have an important opportunity to both reflect on how fostering can be improved, and deliver permanence and a sense of belonging for more looked-after children.

It has been suggested that the government has used our report to resurrect their failed "exemption clause" to enable local authorities to opt out of certain statutory duties: the removal of independent review officers (IROs), not having adoption and fostering panels, and the use of respite foster care.

Our report is our view and we covered only the issues we were urged to review by carers, professionals or children and young people. For example, we are not suggesting the government should abolish IROs, rather directors of children's services should be able to make a local decision. We know many DCSs are keen to have that choice.