Developing a universal definition of care experience: consultation analysis

2. Developing a universal definition of ‘care experience’

Potential impacts of a universal definition of ‘care experience’

This section presents an analysis of responses to questions about the advantages and disadvantages of developing a universal definition of ‘care experience’. The consultation paper notes many advantages that could come from creating a universal definition, from providing clarity on policy to service providers and corporate parents to creating a term that more clearly resonates with people who have had care experience. A universal definition could also help unite services, support and benefits available to people with care experiences at different stages of their lives. The paper suggests a possible disadvantage could be complicating the already dense care landscape with another definition.

Common themes evident in responses to these questions reiterate the importance of providing more equitable services to those with care experience and making it easier for them to access services. Respondents highlight the importance of using terms and language that capture the lived experiences of being in care and that do not encourage stigmatisation or discrimination. Commonly mentioned disadvantages included concerns that rigid definitions may exclude some people with care experience or that oversimplified terms may be too vague. Concerns about resourcing and provisioning were mentioned throughout this chapter. These common themes were also reflected in stakeholder events held across Scotland as part of the consultation process.

Q1: Do you agree or disagree that there is a need for a universal definition to describe ‘care experience’?

Base: All respondents (142)

Respondent type	n=	% Strongly agree	% Agree	% Neither	% Disagree	% Strongly disagree	% No answer[2]
All respondents	142	54	26	11	4	1	4
Individuals	71	66	20	6	6	3	0
Organisations	71	42	32	15	3	0	7
Policy/Advocacy/Support	20	50	30	10	0	0	10
Local Authority	19	37	26	32	0	0	5
Education	12	50	50	0	0	0	0
HSCP/Health	8	63	38	0	0	0	0
Social work/youth justice	7	14	14	29	14	0	29
Other Public Body	4	25	50	25	0	0	0
Other	1	0	0	0	100	0	0

Support for a universal definition was high, with 80% of all respondents agreeing to some extent that a universal definition is needed to describe ‘care experience’; 54% strongly agreed and 27% agreed. When excluding the small number of respondents who did not answer, support increases slightly to 83% overall, with 54% agreeing strongly.

Many of the remaining respondents were neutral (11%), while 4% disagreed and 1% strongly disagreed.

Individuals were more likely than organisations to agree (85% and 74%, respectively) and strongly agree (66% and 42%, respectively) with the need for a universal definition. However, individuals were also more likely to disagree (9% compared to 3% of organisations), and only individuals expressed strong disagreement.

Among organisations with corporate parenting responsibilities, 75% agreed with the need for a definition (44% strongly), while 20% were neutral. Organisations working in education or health-related sectors unanimously agreed with the need for a definition. While a majority of respondents in most other sectors agreed, there was more uncertainty among local authorities (32% neither agreed nor disagreed) and among the small number of organisations in the social work and youth justice sector, of whom 29% agreed, 29% were neutral, and 14% disagreed.

Q2: What are your views on the potential advantages of developing a universal definition of ‘care experience’?

Equitable access to services

Over nine in ten respondents answered Q2. The most prevalent theme, suggested by many, was that a universal definition could provide more equitable access to services for those with care experience. Respondents noted awareness of situations where people feel they have had care experience, but they still fall outside of certain service provisions.

“For care-experienced students, varying definitions can be a barrier.” - The Open University in Scotland

Some respondents provided specific examples. This included adoptees, young people with kinship care orders, and children described by one individual as living in informal placements where many of the costs of raising the child are taken on by families rather than by the state. In these cases, there may be financial or emotional needs that would be aided by greater individual statutory support either in the present or in the future.

“The government has a responsibility to all children who can’t live at home, and they should get equal rights in terms of support mechanisms available for this group of people.” - Individual

Consistency across agencies and policies

Many others mentioned that a potential advantage of developing a universal definition was that it could provide consistency across agencies and policies. Respondents thought that a variety of definitions of ‘care experience’ across sectors and services, such as health, education, social services and employment, meant that some people received different assistance in different localities and across experiences. A few others specifically mentioned that this would also benefit multi-agency working. In some cases, this was in conjunction with comments about equitable access, where differing definitions across local authorities or services meant that eligibility was confusing and unbalanced.

“A principal potential advantage of creating a universal definition of “care experience” is the clarity and consistency across a range of legislative provisions and regimes.” – Care Inspectorate

Several others felt consistency would add clarity for organisations that aid and assist people with care experience, particularly corporate parents. Respondents suggested this would help with verifying care experience to ensure eligibility while minimising intrusive questions, streamlining access to services by having a detailed and consistent understanding of who qualifies for support, and assisting with budgeting accuracy.

Clear pathways for assistance and support

Another advantage mentioned by many was increased awareness of the assistance and support available for people with care experience and clear pathways to access it. Respondents noted that an unambiguous definition would make it easier for people to apply for different services, for organisations to create a framework of support for people who have experience of care, and for application processes to be streamlined. A few others emphasised that confusion around eligibility can lead to a breakdown in trust between people with care experience and those trying to assist them.

“Everyone consulted—young people, young adults, and intandem staff working directly with young people and families—agreed on the need for a universal definition of ‘care experience.’ It was felt that it would help young people access services and entitlements, and ensure services offer what is available consistently.” - Inspiring Scotland (intandem programme)

Reduce stigma and discrimination

Many others spoke more broadly about the power of language and the importance of creating an inclusive definition that challenges the current language that some deem stigmatising. There were suggestions that a universal definition would normalise the experience of care for some.

“Respondents consistently identified the potential for a universal definition to counter stigma. It was identified that reducing stigma could then lead to broadening our understanding of the nuances of care, which in turn may increase our knowledge. Countering stigma has the potential to break down barriers and reduce inequality experienced by many people who have care experience.” - South Ayrshire Council

Several others thought that a universal definition would help people embrace their experiences and create a community around a shared identity.

“Allow children the opportunity to understand care experience. This would lead to young people and adults understanding their care identity leading to more positive outcomes for care experienced community” - Individual

Promoting a greater understanding of the diversity of care experiences was an advantage of a universal definition mentioned by several respondents. This increased knowledge and awareness could help to minimise traumatising and stigmatising experiences as people with care experience seek assistance, such as being questioned about their experiences or asked to re-explain experiences repeatedly for different support.

Data collection and research support

The ability to collect accurate data and support research about people with care experience in Scotland who use services and support was mentioned by some. Respondents suggested having this data could help with long-term planning and budgeting, tracking service use, and monitoring the impact and efficacy of services. A few respondents mentioned that a universal definition would allow comparisons across the public sector.

Legal or statutory protections

Some respondents, such as Colleges Scotland, Care Inspectorate, and sportscotland, highlighted the potential for care experience to be considered a protected characteristic under The Equality Act 2010 if a universal definition were to be established. Two others noted that it could help create a UK-wide statute.

Q3: What are your views on the potential disadvantages of developing a universal definition of ‘care experience’?

Exclusionary

Just over nine in ten respondents left a response Q3. Many suggested that the biggest potential disadvantage of a universal definition was that it could exclude certain groups or people. Respondents were concerned that a universal definition could set rigid limits around who can be considered to have care experience. There were concerns that without flexibility, or if a definition were not comprehensive enough, a genuine but uncommon situation or experience may be excluded.

“By its nature a universal definition will need a boundary on who is and is not in the group. It may impact on the support for other less defined disadvantaged groups such as estranged students^[3]. A definition that is too rigid may exclude situations or circumstance and would need to be flexible, inclusive and meaningful to all audiences and should avoid the use of jargon.” - Scottish Funding Council

In contrast, many others were concerned that a broad definition could oversimplify care experience. These respondents were concerned that a definition may be too vague or attempt a one-size-fits-all approach that would not resonate with certain people’s experiences or could be off-putting. The Rock Trust and A Way Home Scotland Coalition provided an example given by a young person. This young person with care experience was applying for additional support at college, but the vague language and requirements outlined in the application form made them unsure if they were eligible as they did not recognise their experience as it was described to them. Without the assistance of their support worker, they could have missed out on available support.

“We believe that there is a risk of oversimplifying often complex and diverse experiences by creating a universal definition of care experience. For this reason, time must be taken to develop a definition alongside people with lived experience.” - includem

Resourcing

Resourcing and service provision were concerns mentioned by many. Respondents highlighted that a more inclusive definition of care experience could increase eligibility for support and services, which would then likely need increased funding and resources to meet demand. Respondents were concerned that if eligibility for care-related benefits was extended without more resources, it could negatively impact the care given to those already receiving support.

“Without adequate planning, consultation, development and financing of any changes, already stretched resources potentially face becoming untenable. This could mean that those who need support most may not get the help that they need, when they need it.” - CELCIS

A few others were also concerned by the increased workload and bureaucracy associated with more applicants for support and services without increased levels of service provision and staffing.

Stigmatising

In contrast to the responses to Q2, many respondents were concerned that a universal definition could increase the stigma surrounding care experience. Some noted research that showed collective definitions of groups could lead to people stereotyping and discriminating against that group. Some others advocated for the input of people with lived experience, service providers, and carers to ensure the definition is inclusive and supportive.

“Creating labels to define group experiences and applying these labels to people who have had those experiences can also be seen as detrimental… Arguably, this potential already exists with current terminology, but the potential negative repercussions of developing a universal definition of care experience and the possibility of this to be othering for people should still be considered.” - CELCIS

Unwelcome group identity

Many were concerned that people with lived experience of care may not want to identify by a universal definition or see themselves described by the universal definition. This could be due to not ever considering themselves as having care experience before or wanting to move past a traumatic time in their lives. Respondents highlighted that labelling may not always be welcomed by those with lived experience.

“Some individuals would not define themselves as care experienced, even though they would meet the criteria. This may be due to growing up with friends or family in a kinship setting, and they’d been unaware of being ‘different’, some individuals feel they would be labelled and stigmatised, and some do not want to be reminded of their past or share with anyone else by using this term. We know from working with children, young people and families the term ‘care experience’ is not reflective of how they see themselves.” - Dumfries & Galloway Council

Concerns about the implementation process

Concerns about how a new universal definition may be implemented were mentioned by several. Respondents raised concerns which included:

• A lack of consultation with people with lived experience, carers and support providers in creating the definition.
• Cross-border concerns for people who are considered to have care experience in one part of the UK but not another, which could be difficult or problematic for organisations provide UK-wide services.
• Slow adoption of a definition could hinder services.
• Bureaucratic and administrative delays.
• Opaque language which could lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation by service and support providers, corporate parents and third-sector organisations.
• Creating a definition which is overly rigid and would therefore not be able to reflect any new circumstances that may develop, or ever-changing individual experiences

No disadvantages

Some respondents, almost entirely individuals, noted that they felt there were no disadvantages to the definition and supported the creation and implementation of the universal definition.

Questions about the wider aim and implications of a universal definition

Some organisations raised concerns about whether any universal definition would impact existing eligibility criteria for statutory services. These respondents expressed the view that the consultation paper did not provide enough clarity about whether a universal definition would provide a group identity for people with care experience, provide guidance for service providers or adjust the legal status as used by corporate parents.

“Participants emphasised the need to clearly establish the purpose and function of any definition, whether for identity/community, entitlements, or other purposes, as this would ultimately decide if and how a universal definition would be used.” – Staf

“If the primary focus is to create a better understanding of identity and combat stigmatisation, then the target group this consultation needs to be speaking with are those with lived experience. If the purpose of the consultation is to try to simplify the mechanisms around rights and entitlements for those that have experienced care, a better understanding of how a universal definition might interact with existing legislative definitions, duties and requirements is needed now, and not after the consultation concludes.” Clan Childlaw

“Whilst we do not think we need to spend time, money and effort on creating legislation to provide a universal definition, we do think that a working definition would be helpful – particularly to those support services which are accessed through eligibility” – SCRA

More specifically, a few organisations expressed the view that the consultation needed to provide more information on how a new universal definition would align with the existing definitions of ‘care leaver’ and ‘looked after’ and whether a new definition would have any impact on eligibility criteria for services accessed by those groups – as detailed below. This point was also noted in stakeholder engagement events.

Views on existing support for children and young people

This section analyses respondents’ views on the terms ‘Care Leaver’ and ‘Looked After’.

The main themes emerging in response to these questions included views that these definitions can be exclusionary, discounting people who may be in need of care but do not meet the eligibility criteria, and concerns about the language used to describe these experiences of care.

Q4: Do you have any views on the definition of ‘Care Leaver’?

While ‘Care Leaver’ is not a legal term, it has been used to identify people who are eligible to access statutory support. Young people who ceased to be ‘looked after’ on, or at any time after, their 16^th birthday are eligible for continuing care. The consultation paper notes that “local authorities have a statutory duty to advise, guide, and assist care leavers until their 19^th birthday and a power to do so until their 26^th birthday.

Exclusionary

Just under three quarters of respondents answered Q4. The most prevalent theme mentioned by many respondents was that the term ‘care leaver’ unjustly excluded certain groups from receiving support. Respondents were critical of the age limitations that restricted throughcare and aftercare to any young person with care experience but who was not in care on their 16^th birthday. Examples provided by respondents included young people who leave care slightly before their 16^th birthday or others who have been in and out of care throughout their lives and may still need access to support after they turn 16.

“This definition does not include those who were previously looked after, those who had their CSO terminated before their 16th birthday and those who had social work involvement just before their 16th birthday. – Individual

“The threshold of care contained in the eligibility requirements lead to obvious inequity. For example, a child who may have been the subject of care orders throughout their life, but has been moved home prior to their 16th birthday, misses out on these entitlements; whereas a child who has had no contact with the care system, but is subject to a care order post 16 is so entitled. The distinction between the mandatory and discretionary duty also adds a layer of unnecessary complexity.” – Clan Childlaw

Others thought that the support provided to ‘care leavers’ should also be available to young people who were adopted or placed in kinship care but need assistance later in their teens and twenties. Others believed the support should be extended to include anyone who has been in the care system at any point in their childhood or young adult life. The response from Staf suggested that their members thought “duration of time spent in care was seen as equally important as being in care at a specific age.”

“I believe that a care leaver should be someone who has had contact with the system. Many barriers arise during the leaving care process, and the limited support available leaves young people at a cliff edge. This pattern creates a wider strain on services as there Is not a clear process due to the wide range of care experience.” - Individual

Language is not descriptive of lived experiences

Several respondents highlighted an issue with the term ‘care leaver’ as they felt it did not accurately represent the experiences of being in care. Some expressed the view that the experience of care and its impacts on individuals are lifelong. Others thought that the term seemed inaccurate as their support and services are still provided after young people turn 16, particularly by corporate parents.

“Care Leaver only indicates that they have left that setting and not that the experience of care has left them. We should always be mindful of the lifelong impact that the experience of care has on an individual.” - UHI Inverness

One individual felt that once they had left care, they would prefer not to be identified by their experiences, and another thought the term ‘care leaver’ provided too much information about a person’s past. Another individual thought that any definition should acknowledge the unique experiences of each child and young person in the care system.

Confusing

Several respondents felt that the definition of ‘care leaver’ was confusing and poorly understood. Respondents noted confusion around the term among the wider population, care leavers, and service providers. A few mentioned different agencies or funding bodies using different language, which was confusing, while others questioned the statutory or legislative meaning of the term.

One point of confusion raised by a few was that being a care leaver did not mean an end to support and services, which they felt was misleading.

“The current definition is very confusing and leads to the assumption that rights and duties end at 16 despite there being additional rights at various stages up until 26” – Individual

Positive about definition

Some respondents, almost entirely organisations and particularly organisations with corporate parenting responsibilities, thought that the definition assisted positive outcomes. They noted that the definition provided clarity around eligibility for certain support, particularly to local authorities who have legal duties. Others thought that the support provided to care leavers was proportionate and unambiguous.

Stigmatising

There was a concern among some respondents that the term ‘care leaver’ is stigmatising. A few mentioned discrimination, which could be encouraged by the label, while others felt that the term was too personal, as it has such a specific definition which highlights that a person was in care on their 16^th birthday. Others felt that the language used could be more strengths-based and move away from a definition that leads to a narrative about being outside of care. At an event held with stakeholders, the term ‘youth transitions’ was preferred over ‘leaving care team’ (13 Nov 2024).

“As a trauma-informed organisation and in taking a strengths-based approach, there could be negative connotations of being defined as a ‘care leaver’ and leaving 'care' behind from the family or care environment. The term is limited in conveying positives of this transition from statutory care and instead may convey the narrative of no longer being cared about – which does not therefore recognise the central importance of relationships.” - NHS Education for Scotland (NES)

Concerns

A few respondents were unsure whether creating a universal definition of care experience would impact the statutory duties aligned with the commonly used term ‘care leavers’. This is described in greater detail at Q3. At this question, respondents were concerned that if the changed definition extended statutory support to a more widely defined group, it could strain resources and services.

Q5: Do you have any views on the statutory definition of ‘Looked After’?

The consultation paper defines ‘Looked After’ by a local authority to refer to any child or young person:

• for whom they are providing accommodation under section 25 of the Act;
• who is subject to a compulsory supervision order or an interim compulsory supervision order and in respect of whom they are the implementation authority (within the meaning of the Children's Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, “the 2011 Act”);
• who is subject to an order in accordance with which, by virtue of regulations made under section 33(1) of the Act or section 190 of the 2011 Act (effect of orders made outwith Scotland), they have responsibilities as respects the child, or;
• in respect of whom a permanence order has, on an application by them under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007, been made and has not ceased to have effect.’

Section 24 of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 included a new section 17A into the 1995 Act that expands ‘looked after’ to also include ‘children detained in secure accommodation under certain criminal justice provisions’.

Concerns with the term and language used

Just under two thirds of respondents provided an answer to Q5. Several felt that the term ‘Looked After’ was old-fashioned or overly impersonal, which was also reflected in stakeholder engagement events. A few respondents thought that children should be cared for and not looked after. Others spoke about young people rejecting the term or finding it incongruous with their experiences. NHS Education for Scotland suggested that it could create a barrier to support if young people find the language unrelatable.

“Care for a child, look after your house pet. This was a quote I remember stated by a young person.” – Individual

Several others mentioned that they felt the term was stigmatising. While some stated this more generally, others suggested that the use of the acronym LAC (Looked After Child) could cause discrimination and hurt as it sounds as if a child is lacking. A few others felt that it may upset a child as they find themselves in a situation where their birth family are not looking after them.

“There was agreement across all the Young People consulted on this consultation that the term ‘LAC’ is perceived negatively amongst those it is used to describe. They would prefer a more human term.” - MCR Pathways

Concerns about the stigma felt by parents were also mentioned by a few respondents. They thought the term ‘looked after’ could make parents feel like failures and challenge their willingness to engage with the system.

A few respondents provided alternative language that they felt was more positive and more strengths-based. This included terms such as “partnership”, “shared care”, and “alternate parents”.

Exclusionary

Several respondents felt that the statutory definition of ‘Looked After’ left out experiences of care that should be included. Some felt it should include adoptees and those in informal kinship care, and some others suggested that it should include any child or young person who has been on a formal order or had to stay away from home during their childhood.

“I think that when it comes to Kinship - the definition becomes open to interpretation. Following the granting of a Section 11, Kinship Care Order, children stop being 'looked after'. However, they should continue to be seen as being care experienced. This also applies to adoption.” - Individual

Aberlour noted that the list of experiences used to define ‘looked after’ is not exhaustive. As this definition is used by many local authorities to decide who receives access to support and entitlements, it can mean that children with forms of care experience who are in need of assistance may be denied access to support.

Confusing and poorly understood

Confusion around the definition was highlighted by several. People felt that the way the term was described was overly formal and jargonistic, which may make sense to practitioners, but may not describe what ‘Looked After’ means in a way that is accessible to all. Others felt that the distinction between ‘Looked After’ and ‘care experienced’ was too vague and left people unsure of what access to support and services was available. Stirling Council mentioned past confusion around the inclusion of voluntary orders (s25).

“We note that the care leaver definition is more reader-friendly than the more technical looked after definition.” - Universities Scotland

Positive about definition

Some, almost entirely organisations, felt that the definition was clear and helped ensure that local authorities were aware of their statutory responsibilities to people with eligible care experiences.

“A child or young person is considered ‘looked after’ not based on where they live, but as a result of a legal order. This distinction is clearly established in the legislation… We wish to reiterate the fundamental principle of minimum intervention and ensure that children and young people who do not meet this definition but who also face significant barriers as they enter their adult lives are not overtly disadvantaged.” - Scottish Association of Social Work

Other concerns

A few respondents, all organisations, raised concerns about the impact of changing the definition ‘Looked After’ in terms of statutory services. Noting not only the funding and resource challenges that would be faced by increased eligibility for aftercare, they also brought up how changes may complicate the work of service providers.

NSPCC Scotland suggested that if a proposal to change the statutory definition was made, it should be brought for further public consultation; a few other organisations supported this view. Social Work Scotland and the Scottish Association of Social Work were also concerned about the impact a changed definition would have on principles of minimum intervention, although more detail was not provided.

Potential scope of a universal definition of ‘care experience’

The consultation asked respondents to consider which experiences should be included in a universal definition. Suggested experiences included people who have been looked after at home, people in kinship care (both formal and informal), foster care, secure care, residential care, residential special school, adoption, and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Along with those identified experiences, the consultation also asked respondents to consider anything else they would add to the list.

It should be noted that the question did not ask respondents to provide reasons why they felt certain groups should be included, so any additional detail provided below is limited.

Q6: What experience of care would you expect to be covered by any definition of “care experience”?

Respondents were asked what experiences of care they felt should be considered in a universal definition. They were presented with a list of care settings that a person could have experienced and asked to select all they thought could be in a universal definition. These included the following, as well as an option to suggest other experiences.

• Looked After at Home
• Kinship Care (looked after children who have been placed with kinship carers by the local authority)
• Kinship Care (non-looked after children who live with a kinship carer, these children may be subject to an order under Section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or may be living in a completely private arrangement with extended family, with no local authority involvement)
• Foster Care
• Residential Care
• Residential Special School
• Supported Accommodation
• Secure Care
• Adoption

Base: All respondents (142)^[4]

Overall, at least two thirds of all respondents indicated that each of the experiences presented in the consultation should be included in a universal definition. This ranged from 87% who selected the inclusion of foster care and residential care, followed by 85% for secure care, down to 68% who supported the inclusion of adoption. Just under one quarter (23%) selected ‘other’.

A broadly similar pattern of views was evident in both individuals and organisations, though organisations tended to be slightly less likely to select several of the options compared to individuals, except for looked after at home and adoption.

Views varied by type of organisation but were broadly supportive of including most or all of these experiences. Slight differences included lower support among local authority respondents for including adoption (63%) and Kinship Care (non-looked after children who live with a kinship carer) (58%), and marginally less support among health bodies for including supported accommodation (75% compared to 88% to 100% support for the other experiences). Among organisations with corporate parenting responsibilities, at least 73% supported including each of the listed options, ranging from 73% supporting adoption and Kinship Care (non-looked after children who live with a kinship carer) to 90% supporting the inclusion of foster, residential and secure care.

While policy/advocacy/support organisations and social work/youth justice appear to be slightly less supportive, these organisations were more likely to not select any answer options at Q6 and instead leave an open comment expressing their views, or provide alternative format responses that did not directly answer the consultation questions. These views are included below.

Other experiences of care

Just under half of respondents provided additional information at Q6. This is higher than the 23% of respondents who selected the ‘other’ option at Q6, as many respondents took the opportunity to expand on their answers to Q6 more generally.

Several suggested the inclusion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in a definition. Other groups each mentioned by a few respondents included:

• Children on the child protection register or who have support from social work
• Children in emergency foster care
• Children in respite care
• Young people over 16 years who are estranged from their parents or carers
• The babies of young mothers in care
• People who have been born from donor conception or surrogacy agreements
• People adopted from outside the UK
• At stakeholder events, some recommended that adult adoptees be included.

Some reiterated support for the experiences listed in the multiple-choice section. This included support for people who have experience of adoption, informal kinship care, residential care, residential special schools and supported accommodation.

Exclusions to the universal definition

A few respondents, all organisations, mentioned some experiences they felt should not be included in the universal definition. These responses focussed on the distinction of whether there was state support already provided or whether the young person was subject to a compulsory supervision order. There was concern that available funding and resourcing may be overstretched if there were not some limits to support. For example:

• Adoption - Dumfries and Galloway Council thought that people who are adopted should only be included if they were receiving post-adoption support or if the adoption had broken down.
• Kinship care – Dumfries and Galloway Council and Stirling Council also thought that young people who are in kinship care (non-looked after) should not necessarily be included.
• Supported accommodation - Shetland Islands Council thought that young people in supported accommodation may not be considered to have care experience unless they were placed there on a compulsory supervision order.

“We have not ticked the bullet point listed - ‘Kinship Care (non-looked after children who live with a kinship carer, these children may be subject to an order under Section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or may be living in a completely private arrangement with extended family, with no local authority involvement’ - as from a bursary perspective, it would depend on the specifics of the situation, as the bullet point currently details a fundable and a non-fundable student. Under the current policy if a student was in kinship care and subject to an order under Section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 they could be funded, but if it was a completely private arrangement with no local authority involvement, they could not be funded.” - Scottish Funding Council

Concerns about moving away from definitions based on legal status

A few respondents noted that this question was reframing the way support and services were provided to those with care experience. They highlighted that local authorities and corporate parents typically consider legal status, such as whether a young person or child is on a Compulsory Supervision Order, to determine eligibility for statutory support rather than whether they had experience in a particular care setting. Respondents expressed the view that further consideration and consultation would be needed prior to any changes to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

“Where they live does not make them ‘looked after’, the fact that they are on a Compulsory Supervision Order makes them ‘looked after’. The framing of question 6 suggests a fundamental shift to defining ‘care experience’ not by the relevant legislation but instead by where they live, regardless of the legal framework that has placed them there.” – COSLA

Universities Scotland raised a point about the need for an agile system to determine eligibility to increase participation, particularly if there is a move away from eligibility being determined by legal status.

“Allied to this point is the need for any discussion of a universal definition to include consideration of how different types of care experience are verified, for the purposes of funding, for example. A universal definition should be based, from a widening participation point-of-view, on identifying where disadvantage has been faced, not on the ease or readiness with which that definition can be verified. It would be critical that funding bodies remain agile enough in their systems and processes to respond to the various ways in which different types of care experience can be evidenced” - Universities Scotland

Other comments

Questions around whether the universal definition would include access to statutory services and benefits, and concerns about resourcing were also raised at this question by a few organisations.

Q7: Do you have any other comments about a proposed universal definition of ‘care experience’?

Three fifths of respondents answered Q7. Many of the themes evident in these responses aligned with those described throughout this chapter. However, these have been summarised below alongside additional views and unique perspectives.

Scope and language of a universal definition

Several respondents reiterated the need to be inclusive and to reflect diverse experiences by creating a wide definition of care experience. Other specific experiences were also suggested for inclusion, including children and young people or unable to live at home and requiring social work support to stay safe, children who are reunited with parents, care from informal relationships such as through extended family/friends/community members, those supported through a Section 11 Kinship Care Order or ‘informal’ kinship care, those in residential care, foster care, and secure care. There were also calls for greater clarity on what experiences would be included and excluded once any definition is agreed.

“The reason we propose a broad and inclusive definition is to make sure that no young people are falling through the gaps and to get rid of arbitrary eligibility criteria that are based on the siloed logic of systems rather than people’s holistic needs. We hope that a universal definition can eventually provide a route towards increasing access to rights and entitlements that some people are currently unable to access. As one young person put it: ‘Have these people ever experienced the confusion, relief, worry and terror of being a child and suddenly being away from everything you know? There are instances of things that last 5 minutes that can influence the rest of your life so having some mad time criteria to meet feels really not nice.’”- Cyrenians

Some called for the language and phrasing of a universal definition to be clear, inclusive, straightforward, positive, simple, enabling, and understandable, focusing on individuals.

Resourcing and implementation considerations

Resourcing and implementation concerns were highlighted by several respondents. Financial concerns such as a lack of funding in local authorities and potentially diverting resources from other areas related to The Promise were noted, as was additional staff time required to implement changes. One respondent highlighted the risks of insufficient resourcing and the potential of poor implementation leading to unintended consequences.

“The crucial factor associated with having a universal definition of care experience is financial. If the definition is expanded and organisations are expected to support a broader range of eligible young people, who will bear the costs associated with this? Likewise, significant work will be required to communicate this change to organisations, including non-statutory and the third sector, to ensure that it does not become another definition rather than a ‘universal’ definition.” – Stirling Council

“It will be critical that comprehensive and detailed financial modelling is undertaken to ensure the implications of any change to the definition of ‘care experience’ are clearly understood and resourced so they can be effectively delivered.” – Aberdeen City Council

Other considerations for implementation, each mentioned by a few respondents, included:

• Potential difficulties individuals might have evidencing their care experience status.
• Concerns around data collection and monitoring which could require significant work and resourcing, and challenges in gathering data on care experience numbers, particularly for informal kinship care. The need for joint data systems and reporting in the care experience and education context was noted.
• Calls for sufficient lead times to introduce any changes.

“We would have some concerns about how children and young people might be expected to evidence their status, for example, if they had been in kinship care – what must they provide to show this, and would this create a barrier for some?... We are keen to see further work aimed at understanding the particular needs of different care experienced children and young people to ensure they receive the right support at the right time.” - The Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland

Language as a barrier to support and stigma

Several noted that the term ‘care experience’ and its definition could cause barriers to accessing support. Concerns were raised about a universal definition potentially limiting access to support depending on how narrow the definition is, reducing access to support if people do not identify with the definition , and increasing the complexity of the system and creating potential confusion. Singular comments included that some people may wrongly think they are eligible for support when they are not and that creating a universal definition may not increase support for people. Concern about potential stigma related to ‘care experience’ and the need for individuals to have a choice in the terms they identify with was raised by several respondents.

“There is a need to consider stigma – many young people do not consider themselves care experienced, and do not want to consider themselves care experienced - slicing people into their experiences, instead of taking a holistic approach, makes for a confusing pathway into and out of accessing support.” – Stirling Council

Adoption specific considerations

Several respondents made comments specific to adoptees. A variety of views were detailed, with some requesting adoptees be included in a universal definition of care experience, raising challenges that may have been faced by adoptees and their need to access support. Conversely, comments were also made suggesting adoptees should not be included within a universal definition, with these respondents detailing individual circumstances where adoptees may not consider themselves to be care experienced, and the need to have further discussions around their inclusion within the definition.

Potential positive outcomes

Some respondents reiterated that a universal definition of care experience could assist people in defining, understanding and classifying their experiences. Some comments were also made on the universal definition supporting clearer pathways and ease of access to support.

Other positives of creating and using a universal definition noted by small numbers of respondents at Q7 included that it could:

• Improve consistency in support by using the same language.
• Minimise confusion, re-telling of experiences, and people being excluded from support.
• Encourage equitable support, fair treatment, inclusivity, representativeness, and the reduction of stigma and discrimination.
• Be useful for some individuals later in life if they experience unforeseen breakdowns in their support.
• Support advocacy by adults with lived experience

Impact on existing legislation and policy

Some respondents noted the need to consider how a universal definition interacts with or impacts existing or future legislation, policy, and legal definitions. As noted in Q3, a few comments at Q7 reiterated the need to consider and provide clear information about how a universal definition aligns with existing definitions and eligibility criteria for support and entitlements, with clarity needed on who would be eligible and included. One respondent suggested that the definition should be reviewed regularly. Other suggestions included considering care experience as a protected characteristic and subsequent changes to the Equalities Act 2010, ensuring continued accessibility of appropriate supports and entitlements and ensuring any changes follow trauma-informed practice.

Some respondents requested additional details about the proposals. This included information or clarity about:

• How a universal definition links with consultations on the reform of the children’s hearing system and the future of foster care.
• The reasons for considering introducing a universal definition and its implications.
• How the definition could tackle stigma.
• How the term will meet the needs of people with different care experiences.

Other comments

Some raised the need for additional views to be included as part of this consultation, specifically the voices of children, young people, people with care experience, or those who will be included or excluded from a universal definition.

Singular comments included the need for public understanding and support for the proposal and that the definition cannot happen in isolation from the current practice reality. Singular negative comments included opposition to a universal definition, one view that it is not necessary to create a legal definition, a suggestion that this work should have been done as part of the Independent Care Review, a dislike of the term ‘experience’, and disagreement with the consultation approach.