The Promise: Areas of Research Interest 2026-2029

Research Questions by vision statement:

Supporting children to stay with their families

Scotland’s ambition is for children to be supported to stay within their families wherever it is safe and possible to do so. The overall number of children entering care each year in Scotland is falling, and proportionally more children who do become looked after are living with kinship carers, and fewer are remaining with their parents^[2]. These national‑level trends help to understand what is happening, but not how this is being achieved, or the impact on families. To answer that second question, we need better evidence to provide context to national statistics: on the factors that influence whether families can stay together; the support available locally; and the conditions that enable early, preventative help rather than crisis‑driven intervention. Here, prevention is understood primarily in relation to children at risk of entering care and their families, focusing on how earlier identification of unmet need, timely support, and system responses may reduce avoidable escalation to compulsory care.

Research questions:

Understanding trends and use of administrative data

• How should the declining number of children entering care in recent years in Scotland be interpreted when considered alongside trends in referrals, assessments, child protection activity, and service capacity?
• What indicators could be used to interpret changes in rates of entry into care, including distinguishing between changes in underlying need and potential unmet or unaddressed need prior to care entry?
• How should the declining number of children entering care be interpreted when considered alongside other key contextual factors, demographic trends and policy interventions e.g. child poverty rates, families experiencing or at risk of homelessness, declining birth rates, declining parity (number of births per woman), declining births to teenage mothers, increase in maternal age at first birth, roll out of FNP (family nurse partnership)?

Prevention and family support

• How can linked administrative data be used to identify patterns of unmet service need among families who later experience involvement with the care system (for example across child protection, health, education, housing, or justice), and what does this evidence suggest about the types and timing of targeted support most likely to prevent escalation to care?
• What characteristics, experiences, or circumstances are most strongly associated with children entering care in Scotland, how do these risk factors vary across the child’s life course (including pre‑birth, early childhood, and adolescence), and how do these differ by age, ethnicity, local authority, and family composition?
• What are the conditions across local areas that enable early preventative help? How does this vary for families experiencing different (although not mutually exclusive) difficulties that may escalate to involvement with the care system?
• Which forms of early help do families describe as most effective in reducing the likelihood of children requiring statutory intervention or being separated from their families, and how does this vary across stages of childhood?
• How well aligned are current family support practices for families at risk of involvement with the care system with the principles and commitments of The Promise, and what barriers to alignment remain?
• How do children who have been supported to stay with their family describe family life following a ‘close encounter’ with the care system?

Section 11 orders (Kinship care orders)

• What is the scale, profile and geographic distribution of children living in kinship care under Section 11, and how does this vary across Scotland?
• How do outcomes (including education, health, stability and poverty) for children subject to Section 11 orders compare with those formally ‘looked after’ in kinship care, foster care, and those living at home with parents?
• What pathways lead families to Section 11 orders rather than formally ‘looked after’ kinship care, and how consistent is decision-making across local authorities?
• To what extent are Section 11 arrangements used as an alternative to the ‘care system’, and what are the implications for children’s rights, support and outcomes?
• What support (financial, practical, therapeutic) is provided to Section 11 kinship carers in practice, and how does this vary across areas? What unmet need exists?

Carers, stability and permanence

The Independent Care Review^[1] made clear that stability and relationships must sit at the heart of children’s care. It highlighted that children should be “actively supported to develop relationships with people in the workforce and wider community” who are able to provide consistency, listen and act with compassion. It also emphasised that unnecessary moves, disruptions in care, and changes in social workers can damage trust, wellbeing, and long‑term outcomes. Ensuring stability is therefore about both where children live and who they interact with.

Despite this, we still do not fully understand how instability such as moves between homes whilst in the care system, changes in caregivers, or frequent turnover in social workers affects outcomes for children at different ages, nor what local factors help prevent disruption. More evidence is needed to understand the implications of instability for babies, children and young people, and what kinds of support, investment, or system changes can promote secure and lasting relationships.

Helping support a child’s pathway to permanence is central to ensuring they experience stable, loving relationships and a secure sense of home, and avoid prolonged uncertainty. This requires timely, well‑informed decisions about the right long‑term care arrangement for each child. Drift and delay can both prolong a child’s pathway to permanence^[3], and more evidence is needed around the related causes, outcomes, and successful mitigations.

Research questions:

Moves between homes

• What are the main reasons for moves between homes among children experiencing care, and how commonly are these moves deemed ‘avoidable’? How does this differ across caring environments?
• What local practices or system conditions are associated with stability of caring environments whilst in the care system and greater continuity of key relationships?
• What role do system pressures (e.g. availability of homes, workforce capacity, financial considerations) play in decisions about where a child lives?
• What factors influence decision-making between kinship care, foster care, supervision at home, and private law arrangements (including Section 11 orders), and how consistent are these decisions across Scotland?
• How do stability, wellbeing, and longer-term outcomes differ across caring environments (foster care, kinship care, residential care, at home (including distinctions between formal and informal kinship care arrangements)), after accounting for children’s needs, and how does this vary depending on the age, stage at which entry into the care system occurs, and number of moves between homes experienced?
• How does the impact of moves between homes whilst in the care system on developmental outcomes vary across different stages of childhood, particularly for infants and very young children?
• How do children or young people whose situation has been stable for a number or years describe their key relationships in comparison with those whose situation has been fluctuating?

Stability and continuity of social workers

• How often do children experiencing the ‘care system’ experience a change of social worker, and how does this vary by local authority, age, caring environment, legal status, length of episode, and other relevant characteristics, including protected characteristics?
• What role does a child’s plan play in providing continuity and relational stability when individual social workers or carers change?
• Where a change of social worker is unavoidable, what transition arrangements, supports, or ways of working have been most successful in maintaining children’s sense of stability, trust, and continuity of care?
• How does a change in social worker impact on the child’s long-term outcomes by age of child?

Children experiencing care at home with their parents

• To what extent do children experiencing care at home with their parents experience differences in outcomes to children in other caring environments across domains beyond education, and what mechanisms help explain any observed differences?
• How consistent is practice and support for children experiencing care at home across local authorities, and what support do families and social workers say is key in maintaining safety and stability?
• What changes to support, relationships, and system conditions do children and their families describe as having worked to improve stability, safety, and wellbeing of children who experience care while living at home with their parents?

Residential care

• How can continuity of care and relationships be meaningfully measured for children while experiencing care in residential and secure care, where a home may remain stable but staff caring for the child may change?
• To what extent do levels of relational continuity within residential caring environments, including secure care, (e.g. consistency of key workers, staff teams, or trusted adults) vary across services, and how are these patterns associated with children’s wellbeing, safety, and longer‑term outcomes?
• How do children and young people in residential caring environments, including secure care, describe the impact of staff continuity or turnover, and what aspects of practice make the greatest difference to their experience of stability?
• What factors would support the recruitment and retention of residential childcare workers, including in secure care?
• Does the financial model of the provider (e.g. Local Authority run, charitable or privately run) have any impact on stability of caring environment or turnover of staff in children’s residential care?
• What are the profit levels of different providers in children’s residential care, and to what extent are profits being used as surplus to make improvements to services?
• What are the conditions that support financial sustainability for children’s residential care providers?

Foster and kinship care

• How do different financial support models (including allowances, fees, and discretionary payments) influence recruitment, retention, and stability of caring environment for foster and kinship carers?
• To what extent does variation in financial support across local authorities and independent fostering agencies affect equity, availability of caring environments, and child outcomes?
• What factors influence stability and permanence for children experiencing kinship care, including remaining in those homes to adulthood, returning to parents, or transitioning to other caring environments?
• How do outcomes differ between formal (‘looked after’) and informal kinship care arrangements, and what explains these differences?
• What is the impact of allegations processes on foster carer retention, wellbeing, and stability of caring environment for children, and which approaches mitigate negative impacts while maintaining safeguarding?
• What factors contribute to challenges around the sufficiency of caring environments across foster and kinship care, and how do these vary by geography and caring environment?
• What factors most influence the recruitment, retention, and long-term sustainability of foster and kinship carers, and how do these vary across areas and carer types, including the relative impact of financial support, fees, training, professional recognition and access to support services?

Adoption

• What are the factors that lead to a child or young person moving from their prospective or adoptive family, either before or after an adoption order is in place?
• How do adopted children, young people and their families experience situations where the child or young person can no longer live with their adoptive family, and what are the protective factors that promote family stability and help families stay together?

Permanence

• What are the average timescales to achieving permanence across different routes (e.g. reunification, kinship care, permanence orders, adoption), and how do these vary across Scotland?
• At what points in children’s pathways do delays most commonly occur (e.g. assessment, decision-making, court processes, matching to a home), and what factors drive these delays?
• How can “drift” be defined and identified in children’s experiences (e.g. multiple moves, delayed decisions, unclear plans), and which children are most at risk?
• What is the relationship between delay in achieving permanence and children’s wellbeing, relationships, and long-term outcomes?
• What approaches, supports, tools or system changes have been shown to safely reduce time to permanence while ensuring high-quality, child-centred decision-making?

‘Cross-border placements’

• How do rates of unplanned endings to living arrangements differ for children living cross-border whilst experiencing care compared with those living within their home jurisdiction?
• What is the scale and nature of children living cross-border whilst experiencing care involving children in Scotland, and what are the impacts on stability, oversight, and outcomes?
• Are children living cross-border whilst experiencing care more likely to experience multiple residential placements over time, and how does this vary by age when a child enters the ‘care system’?
• How does distance from the home local authority influence the length of time a child spends in a given caring environment or likelihood of return moves?
• How does living cross-border whilst experiencing care affect children’s ability to form and sustain secure relationships with key adults, including residential staff, social workers, and independent advocates?
• What impact does living far from home whilst experiencing care have on children’s ability to maintain connections to family, community, faith or language?

Education

The Independent Care Review made clear that education is central to ensuring care experienced children feel loved, safe and able to reach their potential, highlighting that many barriers to learning stem from wider experiences of trauma, instability and stigma rather than education alone. Education Outcomes for ‘Looked After’ Children reporting^[4] highlights persistent gaps in outcomes between pupils experiencing the ‘care system’ and their peers in terms of attainment, attendance, exclusions and destinations upon leaving school. A better understanding is needed on underlying drivers for these persistent gaps.

Research questions:

Early learning and childcare (ELC)

• How does uptake and attendance at early learning and childcare (ELC) vary among children experiencing the ‘care system’ and children eligible for funded provision at age two, and what factors influence this variation?
• What do parents and carers describe as helping or hindering access to early learning and childcare (ELC) for these groups?

Stability at school

• To what extent are the differences in educational outcomes seen between caring environments explained by stability related factors such as moves between homes, school moves, attendance, and continuity of key relationships?
• How much more likely are children experiencing the ‘care system’ to change school compared to their peers, how does this vary by age, caring environment, and local area? What impact do school changes have on attainment, attendance, and engagement?
• What practices or supports have been most effective in reducing unnecessary school moves for children experiencing the ‘care system’, or mitigating their educational impact where moves are unavoidable?
• What barriers do practitioners and young people identify to effective joint working between education and social care, and what models of collaboration appear most effective in supporting educational stability and success?
• How does living cross-border whilst experiencing residential care affect school stability, including frequency of school moves and disruptions to learning?
• Are children living cross-border whilst experiencing care likely to experience delayed school enrolment or gaps in education after moving to a new caring environment?
• To what extent do children living in an informal kinship arrangement experience different patterns of school stability, attendance and support compared to children experiencing the ‘care system’ and their peers?

Educational outcomes and experiences

• To what extent are educational outcomes for children experiencing the ‘care system’ affected by other characteristics such as poverty or additional support needs, and what can be specifically associated with care experience itself?
• How do different ways of defining and stratifying care experience (for example by age at first entry to care, cumulative time spent in care, stability of caring environment, or recency of care) shape our understanding of educational outcomes for care experienced young people, and is there a single or combined approach that is most informative for policy and practice?
• How do different children or young people in different care contexts experience school and learning? How do they view the importance or objectives of their education to themselves? What do they, their carers or families describe as influential on their engagement or otherwise with education?
• What factors drive differences in educational outcomes for children experiencing the ‘care system’ across caring environments (e.g. foster care, kinship care, at home, and residential care, including secure care) and how do outcomes compare for children in informal kinship care arrangements (including those subject to Section 11 orders)?
• How do educational outcomes for children who have been adopted compare to their peers, and how do these outcomes vary by age at adoption and prior care experience?
• How are children in informal kinship care arrangements (including Section 11 orders) identified within education data systems and what are the implications for understanding their educational outcomes?
• What challenges do adoptive families describe in relation to children’s experiences of school and education, and what forms of support are perceived as most effective in addressing these?

Attendance and exclusions

• What factors influence rates of school attendance among children experiencing the ‘care system’, and which approaches or supports have shown evidence of improving attendance, engagement, and connection?
• To what extent do recent reductions in recorded exclusion rates for children experiencing the ‘care system’ reflect positive changes in practice, as opposed to increased use of informal exclusions, reduced timetables, or other forms of managed absence?

Post-school attainment and support

• What factors support care experienced and adopted young people, and those currently experiencing the ‘care system’, to achieve and sustain positive post-school destinations (including further and higher education, training, and employment), and where do transition points present the greatest risks of disengagement?
• How do experiences of care, stability of caring environment, and educational support influence participation and achievement in college, university, apprenticeships, or other training pathways?

Brothers and sisters

Children in care should be supported to maintain loving, lifelong relationships with their brothers and sisters. Sibling bonds can often represent children’s most enduring sources of stability, identity and belonging, particularly during periods of disruption.

However, significant evidence gaps limit understanding of how well this ambition is currently realised. Basic descriptive data on the scale and nature of sibling separation is incomplete, including the reasons why children are unable to live with their siblings while experiencing the ‘care system’. While the Independent Care Review provided qualitative insights into the emotional impact of sibling separation, there remains limited evidence on its longer-term consequences for relationships, wellbeing, and wider life outcomes. Better evidence is needed to understand the extent and drivers behind preventable separation of siblings, which supports are most effective in sustaining these relationships.

Research questions:

Children with a sibling who is experiencing care

• To what extent is a child’s likelihood of entering the ‘care system’ influenced by having a sibling who is already in it? Does this vary by maternal or paternal factors, individual child factors/demographics, age at which first child enters the ‘care system’, or birth spacing? Does this vary by caring environment of first child?
• In cases where the sibling of a child experiencing the ‘care system’ also begins to experience care, how often do reasons for this differ from first child, how, and in what way? Does this vary by caring environment of first child?
• What support is provided for pregnancy planning or during pregnancy to parents who have a child who is currently experiencing care away from home? Does this vary by locality, age of the mother, or other characteristics? Does this vary by caring environment where the first child is living whilst experiencing care?

Sibling separation whilst in the care system

• What are the key drivers of sibling separation for children who begin to experience care? How can these be better defined and captured in routine data collection?
• In cases where siblings do not live together while experiencing the ‘care system’, how are decisions made, what factors are given greatest weight, and to what extent are separation decisions driven by assessed need and children’s safety, as opposed to constraints such as availability of caring environment, capacity, or service structures?
• How are children’s views and preferences about living with or staying connected to their siblings captured, weighted, and revisited in decision-making processes? How does this vary for sibling-like relationships?
• How do children understand and make sense of sibling separation, whatever the reason, at different stages of childhood and adolescence, and what supports help mitigate distress or loss?
• What practice models or local innovations in Scotland show promise in reducing unnecessary sibling separation or improving relationship outcomes, and how transferable are they?
• How do permanence planning timescales and legal routes (e.g. compulsory supervision orders, permanence orders, adoption) affect the likelihood and duration of sibling separation?
• What proportion of children living cross-border whilst experiencing residential care are separated from their brothers or sisters at the point of entry into the care system, and how does this vary across different local authorities?
• How does the rate and nature of sibling separation for children experiencing care in a cross-border caring environment compare with those experiencing care within the child’s home jurisdiction and closer to home, and how does this vary across different local authorities?

Maintaining sibling relationships

• Which approaches or supports have been most effective in enabling siblings to live together safely, or in sustaining strong relationships where living together is not possible, when one or both are experiencing the ‘care system’ or are adopted?
• How often do separated siblings maintain regular, meaningful contact while experiencing care or adoption, and how does this vary by caring environment, distance, age, and local authority practice?
• How does living cross-border whilst experiencing care affect frequency, quality and consistency of sibling contact?
• What practical barriers (e.g. distance, funding, transport, staff availability) limit meaningful sibling contact for children living far from home whilst experiencing care?
• How often are sibling contact arrangements reduced or cancelled when a child begins to live cross-border whilst experiencing care?
• How do children or young people who are supported to maintain sibling relationships in care describe or value the experience of that relationship? What does it help them with? What is the experience of their sibling(s)?

Restrictive practices

The Promise sets a clear ambition that children and young people should be cared for in ways that minimise distress and avoids the need for restraint, unless it is the only option to ensure their safety. Current Care Inspectorate data provides insight into the use of restrictive practices in residential childcare settings, but evidence remains uneven across other parts of their lives where restraint may occur. Recent work through The Promise Rethinking Restraint pilot^[5] demonstrated that meaningful reductions in physical restraint are achievable when organisations invest in trauma‑informed cultures, reflective practice, and strong relational approaches.

Understanding how successful local practice can be sustainably scaled and embedded nationally would support more effective policy and guide implementation. Key to this will be building a clearer picture of how best practice varies for children with different needs and experiences, and how the safety of children experiencing the ‘care system’, their caregivers, and those around them can be prioritised while working to meet these ambitions.

Research questions:

Use of restraint

• How, where, why and how often are restrictive practices used across different care settings and services (including foster care, education, and health and residential care, including secure care) and what are the key gaps or inconsistencies in current data and recording?
• What factors are associated with the use of restrictive practices in the lives of children and young people experiencing the ‘care system’?

Approaches to minimising use of restraint

• How can evidence from settings that have successfully reduced their use be scaled up to inform safe, sustainable, and trauma informed practice?
• What are the key challenges to sustaining and scaling trauma-informed restraint, reducing approaches across different settings, and what system-level enablers support long-term change?
• How do professionals describe instances where they have avoided or had to resort to restrictive practices? What considerations did they apply? How do they describe their training as preparing them for those events?

Mental health and wellbeing

The Children’s Health in Care in Scotland (CHiCS) study (2021) ^[6] demonstrated that population‑wide linkage of social care and health records is feasible at scale, linking cohorts of care‑experienced children and young people and their peers to administrative health datasets, to better understand service use including prescriptions and hospitalisations for mental health and neurodevelopmental disorders. The Promise Data and Evidence Group is working to establish routine monitoring of selected outcomes through the CHaMP (Children's Health and Monitoring The Promise) project, led by Public Health Scotland.

However, existing administrative datasets still cannot be used to understand the underlying level of need, the extent to which demand for support is being met, nor the effectiveness of different forms of help offered across the system. This includes early social and emotional development, particularly in infancy and early childhood, recognising the importance of attachment, relationships, and early experiences in shaping lifelong wellbeing. Data linkage is currently not possible for children under 5, as until recently a child’s Scottish Candidate Number (SCN) has been used to link social work and health records. Work is currently underway to address this gap, using additional identifiers to enable linkage and improve coverage for under 5s.

Within GIRFEC, wellbeing is understood in a holistic way, reflecting all aspects of a child or young person’s life and development. It is commonly considered through the eight wellbeing indicators—Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible and Included (SHANARRI)—which together support a rights-based, strengths-based approach to understanding and improving wellbeing. Questions in this section focus specifically on mental health and wellbeing. This includes social and emotional development, particularly in infancy and early childhood, recognising the importance of relationships, attachment, and early experiences in shaping longer-term wellbeing outcomes.

A recent longitudinal evidence review published by The Promise Data and Evidence Group shows that care experienced children face markedly higher risks of poor mental health, but also highlights substantial gaps in data coverage, particularly around preventive care, early childhood, and variation across caring environments.

Strengthening the evidence base on what supports are needed, who needs them, and what works in practice will be essential for delivering timely, effective, and equitable mental health support in line with The Promise.

Research questions:

Understanding outcomes and experiences

• What is the prevalence of mental health conditions and levels of emotional wellbeing observed among care experience children and young people across different ages and care experiences, including adoption (for example through distress, functioning, service contact or self‑reported wellbeing)?
• How do mental health experiences and outcomes vary by age, caring environment, care history, and timing of entry to and exit from care, and which groups show the greatest gaps between identified concerns and access to appropriate support?
• What is the prevalence of mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions among children living cross-border in residential caring environments, compared with those living within their home jurisdiction?

Access to, and experience of, services and support

• To what extent are identified mental health and emotional wellbeing concerns of care experienced children and young people, including those who have been adopted, met through timely, preventive and ongoing support, as opposed to acute or crisis‑driven services?
• How does uptake of community-based care and preventive services (e.g. community wellbeing hubs, parenting programmes, youth resilience interventions) by care-experienced children and their families compare to their peers? Does this vary by locality, age, or other characteristics?
• How do care experienced children and young people, including those who have been adopted, experience accessing mental health support, including waiting times, continuity, transitions between services, and responsiveness to trauma, neurodivergence, and disability? How do they understand this experience to be shaped by their care experience?
• What barriers and enablers do children, carers, and practitioners identify in accessing timely, appropriate mental health and wellbeing support, particularly in community-based and preventive services?
• How do carers, family or professionals view the mental health concerns of young people experiencing care and how these are met?
• How do key transition points – including moves between homes, stability of caring environment and changes in professional support - affect continuity of mental health support and emotional wellbeing for care experienced children and young people, including those who have been adopted?
• To what extent do continuity of care and trust in health professionals impact on care experienced children and young peoples’ mental health outcomes?
• How ‘adoptee-competent’ are health services and health professionals? Do they understand the impact of adopted children and young people’s early trauma and neglect and the implications of unknown family medical histories?
• How does living cross-border whilst experiencing care affect children’s access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and specialist mental health services?

Early Childhood Development (ECD)

• What patterns can be observed in early developmental concerns and subsequent service involvement, and how do these vary depending on the nature and timing of support provided? How do emotional, behavioural, and early social and emotional development outcomes for infants and young children who are experiencing care vary by caring environment and age at first experience of care, and what factors influence these differences?
• How can early identification of emotional, behavioural, or developmental concerns in care experienced children be better linked to sustained mental health and wellbeing support over time?

Wellbeing

• What are care experienced children and young people’s own views on their wellbeing, including their sense of happiness and sense of belonging (to peer groups, to family, to society)? What improvements do they suggest to services to increase their positive sense of wellbeing and why?
• What are children and young people’s experiences of stigma and discrimination when using mental health services and what impacts do these experiences have on their health and wellbeing outcomes?
• How do care-experienced children and young people describe the development of their sense of identity, how this is shaped by their experiences (positive or negative) of care, and how this impacts on their mental (and physical) health?
• For children living far from family, community and familiar supports whilst experiencing care, what is the impact on their emotional wellbeing and mental health?

Physical Health

Improving the physical health of care experienced children and young people is a complex challenge, not least because their health trajectories can differ substantially before, during and after periods of living in the ‘care system’. The Children’s Health in Care in Scotland (CHiCS)^[5] study shows that population wide linkage of social care and health records is possible at scale, and that care experienced children experience higher rates of mortality, prescriptions, hospitalisations, and a range of physical and neurodevelopmental conditions across the life course.

However, understanding health is not only about understanding the prevalence of conditions. Evidence from CHiCS also highlights the importance of how young people access and use health services, including patterns of preventive care, missed appointments, emergency admissions and other interactions across the system. This includes consideration of early childhood development, recognising the importance of physical growth, early development, and the foundations laid in infancy and early years. Administrative datasets alone provide limited insight into unmet need or how well services respond to children’s experiences and circumstances. Better evidence on service access, pathways, and the support required at key points in a young person’s journey would strengthen policy and help deliver health care that truly reflects the ambitions of The Promise.

Research questions:

Identification of need and prevention

• How can administrative health data be linked, both with other administrative data and with lived experience evidence, to provide a more holistic picture of children’s health, development, and wellbeing from early childhood through to adolescence and across different age cohorts?
• What more can we learn about access to services and health outcomes that are under-represented in current data, including preventative care and early interventions, as well as how access and engagement change when young people leave care (e.g. access to dental health and dental health outcomes; immunisations; sexual and reproductive health service use and outcomes; management of long-term conditions)?
• What approaches have been used internationally to use administrative health data to target preventive support for children, and what strengths and limitations do these approaches present in the context of care experienced populations?
• What is the prevalence of physical and neurodevelopmental health conditions among children living cross-border in residential caring environments, compared with those living within their home jurisdiction?
• Are children living cross-border whilst experiencing care likely to enter care with complex or unmet physical health concerns, and how well are these identified?
• How ‘adoptee-competent’ are health services and health professionals? Do they understand the impact of adopted children and young people’s early trauma and neglect and the implications of unknown family medical histories?

Continuity and access to services

• How do key transition points – including moves between homes, stability of caring environments, changes in professional support, leaving care, and moving from child to adult health services – affect continuity of physical health support, engagement with services, and health outcomes for care‑experienced young people? What models of health transition planning and support for care‑experienced young people (for example at the point of leaving care or moving into adult services) have been most effective in maintaining connection, engagement, and trust in health services?
• Is there a material difference in health outcomes for children experiencing the ‘care system’ who undergo a timely ‘looked after children initial health assessment’ and those that do not?

Experiences of services and support

• What are children and young people’s experiences of stigma and discrimination when using health services and what impacts do these experiences have on their health and wellbeing outcomes?
• What do care experienced children or young people (and carers or families) highlight as positive practices or experiences in supporting their access to health services?
• To what extent do continuity of care and trust in health professionals, including across the transition out of care, impact on care experienced children and young people’s physical health outcomes?

Early Childhood Development (ECD)

• How do physical health and early developmental outcomes for infants and young children who are experiencing care vary by caring environment and age at first experience of the ‘care system’, and what factors influence these differences?
• How can data on early developmental concerns be better used to inform timely health interventions and longer‑term support for children with care experience?

Justice

The Promise makes a clear commitment to reducing the over-representation of care experienced children and young people in the justice system, and ensuring that justice responses are trauma-informed, proportionate, and focused on support rather than punishment. It highlights the connections between care experience, unmet needs, and pathways into offending and criminalisation. More broadly, The Promise emphasises that children who need care and protection should not be drawn into justice processes as a result of system failure.

Prolonged exposure to stress in childhood can disrupt healthy brain development. This can manifest as emotional and conduct problems in childhood, and risk-taking and criminal behaviours in adulthood^[7],[8]. An effective evidence base in this area would support understanding of how and why care experienced children and young people come into contact with justice systems, and the impact of different justice responses, including diversion, alternatives to prosecution, and secure care on both short- and long-term outcomes.

In addition to understanding care experienced childrens’ pathways into justice systems as accused or offenders, there is a significant evidence gap around their experiences as victims of crime. Limited evidence exists on the prevalence, visibility, and reporting of victimisation among children experiencing the ‘care system’.

Scottish Government has also published a specific Justice Analytical Services ARI. We would encourage researchers to refer to this document when considering the below questions, specifically the section ‘Crime prevention: understanding and addressing the underlying causes of crime’.

Research questions:

Interactions with the justice system and criminalisation

• To what extent is the over-representation of care experienced children in justice processes explained by intersecting factors such as poverty, disability, neurodivergence, and prior adversity, and what additional role does care experience itself appear to play?
• What pathways lead care experienced children and young people into contact with the justice system, and how do these pathways differ by age, caring environment, care history, and experiences of stability, support, and unmet need?
• How do patterns of justice contact differ for children experiencing care in different caring environments (including residential care, foster care, kinship care, and at home), and what mechanisms help explain these differences?
• What are the short‑ and longer‑term outcomes for care experienced children who experience different justice responses (e.g. diversion, secure care), and how do these outcomes vary by context and support received?
• What proportion of children living cross-border in residential caring environments come into contact with the justice system, and how does this compare with children in residential care placed within their home jurisdiction?
• What pathways lead children living cross-border in residential caring environments into contact with police or formal justice processes?
• How do care experienced children or young people describe peers as influential on their engagement with, or avoidance of, the justice system; and how does this compare with the views of children who do not experience care?
• How do transitions, including moves between homes, moves between services, and transitions out of care, interact with justice involvement, and where are children most vulnerable to escalation or loss of support?

Prevention and support

• How do children experience diversionary and supportive responses in comparison to formal justice processes, and what do they identify as most helpful in preventing further criminalisation?
• How do care, justice, health, and education systems interact to either mitigate or reinforce the criminalisation of care experienced children, and where are the most effective points for intervention to prevent avoidable justice involvement?

Children with care experience as victims of crime

• How common is victimisation among children and young people experiencing the ‘care system’ compared to their non‑care‑experienced peers, and how does this vary by age, caring environment, care history, and local area?
• What types of crime are care experienced children more likely to be victims of, and how do these patterns differ from those of other children?
• To what extent are crimes against children experiencing the ‘care system’ visible within justice and safeguarding systems, and is there evidence that victimisation is more likely to go unreported or unrecorded for this group?
• What factors influence whether victimisation of children experiencing the ‘care system’ is identified, reported, and responded to, including caring environment, trusted relationships, and interactions with police, social work, and other services?
• What supports or practices have been most effective in enabling children experiencing the ‘care system’ to disclose victimisation safely and in ensuring they are supported through justice, safeguarding, and recovery processes?
• How do children experiencing the ‘care system’ view and understand involvement with police, courts, and victim support services following victimisation, and what impacts do these experiences have on trust, wellbeing, and future engagement with services?
• How do experiences of victimisation and exploitation intersect with subsequent justice involvement or criminalisation of care experienced children, and what opportunities exist to intervene earlier to prevent harm and escalation?

Transition to young adulthood (Continuing Care and Aftercare)

The Promise recognises transitions from care into adulthood as a critical period, where young people can face abrupt changes in support, increased expectations of independence, and heightened risks around housing, finances, health, and wellbeing. It recognises that young people leaving care should not experience a ‘cliff edge’ of support, instead allowing for gradual, flexible transitions that reflect individual readiness, similar to the support available to many of their peers. Secure, trusting relationships and continuity of support are identified as central to positive transitions.

The ideal evidence base would help illuminate how different models of aftercare and continuing care operate in practice, and how they affect outcomes over time. This includes: evidence on the timing, intensity, and duration of support; the role of relationships with carers and professionals; and how support intersects with education, employment, housing, and health systems. Analytical insight is also needed into differential experiences and outcomes across groups.

Research questions:

Access to and uptake of continuing care and aftercare

• How consistently are care experienced young people informed about, offered, and supported to access aftercare and continuing care, and what factors influence take‑up across different groups of young people?
• How do needs assessment processes for accessing aftercare support vary across local areas in terms of thresholds, waiting times, and delivery approaches, and what are the associated resource requirements (including staff time and costs)?
• How do local practices in relation to supporting transitions to continuing care vary across areas, and how are these variations associated with patterns of uptake?
• Which young people are least likely to access or remain engaged with aftercare support (for example by age, care history, length of time since they last experienced care, caring environment), and why?
• How are children and young people’s disengagement from aftercare services identified and responded to in practice, including how decisions are made about whether and when re‑engagement or additional support is appropriate, and what factors are associated with successful re‑engagement where this is pursued? How does this vary across local authority areas?
• To what extent are current models of aftercare able to accommodate non‑linear transitions, such as returning for support after periods of independence or crisis?
• How do pathways into continuing care and aftercare differ for young people living cross-border in residential caring environments with those living within their home jurisdiction?
• Are young people living cross-border whilst experiencing care at greater risk of not accessing, or being deemed ineligible for continuing care or aftercare?
• How consistently are entitlements to continuing care and aftercare understood and applied when young people are living outside their home local authority or nation whilst experiencing care?
• How early and how efficiently are transitions planned for young people living cross-border in residential caring environments?
• How well do transitions from residential care align with young people’s developmental readiness, rather than age-based thresholds?

Joined up support

• To what extent are care experienced young people who do not take up aftercare or continuing care receiving adequate, appropriate support from other universal or specialist services, and how well do these supports align with their needs, preferences, and circumstances?
• How well aligned are aftercare supports with services in education, employment, housing, health, and justice, and where do gaps in coordination create risks for young people leaving care?
• How do care experienced young people transitioning into adulthood (up to age 26) experience accessing mental health support, including waiting times, continuity, transitions between services, and responsiveness to trauma, neurodivergence, and disability?
• How do transitions from children’s to adult mental health services affect continuity, accessibility, and quality of support for care experienced young people, and what barriers and enablers influence whether support is sustained during and after this transition?
• What models of transition planning and support have been most effective in maintaining connection, engagement, and trust in mental health services?

Outcomes and longer-term impacts

• How do outcomes for care experienced young people who receive different types or levels of aftercare support vary across housing stability, education and employment, health and wellbeing, and justice involvement?
• What evidence exists on the longer‑term impacts of sustained aftercare support into adulthood, particularly beyond age 21, and where are the key gaps in follow‑up evidence?
• How do longer-term outcomes for care experienced young people who take up continuing care compare with those who do not, across domains such as housing stability, education and employment, health and wellbeing, relationships, and independence? What does this suggest about the role of continuing care in supporting transitions to adulthood?
• Are young people who lived cross-border whilst experiencing care more likely to experience temporary or unstable accommodation, forced returns to their home jurisdiction, or gaps between leaving a caring environment and receiving housing support?
• Are care-experienced young people who lived cross-border whilst experiencing care more likely to face housing instability, disrupted aftercare support, and difficulty accessing entitlements from their home jurisdiction?
• What are the long-term wellbeing, educational and relational outcomes for adults who lived cross-border in residential caring environments as children?
• Does maintenance of sibling relationships whilst a child is experiencing care influence transitions out of care, including housing stability, mental health, and social support in early adulthood?

Relationships

• How do young people describe their relationships with continuing carers during and after leaving continuing care, and what role do these relationships play in supporting their transition to adulthood?
• How does living cross-border whilst experiencing care affect continuity of relationships with residential workers? Are these young people more likely to experience breaks in trusted relationships at the point of transition?

Support for care experienced adults

The Promise takes a lifelong view of care experience, emphasising that its impacts do not end at childhood or at the transition out of care. It recognises that care experienced adults may continue to face disadvantage and stigma across a range of life domains, and that public services and wider systems do not always recognise or respond to care experience in adulthood. Central to The Promise is the assertion that care experience should be understood and responded to as a factor shaping people’s lives over time, not as a time-limited status.

A strong evidence base in this area would deepen understanding of the long-term outcomes and lived experiences of care experienced adults, including in relation to health, wellbeing, housing, employment, relationships, parenthood, and interactions with public services. Evidence is needed on how systems identify and respond to care experience in adulthood, and on the effectiveness of policies or practices designed to offer ongoing recognition or support. Longitudinal and qualitative evidence would be especially valuable in unpacking cumulative impacts, resilience, and the conditions under which early disadvantage is mitigated or reinforced over time, helping to inform a genuinely lifelong approach in line with The Promise.

Research questions:

Identification and understanding of care experienced adults in population level data

• What new or enhanced data linkages would most improve understanding of the long‑term outcomes of care experienced adults, including those who have experienced adoption, including linkage between childhood care records and adult health, housing, education, employment, and justice data?
• What are the employment, income, and economic security outcomes for care experienced adults including those who have experienced adoption at different stages of adulthood, and how stable are these outcomes over time?
• What are the patterns of justice system contact among care experienced adults, including criminalisation, custody, and victimisation, and how do these outcomes relate to experiences in care or transitions into adulthood?

Parenthood and Care Experience

• To what extent are care experienced adults more likely to experience social work involvement during their own parenthood, and what factors are associated with this involvement?
• What targeted support is available to care experienced adults as they prepare for or embark on parenthood, how consistently is it offered and taken up, and what do care experienced parents themselves identify as most effective, trusted, and supportive in encouraging engagement?
• What data linkages and analytical approaches would enable a better understanding of intergenerational care experience in Scotland, including connections between parents’ care histories and children’s outcomes, and what opportunities exist to develop this evidence in the future?
• What targeted supports are currently available to care experienced parents in Scotland, and how do parents describe the factors that influence whether they choose to take up, engage with, or avoid this support?

Relationships and wider support

• What barriers do care experienced adults report in accessing and sustaining employment or career progression, and what do these experiences suggest about gaps in earlier support or ongoing adulthood services?
• What does adult justice involvement among care experienced people suggest about opportunities for earlier prevention, diversion, or sustained support beyond childhood?
• To what extent do ongoing relationships with carers, professionals, or trusted adults persist into adulthood, and how do these relate to wellbeing, stability, and outcomes?
• How can evidence on adult outcomes be more systematically used to inform improvements to care practice, transition planning, and lifelong support in line with The Promise?
• What forms of support do care experienced adults identify as having the greatest impact on long-term stability and wellbeing, even many years after leaving care?
• What can existing patterns of use of independent advocacy services (including those delivered by third sector organisations) tell us about the potential level and distribution of demand for advocacy among care experienced adults, and how might this vary across different groups and local areas?
• What do care experienced adults identify as the key features of meaningful and effective independent advocacy support?