Foster and kinship carers - Scottish Recommended Allowance: implementation review

Administration of the SRA

A series of questions were asked in the surveys and interviews of all stakeholders regarding the initial and ongoing administration of the SRA. Questions were designed to explore if the SRA was being facilitated as intended as well as to identify any barriers or challenges which needed to be addressed or further explored in any future rethinking or remodelling of the SRA.

Backdated Payments

The SRA was designed to be backdated to April 2023 for all carers who were already providing fostering or kinship care before the SRA was announced. All but one local authority that responded to the survey confirmed that back payments had been fully paid to all foster and eligible kinship carers in their areas.

The one local authority respondent where backdated payments had not been made explained that such payments were not made in relation to:

• foster carers who were de-registered prior to 29/11/23 but provided a placement between 1/4/23 and 29/11/23; and
• kinship carers who no longer provided kinship care at 29/11/23 but provided a placement between 1/4/23 and 29/11/23.

There were mixed responses with regards to the time taken for completing the backdating process.

Table 17: Reported processing time for back payments by local authorities

Processing time	Number	%	Valid Percent
0-2 months	16	54%	59%
3-5 months	5	17%	19%
6+ months	6	20%	22%
Don’t know	1	3%	-
Not applicable	1	3%	-
Missing	1	3%	-
Total	30	100%	27

Over half (59%) of authorities who gave a time estimate indicated that it had taken roughly 0-2 months, with a further 19% indicating 3-5 months and 22% indicating a process that took 6+ months.

One local authority reported that there had been no requirement for backdating in their area as they had always paid at least the SRA amounts.

Carers who were asked about the extent to which they agreed that backdated payments were made in an appropriate time frame as part of the survey gave very mixed responses. Most carers were neutral in this regard (30% of both foster and kinship carers). Similar proportions of foster carers agreed (23%, n=30) and disagreed (20%, n=26) that backdated payments had been prompt. Kinship carers, however, were more likely to agree (35%, n=43) compared to those who disagreed (14%, n=17).

While 29 respondents (including 10 kinship carers, 15 local authority foster carers and four IFA foster carers) noted that they had not received any backdated payments for at least one or more of their foster children, a further 11 respondents also provided feedback in relation to why they had not received this and the impact this had on their family. Most were either unaware of the reasons for not receiving this or noted that a back payment did not apply as they had already been receiving at least the SRA rate previously. Two foster carers flagged that the 11-15 year old age group in particular had not received any uplift as a result of the SRA rates, which made situations more challenging due to inflation, cost of living increases and rising bills. A few were unsure whether they should have received a back payment or not. Two foster carers also noted that their IFA decided not to pay this. Again, the impact of not receiving any back payment for both foster and kinship carers was largely identified as making household finances more challenging.

Challenges with Backdating

Roughly one third of authorities that responded to the survey (n=8) reported that there had been no challenges associated with processing or administering backdated payments (with one again noting that this had not been relevant in their area).

Where challenges had been experienced, these related mainly to:

• lack of administrative resource to calculate and implement the backdating of payments (including administration capacity to implement mid-year payment changes) and the resulting financial impact on authorities in meeting the costs of additional administration;
• limitations with existing payment systems/technical work to update IT systems, including needing to change the carer payment system to accommodate new age ranges;
• the requirement for manual calculation in some cases, e.g. because uplifts had already been made in the same financial year, as well as the need for manual checking prior to processing to ensure accuracy (described as a labour intensive process which caused delays in other work commitments);
• financial decisions needing to be signed off at committee/senior management level (including the need to ensure executive level authorisation for additional spend and exceptions once calculations were complete) causing onward delays; and
• issues related to when the additional monies for SRA were received from the Scottish Government/ensuring that funding was secured from the Scottish Government to meet any shortfalls (and/or needing to absorb that directly).

A specific concern was also raised in relation to backdated payments resulting in financial burdens in some areas. This included one authority which incurred additional costs once SRA rates were backdated for those in continuing care (due to them having previously lower rates). Similarly, where authorities had previously paid below SRA rates, but were keen to get the SRA implemented, this meant that some burdening of additional costs was experienced in the short term while awaiting monies from the Scottish Government. One authority reported that they had made a decision to implement ‘estimated’ backdated payments to families before the Christmas period of 2023 (recognising that this was a financially challenging time for families). This in turn resulted in some overpayments having been made once more detailed calculations had been completed, and these overpayments were absorbed by the council directly so as not to negatively impact families.

Other comments included that there had been limited guidance available to authorities regarding backdating of the SRA and that processes were therefore open to interpretation (for example, how to handle back payments of ‘former’ kinship carers or what to do in cases where families’ situations had changed significantly, such as placements ending, children having moved on, changes in children’s age bandings over the implementation period, etc.).

Other less frequently mentioned challenges included:

• working out accurate backdated allowances that took account of additional payments such as previous Christmas and birthday payments, for which no guidance was provided;
• the need to liaise with welfare rights colleagues regarding impacts of the SRA on kinship carers benefits, and how this would be communicated to kinship carers (with some challenges in calculating payments that accurately took account of benefits deductions); and
• in one area, attempts to update foster carers fees at the same time as the allowance.

Among local authorities, the main sentiment was that they had not been sufficiently well notified or made aware of the requirement for backdating, and had not therefore accounted for this in their administrative staffing/resource planning. In some areas, the fact that this had not been accounted for also delayed backdated payments significantly and it was felt that more preparation time was needed (which would potentially have removed or reduced the frustration expressed by carers as a result of delays experienced in receiving their payments).

Prompt Payment

Carers were also asked to what extent they agreed that initial SRA payments had been made in an appropriate time frame. Among those who gave a response, foster carers were relatively evenly split between those who agreed (n=40, 30%), those who disagreed (n=39, 30%), and those who neither agreed nor disagreed (n=38, 29%). Meanwhile, kinship carers were more likely to agree (41%, n=52) than disagree (19%, n=24) that initial payment had been prompt.

Among the carers who took part in interviews, there were no reported problems with prompt or regular payment now that the SRA had become embedded and so any reported delays in the initial payments seemed to have been resolved.

How Payments Are Made

Most foster carers who took part in the survey (n=116, 85%) indicated that their allowance and fees were paid together, while 16 (12%) said they were paid separately. The remaining five respondents either did not know or did not answer the question.

Almost all foster carers (n=131, 96%) stated that they received notification when their allowance or fees were paid. Only five said they were not notified and one respondent did not know.

There were significant differences, however, in how this information was provided, the timing of the information, and how detailed it was. Of the 105 foster carers who specified how the information was sent, just over half (n=57, 54%) received it by email, 21% (n=22) received a letter, and a further 10% (n=10) received both an email and a hard copy letter or remittance via post. A further 15 (14%) foster carers indicated that they received a payslip or remittance notice but did not specify whether this was received via email or post, while one respondent said they received an annual payment timetable at the start of every year.

The frequency of payment information varied, with some respondents receiving this weekly, some fortnightly and some monthly. Occasionally foster carers also noted that more detailed information was also provided at larger intervals, for example every six weeks or quarterly. The timing of the information also varied, with some receiving this a few days before the payment is made, and others (often where postal delivery was used) noting this generally arrived a few days to a week after the payment. Where the information was received after the payment, this was said to cause possible challenges when carers were usure of the accuracy of the payment amount:

“[The] letter arrives two days after payment which means if it's a different amount than expected you can't touch it for two days until your pay slip arrives and you can figure out what's wrong with it.” (Foster Carer)

The content of the payment information also varied in terms of the detail provided to carers. Some received detailed breakdowns of how the payment amount had been calculated, (i.e. clearly setting out the fee amount, the allowance amount, any other expenses or additional payments made, and any deductions). Others received more basic information detailing the children’s names, the time period the payment covered, and the total payment amount. A few, however, noted that the information they received was so basic that they found it difficult to even determine the time period the payment covered:

“We get an email but no explanation of what the payments are for, just the amount, it can be very confusing when your waiting on mileage or any other payments. We then get a more detailed statement through the post about every six weeks (after the payments) which is no use at all.” (Foster Carer)

“We are sent an email of the amount. But a final breakdown of what it relates to does not get sent until a month later which is difficult to tally. Especially when you have holidays (to be taken off), respite and expenses etc.” (Foster Carer)

While kinship carers were not asked about the type and nature of payment information they receive in the survey, similar sentiments were expressed in interviews:

“It’s just a lump sum that goes in. I couldn’t - for all these years that I’ve been a kinship carer, I don’t think I can actually tell you how much each of the children get, cos there’s never been a breakdown. There’s never been correspondence to say how much it is per child.” (Kinship Carer)

Differentiating between Fostering Fees and Allowances

One the main emerging issues for foster carers was around the merging of fees and allowances received and not being able to differentiate between the two.

Several carers noted that they used the monies received as a “lump sum” or described it all being added to the “family pot”, and many viewed any attempts to manage this money differently as being futile. Most said that their fee was often spent on things for the family (including household bills, food, family trips, holidays, etc.) and so could not easily be separated out from expenditure directly on the children for goods or activities such as clothes, after-school clubs, etc. Similarly, the allowance was often used to pay towards family expenditure in general, rather than specific items:

“I never really sit and think about what I’m getting paid for it as long as it does the job.” (Foster Carer)

Even though not in receipt of fees, similar sentiments were also expressed by kinship carers regarding their own different income streams:

“I wouldn’t be able to survive if I wasn’t able to use that kinship allowance as part of my household income…Because you get the letter to say, “This money is not for you” and I’m aware of that but certainly, I think it’s my gas and my electricity and my Virgin package, like with his phone and everything. That all comes out the same account as his kinship allowance cos there’s no other way round it.” (Kinship Carer)

“I just think I get paid and that’s it - like when you’re in a normal job, you get paid an amount and you work with it and you support the kids the best you can with what money you’ve got to pay. If you counted every penny and kept every receipt for every single thing, you’d go off your head. You’d have nothing to do but think about payments.” (Kinship Carer)

While local authorities were not asked about how they made payments to carers, among the IFAs who took part in the survey, all but one reported that they paid the allowance and fee to foster carers as separate payments (with one issuing carers with a combined payment which clearly indicated the amounts allocated to each part).

Third sector organisations supporting carers also reported that many queries received by them related to carers not knowing which of the two elements they could or should use to spend on certain things, especially food and routine household bills, etc.

Additional Payments and Expenses

As part of the local authority survey, all but one authority said that they paid additional payments to their foster carers.

The range of payments made varied by area, although the most frequently cited additional payments were those being made for Christmas, birthdays and summer holidays (often four additional weeks or 56 weeks pay in total). While this was typically the equivalent of two weeks pay for additional expenses in the summer school holidays and one week each for birthdays and Christmas/winter school holidays (where detail was given), one area noted that they paid a flat rate of £500 per child per year as a holiday allowance and another said that they funded costs of holidays with foster carers for all children and young people (e.g. flights and accommodation). One authority also noted they paid one extra weeks payment in September for extra-curricular activities, and another noted that they paid unused holiday entitlements.

Other frequently cited additional payments and expenses were those made for mileage (for example, for foster carers when transporting children to and from family visits or to attend foster related meeting/training, etc.), a telephone allowance, and discretionary payments for miscellaneous items/activities/expenses where these were considered in the best interests of the child. Some authorities noted that they made additional payments for new placements to cover initial essential set-up/equipment costs, etc. (with funding for replacement of essential equipment also covered), and one noted that they paid additional or enhanced payments for children with complex needs, assessed on a case-by-case basis. Emergency payments were also cited to cover such things as purchase of a passport, etc.

Several authorities reiterated that they also paid fees to their foster carers as well as skill level payments. In all cases, neither the fees nor the additional payments listed were said to have changed as a result of the SRA.

A sizable minority of authorities (n=9) said that they did not pay any additional payments to their kinship carers.

Where additional payments to kinship carers were made, these were similar to those made for foster carers and related mainly to birthday, Christmas and holiday payments (typically an additional four weeks, as above) as well as mileage, accommodation and travel costs for supporting children to attend appointments, meetings and for family time, telephone expenses, set-up equipment/furniture costs, and miscellaneous expenses on an ongoing basis.

One authority noted that they had previously paid legal costs in relation to applying for Kinship Care Orders. This was the only additional payment that was mentioned that was unique to kinship carers (although some noted that start up payments/expenses could be higher for kinship families than foster families, especially for placements made in emergencies and at short notice).

Given the variation in the level of detail given by authorities in response to questions about additional payments, it was not possible to compare like-for-like across the sample in terms of current practice. From the feedback provided, however, it appears that there is considerable variation in additional payments for carers by area and type of carer, and that decisions are made on a local and discretionary basis.

As with local authorities, all IFAs reported that they paid additional payments to foster carers on top of SRA allowances and fees. Again, these mainly covered holiday, Christmas and birthday allowances, with parity in the nature and scale of the payments paid by local authorities (i.e. equivalent of one week for Christmas/religious festivals/birthdays and two weeks for summer holidays). Additional payments were also made by IFAs for travel, e.g. for carers to attend meetings and/or to facilitate parental or familial contact for the children, as well as ‘set up fees’ being reported by one. One IFA also noted that they paid both 10 and 20 year ‘awards’. Ad hoc payments for things such as costs towards tuition for academic or leisure pursuits were also cited, as well as discretionary funds to assist carers with unexpected costs which may impact on daily living (e.g. car or boiler breakdown, etc.). There was no consistency in the additional payments made by different IFAs and a wide variety of different amounts and items mentioned in survey responses.

All IFAs said that they paid additional payments separately to the weekly allowances that were made to carers, typically alongside monthly allowances as a separate entry (although one did report that they had included their additional holiday payments in the average weekly allowance costs).

Among carers, there was considerable variation in the additional payments reported at interview, with kinship carers in particular reporting that there appeared to be very different practices and policies in relation to what was paid above the SRA, both within and between areas (and between different families/children):

“Prior to the SRA coming in and the guidance, the new guidance, kinship carers where the children were non-looked after, would receive the additional payments. However, what we’re now seeing is that those kinship carers who are becoming kinship carers at a later date are not entitled to those additional payments. So even within the same local authorities…I had a kinship carer approach me to say, “Everyone else is getting these additional payments but I’m not getting them.” That’s so unfair.” (TSO)

Several carers perceived that variation within local authorities was due to differences in the allocated social workers and their familiarity with the local authority practices, as well as differences in social worker discretion to sign off certain items of expenditure:

“It’s not very transparent and it seems to be each area team work different - one area team could say “Yes, we’ll finance that piece of equipment” and the other area team will say “No, we can’t finance that.” (Foster Carer)

Specific discrepancies included differences between areas in relation to travel and transport costs - it was reported that while some carers get all mileage costs, some have to pass a threshold of miles before they are allowed to claim.

Several carers also reported that additional payments were not adequate enough to meet their intended purpose, especially birthday and Christmas payments:

“I would say Christmas, birthdays and holidays. It’s not enough…I think he had a Switch that he got for Christmas and that alone is like £300 - over £300! And our wee boy last year had a birthday party…you hire a venue, you buy a cake, you get all the kids a party bag, you know, you’ve spent £200 and you haven’t bought the child a present.” (Foster Carer)

“I find it really difficult to afford Xmas and birthdays for my kinship child. I know some local authorities give extra payments at Xmas, birthdays and holidays but [local authority] have never done that, so although they have tried to make all kinship carers receive the same, that still isn’t the case.” (Kinship Carer)

Some foster carers also reported what they saw as undue pressure being placed on them by local authorities to evidence best outcomes for children in care, without providing the financial support to facilitate that:

“They [the local authority] are saying, “Get them into clubs”. I mean, I’ve got a wee fellow who was wanting to be in a football team and it was like £50 a month and then £5 a week and then I had to pay for travelling. So, you’re sitting going, well, where’s that money going to come from? Every time you go to a foster review, they ask you, “What club’s he in? Are you taking him on holiday?” And you’re like that, “Where do you think I’m getting all money from?”” (Foster Carer)

“I think the other thing that could be thought about more is that, you know, our kids use technology and, you know, mobile phones are now coming in at £1000…and who’s paying for that? The expectation from Social Work is the child has a mobile phone, but who’s paying the £1000 for the mobile phone? Because that’s a lot.” (Foster Carer)

While several carers expressed views that they were buying or wanted to buy items that might be considered ‘expensive’ or ‘lavish’, this was justified, they felt, as a means of not making children ‘stand out’ or appear different from their peers. Indeed, many carers expressed that their children were already ‘different’ by virtue of being cared for and so they made all efforts to try and reduce any other sense of difference or marginalisation where they could, i.e. “The stigma of being in care is enough to deal with.” (Foster Carer). This meant ensuring that children had the same clothes, technology and access to opportunities as their non-cared-for peers, and this was seen as important to help them feel included and to have the experiences they deserved:

“I know a lot of people say, you don’t need to spend that…but you want children to have good experiences when they’re growing up…So, I don’t agree that you shouldn’t spend that money. There’s a difference between being excessive and extravagant and then just making sure that children have a good experience.” (Kinship Carer)

A minority view was expressed that additional payments should be scrapped and instead be calculated and incorporated into standard allowances. This would, it was suggested, remove the bureaucracy associated with administering additional payments, the costs of which were seen as excessive and likely to be the same as the cost of additional payments themselves. It would also remove some of the current scrutiny being exerted over carers and their expenditure which was seen by some as being overly intrusive, i.e. “If we’ve trusted them with the lives of children, we can trust them to use their allowance effectively and to do what’s right.” (TSO)

Interaction of the SRA with Other Benefits

Local authorities may deduct some child-related benefits that kinship carers receive from their allowance. This is to ensure that, overall, the amount they receive is equivalent to the fostering allowance.

As part of the survey, all kinship carers were asked if they received any social security benefits which meant that money was deducted from their SRA allowance. Of the 133 who answered the question, 48% (n=64) said they did, 44% (n=59) said they did not, and 8% (n=10) did not know.

Those who did receive other benefits that were deducted from their allowance were asked if they had been aware that these benefits would impact the amount of SRA that they would receive. Just over half (52%, n=33) said they had not been aware of this, compared to 39%, (n=25) who had been aware, and 9% (n=6) who did not know.

Respondents impacted by these deductions were also asked about the impact of the reduction in the SRA. Some said there was no impact as they received the same amount of money overall, with some coming from the SRA and some coming from child benefit (or other payments):

“I still receive the same amount, just paid from two sources instead of one.” (Kinship Carer)

Some carers did, however, comment that the different timing of payments of the SRA and other benefits made it challenging to manage family finances and budget efficiently and effectively. This aligned with suggestions from some TSOs that it may be helpful for the SRA to be administered by the same agency as those administering benefits (although this was a minority view).

A few also highlighted that the current system of deducting the full amount of alternative benefits from the SRA meant that these recipients did not benefit from any inflationary uplifts in these other benefits. Any increase in the rate paid for child benefit or to the child payment element of Universal Credit is taken off the SRA payment in full, meaning that kinship carers ultimately do not receive the intended increase in this support:

“…the government keep telling everyone how wonderful they are at increasing child benefits (i.e. family allowance) but kinship carers get the increase taken straight back off their kinship allowance, which therefore tells you that kinship carers lose out on this benefit.” (Kinship Carer)

Further, there appears to be differences in how the deductions of child benefit is approached by different local authorities. Some carers indicated that they had decided not to apply for child benefit in order to claim the full SRA amount without deductions, to keep their payments more streamlined. However, others noted that, despite not claiming child benefit, their local authority automatically deducted the equivalent payment from their SRA (regardless of whether it was received from these other sources or not).

Several kinship carers also outlined other issues and challenges with receiving both the SRA and other social security benefits. These included:

• lack of awareness of kinship carers and/or the SRA/kinship allowance at DWP - respondents reported difficulties in applying for child benefit as a kinship carer, difficulties related to the requirements of Universal Credit, and DWP/Universal Credit staff not being aware of the SRA payments and how these interacted with other benefits payments;
• delays and difficulties with DWP, particularly in relation to adjustments and migrating from other benefits to Universal Credit - resulting in the need for advance payments which then need to be paid back;
• carers being informed of over payments and the need to pay these back. One respondent did not know why the overpayment had occurred, while another said this was a result of payments not stopping immediately when the child turned 18. Payments stopping abruptly at this age were also described as difficult as the child was still living with the kinship carer but had no income; and
• difficulties arising from payments being changed from ‘in advance’ to ‘in arrears’.

There was agreement among other stakeholders too that the reduction of child benefit payments and other benefits from the SRA allowance for kinship carers was not fair:

“I’ve heard it from probably every carer - that they’re getting their child benefit taken off their kinship allowance…I would say the majority of all our kinship carers are struggling financially and, I understand that the child benefit and kinship allowance is kind of the same thing, but they just say they need that extra because already they [are] struggling financially.” (TSO)

“For kinship carers where the child-related benefits are deducted from their Kinship Care Allowance, the Kinship Care Allowance stays the same. So they would be getting more child benefits, say an increase of £3 a week, then that money is taken off the Kinship Care Allowance. So, this is some of the most disadvantaged people in society and they are not getting access to any increases. And the fact that there’s been a block - there’s been no uplift for the Kinship Care Allowance then, in fact, they’re actually worse off than the general public…it’s a real travesty.” (TSO)

The fact that benefits were deducted from the pay of kinship carers was seen as reducing the parity that had been hoped for when the SRA was introduced:

“And [kinship carers] are also means-tested on the benefits that they get, which is then taken away from their allowance to make them parity with foster carers. But, to my mind, it’s not parity because foster carers also get a fee. So, there’s that loop that I think we’ve not cracked yet. So, it does, on the face of it, offer parity but the reality of it, I think, is different.” (TSO)

While several stakeholders called for transparency in the information shared with carers about how the SRA interacts with benefits, there were also calls for more proactive sharing (mainly by local authorities) of financial information for carers per se. A proactive approach was seen as essential due to the existence of some negative stereotyping fears among carers that any enquiries about money would be viewed as greedy or self-serving:

“…often carers are afraid of putting their hand up and saying, “I need some advice on finance” because then they can be seen as or perceived as only being interested in fostering because of money.” (TSO)

Contracts between IFAs and Local Authorities

Only a few authorities (n=5) reported that the announcement of the SRA had resulted in any specific changes to the contracts that their local authority had with independent fostering agencies. The changes related to:

• some providers charging additional rates for fostering provision;
• some increasing their fees as a result of the SRA;
• some agencies requesting uplifts to costs/increased payment costs; and
• all agencies in one area being required to provide evidence to the authority that the SRA rates were being paid.

One authority also commented that contracts with providers via the Scotland Excel Framework were subject to annual variation in fees, although it was not clear in what way, if any, the announcement of SRA had contributed to any specific changes to date. They noted that uplift rates varied across providers and clarity in relation to the breakdown of these fees would be useful with the SRA in mind going forwards.

Similarly, only one IFA said that some of their contracts with local authorities, that were in place before August 2023, had changed or been updated as a result of the SRA being introduced. All others said that they remained unchanged with one commenting that local authorities had not agreed to amend contracts to include the SRA.

Indeed, overall, IFAs noted that the announcement had made little material impact on their operations, as most were already paying equal to or above the SRA. While there were a minority who were paying below the SRA rate, the impact was felt by this small number of agencies only, rather than broadly across the independent sector.

There was some variation in responses regarding the number or proportion of fostering arrangements made ‘off contract’ or outside of IFAs standard fee structure or agreed framework. While some reported that none of their contracts operated this way, others commented that ‘off contract’ arrangements were in place for some children with particularly complex needs (accounting for anything up to 20-25% of placements at any given time).

There was variation across the small number of IFAs who took part in the survey in relation to whether their contract(s) with local authorities specified an exact or minimum allowance amount that should be paid to foster carers. Two said that ‘all’ contracts specified this, two said that ‘some’ contracts specified this and one said that none of their contracts specified this.

There were also very mixed responses with regards to whether local authorities had passed on any uplift in respect of the SRA to their IFA providers. Two said that no uplift was needed as they already paid allowances above the SRA, one said that all local authorities that they worked with had passed on the uplift, one said that some authorities had passed it on but not others, and one said that none of the local authorities they worked with had passed on the required uplift:

“Financially we have had to absorb this as it has not been passed on by LAs, and discussions have been ongoing as to when (if) it will be passed on. In the interim we have passed on an uplift to our carers. This is in addition to the range of additional payments made to support our carers and children that are not within the contracted amounts.” (IFA)

One IFA that had received the uplift had passed it directly to foster carers in full, and one said it had not - they instead opted to try and ensure parity across all carers by apportioning across the board to achieve equity for those living in local authority areas where the uplift had/had not been made.

While the survey data were limited from IFAs in terms of consistency in uplifts, qualitative feedback did suggest that a failure by most local authorities to pass on monies to IFAs which they had been given by the Scottish Government as part of the SRA announcement was a widespread issue. IFAs highlighted that the Scottish Government had made a financial estimate of what the SRA introduction would cost for all foster carers in Scotland (both local authority and independent) and had allocated each local authority the funds pro rata to cover that. In practice, however, it was reported that none of the local authorities passed on the allocated money to any of the independent agencies, meaning that local authorities were given a surplus of funds that they did not spend on independent carers. IFAs noted that this had been something that the Scottish Government had failed to anticipate in planning for the SRA, and had also been unable or unwilling to rectify retrospectively, instead leaving IFAs and local authorities to negotiate between themselves how local solutions could be found. This was, for IFAs, perhaps one of the biggest oversights in the planning and implementation of the SRA.

There was consensus among all IFAs who took part in the research that the fees they charged local authorities for their services were fixed, i.e. providers operating in multiple areas charged all authorities the same. Rough estimates were provided that between 50-60% of IFAs’ fees were paid directly to carers, with the remainder spent on providing wider support to carers. Again, all carers were paid the same fees by IFAs operating in more than one area.

Although not well represented in the research overall, among the small number of foster carers who worked with independent agencies, there were views at interview that the communication regarding the SRA had been confusing. Many had contacted their agencies on the understanding that they would receive increased and/or backdated payments and were disappointed when they were told this would not be the case:

“I immediately contacted the fostering agency and I was quite surprised about the response I got from them because my reading of the literature on the Scottish Government website with the implementation of the recommended fees, the SRAs, it seems to suggest that local authorities were told that they should be paying these rates. Now, what my fostering agency, which I was kind of a bit aghast about, told me when I brought them up about this, say that our fees went up in April 2024 but this implementation was April 23. Do you have any plans to backdate? And the response I got from the fostering agency was, no…The local authorities refused to give us the money, basically, despite being recommended by the government. I was a wee bit aghast and a wee bit disappointed at that to be honest with you.” (Foster Carer)

While some had been reassured by agencies that there would be a rise in allowances in the future, this had not always been delivered and was something that remained unclear:

“They [the agency] came back to me saying was that it wasn’t really geared towards independent agencies, it was more of a government scheme for local authorities because the money in effect wasn’t passed on to individual agencies…they came back to us in March saying that they would change things in line with the government. But they wouldn’t change them until 1^st April 24, so there wasn’t any back pay for anybody within our agency…which is a bit unfair.” (Foster Carer)

In addition to receiving no financial benefit from the SRA, some agency carers had felt let down and in some cases that local authority carers had been treated more preferentially which, in turn, made them question the value of fostering with an IFA instead of their local authority:

“It always was that, if you went with the independent agencies, you were paid just that wee bit more…I think it’s more transparent in terms of you know it being the same across the board, definitely, that needed to happen and it might stop people from thinking that it’s better to go with another agency because of the financial impact…Because then that kind of opens up where people are maybe going and it might be of benefit more to the local authorities who were maybe always paying less. Do you know what I mean? They’re maybe paying less than the independent agencies before. So, it might actually be more effective to local authorities than the actual agencies, if you like.” (Foster Carer)

Because some agency carers were already receiving above the SRA and others received no change in their pay as a result of the SRA, most private foster carers noted that it had not impacted them in any way other than to feel undervalued and let down by the Scottish Government in some cases.

Allowances Entitlement and Eligibility Criteria

Prior to the agreement with COSLA, regulations were already in place to ensure that allowances were paid to foster and kinship carers by local authorities, but the amount was not specified. These include Regulation 33 of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (also referred to as section 110 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007), Section 22 (3) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and Section 50 of the Children’s Act 1975.

Part 13 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 also places a duty on local authorities to ensure that kinship care assistance is made available to those who apply for, consider applying for, have obtained, or are subject to a Kinship Care Order if the relevant eligibility test is met. Part 13 of the Act came into force on 1 April 2016 and the secondary legislation associated with this part of the Act, called the Kinship Care Assistance (Scotland) Order 2016, sets out the manner in which a local authority shall provide kinship carers with this additional support and assistance.

However, eligibility for kinship care allowances apply only to those kinship carers of children where the child has a looked after status or where the child is not a looked after child but is subject to a Section 11 Order (known as a Kinship Care Order), and is, or was previously, looked after, or is at risk of becoming looked after.

Only one authority reported that they had made any changes to their allowances’ entitlement and eligibility criteria following the introduction of the SRA (although they noted that the change had been to the allowance amount, rather than the eligibility criteria).

Kinship Care Legislation and Kinship Carer Status

Specifically with regards to kinship carers caring for a child subject to a Kinship Care Order who was previously looked after or at risk of becoming looked after, local authorities were asked under what legislation they made allowance payments.

Table 18: Legislation under which authorities make payments for a child subject to a Kinship Care Order

Response options	Regulation 33 of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009	Section 22 (3) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and Section 50 of the Children’s Act 1975
All	8 (28%)	15 (52%)
Most	3 (10%)	1 (3%)
Some	-	2 (7%)
Total	11 (38%)	18 (62%)

Base = 29 as there was one missing response

Around half (n=15) said that ‘all’ allowance payments were made under Section 22 (3) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and Section 50 of the Children’s Act 1975, with a further 3 saying that most or some were made this way. Far fewer (n=8) said that ‘all’ allowances were made under Regulation 33 of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (also referred to as section 110 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007), with a further 3 saying that most were made this way.

Specifically with regards to kinship carers caring for a looked after child, local authorities were also asked under what legislation they made allowance payments.

Table 19: Legislation under which authorities make payments for a looked after child

Response options	Regulation 33 of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009)	Section 22 (3) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and Section 50 of the Children’s Act 1975
All	8 (29%)	17 (61%)
Most	2 (7%)	-
Some	-	1 (3%)
Total	10 (36%)	18 (64%)

Base = 28 as there were two missing responses

Again, more than half (n=17) reported that they paid ‘all’ such allowances in line with Section 22 (3) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and Section 50 of the Children’s Act 1975, with a further one saying that they paid some this way. Fewer than a third (n=8) said that they paid ‘all’ such allowances in line with Regulation 33 of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009, with a further two saying that most were paid this way.

Where authorities noted that they used Section 22 (3) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and Section 50 of the Children’s Act 1975 for the payment of any or all kinship carers, they were asked to explain their reasons for doing so. The most frequent reason given was that the Section 22 legislation meant that allowances would be discounted as income for benefit purposes, and that payments on this basis would not interfere with carers’ entitlements to child benefits and tax credits (unlike Section 33). Several authorities cited that using this legislation enabled kinship carers to claim for and receive the child related benefits they were eligible for, treating the allowance as a welfare payment which should not impact on benefits.

Two authorities reported that payments were made through the Section 22 legislative pathway in order to ensure they were fulfilling their legal duties to both safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people within the local authority who are looked after.

One authority noted that they had always paid kinship carers using Section 22 (3) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, following legal advice and national practice after the implementation of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Another explained that Section 50 of the Children Act 1975 allowed the local authority to make payments for the maintenance of a child who is under age 18 and who is living with a person other than her/his parent. Section 50 allowed the local authority to make payments to kinship carers, but did not oblige it to do so.

One authority explained that kinship carers paid this way had not been assessed as eligible for formal kinship allowance and another noted that they used Section 50 for what they regarded to be informal carers, i.e. kinship placements where social work were involved but there was no legal order in place. Another indicated that sometimes payments were made this way under emergency assistance prior to the carers being formally set up as kinship carers.

One authority said that this approach was based on budget alignment and flexibility of approach, while two said that this had always been their practice (one of whom said there were no plans to review and the other who said that this was due for review).

One authority reported that they were unclear why Section 22 was used.

Views were expressed by various stakeholders across the research that children subject to a Kinship Care Order were being treated unfairly compared to looked after children. In some cases, there was cynicism that families were being encouraged to take out Orders, to prevent their child being categorised as ‘cared for’ without having sufficient knowledge that this would impact on the child’s entitlement to financial support at a later date:

“And what we say to kinship carers when they’re being advised to take out an Order which means the child will be non-looked after, they need to ask the local authority - “What will this mean for my payments?” Will my payments change? They’re often just told, “This is in the best interest for you and the child”. And it’s not until further down the line that they’ll hear - “Well, the additional payments are stopping…you know, the payment will only be for the child up to age 16, there’ll be no continuing care.”” (TSO)

The legal basis under which children were being cared for was seen as creating a divide in the kinship carer experience. Those who sought a Section 11 Kinship Care Order as a personal family arrangement (either by choice or on advisement of their social worker), where the child was never previously looked after, was not placed by a social worker, and was not at risk of becoming looked after, were neither eligible for the allowance nor any wider support, despite still being a kinship carer:

“That, to me, is a big gap and I think, in general, that is always why sometimes we hear carers say, “I don’t get the same support as I used to”, and that is often because they have been encouraged to or they have chosen to seek a Section 11 Order which means the child, on the granting of that, is no longer a looked after child, so you don’t get the same Social Work support, you don’t get the same reviews, etc. So, there’s that complexity too.” (TSO)

This was another area where greater transparency was urged, and there were reports that different authorities were again employing different practices in relation to Kinship Care Orders compared to one another:

“For Kinship Care Orders carers…some people are continuing the allowance up until they’re 18, others are only paying it until they leave school. Others are stopping it at 16.” (TSO)

At a more fundamental level there were also calls for more information to be made available for kinship carers more generally, specifically on their roles, their rights, and eligibility for support:

“I suppose a clearer message from the government would be nice rather than all the jargon they put in front of it that just makes you confused and you don’t want to read on.” (Kinship Carer)

“There’s two positions for kinship carers. There’s a temporary kinship carer, which I am at the moment. And then they move you on to the permanent kinship carer. But what Social Work doesn’t do is tell us that, if you want to go permanent, if we earn over that amount, it will be means-tested, so you would lose it [the SRA]…Social Work didn’t bother telling us that. Do you know what I mean?” (Kinship Carer)

“I just think, you know, people should be made aware from the minute they take on a child that this is what - it’s out there to help them. Nobody should have to struggle financially. You shouldn’t have to sit at home thinking, can I do this financially? Nobody should ever have to think like that.” (Kinship Carer)

Third sector organisations in particular noted a significant issue with kinship carers not always understanding their status as carers and, therefore not seeking the relevant information or support that was available to them:

“Often kinship carers don’t even know that they’re kinship carers, so how can they look for a kinship service when they don’t know that’s what they are?” (TSO)

“It’s really hard to engage with kinship families…I believe there’s a lot of families out there who don’t realise there actually is a name for it…they don’t realise that there is support out there for grandparents or whatever who have taken on their grandchildren.” (TSO)

While many support organisations provide booklets, leaflets or other communications which can be shared with kinship carers, there were reports that this was not routinely provided, especially in the early days of people’s care experience:

“When I first started this journey, I didn’t get told anything because I said, if you don’t know, then they don’t need to give you money. So, they’re saving money…You have to go and do your own research and then you’re up against all the barriers. I’ve had to fight tooth and nail for this child for five years for everything that child’s entitled to. It’s ridiculous.” (Kinship Carer)

Several also commented on legacy practices in relation to kinship care allowances, the feeling being that although the SRA had helped, it had not completely alleviated what some still viewed as ‘reluctant awarding’ of allowances to kinship carers:

“The kinship payments up until a few years ago felt very cloak and dagger. Nobody would tell you about it. They didn’t want you to receive it. Some people would get a very small payment, like - it was like the council did not want to release this money to people and you had to fight to get what you wanted for that child. So, it felt like they were keeping their budgets to themselves and re-allocating it somewhere else.” (Kinship Carer)

Many kinship carers and third sector support organisations also reported that it was fellow carers and/or peer support groups who provided the main source of information for kinship carers, rather than any more formal source:

“I think the peer support is where each carer will pass on information about allowances and what benefits they can get and I think that’s where they get the most information from, to be honest.” (TSO)

“They’re a community that often don’t know they’re a community…unless somebody’s giving them the right information at the right time, when they’re open to be able to listen, take it in and act on it, that is a real barrier to them having that same access.” (TSO)

Some carers were also unaware of the new guidance published by the Scottish Government on Part 13 of the Children in Scotland 2014 Act and how this impacts how and when Kinship Care Allowance is awarded to kinship carers.

In some cases, carers who had contacted third sector organisations reported that they had been informed by their local authorities that they were not entitled to financial support. This too points towards a lack of clarity at the local level around eligibility and access. Again, this was linked to a need for greater transparency and clarity in all communications (including those from local and central government) on what an ‘eligible’ carer would be:

“When the announcement came out, it was just ‘eligible’ foster carer, ‘eligible’ kinship carer…If I’m a kinship carer and I see it’s an eligible carer, I’ve no idea whether I’m getting it or not. So, I do think there’s still a bit of work to do around that in terms of transparency.” (TSO)

There were questions around whether a standard definition was being used across all local authorities of what an eligible foster carer or kinship carer would be.

On a related note, many kinship carers and third sector organisations reported that kinship carers were often treated as the “poor relation” in the carer sphere. Reports were given of significantly varying levels of support for kinship carers across different areas, and while some local authorities were seen as having excellent packages of support (e.g. kinship panels, kinship care peer groups, highly trained social workers to work alongside kinship carers), others were seen as having no such wraparound in place:

“There’s different practices across all the local authorities. There are some kinship care teams in local authorities but some don’t have them at all. Some are very much focused on their looked after children, some don’t have processes at all for children in kinship care. And this has always been an issue that, as the number of children in kinship has risen in the last 10, 15 years, our processes and practices and policies aren’t always catching up. And so things like that aren’t always attended to with the same rigour as they are for the more quote traditional care, like foster care, adoption, residential, secure.” (TSO)

More support for kinship carers was urged, recognising that their route or pathway into caring was very different from the experience of most foster carers:

“I think often kinship carers need support to fully access things, like they need that handholding in a way that maybe foster carers don’t. Because the difference is, as a foster carer, you are a trained professional, you’ve had a lot of training and you’re receiving payment, you’re treated as an employee effectively…So it’s very different.” (Kinship Carer)

“I just feel across the board, it should be fair for everybody. We’re taking on kids that we never gave birth to, we didn’t choose to have. However, out of love, we do this and you just can’t live on love alone.” (Kinship Carer)

Some called for a nationally adopted kinship care pathway to be established (i.e. which set out everything that kinship carers or those supporting them may need to know) accompanied by wider support. This would, it was suggested, help to bolster the parity and equity that the SRA had sought to introduce for different types of carers:

“I think the SRA, in essence, comes from a place of good. It comes from a place of trying to make things as equitable as possible, but I don’t think it’s necessarily to do with the payment that makes things less equitable. I think it’s the way people enter into kinship care and the support related to that, giving them the information on their rights, what access to different things, being under different Orders may give people…It’s all of these things. It’s that whole journey, isn’t it?” (TSO)

Short Break and Permanent Foster Carers

There was little feedback received across the research in relation to differential impacts of the SRA on both short-break and permanent and long-term foster carers (short-break carers being those who offer care for a child or young person over a short period of time (e.g. 7-14 days) as a means of providing respite to their main care givers). The main issues affecting short-break carers that were reported were in relation to difficulties understanding their payments and whether they were accurate for the care provided (as discussed above), and delayed back payments for this cohort when the SRA was initially introduced.

One carer reported at interview that their own authority had employed a ‘two tier system’ for backdating payments which had caused considerable confusion and unrest among carers. The approach entailed making backdated payments to full-time carers first and much earlier than payments were made for carers offering short breaks. This resulted in short-break carers feeling undervalued and experiencing delays in their entitlements compared to full-time caring peers.

The National Framework

Several IFAs who fed into the research through various means expressed that they were part of the National Framework managed by Scotland Excel. As such, no changes were made when the SRA was introduced (with no additional money being given to IFAs as a result). Many IFAs had already signed up to long term agreements as part of the framework which meant that local authorities were not contractually obliged to pass on any of the money that the Scottish Government had given them for the purposes of the SRA (instead spending the money elsewhere). This had been disappointing and had again meant that local solutions were sought.

Some commented that they had tried to offer parity with local authority allowances post-SRA implementation, sometimes at their own expense, and this was seen as important to retain the carers already working with them.

With regards to future frameworks, there were views that costs quoted by some IFAs (especially those who had been hit financially by receiving no earlier monies from local authorities and meeting increases to costs themselves) may be significantly higher than pre-SRA since future payments would need to reflect the backdated SRA payments that the providers were unable to claim under their previous framework agreements. IFAs noted that future costs were likely to be artificially high because of this claw back and this was something that national and local government needed to be mindful of. In particular, there were questions around whether this had been factored into future budgeting for the SRA since, although prices may be high, the service would still be needed due to demand for carers nationally:

“We need all the foster carers we can get…So if you put in a price for [the local authority’s] next contract that is higher than others, they might come to you last but they’re still going to need your foster carers.” (IFA)

Other feedback included that the existence of various different frameworks around the country undermined the idea of a ‘national framework’ and that IFAs were continuously considering how best to operate with changing frameworks in place. Some IFAs commented explicitly that the move away from the National Framework by many local authorities was retrograde and was potentially adding bureaucracy to a system that should be child-focused and not process driven.

Future Uplifts

While the SRA had been welcomed, there was shared disappointment from carers, local authorities, IFAs and support organisations that there had been no uplift to payments in the financial year 2024/25 and no indications of an uplift in 2025/26:

“It has caused some unsettlement for carers as there’s no guarantee (or recognition) for them of the impact of cost of living and other increases, leaving them feel less valued by national and local government.” (IFA)

While there was no clear agreement on what the uplift amounts should be, stakeholders felt strongly that rises were needed to at least reflect increases in inflation and the cost of living. Having a transparent and predictable minimum uplift was encouraged:

“Some kind of formula based on the obvious cost pressures for a foster carer would be eminently sensible and people would be able to plan. And I guess the Scottish Government could say, “We’ve changed our mind this year, it’s less than that, it’s more than that” or whatever. But at least if there was some sort of predictive formula, that would take some of the uncertainty out of it.” (IFA)

There was also strong consensus that all future uplifts needed to be notified to local authorities and IFAs at least 2-3 months in advance of the start of the financial year to allow them to plan accordingly. This was necessary to avoid a repeat of the complications that had previously been experienced with the backdating process, and stakeholders strongly urged the Scottish Government not to announce retrospective uplifts which may be hard to implement:

“It costs more to foster every year just like the cost of living costs more. So, I think it does need to be in line with inflation and it should be looked at on an annual basis. It also needs to be done in a really timely way, so that local authorities can prepare their budget, so that they can implement it…it should be part of everybody’s awareness, we should all be waiting for it in December time, we should know roughly what is the uplift to that, just like there are to every other aspect of local government planning. It’s fairly standard in every other area.” (TSO)

Some stakeholders suggested that there were opportunities to concrete plans for uplifts as part of the Promise Bill.