Foster and kinship carers - Scottish Recommended Allowance: implementation review

Understanding and Use of the SRA

Pre- and Post- Implementation Communication

Among carers and carer representative organisations, the main feedback in relation to communication was that it had taken far too long for the SRA to come into effect, after what was seen as years of lengthy negotiations between the Scottish Government and COSLA:

“This has been going on for over 10 years…I think the communication was really poor for carers because they knew this was coming but the position with COSLA and the Scottish Government became a sort of stalemate situation…They just kept getting told that they were in negotiations and nothing - each year, nothing tended to move on. So, I think it’s important to have that context that these carers were waiting for over 10 years for this to be agreed and implemented.” (TSO)

As a result of the long wait, many of the perceived weaknesses with the final announcement (including the age banding and allowance rates discussed more below) were seen as inexcusable, i.e. as there had been ample time for better planning.

Carers and carer representative organisations also noted that, post SRA announcement, there had been variable engagement between local authorities and carers, with notable differences observed around the country:

“When it was implemented, there was guidance and there was information on the website that was provided to carers but it was up to local authorities and services to talk to their own carers themselves. And I think that’s where the problem lay there, because some were very good at that and giving regular updates, you know, when it was implemented, when carers would be paid, how they would be paid, when it would be backdated, all of that information. But I know of one particular authority that…just didn’t communicate at all when that money would be paid.” (TSO)

Again, the lack of communication by some local authorities with their carers resulted in confusion around such things as when the new payments would start, if and when backdated payments would be made and whether or not IFA carers would be included in any increases in allowances.

For IFAs, one of the biggest issues linked to the SRA was a noted lack of engagement with this sector during the planning and implementation stages. This resulted in the independent sector feeling somewhat marginalised, as well as feeling that they had spent a lot of time and energy post-SRA launch in negotiating with local authorities and the Scottish Government to try and express the impact of the SRA on their operations:

“It would have been helpful to have had the opportunity to say how [IFAs] thought about this and have some plans in place so they could have avoided some of the inevitable tensions that took up too much of everybody’s time throughout the following nine months once it was launched.” (IFA)

Indeed, most IFAs felt that there had been little or no consultation with their sector in advance of the SRA announcement and noted that when the SRA was announced, the messaging was also very confusing. Specifically, it was felt that that the launch communications presented the SRA as something which was going to be applicable to every foster carer in Scotland and implied that all would get a ‘pay rise’ which, in reality, was not the case:

“…we had a number of independent agency foster carers contact their agency saying, “I’ve just seen on the news that I’m going to get a pay rise. How is that going to work?”” (IFA)

One of the main gaps in pre-implementation communications was again lack of clarity about the applicability of the SRA to IFAs (and, indeed, this was still unclear for some):

“There were statements from government that the IVPs [independent and voluntary fostering providers] would pay this rate. There was no obligation on local authorities to increase their payments and therefore the costs lay with the IVP.” (IFA)

Mixed messaging coming from the Scottish Government was also highlighted alongside different interpretation of the SRA policy among local authorities:

“The policy has been confusing, with lack of consistency in the understanding of it, or its intent from Scottish Government colleagues. Advice has changed, and local authorities have also interpreted the policy differently leading to lack of commitment.” (IFA)

As above, this resulted in many IFAs experiencing financial challenges in trying to meet and be equal with local authorities in paying fostering allowances, especially where local authorities had not forwarded any uplift or backdated payment amounts to independent providers:

“The introduction of the SRA without any consultation with the independent organisations has had financial implication as we have had to increase all of our allowances to be in line with the SRA. We received no money for this from any local authority.” (IFA)

One of the main outstanding communication concerns relating to the SRA (in addition to lack of information about any future uplifts) was ongoing disagreements between IFAs and local authorities. It was reported that monies were still being withheld in some cases and that some local authorities were disinterested in the negative financial impacts this was having for IFAs:

“We are not in a position to be arguing with every local authority about every payment we make to carers or they make to us…The SRA was poorly thought through in terms of impact on IVPs [independent and voluntary fostering providers] and the local authority are not interested in discussing the implications.” (IFA)

“Local authorities are not interested in discussing the increase in fees with IVPs [independent and voluntary fostering providers]. They are not compelled in any way to share the 14 million pounds^[7] paid by the government to introduce SRAs. We have had to incur this cost.” (IFA)

One of the main recommendations made by several contributors to the research was that all future communications regarding the SRA should be developed alongside those directly affected, i.e. “Work with organisations who know the audience the best to help create the best type of comms for that audience.” (TSO) This included IFAs. There were also views that all future communications should be mindful of the differences between foster and kinship carers and, in particular, their place in the caring journey and their pathway to becoming a carer:

“…make sure in a really easily digestible way that, as soon as someone becomes a kinship carer, they can understand what’s available to them. Cos I guess the support and even the fact that there’s a planned decision to become a foster carer, it’s more planned versus reactive sometimes to become a kinship carer. There’s just different ways that you’re engaging with that information based on where you’re at in that cycle.” (TSO)

Clarity and Transparency of the SRA Policy Intent

All carers who took part in the survey were asked to indicate which statements they thought were correct or true, from a list of four options relating to the SRA policy intent.

Kinship carers were more likely to describe the SRA as a set allowance than foster carers (59%, n=79 and 38%, n=52 respectively), while foster carers were more likely to describe it as a minimum allowance rate (at 64%, n=88 for foster carers and 40%, n=54 for kinship carers). Comparatively small numbers of both foster and kinship carers felt that the SRA covered the cost of raising the child or that it included money for their role as a carer.

Respondents were also asked to explain, in their own words, what they thought the main purpose of the SRA was. The main comments, outlined by most of the respondents (both foster and kinship carers), related to helping towards or covering the cost of raising and caring for the child:

“To ensure a consistent and sufficient payment to help look after the children.” (Foster Carer)

“To support the child and fund any needs they may have.” (Kinship Carer)

Other purposes, discussed by smaller numbers of foster and kinship carers included:

• making payments more equal or fairer/providing greater standardisation across the country and between different types of looked after children;
• providing kinship carers and foster carers with the same payments;
• supporting looked after children to have the same living standard/quality of life/experiences as their peers;
• improving the lives of looked after children, giving them support and opportunities they may not have had otherwise;
• providing a ‘minimum’ or benchmark amount towards the costs of raising the child; and
• to avoid children and families from falling into poverty or for placements to breakdown due to financial hardship.

Only a few foster carers linked the allowance payment back to the payment or fee for foster carers.

Respondents were also asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with a series of other statements relating to the SRA.

Across all statements, kinship carers agreed to a greater extent than foster carers. In particular, 41% (n=54) of kinship carers agreed or strongly agreed that the financial support given to carers in Scotland was fairer since the SRA, while 20% (n=26) disagreed or strongly disagreed. This was compared to 24% (n=33) of foster carers who agreed or strongly agreed and 38% (n=52) who disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Similarly, kinship carers were more likely to agree to some extent that the SRA had led to an improvement in carers finances compared to foster carers. Overall, 37% (n=48) of kinship carers agreed with this statement while 23% (n=30) disagreed. Conversely, foster carers were more likely to disagree with this statement, with 44% (n=60) disagreeing to some extent compared to 24% (n=33) who agreed.

The statement which attracted the highest levels of disagreement across both foster and kinship carers was that the SRA was sufficient to allow carers to meet the full cost of looking after the child[ren] in their care. While the majority of carers disagreed to some extent across both groups, far higher proportions of foster carers disagreed with this statement compared to kinship carers (76%, n=104 compared to 53%, n=70 respectively).

There was also mixed understanding among carers who were interviewed of what the purpose and intention of the SRA was and what it hoped to achieve. Some framed their understanding of the SRA along the lines of it being to improve outcomes for children and young people:

“It’s to achieve better outcomes for young people that are with us in terms of what their individual needs are and what it costs to look after them and to be able to give them the kind of most valuable experience that they can.” (Foster Carer)

“The reason the allowances were put up were to try and make sure that these kids were getting what they should be getting, getting the opportunities that other children get who aren’t in care basically. I think that’s what the objective was in respect of that.” (Foster Carer)

Others perceived the SRA was about making things fairer and more affordable for carers and for reducing stress and anxieties related to money for those in caring roles:

“You have enough on your plate when you become a kinship carer and feeling like you’re begging for that allowance that the kids are entitled to because if you were a mainstream foster carer, they would get it without any question plus you would also be paid, like skills payments and an actual wage. Whereas you’re not obviously with kinship and I think to have the reassurance that, if you take on that role, that that child won’t have to fight for every piece of allowance, you know, that it is an entitlement - it takes away one element of stress from the situation, I think.” (Kinship Carer)

A small minority also commented on what they perceived as the intention to keep families together, and to encourage kinship care arrangements over fostering in the best interests of the child:

“I think, in terms of providing this allowance, you know, I think it’s probably enabled a lot more children to remain with their kinship care in their own family, where they should be rather than, you know, going into foster care.” (Kinship Carer)

Foster carers employed by IFAs had the least clarity or understanding of the SRA, possibly linked to the fact that many felt they had not been directly impacted by it:

“I’m not sure what that SRA stands for…I’m imagining that it’s trying to make the allowance more universal because, at the moment, people can pick and choose what agency they go with by what they pay.” (Foster Carer)

As above, there were also comments that, for kinship carers in particular, there was a lack of understanding what the SRA meant:

“I think that we understand what the SRA is, like everyone gets the same. But I think there’s like a lack of understanding of why it was introduced…I think unless you go to a support group, you have no idea. You would just be getting your payments and you wouldn’t know what that meant.” (Kinship Carer)

There was also confusion about whether or not the SRA was means tested and this muddied some people’s perceptions of the equity and parity that the SRA intended to achieve:

“I feel it is great the SRA is in place, however, this needs to be more streamlined so all local authorities are doing the same thing. Payments should not be permitted to be means tested because a local authority chooses to do so. Especially when the local authority does not inform kinship carers of this prior to telling them to apply for a section 11 order. A more robust policy and procedure which all local authorities must adhere to would be fairer for all kinship carers.” (Kinship Carer)

While TSOs had a good understanding of the SRA and its policy intent, they shared carers’ views that this was not always sufficiently well cascaded to carers themselves and, in some cases, to the professionals working in local authorities and within agencies who worked directly with carers.

Among IFAs, there was no consensus on the extent to which they agreed that the policy intent for the SRA was clear and transparent. Again, this was linked mainly to a reported lack of engagement between the Scottish Government and the independent sector in planning for the SRA and a reported lack of clarity which lasted for some time around whether the SRA would or would not apply to IFAs. The lack of clarity also existed in relation to whether the SRA would apply to framework contracts.

One of the other main areas of confusion for IFAs was in the passing on of monies paid to local authorities for the SRA which were not passed to independent providers:

“The SRA was intended to ensure an allowance is in place for all children to minimise a postcode lottery in care - and to cover the costs for the child, given to the carer. Calculations were made based on all children, however, allocation of funding was given to LAs for all children, who in turn did not, or delayed, passing on [the] benefit to those children with IFAs…thus creating a further disparity dependent on care provider.” (IFA)

Perceived Adequacy of the Allowance

Among all those consulted, the SRA was welcomed, despite being something that was long overdue and feelings that the rates could/should potentially be higher:

“We know it was a very difficult and long process, as a lot of these things are. So, when it actually arrived, it was very much welcomed. I mean, we’d obviously want more for our carers….But very, very much welcomed.” (TSO)

“I don’t think people will ever be happy but the increases have gone some way to address those shortfalls that I feel have been in the system. So, I think we’re not there yet but we’re not far from being there, I would say, given the government’s policy that they’ve implemented…Not quite high enough but it’s a lot better than what it was. Yes, definitely…we’re getting in the realms of where it should be.” (Foster Carer)

In particular, the parity that was achieved for kinship and foster carers by having the same rates for both was very much welcomed. This was seen as supportive of the kinship community in recognising their equal worth with fostering peers:

“While kinship care is very distinct and so important and so special…it is still providing care for a child that otherwise may be in foster care and may still be a looked after child…So, I think, for that reason, the actual monetary support was welcomed. But also that parity of, we’re providing this for our children, but for the State as well. I think that recognition and value was really welcomed and certainly we welcomed it for that reason as well.” (TSO)

“We’re not looking for a reward but at least an acknowledgement that we understand that this is a very difficult situation and, financially, it does help that there’s adequate finances there so you’re not having to sit and worry.” (Kinship Carer)

There were also comments that more equity had been achieved within the kinship sector:

“I’ve got a Permanency Order which means that my grandson is looked after and accommodated and because I go to so many support groups, I’ve met carers who have Section 11s, which are now called Kinship Care Order, and we get the same rate. There used to be a difference of like pennies, under a pound, and someone questioned it. So, now, it’s like down to the very last pence, we all get the same.” (Kinship Carer)

Feedback on transparency and equity was not unanimously positive, however, with some kinship carers and those living in areas where rates were lower than neighbouring areas still feeling that greater transparency and equity could be achieved:

“It doesn’t seem fair that one council is paying kinship carers more than another. There’s no rationale, there doesn’t appear to be a rationale for that and I think I can’t understand why foster carers are paid so much…They’re doing the same job but - they’re doing it because - well, they’ve chosen to do that. Kinship carers have not chosen to do this.” (Kinship Carer)

There were also perceptions that IFA carers were still being paid more than local authority carers and kinship providers (despite this not being evidenced by the current research):

“I think a lot of the private, especially again for foster carers, their rates seem to be quite extortionate, they’re very high. Again, I don’t understand why that is. There needs to be more clarity on that…you know, it’s like this hidden secret…there’s probably not enough information online about the disparity between foster carers and kinship carers’ allowances.” (Kinship Carer)

Although not raised with notable frequency, some comments were also made that some local authorities may have reduced their rates compared to pre-SRA payments for ‘new’ carers despite this never being the intention of the SRA.

There was also unanimous agreement that the SRA rates should increase, with views that a single increase followed by annual uplifts would be welcomed. Increasing the SRA was seen as an essential lever in helping to meet government commitments around tackling poverty, particularly child poverty:

“If you can uplift carers out of poverty, and we know that a lot of these children are already at a disadvantage because of their previous experiences and circumstances, then you’re going to help nationally. So, for me, that link is really important, so the rates, I think, really need to be attended to.” (TSO)

Foster carers not receiving the SRA rate, however, typically noted that this impacted on their household budgeting, creating challenges, particularly as a result of the cost of living crisis and increasing prices in recent years:

“We can no longer run a house, and keep the children in an appropriate way, and have an adult full time at home with fostering, when we started 10 years ago this was easy, but these days my wife and I both work in addition to fostering to make sure the kids get everything they deserve.” (Foster Carer)

Most kinship carers who did not receive the SRA rate also suggested that this made daily household finances difficult. A few noted that they had had to either give up or reduce their level of work to care for the child/children, and the SRA was not enough to support them:

“We live on what we have and it's hard to give the kids what they need.” (Kinship Carer)

“Since becoming a kinship carer I had to drastically reduce my working hours to suit the needs of my niece. Every penny we get counts as [we] no longer have the same income but more outgoings.” (Kinship Carer)

Three kinship carers did not receive any allowance (due to being classed as having private or informal arrangements), however, only one of these outlined the impact of not receiving the SRA or any allowance payments. They described this as having a huge financial impact, with the kinship carer having to reduce their working hours and position within their job in order to look after the child. This resulted in a reduction in household income at the same time as having an extra person to support:

“As she has been classed as 'not looked after' she will not receive any support throughout her life, despite being care experienced and having experienced huge trauma at such a young age. Financially, it has had a huge impact on us. I had to give up a promoted post and reduce to part time work so that I could care for her. Our family income has reduced considerably at the same time as having an extra person to support.” (Kinship Carer)

Several carers (both foster and kinship) who received at least the SRA payment levels also felt that the rates paid were not enough, and noted that they continued to experience financial challenges. In particular, it was suggested that the payments were insufficient to cover the cost of living, rising prices, the desire to enroll children in clubs and to take them on outings and holidays. One foster carer also noted that they had not received an uplift in allowances or fostering fees for many years, making it difficult to manage and carry on fostering:

“There has been no increase in our fostering allowance or fees for over 10 years. Taking inflation into account we’re now receiving nearly 30% less than when we were first approved. It’s harder work to make ends meet. It’s harder to justify carrying on based on the income now.” (Foster Carer)

Several carers (again both foster and kinship) reported using their own money to help them with unmet needs as a result of the allowances being too low, including using savings, money from benefits and pensions, from the foster carer fee, and relying on loans and support from other family members, as well as also taking on other employment or increasing hours in existing employment. Some were also relying heavily on credit to get by:

“I use my credit card for everything and, see now, I’m paying my credit card but hardly any of it’s coming off. It’s all interest and I’m going - I feel as if I’m never getting to the end of it.” (Kinship Carer)

Older kinship carers reported a heavy reliance on savings and their pension, especially if they were no longer of working age or had retired. Younger respondents also highlighted possible longer-term impacts for them once they reached pension age, having had to deplete their savings now to supplement the allowance and support the child when this had been intended to support them in later life:

“I didn’t imagine that I would be in my mid 50s and having to look after a baby, you know, she’s going to be with us on a permanent basis. So, the finances that I had put aside for saving will be allocated elsewhere now…It was horrendous but, you know, ultimately, she’s safe now and the other alternative was that she went into care, which was not an option. That wasn’t going to happen but you just kind of fumble your way through it, don’t you?” (Kinship Carer)

Single parent caring families reported unique financial struggles since they were often unable to find part time work which also allowed them to meet their caring responsibilities. Similarly, some foster carers noted that single-child households were also disproportionately penalised, i.e. it was harder to make ends meet with the allowance for those who were caring for only one child. This included, for example, fixed costs for things such as heating the home, which when caring for two or more children became more affordable (since multiple allowances were received):

“If you want to get people to be foster carers then you need to make sure they can afford to do so. If you have two children then you can survive okay. We choose to just have one child but it's not enough to live on unless money is coming in from another source/job.” (Foster Carer)

Despite the hardships that most families were facing, there were also some reports of children and young people benefitting directly from the introduction of the SRA, and on this basis it was welcomed:

“It’s allowed us to take her away on holidays and places she wouldn’t have even imagined going away to. It allowed her just the freedom to do things like going for meals with family and friends. Like it’s just allowed her to be herself.” (Kinship Carer)

Several families also reported that it helped to reduce their financial stresses and concerns:

“Without the kinship allowance, it would be more difficult to give that child the childhood that they deserve, especially if they’ve come from childhood trauma and things. Without that allowance, it would be added stress…I know that it would put so much stress on my relationship and my family.” (Kinship Carer)

Some professional stakeholders noted that the SRA rates were currently below the Fostering Network’s current recommended allowance rates which, for 2025/26 are:

• £250 per week for those aged 0-4 years (compared to the SRA rate of £168.31);
• £332 per week for those aged 5-10 years (compared to the SRA rate of £195.81); and
• £428 per week for those aged 11 years and above (compared to the SRA rate of £195.81 for children aged 11+ and £268.41 for children aged 16 and over).

It was also noted that wider research carried out in the UK advocated for higher foster care rates than those prescribed by the SRA (see: Loughborough University’s Minimum Income Standard).

Overall, professional stakeholders supported increases in the allowance rates as a means of solidifying financial support to carers, which in turn would fulfil the commitment in The Promise to “hold the hands of those who hold the hand of the child.”

Feedback on Age Bandings

Feedback on the age bandings of the SRA was sought from all stakeholders.

All carers who took part in the survey were asked whether they thought the current age bands were appropriate.

Table 20: Carer perceptions of the appropriateness of age bands

Response options	Foster Carers (number and %)		Kinship Carers (number and %)		Total Sample (number and %)
Yes	64	47%	65	49%	129	48%
No	57	41%	40	30%	97	36%
Don’t know	16	12%	27	21%	43	16%
Total	137	100%	132 1	100%	269	100%

Note: Two kinship carers did not answer the question

For both foster and kinship carers responses were split, with 47% (n=64) of foster carers and 49% (n=65) of kinship carers indicating these were appropriate. Conversely, 41% (n=57) of foster carers and 30% (n=40) of kinship carers said they were not appropriate.

While survey respondents were asked to offer alternative age bands, most of the comments related to the rates being paid rather than highlighting particular disagreement with the specific age brackets. Of those that did focus on age groups, a few foster and kinship carers suggested that the youngest age group should be further disaggregated (i.e. to include a 0-2 year old age group) in order to reflect the different costs for babies, while several others argued that a single rate should be paid to all, regardless of age. One foster carer said that other factors also needed to be considered, not just age. A few respondents also suggested that additional (higher) rates were needed for children with additional support needs. A few kinship carers also discussed the upper age limit for the payments, suggesting this needed to be extended (with one suggesting it should continue up to age 21 or 25), and another arguing that this should not be linked to continuing in full time education.

A few survey respondents outlined different age groupings that they thought would be more appropriate, however, there was little consistency in suggestions.

Carer survey respondents were also asked if they felt that the rates paid for each of the four age bands was sufficient.

Foster carers sent a clear message, with nearly three quarters (73%, n=100) stating that the rates paid were not sufficient, compared to just 12% (n=16) who said they were sufficient. While kinship carers tended to support this standpoint they were less emphatic, with just over half (52%, n=67) stating that the rates were not sufficient, compared to around a quarter (26%, n=34) who said they were.

Table 21: Carer perceptions on whether the rates paid for different age bands were appropriate

Response options	Foster Carers (number and %)		Kinship Carers (number and %)		Total Sample (number and %)
Yes	16	12%	34	26%	50	19%
No	100	73%	67	52%	167	63%
Don’t know	20	15%	29	22%	49	18%
Total	136 1	1 00%	130 2	1 00%	266	100%

Note 1: One foster carer did not answer the question

Note 2: Four kinship carers did not answer the question

The reasons given for the rates not being considered sufficient, and/or how they should be amended tended to be relatively consistent between both foster and kinship carers. As above, most feedback focused on:

• the need for allowance rates to increase in line with inflation/rising costs;
• that the rates for particular age groups were too low; and/or
• that the rates paid should be higher at all age bands.

Again, both foster and kinship carers highlighted that the cost of living had increased significantly, but that the allowance rates had remained fixed. Again, carers highlighted the challenges this created, either having to cut back or subsidising the allowance with money from other sources:

“Inflation must be taken into account year on year. My current payment is worth 30% less than when we started fostering. It can’t go on indefinitely.” (Foster Carer)

Among survey respondents, two age bands were most commonly perceived as too low - the 0-4 year olds (and particularly for babies), and the 11-15 year olds, i.e. those at both ends of the age spectrum:

“On the whole, I think when you look at those spectrums, the babies take up the most amount of time and they’re expensive, likewise the teenagers, it’s the most stressful and the most money-wise because of all the additional expenses. And then the middle category in the primary range should be the lowest category, I think.” (Foster Carer)

Survey respondents stressed the expense and often unique costs associated with caring for babies, including the high cost of formula and nappies, the need to purchase bottles and other equipment, their rate of growth and frequency with which new clothes are needed, the fact that they spend more time in the home resulting in higher heating costs, that they are with the carer 24/7 and have greater care needs than other age groups, etc.:

“…the amount of growth in the 0-4 age group means a lot of new clothes, jackets, shoes. Nappies, wipes and milk cost a lot. Clubs for little ones are paid monthly direct debit and can be very expensive. New car seats, buggies etc... lots of equipment. I feel this age grouping doesn't get enough money.” (Foster Carer)

“Oh, they grow so quickly. I mean, my granddaughter is 12 months old and she’s wearing 18 to 24 months. She’s very, very tall, so it’s just constant, you’re constantly buying. Stuff that maybe fitted her 2 weeks ago no longer fit her cos she’s just taken a huge stretch.” (Kinship Carer)

Interviewees also perceived that this was a very expensive age for carers to support (especially under 2s) and that very young children were very time demanding and so carers needed to be compensated for this too:

“I used to take young, really young children and I felt…the younger ones were using just as much money as the older ones…I definitely believe that younger children, especially young children that are in nappies, it’s really hard work looking after a child with nappies and they’re there with you all the time, they’re not at school or anything. I think that [carers of babies] probably deserve a little bit more.” (Foster Carer)

Kinship carers also noted the cost of childcare and nursery fees for this age group. Generally, respondents argued that the rate paid to the 0-4 year age group should be higher than it is currently, and should be more in line with the other age bands.

In relation to the 11-15 age band, many foster and kinship carers argued in the survey that the rate paid was too low. Respondents highlighted that teenagers often require more expensive adult size clothing and shoes (which incurred VAT), have larger appetites, require pocket money or money to support activities and socialising, need access to IT and mobile phones, and will desire branded items in order to fit in with peers and avoid stigma. It was stressed that teenagers aged 14 or 15 will cost significantly more than a 5 year old, and therefore the 11-15 year old band should receive more than the 5-10 year old band. While most did not specify what they felt a fairer rate would be for this age band, a few respondents did suggest this should either be more in line with the 16+ rate, while a few foster carers suggested that between £210 and £230 would be more appropriate:

“…to keep 5-10 years and 11-15 the same is disappointing, kids in 11-15 bracket attend secondary school and their needs are greater everyday, no access to breakfast clubs or lunch, kids require more each day to be able to access the same choices as their friends, there is also much more pressure for them to have the same as their peers in terms of clothing, activities out of school also cost much more than they do for younger kids.” (Foster Carer)

In interviews, the biggest area of discontentment with the age bandings of the SRA was also related to children aged 5 to 10 year-olds and 11 to 15 year-olds receiving the same allowance. Feedback on what was essentially seen as a collapsing of these two age bands into one was unanimously negative between the different stakeholder groups who engaged with the research, and was particularly acute among carers and carer support organisations. Third sector organisations in particular highlighted that there was a wealth of evidence that the age bracket 5 to 15 is not fit for purpose and so were particularly surprised to see this announced as part of the SRA.

Again, the main reasons given for this discontent were that caring for a 11-15 year-old was more expensive, primarily due to their increased independence when attending secondary school and the associated costs with this, e.g. the need to have a mobile phone to be contactable by family when out alone, the need for additional money to buy food during school lunch periods, and the cost of large often adult sized and adult priced clothing. Other expenses for teenagers included personal hygiene products (e.g. deodorant and feminine hygiene products). The general increase in costs associated with becoming a teenager and wanting more independence meant that the SRA was not adequately covering the costs of young people in this age bracket:

“When kids get to that stage where they get to teenager years and go to High School, they want to go out more with their friends, they want to go to the cinema, they want to go to clubs more and that sort of stuff. So, if the money stays the same as when they’re in primary school and they weren’t doing all that, how are you expected to allow them to do that?” (Kinship Carer)

Comments were also made that collapsing the older age bands (i.e. 11-15 and 16+) may be appropriate to help prevent the current cliff edge for carers of children once they approach 18. The preference for some was instead to see a more steady rate for 11-18s which would potentially disperse financial support to more young people and for longer:

“If you up it at the age of 16 and then remove it at the age of 18, you’re creating a challenge in the system as not as many children are able to remain with their foster carers…We need to do more to prevent that care cliff that is happening at the age of 18, so our recommended allowances are from 11 years onwards and actually should continue in our view until the child doesn’t need to be there anymore. So it’s not about having cut-off points, it’s about meeting the needs of children until they don’t need to be in that care situation any longer.” (TSO)

Financial support for those aged 18-21 (or even 26) was also encouraged by a small number of respondents as a means of providing young people with the care and stability that they needed for longer:

“What we should be doing is providing the love, stability and permanence that they need for as long as they need it.” (TSO)

Consistent with comments related to the age bands, a few respondents also suggested that all children should receive the same rate, regardless of their age:

“I think they should all be entitled to the same regardless of age, make everyone equal.” (Kinship Carer)

“…kids are extremely expensive to raise and the cost of living, £268.41 for the oldest should be paid to every child regardless of age.” (Kinship Carer)

All carers who took part in an interview were asked to reflect on the models offered by other countries in their allowances for carers, including:

• a single minimum recommended allowance for all children regardless of age
• three bands based on the SRA rates i.e. 0-4 year-olds, 5-15 year-olds, 16-years-old and over
• three bands based on school ages i.e. 0-4 year-olds (pre-school), 4-11 year-olds (primary school) and 12-years-old and over (secondary school)
• five bands in line with English allowances i.e. 0-2 year-olds, 2-4 year-olds, 5-10 year-olds, 11-15 year-olds, 16-years-old and over

There was no clear consensus among those who took part with different preferences being expressed across the board for each of the above options.

Others stressed that not all children progressed at the same rate and that some children with more complex needs would always need more support than others (therefore, a calculation of allowances based on complexity and need may be more appropriate than one based on age alone):

“I think the categories would be better to be based on the challenge difficulty of the child but I think you’d need to assess that somehow with metrics and criteria, which may be more difficult.” (Foster Carer)

This aside, there was a general view that secondary school aged children should attract a higher allowance than primary school aged children, and also that any age banding should not be overly complex as adding complexity would have the consequence of increased administration costs for the taxpayer as well as being confusing for carers.

How the Allowance is Used by Carers

The SRA is paid for the child (not for the carer) and is intended to cover 16 key components in relation to living expenses, as follows:

• food
• toiletries
• clothes
• wear and tear
• hobbies and activities
• bedding
• furniture
• pocket money
• toys
• insurance and utility bill increases
• daily access to a computer and the internet for homework/course work
• transport costs for the child (for the purpose of attending review meetings, children’s hearings, contact, travel to school, college or other educational facility)
• mobile phone
• holiday costs to cover school holiday activities and family trips
• birthday
• Christmas or other cultural or religious events

All carers who took part in the survey were asked to indicate what they use the SRA to pay for, with 134 foster carers and 129 kinship carers answering the questions.

Over half of the respondents (62% of foster carers and 57% of kinship carers) use the allowance to pay for all of the 16 elements. However, there were also several items where fewer than one in five used the allowance to pay for it. This included:

• wear and tear (19% of kinship carers);
• furniture (18% of foster carers and 16% of kinship carers);
• insurance and utility bill increases (14% of foster carers and 8% of kinship carers);
• daily access to a computer and the internet for homework/coursework (16% of foster carers and 15% of kinship carers);
• transport costs for the child (19% of foster carers and 16% of kinship carers); and
• mobile phone (20% of foster carers and 19% of kinship carers).

Several ‘other’ costs were also identified by both foster and kinship carers as being covered by the allowance, including: extra-curricular clubs, activities and childcare; health and beauty; savings for the child; driving lessons; specialised milk and food products for children with allergies; specialist/therapeutic support and equipment for children; medication and supplements to help with medical and mental health issues. Several kinship carers simply noted that the allowance was used to cover the costs of the child’s wants and needs, whatever they may be.

Again, both foster and kinship carers also commented that, while the money contributed towards all of the general living expenses for the child, they felt it did not go far enough. Several noted that they had to use their own money/ income to top-up the allowance, particularly for birthdays, Christmas and holidays, as well as other more unique issues, such as legal fees if the child gets into trouble with the police, or where the child has excessive travel expenses due to medical appointments/treatment:

“My own money is being used to cover all the above too, the allowance isn't enough to cover it all.” (Foster Carer)

“My kinship is just added with my pension so it goes towards everything he needs, especially a caravan holiday as I can’t afford abroad, his clothes, and footwear.” (Kinship Carer)

Carer survey respondents were also asked if the SRA allowance that they currently received was sufficient to allow them to cover all of the costs/expenses for the foster and kinship children that they cared for.

Table 22: Carer perceptions of sufficiency of SRA for meeting costs of the child

Response options	Foster Carers (number and %)		Kinship Carers (number and %)		Total Sample (number and %)
Yes	25	18%	44	34%	69	26%
No	96	71%	66	50%	162	61%
Don’t know	15	11%	21	16%	36	13%
Total	136	100%	131	100%	267	100%

A higher proportion of foster carers (71%, n=96) said it was not sufficient compared to kinship carers (50%, n=66). While still a minority, more kinship carers responded positively in this respect than foster carers (34% verses 18% respectively who said the SRA was sufficient).

A wide range of items were described as not covered by the SRA allowance, and/or were highlighted as areas where carers have to subsidise the allowance. These were reasonably consistent between foster and kinship carers, and included:

• costs related to children with additional needs and/or specific dietary requirements;
• damage and general wear and tear on the home;
• school related costs, including trips, uniform, snacks, school dinners/ packed lunches, equipment and IT needed for school work;
• the cost of clubs, activities and hobbies, including clothing/uniforms, travel and trips associated with these;
• clothing and shoes/trainers;
• days out;
• birthdays (including parties) and Christmas;
• holiday costs;
• initial placement costs (e.g. setting up the home with required furniture, toys, clothes, etc.);
• baby items (e.g. pram, formula milk, clothing, etc.);
• childcare, after school clubs/care, and respite (mentioned more by kinship carers than foster carers);
• subscriptions;
• gaming;
• mobile phones;
• driving lessons;
• specialist assessments and support (e.g. therapy and counselling);
• food;
• takeaways;
• pocket money and savings for the child;
• maintaining contact with parents (or other family);
• medical requirements (e.g. glasses);
• hair and beauty costs;
• home improvement and redecoration costs;
• general household items and furniture;
• the carer’s travel costs, including public transport and/or petrol and car maintenance costs;
• the carers pension; and
• energy costs, e.g. gas and electricity bills.

As noted above, in order to meet the full range of expenses, both foster and kinship carers typically use their own money to top-up the allowance to ensure the child’s needs are met. This typically involves carers using their:

• foster carer fee;
• savings (which a few noted had originally been intended to support them in retirement);
• income from other employment (either theirs or their partners) - with several noting that they had either had to take on a job to cover their costs, extend their working hours or work overtime, or take on multiple jobs;
• benefits (e.g. Universal Credit, child disability and carer payments) and pension payments; and
• relying on other/wider family support.

Some (both foster and kinship carers) also noted cutting back on expenses, “making do”, and “tightening the belt”. Specific adjustments included having fewer/no holidays; less days out; prioritising only certain clubs and activities; sourcing cheaper clothing; buying cheaper food; bargain hunting and buying second hand items; carers going without items for themselves; and undertaking all home maintenance themselves. Some kinship carers said they used local/community pantries and food banks; sought emergency funding, welfare funds, and additional grants and payments from the local authority/ social work or charities; loans or borrowed money; and avoided paying some bills; while one also indicated that they had to sell a vehicle.

Savings for the Child

All carer survey respondents were asked if they had ever been advised, required or encouraged to set aside some of the allowance each week for a child’s savings account. In total, 88 kinship carers and 116 foster carers provided a substantive response at this question, with mixed responses expressed.

Kinship carers were much less likely to have been advised, required or encouraged to set aside money in a savings account for the child compared to foster carers. Only a few kinship carers (6%, n=5) said they had been advised to do this, while most (61%, n=54) had not. Meanwhile, over a quarter of foster carers (29%, n=34) had been advised to provide savings for the child, while less than half (42%, n=49) had not. Around a third (33%, n=29) of kinship carers and a quarter (24%, n=28) of foster carers said that, despite not being advised to, they did this anyway - although a few noted that they provided pocket money which the child could then save rather than the carer being directly responsible for making the deposit. In addition, a small number of foster carers (4%, n=5) indicated that their IFA took care of the savings account and making payments into this. Where advice on this issue had been provided, this generally came from either their local authority (social worker) or the fostering agency.

While the payment amounts earmarked for savings were not commonly disclosed, those that were varied. The more common amounts appeared to be £20 per month and £40 per month, although some did provide higher amounts of £50-£100+ per month. Others noted that the amount saved varied from month to month and depended upon what could be afforded at the time. Several respondents (both foster and kinship carers), however, noted that they could not afford to provide savings for the child.

Many carers who took part in interviews said that they did try to set aside a small amount of the allowance for their children, or encourage them to have savings. Again, however, this was not always possible, especially as the child got older and wanted to buy expensive items. In some cases, carers reported that children were having to use some of their own savings towards things such as clothing:

“It was just the other day that he wanted his trainers cos everyone had them.. And they were £175 cos he’s a size eight now and I said, “Well, you had a lot of money for Christmas, we will go halves on that”. Because he needs to realise that it costs a lot of money if I went and bought them or out his allowance, within weeks they would probably be wrecked. But cos it’s coming out of his money, he’s got to learn.” (Kinship Carer)