Foster and kinship carers - Scottish Recommended Allowance: implementation review

Discussion

The Policy Intention

The SRA was intended to bring consistency and transparency to the allowances paid to foster and kinship carers, ensuring that all caregivers, no matter where they live, receive at least a set rate to cover the costs of the child[ren] they are looking after. While the SRA was very much welcomed by all stakeholders who contributed to the research, there was little in the evidence collected to suggest that the desired consistency and transparency had been achieved.

On consistency, while most local authorities now appear to be paying at least the SRA for most children, the evidence suggests that there is still wide variation in the allowances and fees that are being paid across the country (albeit the variation may be less than the pre-SRA landscape). While many kinship carers feel that they are being treated more equitably when considered alongside foster carers, the evidence also suggests that kinship carers may still be ‘worse off’ financially (compared to foster carers) despite the introduction of the SRA, primarily because of the deduction that occurs when families are entitled to or in receipt of other benefits as well as having less access to additional payments and expenses. The wide variation in practices relating to additional payments also suggests that there is some way to go towards achieving consistency in the wrap-around financial support being offered to carers Scotland wide.

On transparency, the differences between the reported payment practices by local authorities and the data (or absence of data) published by them online means that there remains a certain degree of opaqueness with regards to if and how the SRA has been implemented around the country. This is compounded by a lack of transparency in the remittance notices given to carers regarding their regular payments. A lack of clear, current and readily available SRA rate information for carers and the public alike means that transparency at even the most basic level has not been achieved. This is compounded by a lack of self-reported data from IFAs on the rates that they pay, as well as a lack of understanding among carers about what they receive for whom and why (with allowances often conflated with fostering fees, other benefits and additional payments).

The Research Questions

The research generated a large volume of feedback from all parties regarding the way that the SRA had been implemented and received. While there were some gaps, especially in terms of feedback from IFAs, the research addressed each of the research questions that were posed to at least some degree.

Are individual local authorities paying the SRA or above the SRA?

The absence of reliable published and readily accessible data makes this a difficult question to answer. While all local authorities that took part reported that they were paying at least the SRA for all age bands, this was not born out in independent checks. The absence of readily available data also make verification challenging (and impossible in some cases), alongside differences in the way that rates are presented, which makes like-for-like comparisons hard to achieve (for example, some rates are presented as ‘inclusive’ of fostering fees while some are ‘exclusive’ and some rates are presented as ‘before’ benefits deductions are made and others ‘after’). It is also not clear in all cases if the published rates online are current or historical.

Based on the data that are available, it appears that most (but not all) authorities are now paying at least the SRA for some, but not necessarily all eligible children. There also appears to be remaining inconsistency between local authorities in terms of the range in value of payments being made, with some still offering notably above the SRA.

The very limited data that were available regarding rates being paid by independent fostering agencies means that no reliable conclusions can be reached in relation to payment practices in this sector.

Do the current allowance rates at each SRA age band reflect the needs of the child at that age?

Both foster and kinship carers welcomed the new rates overall, especially where this represented an increase in rates previously paid at the local level. That being said, there was still evidence across the research that allowances were failing to meet the full costs of looking after a child, and that many carers were relying on additional income streams, credit and savings to help provide positive childhood experiences for their looked after children and young people. The widely varying differences reported in relation to payment of additional expenses for carers by local authorities and IFAs were also seen as resulting in some children receiving less overall compared to their peers, and this was a key area that was flagged for more to be done to help achieve consistency across the country.

Feedback from carers suggests that there are two main age groups where the SRA is not perceived as currently meeting the needs of the child, those aged 0-4 and those aged 11-15. The cost of nappies, milk and equipment for babies and those aged under 2 in particular appears to be placing a strain on carers’ finances for children in the pre-school years, while costs of clothing, phones/IT and money to facilitate more independence for older children were the pressing concerns for carers of secondary school aged children.

Although not a part of the SRA, the research also uncovered a great deal of dissatisfaction (particularly among carers, TSOs and local authorities) with regards to continuing care. The main sentiment appears to be that continuing care may be being used inappropriately and disproportionately as a cost saving measure, i.e. moving young people to continuing care to reduce the higher fees and allowance costs that would be associated with keeping young people in care. There were also concerns about inconsistencies in continuing care practice and the lack of transition planning and wider support to help families and young people as they moved into adulthood from a care environment. The other main sentiment was that financial support for young people in the continuing care age band was simply not enough.

Across the age bands, the research shows clear frustration that there has been no uplift in the payments since the SRA was introduced. This was viewed by many as unacceptable and may have served to undermine confidence in the SRA as a whole. The cost-of-living crisis meant that all stakeholders viewed the need for an uplift as a pressing concern.

Should there continue to be four SRA age bands, or is an alternative approach to banding more appropriate?

Across the various stakeholder groups who engaged with the research, there were no clear messages in this regard except to note that most people felt the collapsing of age bands 5-10 and 11-15 was not appropriate and did not reflect the differing needs of children as they progressed from primary to secondary school. There was evidence that the use of four age bands, with the same rates paid for those aged 5-10 and 11-15 years old may have had a negative impact on some children who had to wait longer for any increase in payments due to the new age bandings which were misaligned with old local authority bandings (i.e. and who had to remain at a lower SRA rate for longer). This was perhaps an unintended consequence of the SRA.

While there was no support for any specific alternative model, there was again unanimous feedback that age bands and payment rates for each should be continuously reviewed and uplifted in line with inflation.

How many kinship carers are impacted by how the SRA interacts in practice with both Scottish and Reserved Social Security benefits?

A large number of kinship carers appear to be impacted by the interaction of the SRA with other benefits and there is a lack of clarity and understanding (among both carers and also, anecdotally, some professionals) with regards to the interaction of kinship payments with welfare benefits, particularly Universal Credit. This lack of understanding is compounded by lack of clarity in the detail provided to carers around the payments that they receive, with some not knowing how their allocations are made up (e.g. how much is for each child, how much has been deducted due to other benefits, how much is attributable to additional payments or expenses, etc.) At the worst extreme, this can mean some carers receiving deductions in payments even when no other benefits have been sought, but having no understanding of why this is the case.

For all families, especially those with no previous contact with the benefits system, it was felt that more information needed to be shared proactively by local authorities and/or the Scottish Government making it clear how kinship allowances interact with benefits and making the system easier to navigate overall. Additional training for those who support carers may also be needed, as there is evidence from the research to suggest that queries to local authorities in this regard can be met with inadequate responses.

Again, while not a ‘benefit’ per se, problems around lack of clarity with regards to additional payments and expenses that carers may be entitled to from their local authority or IFA appears to be compounding the challenges experienced as a result of benefits deductions. Differences in support given within and between areas and insufficient funding for special events such as birthdays, religious holidays and school holidays is exacerbated by carers’ perceptions that professionals infer that they should not be asking for additional help when needed. The complexity of the claims process for additional expenses also appears to be a barrier to some families asking for the additional financial support that they need.

How has the implementation of the SRA affected the contracts between local authorities and independent fostering agencies and how do IFA allowances compare to the SRA?

There is little evidence available to provide a robust answer to this question; however, IFAs who did take part concurred with local authorities that impacts of the SRA on IFAs had (to date) been minimal. The absence of sufficient data on allowances paid by IFAs also means that this remains a gap in knowledge.

The main frustration for carers working in the independent sector was around their not being eligible for backdated payments (where they were already receiving a higher rate than the SRA) and/or frustration that dedicated monies for the SRA that had been passed to local authorities by the Scottish Government had not been passed on to IFAs. This impacted some private and voluntary providers who attempted to ensure that their rates were equitable with new SRA rates by meeting any shortfall themselves.

The impact of the SRA on contracts between local authorities and IFAs was considered as something that remains to be seen, i.e. when new agreements come into place, the predicted costs presented by IFAs is likely to be higher to allow them to remain competitive with local authorities in remunerating carers, as well as to recover any costs incurred during the SRA transition phase. Various stakeholders stressed that it would be important to keep IFAs on board going forward, and to respect them as equal partners in the care-provision sphere (alongside local authorities) since they play an essential role in meeting the increasing demand for fostering services. Having consistent allowances offered by IFAs and local authorities would also ensure that decisions by families to take on the fostering role were not unduly or negatively influenced by financial interests. Many expressed aspirations that there should be no difference in the allowances paid across the public and private sectors since both were working towards the same goal of alleviating child poverty and maximising best outcomes for children and young people.

What is the distribution of foster and kinship carers in Scotland, and are more foster and kinship carers receiving the SRA residing in areas of high deprivation, measured by the SIMD, than in areas of affluence?

The survey of carers attracted a strong response and, among those who took part, there was representation across a wide range of SIMD communities. Notably, there were no obvious trends in the main issues reported by carers living in both high and low areas of deprivation, with issues such as the reliance on savings, credit and other income sources being reported by carers of all socio-economic and demographic backgrounds. Based solely on the sample reached by this research, kinship carers do appear to be marginally more likely to live in areas of high deprivation compared to foster carers, and are also likely to be older and of retirement age (although several foster carers were also of comparable ages). This observation, however, is limited by the fact that there is no way of knowing how representative the survey sample is of their respective peer groups - the sample simply reflects the characteristics of those who opted to take part and share their views as part of the work, and this self-selection may mean that there are inherent biases in the data gathered.

What is clear is that carers are united in their desire to give their cared-for children access to life-enhancing experiences such as holidays, membership of sports and other activity clubs, opportunities to learn new skills, etc. While some carers find it harder than others to give their cared-for children access to such opportunities, the shared desire is underpinned by strong views that young people should not be penalised as a result of their ‘cared for’ status. Carers, despite their own financial backgrounds, unanimously reported investing as much as possible (financially, practically and emotionally) into the well-being of their cared-for children.

Do carers and professionals know where to find information about the SRA?

Local authority staff, IFAs and TSOs all reported knowing where to find information on the SRA and, indeed, many who took part reported making proactive efforts to reach carer communities to raise their awareness of the SRA too. Despite this, there was evidence that not all appropriate information was being cascaded by professionals to those in caring roles. Kinship carers in particular appear to be facing challenges in accessing information, with several being made aware of their entitlements quite late into their care journey instead of routinely being supported from the start (although some of the negative feedback reported may be due to legacy failings linked to the status quo when those carers first took on their kinship status, rather than reflecting current practice and recent efforts to engage them more).

While the Scottish Government information online was welcomed, there remains scope, it seems, to more proactively engage with carers to make them aware of the SRA, its intentions and how it could/should be used to maximum effect.

Is it clear that the SRA is to pay for the costs of the child and does not cover foster carers’ fees?

While carers reported a clear understanding that the SRA was to pay for the costs of the child, many reported that it was neither practical nor desirable for families to differentiate income from different sources day-to-day, the preference instead being to combine all available income to try and best meet the needs of the child. Again, many carers reported using savings, their fostering fees, borrowing from family/friends, accessing credit or taking on alternative employment to help boost their overall family income, and to help meet any shortfall in the SRA in allowing them to cover all of the costs of the child. These extra sources of income were typically again used to provide positive life experiences for the child, although many carers also reported challenges meeting even their basic family needs, e.g. heating, clothing and food.

Comments that fostering fees also needed to be reviewed bolster the overall sense that foster carers feel that more financial support is needed to help them effectively deliver their role, i.e. fees and allowances should not be considered in isolation. Considering fostering fees alongside any future review of fostering allowances, rather than viewing the two in isolation, was encouraged.

Is there any additional information that it would be helpful for Scottish Government to publish centrally (e.g. interaction with benefits, annual allowance rates for all local authorities)?

Across the research, there was feedback regarding lack of timely communication about the SRA - this was principally among IFAs who did not feel sufficiently well engaged in the pre- or post- implementation phases, as well as carers who felt that information was not proactively provided to them by the local authorities regarding any change in allowances (including backdating). As above, kinship carers in particular raised a lack of early/immediate and proactive engagement about entitlements as an issue.

Raising awareness of kinship care status as a whole was seen as something that would maximise the reach of the SRA in ensuring that all eligible carers were receiving what they were entitled to in order to provide the best outcomes for the children and young people in their care.

Do stakeholders hold the view that the Scottish Government should legislate for the SRA to ensure consistency and transparency of allowances in Scotland?

Carers welcomed consistency rather than local authorities making their own autonomous decisions regarding allowances and rates. Carers in particular felt that the Scottish Government should mandate minimum SRA rates across local authorities, but they should still be able to choose to pay above this. Among other stakeholders, however, there was mixed feedback in this regard with no clear preference for legislating for either minimum rates or standard rates (the former would help achieve consistency but the latter would potentially mean that more support could be given to families where authorities felt able). On balance, there did however appear to be a preference for local authority and IFA rates to be aligned.

Stakeholders were also unanimous on the point that allowances should increase on an annual basis with inflation and also that the SRA should be kept under regular review. This was seen as essential to help with future recruitment and retention of carers in the fostering community and to reinforce the valuable work done by kinship carers across the country. It would also aid improved consistency and transparency, it was felt.

Many consulted across the research also expressed a desire for local authorities and IFAs to publish their allowances and fees data in an accessible, consistent and up-to-date way. This was seen to be the single biggest step that would help achieve transparency.

Conclusions

While all stakeholders welcomed the SRA and efforts to improve consistency, the increase in payment amounts that were experienced in some areas were seen as long overdue. The research also indicates that allowances are still perceived and experienced as being insufficient to meet families’ needs, especially in light of the current cost of living crisis, with views that the SRA did not go far enough to address the cost of caring for children and young people in the current climate.

Despite implementation challenges and some areas of discrepancy that still need to be ironed out, all stakeholders agreed that, fundamentally, the SRA had been a crucial first step forward improving the lives of foster and kinship carers and the children and young people in their care. It was seen as a positive step forwards but would need to be continually reviewed, in collaboration with all those affected, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose now and in the future.