The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 4: WHAT DO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE TELL US THEY NEED FROM FOSTERING AND KINSHIP CARE?

The long-term goal of the National Fostering and Kinship Care Strategy is to achieve safe, stable and secure placements for all children and young people by getting the placement right first time. There need to be constant assessments of the matching process and local authorities and independent agencies need to be sure that the foster care resource available meets the needs of the matching process. The first section of the consultation contained 6 questions dealing with 3 areas:

• Getting the placement right first time - improving the matching of placements to the needs of children and young people;
• Transition to adulthood and independent living;
• Amendments to Regulations.

4.1 GETTING THE PLACEMENT RIGHT FIRST TIME - IMPROVING THE MATCHING OF PLACEMENTS TO THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Question 1. Do you think that setting a maximum number of placements for each foster carer would improve the fostering experience of the child?

4.1.1 There were 55 responses in agreement with only 12 disagreeing. Nineteen comments, mainly from Local Authority consultees, indicated that support for setting a maximum would depend on other factors. The reminder (25) did not state their opinion (see chart 4.1).

Chart 4.1 Whether setting a maximum number of placements for each foster carer would improve the fostering experience of the child (n=111)

4.1.2 At the events, one group which included those working within foster care indicated that 17 attendees were in support with 7 against the idea of a placement limit. An event for foster carers produced 33 in favour with 5 against the idea.

If you've answered yes, please specify what the placement limit should be and please give reasons for your answer.

4.1.3 While those who answered yes to this question were then asked to specify what the placement limit should be, comments came not only from those replying yes to the initial question, but also those saying no, depends or giving no response.

4.1.4 Consultees acknowledged that foster children can have complex needs that might not receive the attention needed in a large household. The number of children being cared for has implications for carers, not only in the time available to spend with each child, but also in the amount of paperwork and meetings involved for each child that the carer has to deal with; this comment was the single most frequently mentioned issue at this question, by 38 consultees. A foster carer described their own experience "I have experience of having four children and giving them individual time and attention was almost impossible. Plus all their appointments with therapists, medical appointments, educational reviews and having a 'normal family experience' was very difficult with a large number of children." This theme did not however, appear in any depth at the Fostering Network events. Only one of the reports, from an event attended by foster carers, produced this comment.

4.1.5 In relation to the placement limit, a 3 child limit was most favoured by over a third of consultees (36 and 5 events). Supporting comments included that a 3 child limit would be in line with England and Wales. A fostering charity commented "We would wish to suggest that the period of transition towards a placement limit of some three years would allow local authorities sufficient time to realign their recruitment and retention policies and practises in order to prepare an imposition of a placement limit. In addition, as is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we would wish to suggest that sibling groups of more than three would not fall under the ambit of the usual fostering limit." Almost a quarter (26) of consultees, predominantly local authorities, stressed the need to keep sibling groups together and many of those suggesting a limit asked that allowances be made for sibling groups. Attendees at 4 events also highlighted this point.

4.1.6 Thirty-two consultees and attendees at 6 of the events felt that placement limits would depend on a number of factors including:

• the number of birth children;
• whether those providing care were single or a couple;
• the size of house.

4.1.7 The main single factor affecting size of placement was present in over a quarter (31) of responses and this concerned the age and needs of the child(ren) involved. This was a key theme amongst event attendees with 7 foster carer events and 2 events for workers raising this issue. A local authority consultee gave their opinion:

"We believe that younger children, particularly pre-fives need very close care and attention that is more likely to be available in a smaller household. However, some older children and young people prefer to be in households where the relationships are less intense. Large foster homes are regularly and often pejoratively compared to residential units. It is possible that the young people placed actually get the best of both worlds i.e. continuity of caring adults and peers but without the emotional intensity of a smaller family."

4.1.8 Another key theme to emerge was the experience of the carer(s); mentioned by 25 consultees. Again it was pointed out that these factors are assessed in deciding placements at present and again, this theme was seen as important at the Fostering Network events; 7 foster carer events and 3 events for workers reported the experience of carers as a factor in deciding any placement limit. The response detailing the views of young people included several comments indicating that young people with experience of foster care feel placement numbers should be decided in this way. Comments included:

• "When a carer begins to care, place one child at a time, then when they have as many children as they feel they can manage then that should be their limit. Therefore there is no reason to put on a limit of children, as the carers knows within themselves their limit and what they can manage."
• "Depends on foster carers own beliefs. If they feel they can cope (and obviously can) then they can have more."
• "Need information on how many children they can handle. And stress levels of carers - how much they can take."

4.1.9 The need for children or young people to have their own rooms, unless sharing with siblings, was stressed by 13 consultees; this point also emerged from 5 of the events although there were also a couple of comments on the benefits of children sharing rooms. A local authority response saw the need to "Decrease incidence of room sharing, each child should have a single bedroom and the number of placements needs to relate to the capacity of the carers and their accommodation." There were comments, from 14 consultees and at 3 events, on the need to ensure foster homes are not overloaded.

4.1.10 There were 10 comments suggesting that maximum figures should include the number of birth children present in the home. Responses from 2 events for foster care workers and from 5 of the foster carer events also saw the number of birth children as an important factor. This included the following comment from foster carers "If a family have their own children, I believe that it should be up to a maximum of 4 children in the household - this means their needs may be met. Large households can be chaotic and needs overlooked. A child's individual needs have to be taken into account, placing children one-to-one may be needed."

4.1.11 Ten consultees and attendees at 3 events felt that more carers would be needed if placement limits were set. This is illustrated by the following comment from a local authority "This is a more complex question than would first appear, set as it is within the context of too few foster placements and increasing numbers of looked after and accommodated children with complex needs. Unless the issues of recruitment and retention of foster carers can be resolved, then it is difficult to see how any proposals to limit the numbers of placements in a foster placement could reasonably be achieved."

4.1.12 Other comments made by smaller numbers of consultees included:

• a maximum of 2 children or young people, unless accommodating a sibling group (8 comments);
• a maximum of 4 children or young people, unless accommodating a sibling group (8 comments);
• concern that the reduction in fees or allowances paid to carers through looking after smaller numbers may result in the loss of carers (7 comments and 3 mentions from events);
• that a placement limit may increase the likelihood of stable placements (4 comments, mainly voluntary or charity consultees).

4.1.13 There were a variety of different suggestions on placement limits given at the events and these included:

• a limit of 4 if there are 2 foster carers in the home, otherwise the limit should be set at 3;
• three but with the option to increase if needed - especially for sibling groups (9 comments);
• a maximum of 4 (4 events);
• although a limit of 3 was favoured, 2 to 3 was also widely suggested at one event for foster carers and received a mention at one other foster carer event.

4.1.14 A suggestion that there should be some form of policy in place to deal with placements going over limit appeared in one of the consultation responses and 3 of the events for workers reported that a policy should be in place.

"In terms of placements where more than three children were placed, it would be in our opinion worth emulating the situation in the rest of the United Kingdom where situations such as this are brought to the attention of the appropriate regulatory bodies. In this case in Scotland, our suggestions would be the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, or the Social Work Inspection Agency. Their role would be to regulate and monitor these situations in order to ensure themselves that the children's best interests were being met on an ongoing basis. It would also serve to bring home to local authorities the exceptional nature of such placements less they become the norm." (fostering charity)

Question 2. If introduced, setting a maximum number of placements would need to be phased in. What, in your opinion, would be a realistic timeframe for this?

4.1.15 Although there were a variety of suggestions for suitable timeframes, the main comment made in relation to timeframes was on the importance of allowing existing placements to come to an end naturally. Twenty-four consultees stressed that existing placements should not be disrupted by the introduction of a placement limit and this point came through strongly as well in reports from the events; 5 foster carer events and 2 of the worker events stressed the need to allow a natural progression to the end of current placements. A foster carer commented "You can't tell a child to leave who you may have had for years and agreed to keep until they move to independent living because you are over the number."

4.1.16 The situation regarding new carers was, however, viewed differently; 15 consultees, mainly foster carers and local authorities, along with attendees from 6 events, saw no need to delay implementing a placement limit for new carers.

4.1.17 Again, consultees anticipated that more carers would be needed. Sixteen consultees, half of these from local authorities, and attendees from 5 events commented on this issue in relation to question 2. This comment from a fostering agency deals with both this and the previous theme:

"However with regard to carers currently in the assessment process, strict adherence to a new policy of restriction in numbers could be and should be implemented immediately. Whilst this may have an impact on resource availability, sufficient carers need to be recruited and retained to ensure this can happen. Delay in bringing about change for those currently in assessment will only add to a future problem if an implementation date is set in future."

4.1.18 Looking at the issue of specific timeframes, there was greatest support, from consultees, for a phasing in period of 3 years (9 comments and mentioned at one event). A children's charity "believes that a period of 3 years would be a realistic timeframe for this on the condition that there is investment and a positive strategy to recruit suitable carers." Both 3 and 5 years were most widely mentioned at the events which reported on question 2. There were smaller numbers of consultees and attendees supporting:

• two years (5 comments and 3 events);
• five years (5 comments and 2 events);
• six months to a year (2 comments and 2 events);
• one year to eighteen months (2 comments and one event);
• between 2 and 4 years (2 comments and 2 events);
• three to five years (2 comments and mentioned at 2 events);
• five to eight or ten years (2 comments and 2 events);
• one year (one comment and 2 events);
• one to two years (one comment);
• eighteen months to two years (one comment);
• ten years or 8 to 10 years (one comment and mentioned at 2 events);
• twenty years with funding guaranteed for 20 years (mentioned at one event);
• 3 to 6 months (2 events).

4.1.19 The issue of extra resources was noted, with 8 consultees and attendees at 2 of the events for workers commenting on the need for investment in the service before making any changes. As a local authority pointed out "Any timetable to impose a change of this nature needs to be set against a commitment from the Scottish Executive to permanently invest in the service."

4.1.20 One local authority felt "local timescale targets should be set within each authority that reflect the local circumstances of that area, including the implications of established care plan arrangements for children and young people currently in placement." Three other consultees as well as attendees from 3 of the events agreed that there may be a need for different timeframes in different areas or that each local authority should be allowed to decide their own timeframe.

4.1.21 At an event attended by workers in foster care there were some mentions of the need to link all legislation together and to ensure that the whole of Great Britain has a strategy in place, while there was a further comment on the need for a Scotland-wide strategy.

Question 3. Are you aware of any examples of good practice that demonstrate how best to involve the child or young person in the choice of placement? If so please give further details.

4.1.22 Although a small number of consultees mentioned specific examples, most gave more general descriptions of what they considered good practice. The need to familiarise children or young people with potential or proposed carers through family booklets, videos, carer profiles and pictures was mentioned by 20 consultees. This issue was also raised amongst attendees at 9 events. A foster carer described the steps they take to welcome new placements:

"We have often prepared an "All About Us" booklet for any prospective children / young people coming into our home. This includes photographs of ourselves, our home, family pets, etc, a little bit of information about the house and the family, and a wee fun questionnaire for the young person to complete so that we know a bit about them in advance." They go on to add "I think that all carers should be asked to carry out this task, which would then be kept on file, so that children and young people could see a bit about their new placement family, even in an emergency situation, before coming to the house. Other local authorities in England get their new carers to do this as part of their training, but it is not something that I am aware of happening as the norm in Scotland."

4.1.23 Pre-placement meetings between the young person and potential carer were also seen as important, with 19 consultees commenting, along with attendees from 5 foster carer and 3 worker events including "my area does provide if possible a phased introduction so the child gets to know the carer."

4.1.24 Consultees also raised possible issues around involving a child or young person in the choice of placement. Sixteen consultees mentioned that choice may be limited due either to the small pool of available carers or to difficulties in involving young people in professional matching panels. This was one of the main comments on this question from local authorities. Similar concerns also emerged in reports from 5 events. Eleven consultees, along with attendees at 6 of the events, saw involvement as potentially difficult in emergency placement situations due to the timeframe involved. However, although the response detailing comments from young people indicated that they were aware of, and resigned to, these problems, the following quote from one young person shows the potential benefits of overcoming them "If I had a choice of foster parent then it would mean my behaviour would be better and my anger more under control."

4.1.25 There was support for involving children or young people in placement planning or in family group conferences ( FGC); 10 consultees felt young people could be involved in these meetings as did attendees from 4 of the events. Twelve consultees thought that children or young people should be encouraged to identify issues of importance to them such as area or type of family and this point also appeared in reports from 6 events. One local authority commented "Children are not currently given a choice of carer placement, but children and their families are consulted through the planning process. Areas such as family contact, friends, school and other factors all influence placement choice, and are given careful consideration." The age of the child may have an effect on the extent of their involvement; there were 9 comments in responses and reports from 2 events on this subject; consultees felt that older children should have some form of input.

4.1.26 Eight consultees commented that involvement may not be happening due to a lack of resources. One local authority explained that young people are not involved because "Our fostering resources are at maximum capacity and allow little opportunity to match placements." Other comments, made by smaller numbers of consultees, included:

• the need for each child or young person to have an adult, perhaps a social worker, with whom they feel comfortable in expressing an opinion or voicing any concerns (5 comments and mentions from 4 events);
• involving children or young people in preparing their BAAF form (3 comments and mentioned at one worker event);
• the need for a trial or settling in period (2 comments and mentions from 3 events);
• ensuring that the child or young person is properly prepared and briefed for the placement (2 comments and mentions from 3 events);
• having child-specific recruitment drives (2 comments).

4.1.27 Specific examples identified in responses included:

• Sycamore, Aberlour, Fife (2 mentions);
• materials and processes associated with the Looked After Child ( LAC) system (2 mentions);
• Barnardo's Home from Home in Aberdeen (one mention);
• Inverclyde Local Authority process (one mention);
• FCA process (one mention);
• previous Lothian Regional Council adolescent placement scheme (one mention).

4.1.28 Specific examples mentioned in event reports included:

• profiles of carers, including photos, are produced in Edinburgh.

Question 4. How do you think that the matching process could be improved (for instance, by combining the expertise of child protection and family placement services, or by using family group conferencing)?

4.1.29 The main comment to emerge in relation to improving the matching process concerned the need to widen the pool of available carers. As one foster carer put it " There is no point in trying to make a process child-centred at a strategic, functional or management level if there is not the bums on seats to accommodate the end result of the process." Twenty-five consultees, including 13 local authorities, pinpointed the need to recruit more carers or commented that placements are dependent on the availability of carers. This comment also emerged from one event for workers in foster care.

4.1.30 A local authority felt "We consider that family group conferencing could and should be used more to look at options within the kinship network prior to or immediately after children become looked after and accommodated. They should also be looked at again if permanence is being considered." In total 20 consultees commenting on family group conferences felt that these are of limited use, or of more use in kinship care situations; this was also reported from one event. However, 19 consultees supported their use and there were comments in support from 2 of the events for workers. "Family group conferencing seems an appropriate principle in terms of exploring all family options and views." (local authority).

4.1.31 Nineteen consultees, including 11 local authorities, and the report from one event for workers in foster care commented on the need for good assessment frameworks and for an integrated approach to assessment. These should be followed up by an improved, formal linking process.

"Above all good assessment - this is always stated but rarely achieved - and a full analysis of each child/family /wider setting would help agencies like ours in making recommendation of carers to referring LA's. Such information should be gathered in a well written report which is made available to foster care agency as early as possible. This is not happening currently. The Integrated Assessment Framework implementation will need to achieve what the DoH assessment framework has yet to achieve: improved assessment by staff in Local Authorities (this has implications for the perennial old chestnuts of social work training, recruitment, retention, supervision and management). (fostering agency)

4.1.32 In 2 reports from events for workers and in sixteen responses it was pointed out that success in the matching process depends on up-to-date, comprehensive and accurate information on both the child and the carer. One individual felt "If carer and placement had more honest information on each other then expectations from placement would be more realistic and possibly more likely to succeed."

4.1.33 There were calls, from 13 consultees, including 5 voluntary or charity organisations, for the child or young person to be involved in the process as much as possible. Young people provided the following suggestions:

• "Children should be asked where they would like to live for example town, county or a place with no pets etc. Listen to children."
• "A foster carer that is close to where friends, school and family are."
• "Personality matching- sense of humour-not matching with strict carers."
• "Age difference of young people/children in placement."
• "Lifestyle matching ( e.g.TV, Vegetarianism)."
• "They should meet a couple of families with their social worker and have a say as to where they would like to go, meaning there is more chance that the placement will go well."

4.1.34 Multi-agency consultation was important to 10 consultees while 7 commented on the importance of planning and matching meetings. A local authority felt "there needs to be a range of options though as other professionals, agencies have knowledge/experience of the child which would help give a clear picture and understanding of needs."

4.1.35 Informal visits, meetings or introductions to potential carers were seen, by 10 consultees, as important to the matching process. Other, less widely mentioned, comments included:

• the usefulness, knowledge and skills of family placement services (3 comments);
• possible use of child or life appreciation days, these bring together the child's life stories and are useful in helping foster parents to appreciate the child's life up until the present (3 comments);
• that it is always preferable to place a child or young person with own extended family, as the child will already know and trust other family members (2 comments from kinship carers);
• the need for link workers to be more aware of carers' skills and strengths and to match these to the needs of the child (2 comments);
• that the matching process can be limited by time constraints in emergency placement situations (2 comments);
• that use be made of the knowledge held by previous carers of a child or young person (one comment);
• the need for more analysis on the reasons for placements breaking down (one comment).

4.2 TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD AND INDEPENDENT LIVING

Question 5. What improvements or changes do you think must be made to the current arrangements to enable young people to stay in their foster home beyond their 18th birthday, if they wish, or if it is appropriate?

4.2.1 The main issue affecting any improvements, or changes, to arrangements for young people in care after their 18th birthday was finance. Forty-three consultees felt that more funding would be needed in order to allow young people to remain with their carers. A professional body noted "To enable young people to stay on in their foster home after 18 if they wish, will require financial support to the carers to continue. Preparation tasks can be very effectively done by carers but they need to be recognised for their work and skills. There is currently no capacity for local authorities to continue to fund these important placement arrangements." Comments on this issue appeared in reports from 11 of the events and many attendees at the events for kinship carers gave details of hardship which they and others face in trying to provide for the children and young people in their care as they grow to maturity. This included problems such as the cost of further education "As grandparents without any financial aid and pensioners we have to consider how we can fund any further education when he comes to that age as we want the best for him."

4.2.2 Twenty-seven consultees and reports from 4 events commented on how important it is for young people to have good planning, support and guidance as they progress towards the 'outside world'. A carer's group commented "Children in Kinship care need extra support e.g. from Careers Service, school guidance, to help them at this time of transition into independent living." There were associated comments on the need to provide carers with training and guidance to provide this.

4.2.3 Many consultees felt that young people should be able to stay with their carer as long as they, and their carer, wished; 23 responses contained comments on this issue as did reports from 5 events for foster or kinship carers and one event for those working in foster care. A kinship carer felt "if the child is agreeable every effort should be made to keep them where they have always known to be home and should be encouraged into further education."

4.2.4 Fees and allowances featured strongly in responses with 20 consultees and reports from 3 events pointing out that, at present, carers lose income as the young person moves out of the foster care system. Seven consultees, mainly local authorities, alongside one event report asked that financial arrangements be simplified and made consistent across all areas. "A bed should still be kept free where the carer agrees, on some form of retainer (which means it will not be given up for another fostered child). Even if the young person is living away at college or university, they should still be able to come home for week-ends and holidays." (carer's group). Nine consultees suggested that some form of retainer be paid to carers to give the young person a base to return to if needed and this point was also raised in reports from 6 events. There were comments, from 3 consultees and one event, suggesting that any allowance paid to carers should somehow take into account any income the young person may have.

4.2.5 At present, the decision whether to continue to support young people in care after the age of 18 rests with local authorities. Nineteen consultees saw the need for changes to regulations to make this a right for every young person. A public body commented "The 1996 Fostering Regulations will require to be changed to achieve this as Regulation 12.4 specifies the categories of people who may foster. Where other adults live in the household they must be relatives which foster children over 18 years are not." There were comments, from 18 consultees, that there needs to be a sea change in opinion; not every 18 year old is ready, or able, for independence. This was an important issue for those attending the events; 12 event reports included similar comments as illustrated by this comment from foster carers "Recognise that although their chronological age legally may be seen as adulthood some young adults' level of functioning is far less."

4.2.6 Thirteen consultees wanted to see young people allowed to stay in the foster home until 21, or after education or training, if they wished to do so; as did attendees at 4 events. A young people asked "Why should young people be forced to leave? It should be between young person, foster carer and social worker." Nine consultees and comments in 3 event reports pointed out that allowing care to continue would normalise life for young people or that they deserved the same chances and options as birth children. "Foster carers should be encouraged and enabled to be part of a young person's life as any other family would be. They should be able to continue to take young people on holiday or help them towards a holiday as any parent might, to provide gifts and parties at birthdays and Christmas, and to ensure there is a bed for them at weekends and to provide them with gifts for their new homes as any parent might." (fostering charity).

4.2.7 Allowing young people to remain in the foster home after their 18 ^th birthday would have an impact on the number of placements available and reports from 3 events along with 10 consultees felt this would need to be addressed. A local authority noted "Young people should be able to stay with their carers beyond their 18th birthday although the repercussions of this in reducing the overall number of placements for children under 18 years of age would have to be considered." Twelve consultees pointed out that carers would need further training and support in dealing with older young people as did attendees at 2 events for those working in foster care. "There are specific training and support (and finance) issues for foster carers for this older age group." (local authority).

4.2.8 Sixteen consultees, mainly local authorities and voluntary/ charity organisations, voiced support for supported lodging schemes or other through-care schemes; they felt access to these should be clarified and harmonised across areas, and attendees at 6 of the events agreed. The following comment was made at one of the events for young people "Through care and after care should be involved and know the person - no-one has been in touch and I am ready to leave care."

4.3 AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS

Question 6. The Scottish Executive has made clear its commitment to amend the Arrangements to Look After Children Regulations 1996 and the Fostering of Children (Scotland) Regulations 1996. We invite comments on the proposed amendments at Annex A.

4.3.1 Consultees commented on the five proposed amendments in Annex A with 27, including 13 local authorities and 4 voluntary/ charity organisations, voicing support for all amendments. Question 6 was not covered at the events run by the Fostering Network.

Proposal 1: Following the proposed introduction of Permanence Orders by the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill, if a foster carer is given parental rights and responsibilities, even though the carer and the child may be the same, the legal relationship will be different and it would be appropriate to reconsider care plans etc. We propose to amend the Arrangements to Look After Children (Scotland) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/3262) to address the needs of the child and to amend the Fostering of Children (Scotland) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/3263) to address the needs of the carer.

4.3.2 Twelve consultees supported the first proposal while 2 suggested that this should be extended to include a right to through-care or after-care.

Proposal 2: The restriction on fostering by adults of the same sex living in the same household will be removed.

4.3.3 Fourteen consultees agreed with this proposal.

Proposal 3: The emergency placement provision will be clarified, for example to address the issue that on occasion children are placed with childminders in an emergency, when no foster carers are available. We also propose that it should be self-contained, without cross-reference to other regulations. Provisions on immediate placements should also be self contained. Immediate placements should last for up to four months, subject to an interim assessment and approval, during which time a full assessment and approval should be carried out.

4.3.4 Eight consultees specifically agreed with this proposal; 3 commented on the need to ensure sufficient time and resources to complete the assessments and 1 asked that there be clear guidance and schedules for the assessments.

Proposal 4: The regulations will also be amended to ensure that all carers undergo assessment of some form, including those carers who have children placed with them by the Hearings system, no matter what the carers' relationship to the child.

4.3.5 There were comments in support of proposal 4 from 9 consultees. Two mentioned the need to ensure that the carer assessment does not negatively impact on established relationships.

Proposal 5:APRG proposed some ways in which fostering panels operate should be changed that would require amendments to the 1996 Fostering Regulations. APRG's recommendations were:

• Fostering applicants and existing carers on review should have the right to make oral or written representations to fostering panels, including the right to attend the panel.
• Fostering panels should be involved in reviews of foster carers every three to five years.
• Fostering applicants should be given a right to receive a copy of their assessment report, excluding confidential third party information.
• There should be an independent system for appeals by prospective foster carers and existing foster carers.

4.3.6 Ten consultees expressed their support for proposal 5 with requests, from 3 consultees, for clarification of the terms 'panel' and 'panel meeting'.

4.3.7 Other comments on the proposals included:

• that there should be additional financial resources made available to fund any additional costs and ensure no financial detriment to carers (6 comments);
• the need for greater consistency in the levels of allowances and fee payments (5 comments);
• that there should be a distinction made between foster carers and kinship carers (4 comments);
• the need for clear guidelines, less bureaucracy and obstacles over respite care and access to respite care (3 comments);
• disagreement that young people should be placed in same-sex households (3 comments);
• that the decision of an appeals panel should be final (one comment).

« Previous | Contents | Next »