dissertation finished peice 234

The
Leaving
Care
System
Is it failing our
young people?
School of Social Sciences.
Bangor University.
Health and Social Care BA(Hons).
SXU-3010
Dissertation.
Nikola Thompson.
500365785

1
Ethical Approval.
This research has been approved by Bangor University School of
Social Sciences Research Ethics Sub-Committee. Ref. No. U1556.

2
Acknowledgments.
I would firstly like to thank my dissertation supervisor Dr Roger Slack.
Without Dr Slack this project would not have been possible. His belief
and encouragement throughout the whole project and especially when
seeking ethical approval was unfaltering.
I would also like to thank everyone who participated in the research
and were willing to share their stories with me.
Last but not least I would like to thank my partner, Dave and my son,
Harvey for their support for the duration of this project.

3
Abstract.
There are just under 70,000 children living in local authority care, of
those approximately 10,000 leave care each year. This is a significant
number of young people who require substantial support in order to
have improved outcomes.
In the past a lax system with little support seems to have operated.
However, with advances in research and knowledge a more organised
and extensive system has been created. Specialist leaving care teams
are now established, and policy and legislation in place.
Nonetheless there appears to be significant failings and inconsistencies
within this service and outcomes for these young people are not as
universal as they should be. With the age of austerity and consistent
cuts to budgets the landscape does not look set to improve.

4
Table of Contents
Chapter 1........................................................................................................5
Introduction....................................................................................................5
Chapter 2........................................................................................................8
A Review of the Literature. ...........................................................................8
Chapter 3......................................................................................................16
Methodology................................................................................................16
a). Ethical Consideration..............................................................................17
Chapter 4......................................................................................................18
Findings. ......................................................................................................18
a). Transition................................................................................................18
b). Housing and Accommodation. ...............................................................22
c). Pathway Plans, Personal Advisors and Social Workers. ........................26
d). Financial aspects.....................................................................................29
e). Evaluation and Reflection.......................................................................31
Chapter 5......................................................................................................32
Conclusion. ..................................................................................................32
Appendix......................................................................................................40

5
Chapter 1.
Introduction.
The purpose of this project is to explore aspects of the leaving care
system, how it currently operates and if or how the outcome for these
young people may be improved.
This is important as the young people involved are usually incredibly
vulnerable and often stigmatised. The question whether the current
system offers them good support and guidance suitable to their needs
will be examined. This is especially relevant as the number of care
leavers has steadily risen since 1985. (Hutchinson, 2013).
At present Action for Children identifies that young care leavers are:
 “three times more likely to be cautioned or convicted of an offence;
 four times more likely to have a mental health disorder;
 five times less likely to achieve five good GCSEs, eight times more
likely to be excluded from school and less likely to go to university;
 one in five homeless people are care leavers.” (2014; DfES, 2007).
In 1968 the Seebohm Report the restructuring of the personal social
services including the suggestion of a complete after care service for
young people was considered. This would be provided by the new
social service departments rather than the probation service which
supervised the young people at that time. This and the knowledge
gained by childcare experts shaped the Children and Young Persons
Act 1969. (House of Commons, 1968: para 257 cited in Stein,
2012:15). The implementation of the act, influenced by the emergence
of social work as a solid profession, was due to the suggestion that
young people would be better served away from the juvenile court
system. (Harris, 1982).

6
However due to the poverty and identifying several social problems
during this time, focus on care-leavers declined. Though social services
were reorganised, along with the implementation of the Children and
Young Persons Act 1969, in 1971, this did not lead to improve the after
care services – rather the opposite. Studies such as Godek (1976) and
Mulvey (1977) emphasised the difficulties the young people faced
upon leaving care.
There was an end to the probation services involvement, a change in
approved school orders to all-purpose care orders, and approved school
being replaced by Community Homes with Education, all of which
aided the demise of specialist after-care officers. Due to the social
climate of the time Stein (2012: 16) notes “care leavers became a
forgotten group”.
This is reflected in the lack of literature pre 1970 due to scarce research
taking place at this time. Added to which the lack of research was
attributed to favourable economic conditions and full youth
employment during the aftermath of World War II. It seems only by
the beginning of the 1970’s as social work developed and looked
towards the future did research into young people’s outcomes within
the care system take place. (Stein, 2012: 14).
Nevertheless, from 1973 young people came together to talk about their
experiences in care. A “lack of power over their lives”, in relation to
their finances, their own reviews and the opportunity to learn
independent skills whilst in care lead to the formation of local groups
such as the ‘Who Cares? Project’ and the ‘National Association of
Young People in Care’. This resulted in giving them a voice, (Stein,
2012: 17) and small scale studies began to take place. For example,
Godek (1976); Mulvey (1977); and Page and Clark (1977) in the
1970’s. In the 1980’s studies were undertaken by Burgess (1981); Stein
and Ellis (1983); Stein and Meynard (1985); and Stein and Carey
(1986) amongst others. These studies found the aforementioned

7
challenges with finance and so on added to which more often than not
young people left care at 16 and were required to live independently.
(Stein, 2012: 17). One reoccurring theme throughout the studies taking
place was the lack of preparation for this vulnerable group for living
independently. The latter studies finding high levels of care leavers
becoming homeless.
More recently this topic is of particular importance as the data held for
2012 found there were 67,050 young people in care [by local
authority], of those 10,000 aged 16 or over left care. (NCAS, 2012).
Stein (2002: 32) notes their transition to adulthood is ‘compressed and
accelerated.’ With this in mind Stein (2006: 423) states that these
young people are “….the most excluded groups of young people in
society”.
Furthermore, in light of the refugee crisis emerging from Syria, there
is another particularly vulnerable group. This group is identified by the
United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) as someone below the age
of 18 (or appearing to be should the proof be lacking) and claiming
asylum in their own right, with no significant adult in the UK to provide
care. (Wade, 2011: 2424-2425). Under UK guidelines a young person
may be given support whilst they are under the age of 18 only to be at
risk of deportation upon reaching 18 years old. (Family Rights Group,
2014). A study conducted by Wade (et al, 2005) found younger
unaccompanied refugees received more thorough assessment of needs
as opposed to 16 and 17 year olds of the same status. This being
resource driven due to less government funding for this age group.
Added to which previous studies (Courtney, Terrao and Bost, 2004;
Stein, 2004) have also identified within this group of young people an
inconsistency of preparation for independence.
The inconsistency of service delivery appears to apply to citizen young
people along with non-citizen.

8
Chapter 2.
A Review of the Literature.
‘If I had parents to go to, I would go to my parents and ask them
for help. Or I’d be with my parents so the strain wouldn’t be so
much. But I don’t have anybody. I don’t have anyone to turn to.’
(Care leaver in Barnardo’s, (1) 2014).
Most parents have positive expectations for their own children, and are
there offering full support when their child moves into independence.
However, children leaving the care system often have to live without
this. Lack of parental support clearly contributes to a difficult
transition into independence. (Barnardo’s, (1) 2014: 1).
As previously noted literature pre 1970 is scarce. Here the focus will
be on more recent findings in the consistency of services for care
leavers. The service areas are:
 Housing and accommodation;
 Finance;
 Transition
It is noted by Stein (2012) that in the view of young care leavers, foster
carers, care workers and personal advisors that the young people left
care too young. The earlier research notes the same problem. Young
care leavers are being moved on from the age of 16 whereas studies
found the median age for leaving home was 22 for men and 20 for
women. (Biehal et al, 1995: 30). In recent times the number of young
people [not in care] still living at home with their parents has risen from
2.7 million in 1996 to 3.3 million in 2013, their ages ranging from 20
– 34. (ONS, 2014). It may be seen therefore how difficult it can be for

9
young people in Local Authority (hereafter LA) care to leave at such a
young age.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2013)
supported by the NSPCC state that “care leavers move to independence
at their own pace” recognising how difficult this time may be.
Currently a new duty has been placed upon LA’s in England. This
implementation named the ‘Staying Put’ scheme came into force in
May 2014 (part 5 Welfare of Children (98) of the Children and
Families Act 2014) and offers young people the chance to stay on in
their foster home where the LA regards this consistent with the welfare
of the young person, although this does not include residential care.
Additional funding has been allocated for each individual LA’s for this.
However, nationally this service is inconsistent. In Scotland a similar
scheme has been introduced in 2015 also including residential care.
Wales has placed the same duty on their LA’s, through the ‘When I’m
Ready’ scheme, though no additional funding has been allocated. (The
Fostering Network, 2014).
Housing is a fundamental area of concern for young care leavers.
Literature pre 1980’s is scarce for all issues however due to this lack of
information a National Survey of Leaving Care Schemes was
conducted in 1989. During this time housing was the most common
service provided to young care leavers. After housing other services
were offered such as counselling; advocacy; training; preparation for
leaving care; and advice on leisure facilities, food and clothing.
However, these services were not universal and most did not offer any
preparation for leaving care. (Stone, 1990: 7).
More recently the LA are duty bound to provide such services
universally. Current legislation held in the Children (Leaving Care) Act
2000 states “It is the duty of the local authority looking after a child to
advise, assist and befriend him with a view to promoting his welfare
when they have ceased to look after him.” More recent legislation held

10
within the Children and Young Persons Act (2008) along with the
Transitions Guidance for LA’s to assist with strengthening policy and
practice framework to encourage a ‘levelling up’ of services. (Stein,
2012: 24).
Although these measures are currently in place it is suggested by Dixon
and Baker (2012) that service quality and effectiveness is not consistent
and varies from LA to LA. This is not surprising as a survey carried out
in 2011 by the National Care Advisory Service (NCAS) reported high
level of funding cuts to leaving care services (varying from 7% to 15%)
making implementation of the Transitions Guidance problematic.
Additionally, it is apparent housing and accommodation are high on
the list of issues facing care leavers. The LA’s are only duty bound to
provide ‘suitable accommodation’ to 16 and 17 year olds. Once a care
leaver reaches 18 the LA’s are only required to assist with
accommodation, advice and support as far as their [young person’s]
welfare requires it.
Dixon and Baker (2012) continue to identify that, although legislation
and advances in support services have increased over the last couple of
decades from knowledge gained through research, young care leavers
are still over- represented within the homeless and inadequately
housed. With this in mind it is not surprising to find that recent figures
suggest 30% of homeless people have been in the care system. (The
Who Care’s Trust, 2014).
This is evident in research compiled by Barnardo’s (2) (2014), were by
even with the advances in policy the case studies show a chaotic
existence for some young people. Several moves from one unsuitable
accommodation to another, periods of homelessness and being moved
out of familiar areas [geographically] remains a prominent feature.
(Appendix 1).

11
Stone (1990) identified this issue twenty years prior to Dixon,
indicating the evidence then showed an over-representation of care
leavers experiencing homelessness. The same problem occurs in
literature by Stein and Carey (1986) from their study during 1982.
It is noted by Morgan and Lindsey (2012) that there is a need for more
support with accommodation however Munro et al (2011) identified
out of the young people offered extra support the take up was only
about 50%. This may be due to wanting to get rid of the ‘being in care’
label or perhaps a lack of understanding of the extra support offered.
There is evidence within the literature that finances present a
significant issue to care leavers. (Broad, 2005; Munro et al, 2011;
Stein, 2012: 54).
Regional differences in the levels of financial support in the form of
leaving care grants is significant ranging from £400 to £2000 with the
average payment being £1000. (Broad, 2005:47). Stein (2012) notes
more recently the leaving care grant still lack in consistency ranging
from zero to £2000. A survey carried out by the Care Leaver’s
Foundation (2009) calculated the young people needed at least £2500
in order to set up the most basic essentials to live independently [of 150
LA’s surveyed only one provided this amount].
These financial inconsistencies clearly present challenges not only with
basic needs such as food and housing but also the ability to participate
in leisure activities and higher education. This exclusion has a
potentially damaging impact on the health and well-being for young
people who are already vulnerable. (Jackson and Cameron, 2012).
Furthermore, a lack of understanding of financial matters can lead to
long term debt and financial difficulties:
“I’m still paying off debts now [nine years after living in her first
independent placement], if somebody had have gone through
these bills, bills I didn’t even know existed, I’ve had to figure
everything out myself, I’ve had to learn the hard way. If I had

12
have had support with that it would have changed things.” (Care
leaver in Barnardo’s (2), 2014: 13).
There is evidence the young people’s voices may not be listened to.
The meetings and reviews appear stressful for the young people (Daly,
2012). A large proportion felt ignored during meetings, (Munro et al,
2011: 28) and approximately a third felt their ‘Pathway Plan’ [the LA
is duty bound to have a Pathway Plan to assist in the transition to
independent living] was not adhered to at all. It is noted young people
wish to have more control of when they leave care, and for the
transition to be more gradual and less rushed. (Morgan and Lindsey
2012; Morgan and Lindsey, 2006).
Mendes and Moselhuddin (2006: 113) note ‘Graduation from care
needs to become a far more gradual and flexible process based on levels
of maturity and skill development, rather than simply age’.
Furthermore, this view is held by the young people involved:
“I didn’t want to go. I still had to go anyway. I didn’t have a
choice...I was moving out at eighteen, end of discussion, and the
bit that really pissed me [off] is [that] they chucked me out on
my eighteenth birthday”. (Care leaver in Munro et al, 2011: 21).
Although the age has been extended to 18 before a young person has to
leave care [unless they are in full time education] an Independent
Reviewing Officer (IRO) in Munro et al (2011: 23) states:
“We identified fairly quickly, that all it has done is just knock it
back two years, erm, you know what used to be 16…used to have
all these arguments. We’ve shunted it back to 18 but, you know,
our 18 year olds are just as vulnerable as those 16 year olds
were.”
It is clear within the literature the young people fundamentally require
consistency and support from leaving care workers and services to aid
their transition from care to independence. (Munro et al, 2011: 21).
Pride and an inability to ask for help to access services is apparent. It
is recognised that many care leavers where reluctant to allow

13
themselves to be cared for. The young people were more comfortable
with caring for others. This is a result of often having to adopt the role
of carer within their birth family. (Samuels and Pryce, 2008: 1203-
1205). However, the literature does not identify other underlying
reasons for the young people having difficulty in accepting help
themselves. Reasons such as lack of self- esteem and self- worth due to
the trauma they may have suffered.
The transition to independence brings with it feelings of isolation and
loneliness which were connected to losing their carers:
“It’s hard to think that people you lived with for nine years are
not in your life anymore.”
(Care leaver in Morgan, 2012: 22).
There is evidence these feelings may also be connected to moving away
from friends and professionals, changes in social workers and a
transition to adult services.
One author notes the young people are living life ‘in limbo’ (Hiles et
al, 2014: 6). It is suggested as the young people approach their
eighteenth birthday they are in a state of limbo, knowing they may not
be ‘in care’, not knowing if they can ‘stay put’ with foster carers or
‘moving on’ to independent accommodation. Leaving care workers
involved in Hiles’ et al (2014) study describe having “insufficient time
to prepare some young people for this transition”, especially the young
people who had experienced problems in maintaining stable
placements prior to leaving care.
Moreover, the system is described as “chaotic and complex” forced to
react rather than respond to crisis. The cause of this is identified
through poor staff retention and therefore the use of temporary staff
leaving a lack of continuity and consistency. (Hiles et al 2014: 7).
This research examines policies potentially promoting negative
consequences. For example, a disengagement of adult mental health
services leading to re-engagement of children’s services; those young

14
people most able being offered more support through education;
leaving some young people of low risk but still vulnerable in an isolated
position. Also it was noted the young people leaving care to return
home to their birth families for longer than six months lose access to
services, when they may actually still be in a vulnerable position. (Hiles
et al2014: 7).
However, Stein (2012: 81) suggests there is evidence that most young
people experience good outcomes after leaving care. Positive outcomes
are underpinned by the relationship between the young person and the
leaving care teams. In addition, the evidence points to a positive sense
of well-being when settled and happy even if past or leaving care
experiences have been negative. (Wade and Dixon, 2006).
In conclusion the literature identifies the inconsistency within leaving
care systems. These inconsistencies span throughout the services
available to care leavers from financial to pathway planning and
implementation. There is evidence of a somewhat uneven service
delivery despite policy stipulations.
There has been an encouraging influx of research in the last fifteen
years or so which should promote a continued improvement in policy
and outcome for this fundamentally vulnerable group in society.
There is evident progress within the leaving care system which has
been noted by Stein, Wade and Dixon. However, despite progress
within the system [the introduction of personal advisors, Pathway
Plans, and specific leaving care teams] and extensive research
informing policy makers, the uneven delivery still exists. Additionally,
care leavers are still disadvantaged compared to their peers even with
the progress that has been made.
There is an emphasis on a proactive and preventative approach and a
significant need for placement stability, underpinned by systematic and
consistent services. As it stands young people are currently being

15
“pushed into fighting against a system” rather than a system that works
together for a positive outcome. (Hiles et al, 2014: 11).
Contingency plans are an important recommendation outlined in recent
research as a necessity to prevent care leavers falling into crisis. These
plans need to be in place regardless of assessed ‘need’. Moreover,
access to an independent visitor enabling another supportive
relationship to be formed along with personal advisors would offer
greater assistance when decisions are being made for the young
person’s future. (Barnardo’s, 2014: 23).
Now the research is taking place, identifying young people’s
experiences of leaving care, it is necessary to listen in order to make
effective changes in policy and practice to achieve better outcomes for
this vulnerable group.

16
Chapter 3.
Methodology.
This research is of a qualitative nature. The methodology included an
online questionnaire (n=50) to identify common themes followed up
by face- to-face interviews (n=10) for more detailed data. However,
the response rate for the online questionnaire was poor with only ten
returned. The interviews adopted a semi-structured approach to allow
for participants to talk freely about their experiences. The author used
an interview guide to achieve this containing the areas of interest
rather than a structured set of interview questions. (Appendix i)
Support for this project was received from a local fostering group and
that provided some resources for sourcing the sample.
Initially the author had positive support from social workers and
professionals within the leaving care sector. Although actual response
from local authority was limited, only one out of four who received
the research pack responded. Participation by third sector
organisations was similarly positive however commitment to be
interviewed could not be obtained.
The sample consisted of four young people aged 16 plus involved in
the leaving care process and four professionals working within the
leaving care system. Geographically broken down to Gwynedd,
Conwy, Telford and Wrekin, and Caerphilly.
The interviews took place either in their own home, place of work or
a mutually comfortable setting agreed by the participants. The
researcher offered anonymity to the participants and the interviews
were handled sensitively, keeping the vulnerability of some of the
sample in mind.
The interviews were concerned with:

17
 Whether the young person feels supported;
 Whether the resources are accessible and the young person is made
aware of everything available;
 Whether the duties of the LA are being met from both points of view
(professional and young person);
 The view of the use of B&B accommodation;
 Whether the leaving care process helps or hinders their future;
 How universal are the services provided;
 Is there enough financial assistance available, resources and financial
advice.
 Are the young people’s voices heard;
 Has policy and practice improved over the last couple of decades.
The interviews were voice recorded with consent and a diary was kept
for all fieldwork undertaken. The study adopted a grounded
theoretical approach and the data subjected to content analysis.
a). Ethical Consideration.
The sample where given thorough information regarding the study in
order for them to make an informed choice whether to participate or
not. Confidentiality was adhered to and any disclosures were handled
appropriately and with ethical consideration in mind. The researcher
was aware of the vulnerability of the young people and the sensitive
nature of the study.
Due to the sensitivity of the research the data gathered was securely
kept in a locked filing cabinet (paper) and secure password protected
file (electronic) and destroyed on completion of the study.
Permission to undertake this study was granted after a thorough and
detailed ethics application.

18
Chapter 4.
Findings.
a). Transition.
“You wouldn’t dream of kicking your own kids out so young.
They give these kids to much artificial support to encourage
them to leave”. (Foster carer).
This is clearly reverberated in the literature, particularly in the
Barnardo’s report Someone to Care: Experiences of leaving care
(2014) which highlights the plight of young care leavers and the lack
of parental support contributing to difficult transitions. In addition, it
has already been identified in the literature review that for children not
in care the leaving home age ranges from 20- 34 (ONS, 2014).
Communication for this specific young person appeared to be lacking:
“Well my social worker didn’t really talk about what
would happen……they were like ‘oh yeah you will get
your own place’ …but not what will happen after…..so I
rushed into it thinking it was a good idea. I think they
said it too soon to me, if they wouldn’t have said it I
would still be here (foster care) for a while. So I rushed
into it, I had just left school, maybe it would be
better at 17 or 18.” (Care leaver A, currently aged 18, LA
Gwynedd).
This statement by a young care leaver is echoed by a set of foster carers.
It was found that by giving the young person an offer of their own flat
complete with some furnishings of their choice seemed to sway their
decision whether or not to leave. This was especially the case for 16
year olds.
These foster carers stated that their young person had indicated they
wanted to stay in care at least until 18 years old however with a change
of social worker came a change of heart:

19
“You see we had talked about when he would leave but he said
‘no, I wouldn’t like to be in a house on my own’. He wanted to
stay, when he first came to us he was having nightmares … he is
still having problems now. He won’t sleep in his bedroom now
he sleeps in the living room with the TV on. They (Social
Services team) didn’t take any of this into account. When his
social worker changed to the 16+ one he was like ‘oh well I
might move out.’”
This particular interview found the process of leaving care very hasty
with very little preparation. The young person in question was
identified by the LA as vulnerable however according to the foster
carers the process continued regardless:
“He suddenly was kicking against us. The social worker said he
was a troubled child, he just said he had issues. We know about
confidentiality but we were part of the care package but they (16
+ team) would not involve us. There was no communication
between the 16+ team and us. It was like he is an adult and that’s
that.”
The foster carers suggested the young person was being coached to
leave. There was a sudden decision made and the young person went
‘off the rails’. It seemed a place was offered to enable them to move
out and that was when reality hit.
“….he drank a bottle of vodka and was talking about suicide. He
suffers from low self- esteem. There was no help for that. I think
this was brought on by them (16+ team) telling him there was a
space somewhere. He kept saying ‘I’m so sorry’. It was reality
he had been going through the motions before this.”
This illustrates a terrible indictment of a rushed transition. Added to
the trauma which led the young person to being in care, this does not
present a positive outcome.
The findings for this report support the previous literature. Stein’s
(2012) extensive research in this area continually reveals hasty
transitions from care to independence.
Legislation relating to young people leaving care states:

20
‘It is the duty of the local authority looking after a child to advise, assist
and befriend him with a view to promoting his welfare when they have
ceased to look after him.’ (19A, Children (Leaving Care) Act, 2000).
Indicating a rushed transition should not be promoted, rather that it
should be a much slower process with time being given to prepare fully
for independence.
In contrast one participant, going through the leaving care system in
2004 and within a different LA (Telford and Wrekin) had a much more
positive experience:
“I left care at 18. I was in a children’s home….foster care didn’t
suit me, I was always running away. I had brilliant support all
the way until I was 25. I went to supported living and I had help
to learn to cook and manage money and bills. Then I had help to
find a flat and become independent. I even still see some of the
people who supported me when I go back to Telford.” (Care
leaver B, aged 30).
This indicates a far more gradual transition to independence.
Unfortunately, the majority of the data within this study points more
often to the former rushed transition.
“I turned 18 and it was like ….you’re an adult now. I was in a
hostel then a homeless place, that was scary there were all sorts
there! I liked the place in Bala, it was good there. But when I
turned 18 I couldn’t stay. It was like one minute I had everything
done for me, then nothing.” (Care leaver C, currently aged 19,
LA Conwy).
This young person moved into private care and currently resides in a
mixed home for people with mental health problems. He has Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). (Appendix 2).
The research suggests past history is not always taken into account
when assessing the suitability of independent living for these young
people:
“His issues should have been recognised then he would not have
been offered to leave at 16. The social worker had not made the
effort to look at his history.” (Foster carer).

21
Taking the young people’s history and circumstances into account
could offer a more positive outcome than simply their age.
“They had eight files on me, from when I was little. My foster
carer nagged them until she was able to have them to read.
Then she knew what had happened.” (Care leaver D, currently
aged 19, LA Caerphilly).
It is recognised in policy that the system still does not seem to perform
as it should. The Care Leavers’ Strategy (2013) identifies the abrupt
transition experienced by these young people in its opening paragraphs.
However, the report fails to include ‘transition’ as a fundamental area
of concern. Instead usual sections such as education, employment,
housing and so on are highlighted as ‘broad areas of concern’. It would
seem the young people’s emotional well- being which is clearly
affected by the hasty exit from care does not hold the same
governmental importance.
Additionally, it may be prudent to add at this point that Edward
Timpson, Minister of State for Children and Families, was contacted
for the purpose of this research. Mr Timpson was involved in the
development of the Care Leavers’ Strategy, and in addition to this grew
up with looked after children as his parents were foster carers. There
was no response to the research. (Appendix 3).
A fundamental issue surrounding rushed transitions is the view these
young people are now adults, although they are still virtually as
vulnerable as children. The serious case review into the murder of
Jayden Parkinson highlights this. Jayden was 17 and considered an
adult by services and practitioners. The review stated:
‘Too often [Parkinson] was viewed as a difficult young person and not
recognised as a child in need of safeguarding. Professionals and
agencies did not always fully understand the serious nature of the risks
to [her] or were too quick to be reassured that she would be able to
protect herself from those risks.’ (Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children
Board, 2016: 62).

22
It would seem important for policy to start considering the young
person’s position in life rather than their age as an indicator of their
readiness for independence.
b). Housing and Accommodation.
The participants were asked about their experiences with housing when
leaving care. Questions about choice, suitability and geographic area
where considered. Consistent with past research and previous literature
(Barnardo’s [2] 2014) issues where found in all these areas.
Once again, the Care Leavers’ Strategy recognises these issues found
in research past and present surrounding housing.
‘Care leavers are a vulnerable group of young adults who have
particular needs in relation to housing and homelessness. Around a
quarter of those living on the streets have a background in care. The
majority of care leavers leave care by the age of 18 and rising demands
on social housing and other accommodation is making it increasingly
difficult for young people to find suitable accommodation as they enter
adulthood.’ (2013: 14).
These findings suggest a significant risk of homelessness for these
participants. In actual fact without the charity Gisda, (Appendix 4) the
options for young people in Gwynedd would be seriously limited.
It has already been noted that nationally care leavers are overly
represented within the homeless and inadequately housed, with 30% of
homeless people formerly being in care. (Who Cares Trust, 2014).
When considering choice Bed and Breakfast (B&B) accommodation
was not always used but choice did appear limited. Geographical
consideration and suitable match for the young person does not always
seem possible.

23
“Well there was a bit of choice but it was mainly Caernarfon. I
had shared housing with Gisda not B&B and then I got my flat
with Gisda.” (Care leaver A).
Once again this is echoed by foster carers.
“He moved into shared housing for two weeks…..he was
terrified, he slit his mattress to hide his laptop in it. There wasn’t
much choice, had he had the choice to stay in Penygroes he
would have. He has been trying to get back here ever since. He
is afraid in Caernarfon. He has two brothers living there which
he has had problems with, and his brother’s friend. He is quite a
fearful child and finds living in Caernarfon stressful. When he
gets home to his flat from here he doesn’t go out.”
This does not seem to be reserved to just this LA either.
“I was in a hostel but I kicked off so was in a B&B for a couple
of days. They said I was smoking in the room so I got kicked out
of there….didn’t even get all my stuff. Then my social worker
said I could stay with my mum for the weekend cause my sister
wasn’t there. But then she came back…she winds me up….I
kicked off but hit the window …I wanted to hit her. So my mum
called the police …” (Care leaver D).
There appears to be insecurity surrounding housing. Care leaver D
went on to ‘sofa surf’ and then went back to his mother’s, even though
that episode left him with a criminal damage conviction [brought on by
his mother]. His support seemed to end there.
Care leaver A was asked if the flat with Gisda was permanent:
“No, it’s two years temporary. I have three months left.”
When asked what happens then:
“I think I’m on the top the list with housing so I’ve gotta hope
something comes up or I will probably end up in B&B. The thing
is once you have had the flat and you get to 18 you sort of go in
circles so you can be put in B&B. It’s a worry being three months
away……I keep phoning them.”
This was reiterated by the foster carers:
“I can’t see Gisda putting him out on the street, but they have to
give him notice of eviction in order for the council to do
something about it. Sometimes he stays with his cousin or his

24
dad if there is any room. But he will probably have to ‘sofa
surf’…. that’s what his brother had to do. That will put him on
the list he has to be homeless to get help.”
The question of supported living was raised, for this particular
participant, the foster carer replied:
“There doesn’t seem to be any here. But for him it wouldn’t
work, he would worry about the other people there. He is afraid
of people that do drugs, there is a family history with drugs.”
However, a neighbouring LA had positive experiences with supported
living. Their providers of supported living and B&B accommodation
had been the same for over ten years, which would indicate some
consistency. The manager for the leaving care team for this LA
commented that the staff at the B&B’s offered a sympathetic approach,
with more of a ‘family feel’ to the service. Furthermore, this LA had
long term relationships with landlords who specifically offered
tenancies to care leavers. This demonstrates the importance of
consistency. Although B&B may not seem ideal, if there are good, long
term relationships with service providers this can offer a positive short
term solution.
Likewise, care leaver B had the right experience with their
accommodation:
“I went from the children’s home to supported lodgings and after
that had my own flat. The supported lodgings really helped me
learn how to look after myself. I did go off the rails a bit when I
was about 23 but because of my support I sorted myself out.”
Though care leaver C will be moving once again in the near future. It
seems his ADHD leaves the LA at a loss as to where this young person
should live. The condition necessitates extra support to enable him to
manage independence:
“I like where I am. But the funding for here runs out soon. They
(social services) have said there is a new place in Abergele. I
think it’s a shared house. If I turn that down though I will make
myself intentionally homeless, so there is no choice.”

25
This young person’s worries where resonated by his mother too. He
entered care under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (Appendix 5)
as his mother was unable to manage his behaviour. Her understanding
was that he would be care for until he reached 21. It may be argued he
is being cared for, and is continuing to be. Yet as stated earlier, a mental
health facility may not be seen as ideal, equally shared housing may
not offer the level of support required for an eventual and positive
departure from care.
Regrettably national statistics have shown a rise of 10.8 per cent in the
number of young people in unsuitable accommodation from 1660 in
2014 to 1840 in 2015. This is reiterated by Carrie Wilson, young
people’s project co-ordinator at The Care Leavers’ Association:
“On a basic level [B&Bs] are seen as a “safe” place, but those young
people do not feel safe, regardless of the interventions put into place to
support a young person, if they do not feel like they have personal
safety at the end of the day, their coping mechanisms start to break
down.” (Puffett and Orfford, 2016).
The experiences of these participants suggests a chaotic existence in
line with the research undertaken by Barnardo’s (2) (2014).
This does not present an improvement of services. Government
statistics from 2011 suggested only 17 local authorities were housing
100 per cent of care leavers in suitable accommodation. (Higgs, 2011).
These are dismal statistics as research conducted by Stein (2012:80)
found from 2004 to 2009 the numbers of care leavers in suitable
accommodation had risen from 77 % to 90 %. The statistics from 2011
could correlate with the age of austerity and social service budget cuts.
(Stein, 2012: 24).
In Gwynedd since 2013 there has been the ‘When I Am Ready’ scheme
available and similar to England’s ‘Staying Put’ scheme. (Appendix 6
& 7). These schemes are now available throughout Wales and offer the

26
young person an opportunity to stay within their foster care placement
until the age of 21 or beyond if they are engaged in education or
training which started before their twenty first birthday. This extended
stay may last until completion of the education or training on the
condition it is set out in the young person’s pathway plan. The
opportunity offers a more gradual transition similar to young people in
the general population. (Gwynedd Council, 2014).
However, there was no evidence of this scheme to have been offered to
care leaver A. Care leavers C and D appear to have merely been
managed until the LA no longer had the duty of care.
c). Pathway Plans, Personal Advisors and Social
Workers.
“I don’t remember how many social workers I had ….maybe 14
or 15 by the time I left care. They kept changing.” (Care leaver
D).
The participants were asked about their experiences with personal
advisors, social workers, the creation and implementation of their
pathway plans (Appendix 8) and whether they felt they were listened
to.
It would seem having several social workers is commonplace.
“The 16+ team didn’t seem to support him. They changed social
worker but he didn’t seem to know what was going on. Then they
changed again to one from the 16+ team. That’s when his
behaviour changed. One of his previous social workers was
fantastic and he worshipped her…. If only they had kept that
social worker it would have made such a difference.” (Foster
carer).
For care leaver A this seems to have happened with the personal
advisor too. When asked about their personal advisor:

27
“There was a foster meeting, the lady what was her name….. Jan,
she was really good. She was with social services and Gisda.
But then when they thought I was ok they transferred me to
someone else.”
Though for some there was more consistency. Care leaver C suggested
a good relationship with their personal advisor. They indicated regular
visits, phone calls and planning meetings. In turn this young person felt
they were being listened to when the pathway plan was produced.
The manager for this LAs leaving care team confirms his perspective
on personal advisors.
“We have a team of four personal advisors. They have about 40
cases each but they do a great job. All of their cases have a
mobile phone number for them and they are all very dedicated
and approachable [from the young person’s point of view]. They
offer a vital link from care to independence.”
However, once again this service appears inconsistent depending on
the LA.
Added to this, frequent changes of case worker suggest a difficulty in
completion and implementation of pathway plans, and causes the
young person to feel they are not being listened to:
“I was kind of listened to, but then my social worker changed so
I had to start again…there was no relationship there cause they
kept changing. We would do one pathway plan then the social
worker changed and we would have to do another one.” (Care
leaver A).
When the foster carers were asked about the pathway plan and whether
they thought their young person was listened to:
“He didn’t have a proper pathway plan for leaving, it was rushed.
There was no proper structure. He was listened to but without
question or consideration of the consequences. They ticked their
boxes and he was off their hands.”
These experiences were evident in the earlier research by Munro et al
(2011) whereby young people felt their voices were not heard and the
meetings surrounding their exit from care caused anxiety and stress.

28
The foster carers then suggested their current placement who had just
turned 16 may suffer the same:
“She is just about to change to the 16+ team they can’t wait to
get her on that….it will be her third social worker in two years.
She is adamant she doesn’t want to leave at 16 but if they dangle
the carrot of her own flat in front of her it might be different.”
Furthermore, for the foster carers support appears to be inconsistent.
One set had just been assigned a new social worker, the third in two
years.
“We have a new social worker and she just ticks the boxes. She
seems terrified to use her initiative. One social worker I was
dealing with said there were five people who were either off or
had left and not been replaced in his office alone.”
It is well documented that retention of staff within social work is
increasingly difficult. Added to which there a national shortage of
approximately 3,500 social workers, both hindering continuity for the
people they provide services to. (Community Care, 2014). This and
aforementioned cuts to funding within leaving care services may
explain how the inconsistency and a lack of relationship with social
workers described within this data can infringe on the process of
leaving care.
With this in mind it is imperative to consider the legal implications at
this point. It would appear within the legal framework there are ‘grey
areas’ which can allow the experiences of care leaver’s A, C and D to
occur. The Children (Leaving Care) Act (2000) states that an
assessment of needs must be carried out by the LA for the said child:
(a)while they are still looking after him; and
(b)after they cease to look after him, (19B, 4)
The proviso for this is the child has been looked after for a period of
time and that they are aged 16 or 17 (19B, 2 a & b).
However, the Care Act (2014) has a section dedicated to the needs of a
child in the transition to adulthood, including the requirement for a

29
needs assessment, but in relation to the child’s needs after the age of
18. Furthermore, section 58 (4) insists the assessment should be carried
out whether the child consents or not if there is a risk of or experiencing
abuse or neglect. Bearing in mind the vulnerability of these young
people, the causes for them to have been placed in care in the first place,
it would be fair to consider this group eligible for this assessment and
extended care. Added to which one would expect a more thorough and
consistent assessment to be carried out. Clearly with several changes to
case workers [as experienced by care leavers A and D] this legal
standard is not being met.
Perhaps government and policy makers should consider case worker
retention and better working environments as fundamental aspects of
policy, in turn offering better outcomes for the young people.
(Appendix 9).
d). Financial aspects.
“They told him to choose what he needed for the flat but only
some of it turned up. There is something I heard of, might be
from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, where some money is put
into an ISA which can be accessed once they are 18. This is
because they have been in care. But I feel the danger of that is it
could all be blown on something else or used as a carrot to
encourage leaving care. As far as I have seen they just go and
spend it all then it’s gone – they would be better giving them a
furnished flat.” (Foster carer).
The Care Leavers Strategy states it encourages LA’s to offer at least
£2000 as a ‘Setting Up Home Allowance’ (leaving care grant),
although as this is not a legal requirement the amount varies from LA
to LA. Care leaver A received in the region of £400 (Gwynedd LA).
However, the manager for Conwy laving care team indicated the
amount their care leavers receive is dependent on what they need. This
is also stated on the LA’s web site. (Appendix 8). It may be suggested
that young people within less affluent LA’s will fare worse financially.

30
The Strategy maintains care leavers are entitled to a £1200 bursary if
they are attending further education and a £2000 bursary for higher
education. This is financed by the Department for Education. (2013:
10). Extra funding of this kind would appear significant for these young
people however if the earlier literature is considered the statistics for
this group’s educational achievements did not present well. (See
chapter one). As this funding is reliant on the young person being in
education there will be a significant proportion unable to access this
extra help.
Conwy LA did suggest promising outcomes for employment for their
care leavers with many undertaking apprenticeships within the
council’s departments:
“We have a number of our young people working and training in
the council (Conwy) with a selection of apprenticeships
specifically for them. Some do go on to stay with us, being
offered permanent contracts.” (Leaving care team manager).
Unfortunately, a comparison cannot be made with other LA’s or
voluntary organisations in this area as there was no response to the
research.
Care leaver A did have temporary employment with a local leisure
centre although when a permanent contract was offered it was of a zero
hour’s nature:
“I wasn’t worth me taking it…I would lose my benefit and have
no guarantee of work.”
Care leaver C started a college course and managed a couple of shifts
in a restaurant kitchen however his chaotic accommodation provision
and a lack of support for his ADHD hampered his continuation.
Care leaver D is NEET (Appendix 11) and has been since his exit from
care. It would seem this has not been assisted by his family [to which
he returned] who have also never been in employment, and his
reluctance to receive any more services. It may be suggested his high

31
level of case worker turnover contributed to his reluctance. Equally his
chaotic existence before entering care disrupted his education, added
the rushed transition from care has not facilitated good employment
prospects.
e). Evaluation and Reflection.
When evaluating this research one must acknowledge the limitations
when assessing the size of the sample.
Despite persistence there was a reluctance by professionals particularly
to participate. Out of four LAs contacted only one responded and
agreed to be interviewed. One LA received the research pack three
times, follow up calls were made several times to no avail. The same
may be said for the voluntary sector in spite of positive telephone
conversations and receipt of the research pack Barnardo’s and Gisda
did not consent to be interviewed. Therefore, the findings were
somewhat one sided and the professional perspective limited.
However even with the limited sample the original hypothesis of the
leaving care system failing the young people has a degree of truth.
Equally the findings are reflective of earlier research identified in
chapter 2.
There is certainly scope for further and more considerable research
within this field. Although for future studies it may be beneficial to use
focus group methodology to encourage professional participation. This
would possibly generate an improved response rate in comparison to
the online questionnaire used for the initial stages of this project. The
face to face follow up interviews proved difficult to organise, although
it was difficult to decipher whether this was due to a reluctance to
engage in the research or a lack of available time.

32
Chapter 5.
Conclusion.
In conclusion the data collected for this study shows a system that sadly
does fail its young people. Certainly in Gwynedd the leaving care
process is seemingly rushed and centred around a person’s age rather
than their readiness for independence. Of course it may be argued there
has to be a ‘cut off point’ and young people have to become
independent at some time, for legal purposes that ‘point’ is dictated by
their age. It would seem this is the case regardless of the harm it may
cause. Furthermore, it could be argued this hasty process is a breach of
the young person’s human rights however despite searching no cases
were found.
In 2006 research conducted by Mendes and Moselhuddin concluded
the leaving care process should be a gradual process based on levels of
maturity and ability to manage independence rather than simply age.
The same recommendation is echoed in the majority of research both
past and present. It would seem that ten years on we are no closer to an
ideal solution.
For care leaver A, C and D the outcome was poor. Certainly they did
not feel supported through the transition although care leaver C had
significantly better support from their personal advisor post 18.
However, despite this support care leaver C was still living in less than
ideal circumstances, and about to be moved once again.
In line with the literature this study, although with the limited sample,
found immense inconsistencies within the system and in every area
from support to financial assistance.
Evidently for some the system works against an already disadvantaged
group, abandoning when needed the most so to speak.

33
It would seem the introduction of legislation and the Transitions
Guidance to strengthen practice and policy has failed to make a
significant improvement especially surrounding the ‘levelling up’ of
services. Attributed by the cost cutting imposed on LA’s by central
government this is hardly surprising.
There are some encouraging outcomes such as care leaver B, receiving
immense support from their LA, beyond policy and legal requirement.
This is in line with some of Stein’s (2012: 81) research, and positive
outcomes are underpinned by the level of good, consistent and accurate
support received by the individual. Yet as this study has found this is
not consistent or universal.
It is clear inconsistencies, lack of support, young and rushed transitions
all contribute to poorer outcomes for this group of young people. A
group which are already disadvantaged and at a much higher risk of
social exclusion.
As a society we should consider these young people as just that – young
people. Often with the same dreams and aspirations as any other young
person. On the contrary, perhaps we should consider these young
people further as many will have already been let down by society.
Either way they are entitled to as much support, guidance and
opportunity as any other. Regrettably this does not seem to be the case
as despite advances in research, policy and legislation the same
inconsistencies and failures appear to occur time and time again.
The study has shown the importance of understanding the young
people’s history. Of understanding former problems, or areas of
concern. This aids the transition to independence as it identifies where
the support is needed and individualizes the young person. There
cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the leaving care system as
one can see these young people are individual. It has identified how
fundamental it is to include a young person’s foster carers when
considering independence, to recognise the relationship they may have

34
with the young person and the key role they play after leaving care (as
with care lever A).
With this in mind one must acknowledge the leaving care system has
indeed improved over the last 30 years however it needs to continue to
progress if there is any hope of achieving a consistent service with more
even and positive outcomes for these young people.

35
Bibliography.
Action for Children. (2014) [Online]
Available at: http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/our-
services/adoption-fostering-and-children-in-care/children-in-
care/leaving-care
Barnardo’s (2014)[1] [Online] Someone to Care: Experiences of
leaving care. Available at:
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/someone_to_care_final_feb2014.pdf
(Accessed 07 October 2015).
Barnardo’s (2014)[2] [Online] The costs of not caring: supporting
English care leavers into independence. Available at:
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/costs_of_care_leavers.pdf (Accessed 07
October 2015).
Biehal. N., Clayden, J., Stein, M., and Wade, J. (1995) Moving On:
Young people and leaving care schemes. London: HMSO.
Broad, B. (2005) Improving the Health and Well-Being of Young
People Leaving Care. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.
Burgess, C. (1981). In Care and Into Work. London: Tavistock.
Care Leaver’s Foundation (with Children and Young People Now)
(2009) [Online] Setting Up: A place to call home. Bala: Care Leaver’s
Foundation. Available at:
http://www.thecareleaversfoundation.org/sitedata/files/Setting_Up_A
_Place_to_Call.pdf (Accessed 06 April 2015).
Care Leavers Strategy (2013) [Online] Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/266484/Care_Leaver_Strategy.pdf (Accessed 17 February
2016).
Care Act (2014). [Online] Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/part/1/crossheading/tra
nsition-for-children-to-adult-care-and-support-etc/enacted (Accessed
01 March 2016).
Children and Families Act 2014. [Online] Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/section/98/enacted
(Accessed 02 October 2015).

36
Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. [Online] Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/35/pdfs/ukpga_20000035_
en.pdf (Accessed 19 March 2015).
Children and Young Persons Act (2008). [Online] Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/23/contents (Accessed 02
October 2015).
Community Care (2014) [Online] Councils struggling to retain social
workers in face of high caseloads and competition over pay.
Available at: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/01/30/councils-
struggling-retain-social-workers-face-high-caseloads-competition-
pay/ (Accessed 22 February 2016).
Courtney, M., Terrao, S., and Bost, N. (2004) Midwest evaluation of
the adult functioning of former foster youth: Conditions of youth
preparing to leave state care: Outcomes at age 19. Chicago: Chapin
Hall Centre for Children at University of Chicago.
Daly, F. (2012) ‘My voice has to be heard’: Research on outcomes
for young people leaving care in North Dublin. Dublin: EPIC.
Dixon, J., and Baker, C. (2012) ‘The Housing Experience of Young
People Leaving Care in England: What helps?’ Developing Practice:
The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal. Issue 32. National Care
Advisory Service (NCAS).
www.education.gov.uk. [Online]
Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123124929/http://w
ww.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/a00195573/
Family Rights Group (2014) [Online] Support for Young People
Leaving the Care System. Available at:
http://www.frg.org.uk/images/Advice_Sheets/16-support-for-young-
people-leaving-care.pdf (Accessed 29 September 2015).
The Fostering Network (2014) [Online] Staying Put. Available at:
https://www.fostering.net/all-about-fostering/providers/staying-put-
update#.Vg5D-PRdX1Y (Accessed 02 October 2015).
Godek, S. (1976). Leaving Care. Barkingside: Barnardo’s.
Gwynedd Council (2014) [Online] ‘When I Am Ready’ scheme.
Available at:
https://democracy.cyngor.gwynedd.gov.uk/Data/Services%20Scrutin
y%20Committee/20140619/Agenda/09_01_Report%20on%20When

37
%20I'm%20Ready%20Leaving%20Care%20Scheme.pdf (Accessed
22 February 2016).
Harris, R. J. (1982) Institutionalized Ambivalence: Social Work and
the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. British Journal of Social
Work. Vol.12 pp. 247-263.
Higgs, L. (2011) [Online] Housing crisis around the corner for care
leavers, experts warn. Children and Young People Now. Available
at: http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/1050066/housing-crisis-
corner-care-leavers-experts-warn (Accessed 17 February 2016).
Hiles, D., Moss, D., Thorne, L., Wright, J., and Dallos, R. (2014) “So
what am I?” – Multiple perspectives on young people’s experience of
leaving care. Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 41, pp 1-15.
House of Commons. (1968) Report of the Committee on Local
Authority and Allied Personal Social Services. London: HMSO.
Hutchinson, D., (2013) [Online] Catch 22 National Care Advisory
Service (NCAS). Available at:
http://resources.leavingcare.org/uploads/9b7793d8be6ffc05a501df3df
4a1ef5f.pdf
Jackson, S., and Cameron, C. (2012) ‘Leaving Care: Looking ahead
and aiming higher.’ Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 34 (6)
pp 1107-1114.
Mendes, P. and Moslehuddin, B. (2006) ‘From Dependence to
Interdependence: Towards Better Outcomes for Young People
Leaving State Care’. Child Abuse Review. Vol.15, pp 110-166.
Morgan, R., and Lindsey, M. (2006) Young people’s views on leaving
care. Newcastle: Commission for Social Care Inspection.
Morgan, R., and Lindsey, M. (2012) Young people’s views on care
and aftercare. Office of the Children’s Rights Director. London:
Ofsted.
Mulvey, T. (1977). ‘After-care – who cares?’ Concern. No. 26.
London: National Children’s Bureau.
Munro, E., Lushey, C., and Ward, H. (2011) Evaluation of the
Right2BCared4 Pilots: Final report. (NCAS). London: Department
for Education.

38
National Care Advisory Service (NCAS) (2011) Making the Cut:
Planning Transitions for Care Levers in an Age of Austerity. London:
NCAS.
National Care Advisory Service (NCAS) (2012) [Online] Statistical
Briefing: Looked after children and care leavers 2012. Available at:
http://resources.leavingcare.org/uploads/0e9a6e4f266b8e96ad7c8e25
7bd53982.pdf (Accessed 30 March 2015).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2013)
[Online] The NICE quality standard on the health and wellbeing of
looked after children and young people. Available at:
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/QS31/chapter/Quality-statement-8-
Support-to-move-to-independence (Accessed 01 October 2015).
Office for National Statistics (2014) [Online] Large increase in 20 to
34-year-olds living with parents since 1996. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://w
ww.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/young-adults-living-with-
parents/2013/sty-young-adults.html (Accessed 01 October 2015).
Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board (2016) [Online] Child J –
Domestic Homicide Review and Serious Case Review (combined).
Available at: http://www.oscb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Child-J-
OSCB-Overview-Report.pdf (Accessed 25 February 2016).
Page, R., and Clark, G. (eds) (1977). Who Cares? Young People in
Care Speak Out. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Puffett, N. and Orfford, A. (2016) [Online] Increasing numbers of
care leavers in unsuitable accommodation. Children and Young
People Now. Available at:
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/1155917/increasing-numbers-of-
care-leavers-in-unsuitable-accommodation (Accessed 17 February
2016).
Samuels, G. M., and Pryce, J. M. (2008) “What doesn’t kill you
makes you stronger”: Survivalist self-reliance as resilience and risk
among young adults aging out of foster care. Children and Youth
Services Review. Vol. 30 (10) pp 1198-1210.
Stein, M., (2002). Young People Leaving Care: A Research
Perspective . In: A. Wheal, ed. The RHP Companion to Leaving Care.
Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing, pp. 28-33.

39
Stein, M. (2004) What works for young people leaving care?
Barkingside: Barnardos.
Stein, M. (2006) ‘Young people aging out of care; The poverty of
theory’. Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 28 (4) pp 422-434.
Stein, M. (2012). Young People Leaving Care: Supporting Pathways
to Adulthood. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Stein, M., and Carey, K. (1986). Leaving Care. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stein, M., and Ellis, S. (1983). Gizza Say: Reviews and Young People
in Care. London: NAYPIC.
Stein, M., and Maynard, C. (1985). I’ve Never Been So Lonely.
London: NAYPIC.
Stone, M. (1990) Young People Leaving Care: A study of
management systems, service delivery and user evaluation. UK: The
Royal Philanthropic Society.
The Who Care’s Trust (2014) [Online]. Leaving Care. Available at:
http://www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/pages/leaving-care-what-
happens-post-16.html
Wade, J. (2011) ‘Preparation and transition planning for
unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee young people: A review
of evidence in England.’ Children and Youth Services Review. Vol.
33 pp 2424-2430.
Wade, J., and Dixon, J. (2006) ‘Making a home, finding a job:
investing early housing and employment outcomes for young people
leaving care.’ Child and Family Social Work. Vol. 11 (3) pp 199-208.
Wade, J., Mitchel, F., and Baylis, G. (2005) Unaccompanied asylum
seeking children: The response of social services. London: BAAF.

40
Appendix.
1). http://www.barnardos.org.uk/costs_of_care_leavers.pdf page 25,
Karen’s story.
2). http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Attention-deficit-hyperactivity-
disorder/Pages/Introduction.aspx
3). Email received in response to a request for Mr Timpson (Minister
of State for Children and Families) to answer three questions
regarding care leavers.
Dear Ms Thompson
I am writing on behalf of the Minister of State for Children and
Families to thank you for your email of 9 February about your
dissertation.
I am sorry but the department receives so many requests like yours
that we are unable to respond to them, other than to point you to
sources of information. I would therefore suggest that you look at the
department’s website
at: https://www.gov.uk/search?q=care+leavers+strategy.
I hope you find this link helpful and that you are able to find the
information you need.
Your correspondence has been allocated reference number 2016-
0008179. If you need to respond to us, please
visit: https://www.education.gov.uk/contactus and quote your
reference number.
As part of our commitment to improving the service we provide to
our customers, we are interested in hearing your views and would
welcome your comments via our website
at: https://www.education.gov.uk/pcusurvey.
Yours sincerely
Kelly Walker
Ministerial and Public Communications Division
Web:
[https://www.education.gov.uk<https://www.education.gov.uk/]https:
//www.education.gov.uk<https://www.education.gov.uk/>
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/educationgovuk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/educationgovuk

41
[https://www.education.gov.uk/images2/iris/dfe.png]
4). http://www.gisda.org/eng/amdanom-ni.html
5). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/20
6).https://democracy.cyngor.gwynedd.gov.uk/Data/Services%20Scrut
iny%20Committee/20140619/Agenda/09_01_Report%20on%20Whe
n%20I'm%20Ready%20Leaving%20Care%20Scheme.pdf
7).https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme
nt_data/file/201015/Staying_Put_Guidance.pdf
8). http://www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/pages/whats-a-pathway-
plan.html
9). http://jobs.communitycare.co.uk/article/coventry-tops-london-in-
the-best-place-to-live-league-tables/?cmpid=EMP|JOBS|SCJOB-
2016-0224-CH|READMORE-COV&cmpid
10). http://www.conwy.gov.uk/doc.asp?cat=4800&doc=19742
11).http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary
/SN06705

42
i). Interview Guide.
Generic areas of question.
Age upon leaving care
Staying put scheme
Financial help
Choice of housing
Suitability of accommodation
Geographical position of accommodation
Further education
Access to support e.g. Personal Advisor, social worker.
Input with Pathway plan
Being listened to
Transition
Keeping in touch
Difference with peers

dissertation finished peice 234

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to dissertation finished peice 234

Similar to dissertation finished peice 234 (20)

dissertation finished peice 234