Approaches to support

The earlier York study identified a level of concern amongst practitioners about the extent of discretion in the regulatory framework and the implications of this for the development of inconsistent services between local authorities and for equity between different categories of applicant. Some local authorities were developing a broad range of services, while in others services were more residual. Some extended services to all categories of applicant (whether it concerned a looked after child, a child ‘in need’ or a ‘private’ applicant), while others did not 22

London Borough of Southwark v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182; R (SA) v Kent County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1303. 55

(Wade et al., 2010). Evidence from this study suggests these patterns have continued some years later. Discretion was a major concern for some interviewees, especially in relation to carers of non- looked after children.

‘At the moment, essentially, carers have little right to anything and as long as that

remains the case I think (Special Guardianship support) is always going to be

problematic.’

(Association of Child Care Lawyers)

‘There’s definitely a gap for them (private applicants) in terms of what they’re entitled to

and what they’re not entitled to. And it’s almost a bit of a postcode lottery as to what they get. So it may feel very different for the carer in terms of the advice and support

they access.’

(Local authority solicitor, Area 2)

As we have seen, differences in local authority models or approaches to Special Guardianship that were rooted in different views about the purpose of Special Guardianship carried implications for the organisation and delivery of services. Areas that had moved towards specialisation had tended to more readily embrace Special Guardianship and, in response to rising numbers of applications from a wider range of backgrounds, had invested more heavily in service development. In areas that had been more cautious and non-specialist in approach, where there was an expectation that families would require less support, its development had been more restricted. Overall, therefore, service patterns were inconsistent.

Across the local authorities as a whole, the range of available services was quite large, including: financial assistance; allocated social work support (for differing lengths of time), arrangements for preparation and training, access to therapeutic services (mainly CAMHS), support groups,

newsletters, helplines, arrangement and supervision of birth family contact, advice and advocacy with regard to welfare rights, health and education services. No area, of course, provided all of these. Access to services was often difficult and, in some areas, provision was largely restricted to signposting guardians to mainstream providers or alerting them to the availability of a duty service.

‘Sometimes I think the support packages are maybe a little light…Obviously, we’re

always reluctant to provide resources if we don’t have to…One almost feels that there’s a support package that comes out as…there’s going to be someone on the end of the

phone if you need them. That’s quite common.’

(Local authority solicitor, Area 6, critical of the quality of support plans)

In contrast, a number of interviewees emphasised the importance of maintaining a continuing link with families for some time after the order is made, precisely to avoid the difficulties of carers having to cold call a duty service at a time of need. Having a dedicated worker at the end of the phone, whom carers know, being able to maintain at least annual ‘how’s it going’ visits or links through newsletters or social activities were seen as important ways of maintaining these links and making a return for help easier.

‘It’s such a nightmare coming through to a Duty service…and you’ve got to re-explain

your history. It’s a real issue. So for me to be able to provide a consistent and good 56

service for those families…having someone to manage it, having the resources to put in

the support when it’s needed, that’s important.’

(Team manager, Area 1)

‘A dedicated support worker) should be a good way of keeping people linked into the

local authority, some port of call, and somebody that’s proactively making contact with them, so they don’t feel they’ve got to pluck up the courage or feel they’re failing by

ringing us up. We ring and contact them.’

(Service manager, Area 3, describing a new service development)

These are sensitive issues for kinship carers, whose past experience of social workers may not have been positive. Asking for help may be viewed as a risky business, carrying the threat of unwanted intervention or the risk that social workers will rush to a negative judgement.

‘My sense is that (kinship special guardians) don’t ask (for help)…and the longer you

leave it without ringing them up to ask how they are, the more difficult it gets to ring…A lot of our families have very mixed feelings about children’s services anyway. They might remember the person who assessed them was nice, but maybe their overall

impression is of awful social workers who meddled in their family.’

(Team manager, Area 7)

The ability of some local authorities to maintain these services was, however, under considerable threat from restrictions within the current financial climate. All local authorities are going through a period of retrenchment with major reductions taking place in most service areas. Local authorities that had taken on Special Guardianship with enthusiasm were coming under strain from the scale of demands it had generated. Hard won gains were therefore at risk.

‘I think the impact of the caps on local government spending mean that some of the

enthusiasm with which we implemented things originally, we might now be trying to roll back from…So some of those early (support) packages I don’t think would necessarily

be repeated.’

(Team manager, Area 1)

Managing support services for children placed out of authority could be especially challenging. Regulation 5 specifies that the area where the special guardian lives is responsible for undertaking an assessment of need and for provision of any support services that flow from it unless the child is a looked after child, in which case the responsibility rests with the authority where the child was looked after for three years after the SGO is made. These arrangements made for greater

complexity and there was concern that services could unravel if border disputes arose or an agreed package was not delivered properly. Support for former looked after children living in other parts of the country (or even overseas) was made extremely difficult unless careful negotiation had been undertaken and contracting arrangements and systems for monitoring the delivery of

services were clearly in place.

‘I think that out of area placements can be problematic…We don’t have any contracting

arrangements with local services, whether that’s special education, CAMHS or other health services… We don’t have any local relationship with them. So I think it’s a

problem sometimes getting them engaged…You’re dependent on the local social work teams to advise us on what referrals can be made and help us gain access. If they are

reluctant to do this, I don’t know what the answer is.’

(Service manager, Area 4)