This report provides a summary of findings about the type support provided to kinship carers across 80 local authorities. We found significant variation in the support that kinship carers receive, both across LAs as well as across different kinship care arrangement.
This is a foundational piece of research, and further research is required to understand this area further, and ensure that kinship carers receive effective support which ultimately enables children to thrive. Key information such as eligibility criteria, take-up rates, and when support was introduced, has not yet been systematically gathered. Further reseach and policy work should have a focus on prioritising and amplifying the voices of minoritised ethnic and informal kinship carers.
This report summarises the findings from a survey of 80 local authorities in England, mapping the different types of support provided by local authorities (LAs) to kinship carers. The report is supplemented by an annex detailing the full findings of the survey. The survey aimed to improve understanding of variation in support for kinship carers and focused on the following types of arrangement: family and friends foster care, Special Guardianship Orders (SGOs) and Child Arrangement Orders (CAOs)/Residence Orders (ROs).
The aim of this project was to map out the extent of variation in support for kinship carers across both LAs and types of kinship care arrangements, to aid identification of promising interventions for further evaluation. Another aim of the project was to shed light on the support provided to specific groups of kinship carers, particularly those who may face additional challenges, such as those involved in informal kinship care arrangements and kinship carers from minoritised ethnic backgrounds.
This project used three data collection methods:
Our study found that there is significant variation in the support that kinship carers receive, both across LAs as well as across different kinship care arrangements.
Across different areas, support tends to be highest for Family and Friends Foster Carers, followed by Special Guardians, with the least support provided to kinship carers on a Child Arrangements Order (CAO/RO). Within SGOs and CAO/RO arrangements, support is more common if the child has previously been looked after by the LA.
The topics covered by the study are wide-ranging. The report discusses findings related to: service structure; panel process; financial support (ongoing and one-off); legal support training; emotional/therapeutic support; support for managing contact; support to help prevent breakdown of arrangements; information provision; support for minoritised ethnic kinship families; and support for informal kinship care arrangements.
This is a foundational piece of research which we hope will be a catalyst for further research and knowledge generation, to ensure that kinship carers receive effective support which ultimately enables children to thrive.
Subsequent steps are needed for future robust evaluations of LA support for kinship carers. Key information such as eligibility criteria, take-up rates, and when support was introduced, has not yet been systematically gathered.
Furthermore, the voices of minoritised ethnic and informal kinship carers should be prioritised and amplified in future research and policy work. While this report has illuminated some findings regarding LA practices for these groups, we know very little about their experiences.
This rating is based on information that programme providers have supplied about the components and requirements of their programme. Based on this information, EIF rates programmes on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates the least resource-intensive programmes and 5 the most resource-intensive.
1: A rating of 1 indicates that a programmes has a low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
2: A rating of 2 indicates that a programme has a medium-low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
3: A rating of 3 indicates that a programme has a medium cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
4: A rating of 4 indicates that a programme has a medium-high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
5: A rating of 5 indicates that a programme has a high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
The evidence ratings distinguish five levels of strength of evidence. This is not a rating of the scale of impact but of the degree to which a programme has been shown to have a positive, causal impact on specific child outcomes.
Level 2: Recognises programmes with preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome, but where an assumption of causal impact cannot be drawn.
Level 2+: The programme will have observed a significant positive child outcome in an evaluation meeting all of the criteria for a level 2 evaluation, but also involving a treatment and comparison group. There is baseline equivalence between the treatment and comparison‐group participants on key demographic variables of interest to the study and baseline measures of outcomes (when feasible).
Level 3: Recognises programmes with evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous evaluation – that is, where a judgment about causality can be made.
Level 3+: The programme will have obtained evidence of a significant positive child outcome through an efficacy study, but may also have additional consistent positive evidence from other evaluations (occurring under ideal circumstances or real world settings) that do not meet this criteria, thus keeping it from receiving an assessment of 4 or higher.
Level 4: Recognises programmes with evidence of a long-term positive impact through multiple rigorous evaluations. At least one of these studies must have evidence of improving a child outcome lasting a year or longer.