Care Leaver Payment: Consultation on policy proposals

We think the name broadly fits with the strategic purpose of the payment. However, we have concerns re eligibility (highlighted below) and the use of ‘care leaver’ across a number of different areas with seemingly very different definitions. This already leads to confusion and we believe this would add to this. We would also note that the payment was originally in the Programme for Government described a care experienced grant. ‘Care leaver’ and ‘care experienced’ are not interchangeable terms.

We would query who defines what the purpose is, and whether or not those purposes have been met, after the payment has been made? We would also query what impact it may have on support/benefits from other areas – e.g. universal credit.

Nevertheless, we believe the payment could empower young people and make them feel invested in, however there is a challenge in balancing rights with responsibility of supporting young people to manage finances. £2000 is a significant amount of money for a young person to manage without a proposed use for it and could increase the risk of financial exploitation or harm for those with problematic drug or alcohol use.

We would support the revision noting the challenges around making payments over a ten year period. However, we would also re-iterate the challenge in supporting young people to manage significant finances.

We would also note that age alone is not necessarily the most useful metric to measure capacity, with varying levels of maturity and capacity to manage money. We would also like further sight of this consultation process and early user testing that has been highlighted here.

A payment of this scale would be undeniably helpful given the ongoing cost of living crisis and the significant additional challenges that care experienced young people face when moving on from care. However, it is complicated and parameters need clearly defined as highlighted throughout this consultation. £2000 is a significant amount of money and young people would need support to manage finances. We would also query how payments would be managed, and whether this additional requirement for support will fall solely on local authorities. In the context of reduced budgets, this funding is likely to end up covering costs that should be met by statutory agencies.

Yes, definitely as this would make it easier to manage and would also enable conversations with staff about what payments will be used for and would encourage greater financial responsibility and consideration whilst ensuring those accessing support remain in control of their decisions.

In preparation of moving on would enable conversations around financial management and avoid a cliff edge of responsibility and access to finance simultaneously. However, some money would need to be reserved, either by the young person or externally, for when the move actually takes place. We also think this process could enable earlier conversations to take place to plan and prepare young people for transition out of care/into independence.

Nevertheless, what is meant by ‘moving on from care’ would also need to be very clearly defined – would people have access if they left a residential placement and moved into supported accommodation for example?

As with Section 29 payments, we would query what happens if young person moves on and leaves furnishings or other items that they’ve purchased. Payment for driving lessons, experiences or even a holiday could potentially be more valuable.

This payment has the potential to support care leavers to access experiences that they would otherwise be unable to access, and could not be supported to access via Section 29 payments. We would also hope it would encourage greater financial awareness and understanding, although this would have to be enabled with support from staff. Ultimately, we think it has the potential to be empowering for young adults to be able to identify what outcomes work best for them and budget accordingly. This could include gap years, work experience, travel experiences or driving lessons/ a car, that young people with no care experience are often able to take advantage of. Others will use it to supplement Section 29 monies to set up their tenancies.

As with all cash benefits, there is a risk of exploitation – particularly given what we know about care experienced young people in terms of additional vulnerability. There is also a potential impact on subsequent access to support which we would like to know more about – ie impact on benefits from DWP or other services. If payments are made only when someone moves on from care, it could encourage people to leave supported placements before they are ready.

Although we acknowledge the impact of being looked after away from home, those children and young people on a Kinship Care Order are not considered looked after, while other young people who are looked after on an order are excluded despite vulnerability. This eligibility criteria does not match up with any other criteria for support from other packages.

Furthermore, working in line with the Promise means more people will remain at home, and more people will not go into the Hearing system, but that does not change the level of need. Under these parameters, in the future, fewer children and young people would be eligible for this support.

As highlighted in Question 2, the use of ‘care leaver’ in this context, where the eligibility criteria does not match up with other definitions of care leaver, or even ‘care experienced’ is likely to lead to significant confusion for young people and staff alike. There is a lack of clarity over what these terms mean and the existing field is already significantly confusing without adding to this. We would also query whether UASC would be able to access this payment, including if they have had their appeal rights exhausted.

Age alone is not a defining characteristic of readiness. However, this timeline matches up with Continuing Care and simplifying eligibility criteria is helpful. There is a concern however that payments such as this could have unintended consequences and encourage young people to move on before they are ready.

We do not believe an applicant’s income should have any impact on their eligibility to receive such a payment.

It absolutely should not have any impact on eligibility for additional support. We would also seek explicit confirmation and clarity over any potential impact on Section 29 payments.

We hope the application will be straightforward, accessible, quick and transparent and most importantly non-stigmatising. We would also query the extent to which there is a need for any bureaucracy attached to it. Could it be automatic and managed by Local Authorities like Section 29 payments?
If it is not going to be unconditional entitlement then look at how the Flexible Fund for Care Experienced learners has operated for evidence of impact and to inform application/monitoring processes

The level of support required very much depends on what the application looks like.
However, it could involve practical support, literacy, technological access, as well as encouragement, confidence etc. Young people may also need support to open a bank account and depending on what information is required, they will also need support to access supplementary information such as ID or proof of address.

This support should be provided by a familiar person with whom the young person feels comfortable with, not an external agency. Who this familiar person is will depend on when the application needs to be made, if they are still in school, or in care or if they’ve left care 18 months ago as previous questions suggested could be a possibility. Regardless, there should be flexibility in approach.

There is a need to build a confident workforce who understand our young people are ours - this will be more impactful than an arbitrary one-off payment. In order to gather young people's views about the payment and any associated support it would be helpful to have a questionnaire from the Care Leaver Payment Team.

This is largely dependent on subsequent reporting and discussion around what the money was spent on. We would suggest there needs to be some kind of money management support, particularly if the payment is made in one go. Will there be further guidance on what the money ‘should’ be spent on? Will the young person's choices around spending this money be judged negatively and potentially impact access to future funding/support? If it does have an impact on further support, this money management support will need to be more intensive.

As above there should be flexibility in approach to ensure the young person’s needs are met by the most appropriate person for them. However, we would imagine this will likely be done by a member of local authority staff.

Unsure.

We have already stated this, but would like further clarity on the interface with Section 29 payments and other aspects of support and guidance on the use of this proposed payment in relation to this. We would also seek assurances on long term sustainability. The Scottish Government need to ensure this is a long term proposal that young people can reliably assume they will receive it in the future.
There are significant levels of support associated with the payment, which will likely be enabled by Local Authority staff. Is there scope for additional funding to support this?

Further support with budgeting skills and general financial awareness. Financial institutions could be supported to have a ‘care experienced’ champion which supports entitlement to an enhanced service. There has been success in this regard for people experiencing homelessness and this could be replicated for care experienced young people. We would also request a review of the value of pathways payments - £62.94 a week is not enough.