A Freedom Of Information request has revealed that at least 5,000 children in care in England and Wales, have been separated from their siblings.

The staggering figure was revealed after 50 councils responded to the request. The actual figure, however, is likely to be much higher. There are 125 ‘single tier’ authorities in England and Wales, which all function as billing authorities for Council Tax and local education authorities.

We could not find the Freedom Of Information request (please do let us know if you spot it), however data published by media outlets offer the following insights:

• Nearly 2,500 sibling groups, at least 5,000 children, are currently split up in care;
• In 30 of the 50 councils, more than 50% of sibling groups had been separated;
• In Islington, 73% of their sibling groups are split up;
• In Oxfordshire 68% of their sibling groups are separated;
• 60% of sibling groups are split in Cheshire West and Chester.

The debate over siblings being separated in care is not new. In August 2012, Martin Narey, who is also dubbed The Adoption Tsar and is currently the government’s senior advisor on all things adoption, urged policy makers to end the presumption that siblings should be kept together.

Narey’s reasons for calling on the government to end this presumption were so poor that we broke them down on this blog. Here are some of his views on the subject, which he aired in an interview with online magazine, Children and Young People Now:

“One of the instances where separation of siblings is probably wise, is where a particular child has started to parent a younger child, where they have compensated for the neglect and abuse they have received by a parent, essentially becoming a parent for the younger child.” 

Surely the better solution is to support the older child in changing their behaviours towards the younger sibling? This can be done by showing the older sibling that there is someone there to support the younger sibling (the parent or carer), a measure which both prevents the siblings from being traumatised by a separation, and at the same time, allows the older sibling to readjust.

“Sibling groups have to wait on average a year longer to be adopted than individual children, due to a shortage of adopters willing and able to adopt groups of children.”

This doesn’t justify re-traumatising already vulnerable children. If we made our care homes loving, supportive environments for these children, waiting would not be an issue.

And whilst we have politicians and figure heads focusing on profit before child protection, it is likely that this kind of poor policy will continue to dog the system.

The data from this Freedom Of Information request is warmly received, and timely. We hope the government will stop looking at short term solutions and start thinking about the bigger picture.

The Department for Education has broken the law, after it failed to answer a Freedom Of Information request (FOI) about a controversial new body created to regulate social workers. The breach now means that there will be an investigation into the department and its handling of the request.

Before making the FOI request, Researching Reform wrote to the Department for Education to ask for a full breakdown of the management team at Social Work England, the new regulatory body that is set to replace The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC).

The Department did not confirm or deny that a management team was in place and refused to offer us any further information on developments at Social Work England, so on 26th February, 2018, we made a Freedom Of Information request and asked for details about the body’s management team and its partners and committee members.

A reply to the FOI request should have been sent by 27th March, however the Department failed to respond. 

Government bodies who do not reply within the set time period can be investigated for their failure to reply to requests, and under current legislation, that failure to respond is also breaking the law.

Social Work England has sparked concerns amongst child welfare professionals, with some taking the view that it is part of a wider government agenda to take over the social work sector completely. Currently, the only known member of SWE is Lord Patel, who was formally announced as the organisation’s chair last week. 

Researching Reform has requested an investigation into the Department for Education’s handling of the FOI request.

The Department For Education has responded to our request for a breakdown of who is involved at management level within Social Work England, the newly established regulator which will shortly be replacing The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC).

The response avoids answering our question directly, and mentions only that plans for SWE’s launch are ongoing, without confirming or denying that employees for the regulator have already been chosen.

We have also made a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request asking for details of the management heads at SWE. The request legally requires the DfE to provide full and frank disclosure of any management roles currently filled. We will update you once we get a response to this.

The DfE’s email response is below:

Last month we sent a Freedom Of Information request asking for a breakdown of costs awarded to families who had suffered due to council failings. The response is unexciting. That’s not because there is no information available, though.

Here is what the Department For Education had to say on the matter:

Our only option now is to contact councils directly. Will they share this information with us?

Researching Reform’s Freedom Of Information request asking the government what had happened to all of its child welfare consultations has finally been answered, and the reply is interesting.

Having failed to address the request within the set period, it looked as if the government was attempting to ignore the question, which asked for an update on several of its long standing child focused consultations. Researching Reform wrote to the government asking for an internal review into the failure to reply to our request. In a not altogether unsurprising move, The Department For Education then blocked the internal review with a hasty response:

Dear Natasha Phillips 

Thank you for your letter requesting information on a number of government
consultations.

With regards to the consultation on Mandatory Reporting Of Child Abuse:
The consultation sought views on the advisability, risk, nature and scope
of a mandatory duty to report child abuse and neglect and an alternative
duty focused on taking appropriate action, as well as the effects of
embedding current Government reforms. The Government has committed to
laying a report before Parliament on the outcome of the consultation.
Submissions are being considered and a Government response will be
published in due course.

The consultation on Vulnerable Witnesses Practice Direction: This
information is not held by the Department for Education and suggest that
you contact the Ministry of Justice (MOJ).

We published two documents on 1 November 2017 in response to the
consultation on the Care Of Unaccompanied and Trafficked Children. These
documents can be found at:
[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio…

Consultation on National Fostering Stocktake: A summary of the call for
evidence for the National Fostering Stocktake will be published alongside
the reviewers’ final report in the New Year.

Consultation Analysing Family Circumstances and Education: The Department
will publish a response in due course.

Your correspondence has been allocated reference number 2017-0049974. If
you need to respond to us, please visit:
[2]https://www.education.gov.uk/contactus and quote your reference number.

Web: [3]https://www.education.gov.uk
Twitter: [4]https://www.twitter.com/educationgovuk
Facebook: [5]https://www.facebook.com/educationgovuk

Yours Sincerely

Paul Lucas

Whilst we’re told that one consultation has published its findings (the one focusing on child trafficking), we’re not actually given any firm dates for the others. The closest we get to a date is in relation to the consultation looking at the state of the Foster Care sector in England, which we’re told will publish its findings in early 2018. We chose that announcement as the headline for our post as it’s arguably the most interesting piece of news in the reply.

And the author of this letter, Paul Lucas, though he doesn’t state his role within the Department For Education, seems to be a member of the Education Funding Agency, which produces reports like this one looking at national funding formulas for schools.  Whether it’s a sign of the times, the way things are done at the DfE, or an indication of the government’s knee jerk reaction to the threat of an internal review, Mr Lucas is an odd choice of author for this kind of letter.

We’ll keep you posted on these consultations.

The government has failed to respond to a Freedom Of Information Request we made last month which asked them what had happened to all of its child welfare consultations.

We sent our request on 15th October. The reply was due on or before the 10th November. Unusually, we never received a notification from the FOI website alerting us to the delay.

The government’s failure to respond in time means that they have broken the law. Researching Reform has now launched a review to find out why the request has been ignored.

We’ll update this story as soon as we know more.

In what will be welcome news for many, Freedom Of Information requests will remain free and no legal changes will be made, either.

The decision to keep the FOI request process as it is comes after an Independent Commission was asked to look into the service and see whether charging the public to use it, amongst other proposals, would be appropriate.

And in keeping with the FOI’s spirit, public bodies will also now be required to reveal staff expenses.

The complete findings of the Freedom of Information Commission’s review are set to be published in the near future, however Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock has confirmed there would be no wholesale changes to the FOI Act itself:

“After 10 years, we took the decision to review the Freedom of Information Act and we have found it is working well… We will not make any legal changes to FOI. We will spread transparency throughout public services, making sure all public bodies routinely publish details of senior pay and perks…. After all, taxpayers should know if their money is funding a company car or a big pay-off.”

As passionate campaigners set against charges for FOI, we’re really pleased with this news, and hope the service will continue to grow and develop to include more agencies and bodies and to supply the public with even more information.