Care Leaver Payment: consultation analysis

4 Eligibility criteria (Q9 to Q11)

4.1 This chapter presents respondents’ views on who should be eligible for the Care Leaver Payment.

4.2 The consultation paper explained that the Scottish Government proposed that people leaving care from the age of 16 will be eligible to apply for the Care Leaver Payment if they are looked after by a local authority in Scotland at the point of moving on from care. Young people who have been looked after in the following care settings and placement types would be considered eligible to apply:

• Foster care
• Residential care
• Formal kinship care
• Informal kinship care where a Kinship Care Order is in place (as per Section 72 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014)
• Secure care
• Those in receipt of Continuing Care – this allows a young person born after 1 April 1999 who is looked after in foster, kinship or residential care to remain in their current placement until they turn 21.

4.3 The consultation paper went on to propose that ‘young people moving on from care, aged 16 to 25’ will be eligible to apply for and receive the payment.

4.4 The consultation paper contained three questions about the eligibility criteria for the payment.

Question 9: What are your views on the proposed eligibility criteria for applicants of the payment? Please explain your answer.

Question 10: Is there anything else you think the Scottish Government should take into consideration related to eligibility criteria for the Care Leaver Payment? Please share your views.

Question 11: What are your views on the proposed age requirements for applicants of the payment? Please explain your answer.

4.5 There was no clear separation between the responses offered to each of these three questions. Many respondents provided a full account of their views on eligibility at Question 9 – including their views on any other factors that should be taken into account. In other cases, respondents repeated their views at (each) question, or used the questions interchangeably to provide an account of their views. Therefore, the comments made across the three questions were analysed together and the views expressed are reported in the sections below.

4.6 Altogether, 67 respondents – 34 organisations and 33 individuals – provided comments on one or more of these questions. The views offered are discussed below in two sections which cover, first, views on the eligibility criteria proposed in the consultation paper and, second, other considerations relating to (i) eligibility in specific circumstances and scenarios and (ii) an alternative approach to defining eligibility.

4.7 It should be noted, as discussed earlier (see paragraphs 3.8–3.11), that respondents had concerns about the potential confusion between the use of the terms ‘care leaver’ (which has a legal definition) and ‘care experienced’ (which does not). It was noted that a previous iteration of the ‘Care Leaver Payment’ had referred to the ‘Care Experience Grant’. This change of name – and implied change of target group(s) – for the payment introduced a degree of confusion for some respondents when responding to questions about eligibility for the payment.

Views on eligibility requirements

4.8 Respondents to the questions about eligibility requirements fell into two main groups:

• The first group (the smaller of the two) comprised those individuals and organisations who were generally satisfied that the criteria set out in the consultation paper were appropriate.
• The second group (a much larger group) comprised those individuals and organisations who thought that the criteria set out in the consultation paper were too restrictive and should be extended in some way.

4.9 In addition:

• One organisational respondent said that the eligibility requirements should be further restricted; this respondent said those in informal kinship care where a kinship care order is in place should not be eligible.^[8]
• A small number of respondents (and individuals in particular) said that decisions about eligibility should be made on a ‘case-by-case’ or ‘individual’ basis.

4.10 It should be noted that it was common for respondents (particularly individuals) to say at Question 9 that the suggested eligibility requirements were appropriate, but then to go on – at Question 10 and / or Question 11 – to suggest other groups to whom the payment could or should apply.

4.11 The views of each of the two main groups are discussed in turn below, including specific issues relating to the age requirements.

Views of those who support the suggested eligibility requirements

4.12 Respondents who fully supported the eligibility requirements set out in the consultation paper made comments such as ‘eligibility seems appropriate and fair’, ‘criteria appear to cover all who could benefit’, ‘seems sensible’, or ‘agree’. In the main, no further elaboration was offered by these respondents other than to affirm that it was helpful – and straightforward from an implementation / delivery point of view – for (i) the payment to be available to those who met the legal definition of a ‘care leaver’, and for (ii) the eligibility requirements to align with the requirements for statutory Aftercare and Continuing Care.

Views of those who thought the eligibility requirements were too restrictive

4.13 It was very common for respondents to suggest that a wider range of individuals should be considered (or could be considered) eligible for the proposed payment when they leave care.^[9] The main groups mentioned for inclusion were (i) all young people with experience of care, (ii) those who were looked after at home, (iii) those who were adopted, (iv) all those in informal kinship care (not just those with a kinship care order), and (v) unaccompanied asylum-seeker children. (Note that these groups overlap.) Less often, mention was also made of young people who have been in an abusive home situation, and vulnerable young people.

4.14 Both individual and organisational respondents said they thought there was a ‘gap’ in the eligibility criteria for all young people with care experience whose orders ceased before they were 16. Respondents considered that these young people (whom they sometimes described as being ‘on the edges of care’) were subject to similar circumstances to those who met the legal definition of a ‘care leaver’.

4.15 It was suggested that if eligibility were to be extended to this group, then the criteria could mirror those developed for the Care Experienced Bursary. It was also acknowledged that such an extension would substantially increase the cost of funding all those who would be eligible. One organisation explicitly asserted that eligibility had been restricted to care leavers only for cost reasons.

4.16 There was widespread support from individuals and organisations for including those who had been looked after at home. It was noted that there was evidence that these young people often face the greatest barriers and levels of disadvantage.

4.17 There was also widespread support for the inclusion of those who had been adopted, who (respondents said) made up 7% of those who had (previous) experience of care.

4.18 Individual and organisational respondents were in favour of extending eligibility to all those in informal kinship care arrangements (i.e. those with and without kinship care orders). One respondent qualified this view by saying eligibility should apply in cases where the kinship carer was in receipt of benefits.^[10]

4.19 One individual and a small number of organisations explicitly mentioned the importance of extending eligibility to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) – at least to those whose asylum status is undetermined at the point when they leave care. One third sector organisation stated that this eligibility should apply despite possible complications relating to those with no recourse to public funds (NPRF) – in these cases it was suggested that the Care Leaver Payment should be proactively paid in full before they turn 18 or leave care, whichever comes first.

Specific views on age requirements

4.20 In general, the views expressed on the age requirements for eligibility flowed from the respondent’s perspective on the eligibility criteria more generally. Thus, there were two main perspectives offered, namely that (i) the age requirements set out in the consultation paper were satisfactory, and (ii) the age requirements set out were too restrictive.

4.21 Respondents who were content with the eligibility criteria set out in Question 9 of the consultation paper also supported the age eligibility requirements. Some of these respondents simply said they ‘agreed’ with the criteria, or that the criteria were ‘fine’ or ‘sensible’. In other cases, respondents in this group went on to elaborate that their agreement was based on the alignment between the age range offered (16–25) and the provision of Aftercare and Continuing Care as set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.

4.22 Respondents who thought the age requirements set out were too restrictive made the following main points to explain their views:

• Those young people with care experience, who had left care before the age of 16 would not be eligible for the payment. The age requirements should be extended to include all those who had experience of care.
• The age requirements are not in keeping with the aspiration set out within The Promise to provide lifelong (financial and other) support to those with experience of care.
• It might take some time for individuals who were eligible for a payment to (i) become aware of their eligibility and (ii) submit an application. The cut-off should therefore be extended to 26 (rather than 25) to allow more time for individuals to apply. This reason was raised particularly in relation to individuals who might be leaving secure care or a Young Offenders Institution.
• Young people with care experience require lifelong financial support due to the well documented and well evidenced difficulties that they have experienced. Arbitrary cut-offs are not helpful in this regard.
• Some flexibility to accommodate individual (and exceptional) circumstances beyond the suggested cut-off of age 25 would be important.

4.23 It should be noted that respondents often discussed the age the individual should be when the payment is received, rather than the age the individual should be in order to be eligible for the payment. In this context, respondents sometimes argued that 16 was too young to receive the payment (and / or too young for any individual to leave care) and sometimes suggested, relatedly, that the payment should only be available to those over 18, or over 21, or that the payment should be ‘deferred’. (See also the discussion in Chapter 5 on this issue.)

Other considerations regarding eligibility

4.24 Beyond the discussion of the proposed eligibility requirements as set out in the consultation paper, respondents identified two other areas which they thought required further consideration. These were (i) whether or not eligibility would apply in (a range of) specific scenarios and circumstances and (ii) whether there should be an alternative approach to defining eligibility. Each of these is discussed briefly below.

Eligibility in specific circumstances

4.25 Respondents described a range of scenarios and circumstances where they were unsure whether eligibility (as described in the consultation paper proposals) would apply. These included situations in which young people:

• Have a supported carer placement when they are aged 16 or over
• Are in secure care on offence grounds, and / or where their appeal rights have been exhausted
• Are in ‘less formal’ care arrangements
• Have Additional Support Needs (ASN) including those who are boarding in specialised accommodation
• Have recently had a compulsory supervision order removed
• Are currently in receipt of Aftercare.

An alternative approach to defining eligibility

4.26 Finally, one organisational respondent offered a different (and they thought, more straightforward) approach to defining eligibility for the payment. This respondent suggested that the payment should cover all individuals who (i) ‘had been previously looked after away from home’ and (ii) ‘had left care on or after their 16^th birthday’. Note, however, that this suggested approach would not include young people who had been looked after at home, or young people who had left care before their 16^th birthday.