Homeless ruling serves to dent care leaver support

A snapshot survey of 20 directors of children's services found the "Southwark judgment" is stretching council resources and reducing wider provision for care leavers in some areas.

Since the landmark House of Lords ruling against Southwark Council in May 2009, local authorities have been required to offer all homeless 16- and 17-year-olds care services under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

The previous government maintained that the ruling did not represent a "new burden" on local authorities, but merely clarified existing law, so councils were never given extra cash to respond to the judgment.

But according to 14 out of 20 directors questioned, the judgment has led to a rise in the care population and young people receiving housing support in their area. The estimated annual cost attached to this ranged from an additional £100,000 in the least affected authorities to £500,000 in the hardest hit.

While none of the 20 directors disputed the principle underpinning the judgment, all but three raised some concerns about the cost of the ruling.

One director said: "We would never withhold a service because of budget implications. However, it must be noted that we are experiencing a significant increase in cost associated with this age group."

In terms of support for 16- and 17-year-olds in care, six directors said the judgment has reduced their ability to provide care leaving services. "This has stretched our resources further and meant that allocations to young people have to be managed very carefully," one said. "The financial strain is considerable because of the cost of rent and leaving care grants," said another.

According to the three directors, the judgment is having unintended consequences, with some families attempting to exploit the ruling to access social housing. "Some young people present as homeless as a way of accessing social housing in the longer term," one director said.

Another warned that some parents are too quick to absolve themselves of parental responsibility when their child is going through adolescence.

"They should have to pay a certain amount towards the costs of the young person," the director said. "This may deter them from effectively abandoning their 16- or 17-year-old because they don't get on anymore. Parents must realise that a child is for life."

Alan Wood, chair of the Association of Directors of Children's Services resource and sustainability policy committee, admitted that a minority of families view the Southwark judgment as a route to housing, but said authorities are rigorously assessing any such claims. "There has been a bit of gamesmanship, but that has largely disappeared once families see how seriously it's taken," he said.

"If it's not appropriate for a 16- or 17-year-old to stay with their family, we have to think about the other young people in that family. It can become an intrusive process by which the local authority has to assure itself that there is no reason to have concerns about the other children as well."

Wood questioned whether leaving-care services should be offered to all young people who become looked-after as a result of the Southwark judgment.

"More young people are coming in for assessment at 16 or 17 and then being classed as looked-after, which means they have the opportunity to be in care for more than 13 weeks and receive leaving-care services, which sometimes go on until they are between 21 and 25," he said. "The question is whether these services are really designed for these young people."

Wood argued that the government should undertake research to establish how the judgment is being implemented nationally.

"We need national research," he said. "It's for the government to consider on a national scale what the emerging picture is, to see whether the interpretation of case law is correct or whether there's a need for new guidance."

• National Care Leavers' Week runs from 26 October to 2 November.

SOUTHWARK JUDGMENT

• In May 2009, a homeless 17-year-old won a landmark battle in the House of Lords that found the London Borough of Southwark had failed to follow the law in dealing with his situation after he was evicted from his family home
• The council offered him support through the housing department when he presented himself as homeless. But the ruling found that this contravened the 1989 Children's Act
• Instead, he should have been given a full assessment of his needs and support with employment, health, education and finance, as well as accommodation. The ruling means all homeless 16- and 17-year-olds must now be offered such care services