Rebuilding the foster care pipeline

Our foster care system is facing a perfect storm.

The number of children entering care continues to rise, but every year, we lose more foster carers in England than we gain.

The number of foster carers has fallen by 12% since 2019. In the last year alone, 1,140 foster placements vanished from the system.

If we are serious about rebuilding the foster care pipeline, we must do more to encourage prospective foster carers, as well as providing stronger support for existing carers.

My own mum and dad were foster carers, so I have seen firsthand the transformative impact of a stable home on the lives of vulnerable children. Having raised four children of their own, my parents were able to offer simple things which people who have not experienced the care system often take for granted: home-cooked meals, a stable bedtime routine, and a listening ear after a tough school day.

I broadly welcome the Government’s foster care reforms, especially its commitment to streamlining the approval process.

But there is one glaring omission: the need for better partnerships between local authorities and independent foster agencies (IFAs).

IFAs are responsible for nearly half of mainstream fostering households, and nearly half of the foster care workforce. Yet they are consistently sidelined by the Government. In fact, they are not even sitting around the same table as local authorities. IFAs have been treated as competitors, rather than partners, in the Government’s new plans for Regional Care Cooperatives (RCCs).

This adversarial approach is short sighted. IFAs consistently outperform local authorities on recruitment, retention and approval times. Ofsted ratings reflect this: 96% of IFAs are rated good or outstanding, compared with just 60% of local authorities. Crucially, IFAs tend to care for children with the most complex needs. They also excel at placing older children, who are often the hardest to match.

Families who foster through IFAs speak positively about the bespoke support they receive. Ruth and Chris have been able to work with the same psychologist for six years, providing rare continuity for traumatised children. They say: “If you call, you get help the same day. It’s personal, nurturing, and non-judgmental.”

They couple contrast this with the poor communication they experienced when fostering via their local authority. One time they received files with such poor notes that they could not even tell which gender the children were.

The Minister for Children and Families is rightly concerned that profiteering within residential care should not be repeated in the fostering system. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of IFAs only make around 6-8% profit on average.

From my own experience in local government, I believe we need a mixed-economy model for foster care. Local authorities have so many additional pressures on their resources, from potholes to playparks, and the relentless election cycle hampers long-term strategic oversight. IFAs can focus on doing one thing really well: providing consistent support tailored to a foster family’s needs.

RCCs must adopt transparent placement protocols that include IFAs at every stage, avoiding blanket prioritisation of local authority carers. Decisions should be based on the best interests of the child, not the provider type.

That being said, we should learn from local authorities that are bucking the trend. Plymouth City Council is a standout success story. Its in house fostering agency has grown to 111 approved households, offering 234 placements. This is an impressive proportion for a city with 525 children in care.

The council has invested in council tax exemptions for foster carers, strong partnerships with local businesses, and home adaptations such as loft conversions.

Their model delivers excellent value for money at £571 per child per week, which is far below the cost of residential care at over £9,400 per week. It is also significantly lower than the cost of IFA provision at over £1,200 per week, which is an unusual situation compared with local authorities across the country.

But even the best local practice cannot compensate for the nationwide postcode lottery when it comes to fostering fees. While fostering allowances are set at a national level, fees, which recognise the skills and time involved in fostering, are not. Shockingly, some carers earn £38,000 a year more than others for the same role.

Foster carers provide a professional service, yet only a quarter feel their fee covers essential living costs. Fair remuneration is essential, especially since around 60% of foster carers do not work. The Fostering Network have proposed a national recommended fee framework, which certainly merits consideration.

Ultimately, every delay in fixing the system means another child waiting for the loving foster family they deserve.

The Government’s national action plan rightly recognises the need for systemic reform. It will only succeed if foster carers feel supported over the long haul.