Agenda item

 

To note the progress made in developing and implementing the Kinship Local Offer.

Further to Minute No. 5 of the meeting of Improving Lives Select Commission held on 17^th June, 2025, consideration was given to the report that detailed how in July 2025, Cabinet approved the publication of the Council’s Kinship Local Offer which was adapted to be an interactive, online offer which was made available online in October 2025.

 

This update, therefore, outlined the progress in developing and implementing the Kinship Local Offer to date.

 

Councillor Cusworth, Cabinet Member and Deputy Leader, introduced the report and highlighted how the number of kinship carers had been increasing and this update had been brought forward for scrutiny, which had shown a strong interest in this area. It had become an increasingly important aspect of how children were cared for, with a focus on keeping them within their families wherever possible.

 

This approach had been supported primarily through family group conferencing and the provision of early intervention and additional support. Where it had been necessary for children to be removed from their birth parents, efforts had been made to ensure they could remain within their wider family network.

 

By way of a presentation Chris MacDonald, Head of Safeguarding, shared with the Commission:-

 

·              Kinship Local Offer and DfE definition of Kinship Care.

·              RMBC’s Kinship Local Offer.

·              Kinship Local Offer and what was included.

·              Role of the Kinship Care Delivery Group.

·              Membership of the Kinship Care Delivery Group.

·              Progress of the Kinship Local Offer to date.

·              Expectations of the Kinship Local Offer over the next twelve months.

 

A discussion and answer session ensued with Improving Lives Members and the following issues were raised and clarified:-

 

-               When introducing a new offer, regardless of how many years the programme had been running, how did the service ensure it reached people who have been involved for longer, such as those participating since 2020 or 2021? Were these carers offered the same level of support as someone joining this week, or were they not revisited.  Also in terms of financial support, was there a difference between an accredited foster carer and, for example, grandparents caring for a child or was the financial support consistent across both groups.

 

The Deputy Leader pointed out that Kinship care had always existed, with pathways allowing carers to become temporary foster carers, be formally approved, or transition to a special guardianship order, after which social care typically stepped back. Support had always been available, as these arrangements were longstanding, often occurring informally within families.

Efforts had been made to strengthen and promote this support, particularly to reach individuals already acting as kinship carers who might not identify as such. Outreach through GP surgeries, libraries and community spaces aimed to raise awareness, including among those in private family arrangements, that support was now a statutory duty of the authority. Increased promotion, including support from Elected Members in sharing information locally, was seen as key to extending this reach.

 

The Head of Safeguarding also reiterated that where a Special Guardianship Order had been made, which accounted for a significant proportion of kinship carers, the local authority had always been involved and, therefore, maintained records, including annual check-ins even where orders had been granted many years earlier. The main challenge had been reaching those who had never had contact with services and did not identify themselves as kinship carers, despite being equally entitled to support regardless of when their caring role began.

 

Financial support had been complex. Typically, carers had first been approved as foster carers and received a fostering allowance, which continued for at least two years after becoming special guardians. After this point, allowances had generally become means tested, often remaining at a core level, but subject to adjustment. Where individuals had not previously been foster carers, allowances could still be provided if the child would otherwise have entered care, though these were usually means tested from the outset. In cases where there had been no safeguarding concerns, financial support had not always been applicable, but the authority had maintained a duty to ensure carers could access all other entitlements available to them.

 

-               Could further detail be provided on how the available support had helped families decide which option was most appropriate for them, particularly in light of the financial implications

 

The Head of Safeguarding confirmed that within the Kinship Local Offer, there had been several ways for carers to access independent advice alongside support from navigators, who explained the offer in detail and helped them understand its different elements. Carers had also been signposted to independent organisations, particularly charities such as Kinship and the Family Rights Group, both of which provided helplines and impartial guidance.

 

In addition, where the authority had been recommending a legal arrangement, such as a Special Guardianship Order or a Child Arrangements Order, it had funded independent legal advice for kinship carers. This ensured they fully understood their options, including the financial implications and differences in allowances associated with each route.

 

-               Looking ahead over the next twelve months and, when the twelve?monthly check-ins were mentioned, it had seemed like quite a long interval given how much a child’s circumstances and development could change in that time, particularly if barriers were not identified early.

 

This had also raised questions about the parental support offer, specifically whether training was compulsory for those new to parenting. There had been a concern about how potential vulnerability was managed during those early stages and what oversight and safeguards had been in place to ensure both the child and the kinship carer were adequately supported.

 

The Head of Safeguarding explained how the vast majority of kinship arrangements had been assessed from the outset by the local authority or CAFCASS, with robust scrutiny required by the courts before any order was made. This had often included fostering assessments and resulted in a statutory support plan, alongside access to independent legal advice. Additional oversight had been provided by a children’s guardian, ensuring decisions were thoroughly reviewed.

 

Kinship carers had, therefore, been made aware of their rights, entitlements and how to access support, with multi-agency involvement continuing through and shortly after proceedings to help establish arrangements. Schools, health service, and other professionals had also been informed to identify and respond to emerging needs.

 

Support programmes had been encouraged, and where needs had been identified, participation could influence assessment outcomes. While annual check-ins had been a baseline, support had operated on a need basis, with some families receiving more frequent contact depending on their circumstances and emerging needs.

 

-               How many people were the local authority supporting and how many individuals were receiving kinship services.

 

The Head of Safeguarding confirmed there had been an estimated 600 to 700 children in kinship arrangements in Rotherham, noting that some informal arrangements remained unknown. As some children were in sibling groups, the number of kinship carers themselves had been lower.

 

At any one time, around 150 families had been receiving support across a continuum of services, ranging from advice via kinship navigators and support groups to more intensive provision such as the Empower service, depending on individual needs.

 

-               If a child was actually adopted by a grandparent, did this take them outside the scope of the support?

 

The Head of Safeguarding confirmed adopters and mainstream professional arrangements were excluded from this definition. In law, once an adoption order was made, the adopter became the child’s legal parent, meaning they were no longer recognised in their previous family role (such as a grandparent). As a result, adoption by family members was extremely rare, as it legally replaced the child’s parents.

 

More commonly, a Special Guardianship Order had been used instead, although people sometimes informally described these arrangements as adoption.

 

The Deputy Leader also reiterated parents held parental responsibility for their children. Where children were removed and subject to a care order, parental responsibility transferred to the local authority, which was why they were considered in care children. Throughout fostering and kinship care arrangements, parental responsibility remained with the authority. If a child was adopted, then parental responsibility transferred fully to the adopters.

 

The Head of Safeguarding again pointed out parents had retained parental responsibility, though there had been checks and balances on how it could be exercised, including under Special Guardianship Orders. Adoption orders had been the only route to fully extinguish parental responsibility.

 

For this reason, adoption by close biological relatives, such as grandparents, had been extremely rare, with Special Guardianship Orders far more commonly used, although adoption by more distant connections, such as family friends, had happened occasionally.

 

-               Kinship care had been considered the most appropriate option, as it enabled children to remain within a familiar and safe family environment.

 

This raised questions about financial allowances. As these were set by Government frameworks, it was unclear to what extent the local authority could adjust them. Given that kinship care was often the most beneficial and cost?effective option for ensuring a child’s wellbeing, it prompted consideration of whether more flexibility in means tested support could better reflect that value.

 

The Head of Safeguarding explained the allowance framework had been based on a Government?published means testing model, which, while not mandatory, had been widely adopted by most local authorities following Ombudsman decisions. Locally, the same model had been applied.

 

Although offering a non?means tested allowance had not been a legal requirement, it had been strongly encouraged in statutory guidance. The local offer had, in some respects, been more generous than others, recognising the importance of maintaining stable kinship arrangements and avoiding breakdown due to financial pressures. Financial difficulties reported by kinship carers had been closely monitored.

 

However, statutory guidance had also required responsible use of public funds, including the application of means testing. At the time, the Government had been piloting “kinship zones,” exploring non?means tested allowances, with findings expected to inform any future changes to national policy.

 

-               f a child had been in these arrangements, they had not always been seen regularly by a social worker in the same way as a child in full foster care. This raised the question of what level of oversight and support had been in place. In some cases, support had been provided through social workers where appropriate, alongside other services, to ensure the child and carer received the help they needed.

 

The Head of Safeguarding further reiterated that for special guardianship or child arrangements orders, as well as fostering, there had been a rigorous assessment process involving social workers, and often a supervising social worker and a CAFCASS guardian, with final approval by the courts.

 

This had ensured a strong balance between identifying any vulnerabilities and recognising that children generally thrived in kinship care. Support plans had set out the level of involvement, but once an order was made, families had typically been expected to parent independently and seek support when needed, rather than receive ongoing mandated social work visits.

 

In cases where additional support was required, the court could require continued involvement, and some families had received ongoing social work support for a period. However, orders had generally only been made where it was assessed that long-term statutory intervention would not be necessary.

 

The Deputy Leader emphasised that under the previous route, including temporary fostering and Regulation 24 arrangements, regular contact had typically ended once a Special Guardianship Order was made. This had reflected a careful balance, as many kinship carers had preferred greater independence after assessment and approval, distinguishing their role from fostering.

 

Consultation had shown concerns that requiring the same level of ongoing social work involvement as foster carers might deter people from becoming kinship carers in the first place.

 

-               The report had referenced recruitment challenges for kinship navigators, which had also been highlighted in earlier responses. What had the current capacity been and had this impacted the level of support available to families.

 

The Head of Safeguarding was pleased to report the service had been fully established, though early challenges had arisen due to the small size of the team, leading to some delays when recruitment was ongoing. Despite this, the overall offer had not been compromised, as support had been maintained through the wider team to ensure prompt responses and access to help.

 

The model had been designed so that kinship navigators acted as an initial point of contact, identifying needs and either offering direct support or signposting to appropriate services. Where more complex needs had been identified, cases had been escalated to family support workers or social workers, ensuring families received the right level of support throughout.

 

The Deputy Leader also felt it worth noting that much of the workforce was relatively new, reflecting recent developments from the Department for Education. Roles linked to programmes such as residential care had expanded significantly compared to a decade earlier, when provision had been very limited across most authorities.

 

As these services had grown nationally, recruitment had drawn from an emerging and still?developing workforce. This had not been unique to Rotherham, with similar challenges seen elsewhere, often requiring investment in training and development to build capacity where experienced staff had previously moved into other sectors.

 

-               How had the kinship service been promoted, particularly in situations where changes in a child’s living arrangements might go unnoticed. It was asked whether any training or awareness sessions had been delivered to schools, given that teachers were often the first to identify changes in a child’s circumstances.

 

The Head of Safeguarding confirmed awareness and promotion had been delivered through safeguarding forums attended by representatives from all schools, alongside briefings for Head Teachers and wider Council sessions to reach other services such as Housing. Through this, it had been ensured that schools were aware of the Kinship Local Offer.

 

Ongoing promotion had been supported by the Education Safeguarding Lead and the Kinship Care Delivery Group. In addition, a developing training programme had aimed to build kinship awareness across the wider workforce, with targeted sessions for schools, health visitors and other frontline professionals likely to encounter kinship arrangements

 

-               As support groups expanded beyond central Rotherham into local wards, had members been notified and involved. It had also highlighted the potential use of community leadership funding in supporting these groups, such as funding activities, trips, or resources to help establish and sustain provision within local areas.

 

The Head of Safeguarding welcomed this approach and would look to see how potential notifications could be expanded.

 

-               How could family members obtain support when they had unexpectedly taken on care of a child and was there contact points for someone in that situation needing to seek help.

 

The Head of Safeguarding confirmed details were readily available and would share some information after the meeting.

 

-               How confident were the service that this work had reduced the likelihood of children entering the care system.

 

The Head of Safeguarding was confident that the work had reduced the likelihood of children entering care. There had long been an emphasis on finding family arrangements where appropriate, supported by a strong evidence base and this had led to a trend of fewer children entering care and more entering kinship arrangements.

 

The availability of a comprehensive support package had also been key, enabling more kinship placements to be sustained successfully. In some cases, this level of support had made the difference in choosing kinship care over formal care, whereas other authorities without similar provision might have had no option but to place children into care.

 

The Service Director for Family Help further pointed out there had been a gradual and sustained reduction in the number of children in care over several years, driven by deliberate and sustained effort. This had included reviewing long-term cases to support children returning to family where appropriate, while also strengthening early intervention to prevent children entering care in the first place.

 

A strong focus had been placed on engaging wider family networks early on, alongside developing support through family hubs and early help services to prevent crises. This more holistic approach had enabled greater use of kinship arrangements, including flexible support from extended family members.

 

Overall, combining early intervention, family network involvement and targeted support had helped safely reduce the number of children in care while ensuring those who did enter care were in the most appropriate arrangements.

 

Furthermore the Deputy Leader explained family group conferencing and wider family networking had been established for many years, with investment made around 2017–2018 as part of an “invest to save” approach in response to rising numbers of children entering care. This early focus on exploring family networks had placed the authority in a strong position to develop its kinship offer, likely resulting in higher levels of kinship arrangements than in many other areas.

 

This approach had been recognised by Ofsted, who noted that kinship carers were often identified early through strong relational work and network mapping, meaning suitability assessments were frequently completed before children needed to be removed from their parents. Overall, this demonstrated that the authority had been ahead of the curve in this area.

 

-               How many carers had been offered trauma and attachment training, what proportion this represented and how many had taken it up. In addition, what actions had been taken to maximise participation, given the recognised benefits of this training.

 

The Head of Safeguarding was unable to confirm the exact ratio, but confirmed uptake was understood to be good.  He gave an undertaking to provide further information on the uptake of trauma training for Kinship Carers, the numbers offered, percentage of take up and any feedback when take up was declined.

 

It was also noted that to maximise participation, an automatic notification system had ensured all eligible kinship carers were identified and offered the training. For those in Regulation 24 arrangements, the training had been strongly encouraged and effectively required as part of their assessment, delivered through a tailored programme rather than standard fostering training.

 

For other carers, the offer had been actively promoted through direct contact and collaboration with supervising teams, ensuring opportunities were consistently highlighted and not missed.

 

The Deputy Leader also confirmed Empower, previously the therapeutic team under different names, had been a strong part of the offer, helping to attract and support both mainstream and kinship carers. Its focus on trauma and attachment, particularly for younger children, had ensured carers understood potential needs even before they became evident.

 

This approach had provided a robust and supportive model, acting as a safety net to help prevent children and carers from falling through gaps in support.

 

-               What support is given to foster carers when the children could fall into special needs?

 

The Head of Safeguarding confirmed there had been several coordinated strands of work through the delivery group. Kinship navigators had been managed within an education-linked role, ensuring strong connections with schools from the outset. As a result, education needs had been considered early whenever families engaged with the service.

 

Support had then been tailored to need, drawing on early help teams, school inclusion services, outreach support and specialist teaching. Strong links with schools had been maintained and navigators had been supported through training and induction to build understanding of school responsibilities and to promote a graduated approach to meeting children’s needs.

 

The Deputy Leader also pointed out that children had been supported through the Virtual School, which had performed strongly. Each child had a Personal Education Plan, with generally positive outcomes.

 

Previous attachment training delivered to schools had shown wider benefits across the whole school environment, not just for individual children. This had been complemented by close multi-agency working, including the Children’s Disability Team, which had strengthened support through shared information and coordination.

 

In addition, short break provision at Liberty House had offered carers respite, providing further practical support.

 

The Chair thanked everyone involved for this very informative discussion.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the progress made in developing and implementing the Kinship Local Offer be noted.

 

(2)  That consideration be given to including notifications to Ward Members and aiding via Community Leadership Funds when Support Groups were expanded into local areas.

 

(3)  That  further information be sought on the uptake of trauma training for Kinship Carers, the numbers offered, percentage of take up and any feedback when take up was declined.