The survey presented local authorities with significant challenges and raised a number of issues concerning the quality of data on Special Guardianship that is currently available. Many local authorities were unable to provide reliable answers to the information sought (above). A small minority lacked any centrally recorded information on SGOs and, within the time and resource constraints of an FOI, were not prepared to undertake a manual file search. Most areas were reasonably confident about numbers of SGOs that concerned looked after children. This is not surprising, given their obligation to report these numbers annually to the Department for
Education. However gaps were still evident, especially for the earlier years. Much greater
uncertainty was evident about SGOs for non-looked after children. Data on these cases was often not recorded and/or collated, was sometimes based on estimates linked to those receiving
financial allowances or would have required an often unacceptable manual trawl of case files. Less than one-half of local authorities were able to provide any information at all on breakdowns in SGOs. Where no data were provided, most reported that they had no mechanism for capturing this information electronically. Although 114 cases of re-entry to care were identified by local authorities in total (across all years), this information is unreliable. For example, it is very unlikely to include cases where former looked after children re-entered the system in a different area to the one where the SGO was made or those where children were not looked after at the time of the SGO but entered the system for the first time at a later point. Furthermore, only 17 local authorities nationally were able to provide reliable information on both the making and breaking of SGOs. This has meant that it has not been possible to analyse rates of breakdown across local
authorities. For all these reasons, further analysis of breakdown is not presented in this chapter. However, further work on disruption for looked after children has been undertaken in Chapter 5 (utilising our SSDA 903 dataset).
Some of these difficulties have arisen due to the late introduction of centralised databases in many local authorities (and the teething problems associated with these). In part, however, it also
reflects the fact that Special Guardianship has not so far found a settled home within local
authorities. Often different parts of the process (referral, assessment, court reports, and post-order support services) are spread across multiple teams. Cases therefore become fragmented and central oversight (including the recording and collation of information) is lost:
‘I have only recently come into post as the SG social worker, prior to which cases were
spread across different teams. I am collating a database of our SGOs now so should be able to provide such information in the future. All I can advise is that I am not aware of any cases of breakdown up to now, though that is not to say it hasn't happened, just that it has not been possible to identify such. I know we have had one breakdown
recently (2012), though that child has returned to SG.’
(Special Guardianship social worker)
Several local authorities reported that they were developing improved information systems going forward. Some mentioned that this was in preparation for new reporting requirements (including breakdown statistics) that are to be introduced by the Department for Education. These
developments would be welcome. It is vital for local authorities to have access to centralised electronic information on the numbers of children leaving the system through Special
Guardianship and on what happens to them subsequently – whether they return to the care of the same or another local authority or whether they move within the family network more informally should these arrangements break down.
However, improvements in data systems for looked after children alone are insufficient. Special Guardianship bridges the public world of local authorities and the private world of families. Every Special Guardianship application (even those concerning children not previously known to service providers) requires the local authority to undertake an assessment of suitability and to prepare a report for the court. These cases also need to be made identifiable on the information system so that, in the future, local authorities are able to deliver information on all SGOs. This is not just an academic exercise. Local authorities have a duty to make provision for services (including financial assistance) to support Special Guardianship families (Department for Education and Skills, 2005). Knowing the size of the local (and national) population affected by Special Guardianship is vital to the development of effective service planning and commissioning. A Department for Education requirement for local authorities to report annually on all SGOs (looked after and non-looked after) would not only encourage local authorities to comply but also provide for a single (more accurate) statistical collection on the national use being made of Special Guardianship for all children.
4.1.1 Limitations to the data presented here
Given this pattern of variability, some compromises to our analysis and presentation have been necessary. In relation to numbers of SGOs for looked after children, we have employed both our survey returns and the Department for Education’s statistics for the relevant years.25 We have used these data in two ways. First, we matched both sets of statistics to create a maximum annual number of SGOs for looked after children in each local authority. In doing this, we followed some simple rules:
1. Where our survey data from local authorities was missing for particular years, we
substituted the number of SGOs returned to the Department for Education for that year. 2. Where data for a particular local authority and year was available from both our survey and
Departmental statistics, but did not match, we selected the higher figure to establish a maximum estimate. Our assumption was that local authorities were more likely to underestimate rather than overestimate SGOs by failing to identify real cases.
Second, we have used the Department for Education statistics (alone) on numbers leaving the care system in each local authority through SG, adoption and residence orders for each year to compare relative patterns in usage of these different permanence pathways for children. Our purpose was to provide a simple test of whether a rise in the use of SG had effects on these other pathways.
25
We thank colleagues at the Department for Education who provided us with unsuppressed statistics by local authority on all children ceasing to be looked after for SG, Adoption and Residence Orders for the relevant years (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2012).
67
A further issue relates to information provided by local authorities on children not previously looked after. As we have seen, much greater uncertainty surrounded these SGOs. Many local authorities simply failed to provide a response, while others entered ‘zero’ for every year. Unless (as
requested) a note had been attached to establish the authenticity of these responses, these data were treated as missing. In consequence, information was provided for less than half (45 per cent) of the possible data entry points and only 24 local authorities had been able to provide data for all years.26 The analysis of these cases is therefore inevitably basic. We describe the numbers of SGOs that were identified annually and, taking account of the relative size of local authorities, provide an indicative national estimate. However, caution should be exercised in relation to these findings.