Report focuses on local authority responses to migrant families with ‘no recourse to public funds’

Study finds tension between immigration law requirements and Children Act duties

New research by COMPAS and funded by the Nuffield Foundation explores a tension between two areas of policy concerning the welfare of children: between a requirement in immigration law that some families be excluded from welfare benefits ('no recourse to public funds', or 'NRPF') and a provision in the Children Act 1989 (s17) that requires local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child 'in need'.

The report – Safeguarding Children from Destitution: Local Authority responses to Families with 'No Recourse to Public Funding' – by Jonathan Price and Sarah Spencer sets out the findings of an 18 month study which investigated the challenges to which that tension can give rise, for local authorities and for the children and families concerned. The study set out, first, to establish who comprise the families seeking support, the factors that lead them to approach local authorities and the welfare needs they present. It explored their experiences of engaging with local authorities and the outcomes, including the ways in which support is provided for those who receive it.

The study sought to establish the practices of local authority Children's Services departments administering s17 in relation to their assessments of need and provision of services. It explored the variation in practice between authorities, their relationship with advocates in the voluntary sector, and the implications of the Home Office's role for their capacity to resolve s17 cases.

The study states:

The Children Act 1989 (Section 17) requires local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children 'in need', within their families, including a child whose parents have 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF).
A child is 'in need' if unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development, or is disabled. A destitute child is a child in need for the purposes of s17.
In assessing NRPF families' eligibility for s17 support, some local authorities gave primacy to the needs of the child, others greater weight to the immigration status and credibility of the parents.
In 2012/13, an estimated 3,391 NRPF families were supported by local authorities under s17, including 5,900 children, a 19% rise on the previous year, at an estimated total cost of £28m. 61% of the families were in London.
Prior to receiving this support, families were destitute, seeking shelter, food and warmth. Some had experienced exploitative relationships and domestic violence.
Local authorities provided accommodation in B&Bs and in the private rented sector, sometimes in poor conditions unsuitable for children. Subsistence payments were very low; below the statutory levels set for any other group of people including refused asylum seekers.
The immigration profile of the families was diverse: of the families in 24 authorities surveyed,11% held visas, 8% were mobile EU citizens and 63% were visa overstayers. 23% of the families had at least one child who is a British citizen. A high proportion (71%) had pending applications to remain in the UK.
Long delays in resolving the immigration applications of supported NRPF families is a concern for local authorities. The vast majority of familes are found to be entitled to remain in the UK.
While central government determines who may access mainstream welfare benefits, it is local government that provides a safety net for some children whose parents have been excluded.

The report is here. An article by Sally Gore of Fenners Chambers – Families with No Recourse to Public Funding and Part III of the Children Act – can be read here.

10/6/15

username
password