Let's put the under 21 ones on the streets who cares eh?

[x-GiGgLeS-x]

The care leavers are covered by the "Staying Put" agreement which is mandatory.

A new duty on local authorities in England came into force on 13 May 2014, in part 5 Welfare of Children (98) of the Children and Families Act 2014.

This requires local authorities in England to facilitate, monitor and support staying put arrangements for fostered young people until they reach the age of 21

 

So they are not in the situation the OP suggests.

 

More could be done of course, and some slip through the net.

 

 

So only the kids in foster care? And this is only IF there is a placement for them where the foster carers is willing to keep them.

 

When a care leaver becomes 18 no one cares what happens.

 

A child in the care system is not only in foster care. There is different types of care facilities around

[onewheeldave]

No idea. A heartless judge and executioner of doom perhaps, determined to ridden the country of all those pesky young people on behalf of the evil overlord queen?

 

Or maybe the existing social and medical teams that currently determine if someone is vulnerable?

 

In terms of actual results there's not much difference between the two

 

Many vulnerable people slip through the 'safety nets' due to highly rigid bureaucracy- in particular, those on the autistic spectrum are at high risk of not receiving support.

[crookedspire]

Why can't they live with their parents?

 

What if their is no parents to live with?

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2017 at 18:23 ----------

 

The care leavers are covered by the "Staying Put" agreement which is mandatory.

A new duty on local authorities in England came into force on 13 May 2014, in part 5 Welfare of Children (98) of the Children and Families Act 2014.

This requires local authorities in England to facilitate, monitor and support staying put arrangements for fostered young people until they reach the age of 21

 

So they are not in the situation the OP suggests.

 

More could be done of course, and some slip through the net.

 

That was in 2014 things have moved on a bit plus no address no benefits only hope is the local food bank and a donated tent super.

[onewheeldave]

Why can't they live with their parents?

 

What if their is no parents to live with?

 

Do you not understand what the care system is?

[crookedspire]

Do you not understand what the care system is?

 

Quite a bit actually thank you next question?

[ECCOnoob]

Hang on a second. Let my just put some substance to this sensationalist headline and unsubstantiated opening post.

 

So, young persons 18-21 who are NOT living with their parents and/or NOT under the protections of the care system and/or NOT a protected vulnerable person and/or NOT within the exemptions to the government protocol are being denied housing benefit.

That will genuinely effect how many exactly?

 

Firstly I would question what exactly are these allleged "huge numbers" of immediately street homeless 18-21 year olds are doing with their lives.

 

Surely at that age they are either:

 

1. working and earning their own money.

2. in university and get accommodation/support from their student loans

3. on a apprentice scheme and earning at least minimum wage

4. in the armed forces with accommodation provided

 

OR for those unfortunate

1. Disabled within the protected boundaries receiving DLA/Allowances

2. Living at home with parent/guardian/Care Scheme

 

So who does that leave? For those who GENUINELY fall outside of any of the above (which I suspect is nowhere near the exaggerated and dramatic predictions churned out by certain media outlets ) then quite frankly further questions need to be asked.

 

As (quite rightly) said by one of the DWP spokespersons already we should not be creating a instant young generation of benefit dependants the moment they leave school education expecting their life to be handed to them on a plate.

 

I have always maintained on this forum that unless you are one of the unfortunate people with life long debilitating illness or mental health issues NOBODY owes you a lifestyle.

 

When you hit 16 you DO SOMETHING either by getting a job or carrying on education.

 

When you hit 18 parental or guardian responsibility may legally stop but that does not and should not mean that people are entitled to be carried through life on the great benefits conveyor.

 

For those "slipping through the net" there is far more to this than just finger pointing and shouting "nasty tories". Who is asking the questions about why these people are in this situation and what THEY THEMSELVES are doing about it.

 

As usual the same old usernames on this forum get hold of the headline and and beat the same drum without actually looking into all the facts. Worse still is the opposition party churning out the same old stock responses instantly dismissing and condemming anything the government proposes without any indication of what they would do to sort the problem.

 

All too easy sitting there on the moral high ground when not in power having to make the tough decisions.

Edited March 4, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[crookedspire]

Hang on a second. Let my just put some substance to this sensationalist headline and unsubstantiated opening post.

 

So, young persons 18-21 who are NOT living with their parents and/or NOT under the protections of the care system and/or NOT a protected vulnerable person and/or NOT within the exemptions to the government protocol are being denied housing benefit.

That will genuinely effect how many exactly?

 

Firstly I would question what exactly are these allleged "huge numbers" of immediately street homeless 18-21 year olds are doing with their lives.

 

Surely at that age they are either:

 

1. working and earning their own money.

2. in university and get accommodation/support from their student loans

3. on a apprentice scheme and earning at least minimum wage

4. in the armed forces with accommodation provided

 

OR for those unfortunate

1. Disabled within the protected boundaries receiving DLA/Allowances

2. Living at home with parent/guardian/Care Scheme

 

So who does that leave? For those who GENUINELY fall outside of any of the above (which I suspect is nowhere near the exaggerated and dramatic predictions churned out by certain media outlets ) then quite frankly further questions need to be asked.

 

As (quite rightly) said by one of the DWP spokespersons already we should not be creating a instant young generation of benefit dependants the moment they leave school education expecting their life to be handed to them on a plate.

 

I have always maintained on this forum that unless you are one of the unfortunate people with life long debilitating illness or mental health issues NOBODY owes you a lifestyle.

 

When you hit 16 you DO SOMETHING either by getting a job or carrying on education.

 

When you hit 18 parental or guardian responsibility may legally stop but that does not and should not mean that people are entitled to be carried through life on the great benefits conveyor.

 

For those "slipping through the net" there is far more to this than just finger pointing and shouting "nasty tories". Who is asking the questions about why these people are in this situation and what THEY THEMSELVES are doing about it.

 

As usual the same old usernames on this forum get hold of the headline and and beat the same drum without actually looking into all the facts. Worse still is the the opposition party churning out the same old stock responses instantly dismissing and condemming anything the government proposes without any indication of what they would do to sort the problem.

 

All too easy sitting there on the moral high ground when not in power having to make the tough decisions.

 

If only it works likes this have you ever spoken to a homeless person ?

[ECCOnoob]

If only it works likes this have you ever spoken to a homeless person ?

 

Yes daily for 6 years when I undertook legal aid homeless advice and work for the court services.

 

Have you recently? The world is not as simple as black/white. Or as these modern times seem to be - a battle between blue and red all the time.

 

You assess, you obtain facts as to what the real issue is. You dont take the media and sensationalism at face value. You dont just accept one side of the story.

Edited March 4, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[crookedspire]

Yes daily for 6 years when I undertook legal aid homeless advice and work for the court services.

 

Have you recently?

 

The world is not as simple as black/white. Or as these modern times seem to be - a battle between blue and red all the time.

 

Simple answer is we need to rebuild our industry so that the next generation have a chance of a life it would solve a lot of problems. Yes I've met many homeless people some ex servicemen others abandoned by the care system and everything in between theirs no one shoe fits all answer but we shouldn't throw the towel in and carry on with the ' blame culture' we now have .

[ECCOnoob]

Simple answer is we need to rebuild our industry so that the next generation have a chance of a life it would solve a lot of problems. Yes I've met many homeless people some ex servicemen others abandoned by the care system and everything in between theirs no one shoe fits all answer but we shouldn't throw the towel in and carry on with the ' blame culture' we now have .

 

I would agree. That is why there are exceptions to any rule. That is why cetain people may fall within the "vulnerable" and "protected" categories. That is why there will be exemptions to any policy set.

 

On the flip side, of course, that does not mean that there should be a blanket and unequivocal entitlement either.