IRCT Statement on the cuts to the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund:

On the 1st April 2025 the Government finally announced that the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (ASGSF) would continue, but only for a further year. Children and families faced lengthy delays to therapy as applications would now be submitted on mass due to the late announcement, with history showing this significantly increases the average processing time of 25 working days to many months. However, despite the declaration that the ASGSF would continue the application process remained closed and no further communications were offered by the Government. 

Then on the 14th April 2025, the Government announced a number of significant and devastating cuts to the per child access limits within the ASGSF.  Prior to these cuts the therapy limit was £5,000 per child per year, with a separate £2,500 allowance available per child for specialist assessments. There was also scope for the ASGSF to match fund, with local authorities, the cost of packages up to a maximum £30,000 a year for the most vulnerable children with the highest level of need. There is now only £3,000 available per child per year, assessments where required must come out of this amount and match funding has been scrapped completely. This means children and families face cuts to the therapeutic packages available to them of between 40%-90%. It means, in some cases, a choice between assessing the needs of the child and having little to no funds left to treat them, or treating a child without assessing their needs – both of which are unethical. The government has made these cuts, it says, ‘to enable the fund to support as many families as possible’, and says that ‘this will still enable those eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support tailored to their individual needs. ‘ However, given these cuts were made without consultation with the sector and without an evidence base it is difficult to see how this claim can be made. Of course, the IRCT wholeheartedly supports the idea that a greater number of children and families need access to this type of therapeutic intervention, but in order for this to happen in a meaningful way the overall amount of the ASGSF must be increased, otherwise we risk inadequately supporting everyone as the fund is spread too thinly to be effective for each individual child. Both the cuts and the fact that that the fund may not continue beyond March 2026 also impacts treatment options available to children, with many of the most effective trauma recovery treatments being long term by design involving highly specialist work with children.

The delays in announcing the overall fund continuation and the subsequent cuts have caused significant and harmful disruption to children’s therapy. The delays mean that many vulnerable children are now facing harmful gaps in therapy. Children and families have been left with no support and the therapeutic relationships that are so key to trauma recovery have been negatively impacted.  It is a hugely significant setback for many therapists working with children who have experienced developmental or complex trauma, many of whom also have FASD and other neurodevelopmental conditions. It is a potential disaster for adoptive and kinship parents and carers but most tragically for the children themselves. It goes against the very evidence base for trauma recovery. This should not have happened, and with appropriate planning and preparation this harm was entirely preventable.

Funding for a child should be focussed on ensuring that each and every child receives the right level of therapy at the right time. Only then will care experienced children be afforded every opportunity to recover from early life trauma. Capping funding at £3,000 per child per year does not allow children to receive the right level of therapy at the right time. Last year 46% of applications to the ASGSF were above the new £3,000 limit. Janet Daby stated that 2% of applications required match funding, she appeared to use this as a reason to scrap it. This 2% make up some of the most vulnerable and traumatised children in the country and this higher level of therapeutic intervention is essential. In fact, it is a lifeline. In some cases, it’s the difference between children remaining with their families or re-entering the care system. It can be immediately seen that half of all children accessing the fund will no longer be able to access what is needed for their trauma recovery.  The right level of therapy at the right time can be both transformative and life saving. 

The IRCT would argue that the 2% of children who were receiving match funding is not representative of the volume of children requiring that higher level of support. It is clear from the figures on care experienced children’s outcomes that a higher, not lower level of therapeutic input is needed to give them a better future. Care experienced children are more likely to face school exclusions and poorer educational and employment outcomes. They are four times more likely to end up with a criminal conviction by the age of 24 years old. They are at greater risk of mental health difficulties, at a higher risk of homelessness, a higher risk of early death and very sadly the list goes on. Figures in the last Adoption UK Barometer show a significant increase in the number of families in crisis, up from 30% to 38%. The numbers of children re-entering the care system have also increased. The cost to the humans involved is intolerable and should be taken with the utmost seriousness. The costs to the taxpayer of these cuts, in both the short and the long term are exorbitant.

The IRCT calls on the government to reinstate the previous levels of therapy and assessment funding within the ASGSF. This should be reinstated for a sufficient period to allow for an appropriate, transparent and thorough consultation process to be conducted with the sector. It must also allow for a period of planning and preparation so that future changes can be made without causing harm to children and families. 

The IRCT is deeply concerned by the impact that these cuts are having and will have on children who have suffered early life trauma. The IRCT implores the government to look at what children really need to recover from early life trauma. That and only that should be their guide. The government must think again and reverse these funding cuts. It is not only the right thing to do, it is also the fiscally sound thing to do for children who deserve the best care that the state can provide and the chance to heal.