By Local Democracy Reporter Simon Finlay
The leader of Kent County Council (KCC) has written to the Home Office to ask for more funding for young asylum-seeking adults who have left care.
KCC currently receives no government support for people the authority continues to look after for four years once they have reached the age of 21.
The call comes after the watchdog Ofsted downgraded the council’s children’s services from an “outstanding” grading in 2022 to “good” in 2026, with the care leaver sector now “requiring improvement”.
Reform claims that more than half of the over-21s are former asylum-seeking children (UASC) and blames the government for failing to stop small boat crossings into Kent.
At a press conference yesterday (February 2), KCC leader Linden Kemkaran used packets of paper to illustrate how the number of UASC that KCC is legally obliged to look after has quadrupled since 2015.
But opposition members immediately accused the Reform UK administration of using the young people to deflect from the Ofsted downgrading.
The authority has written to the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood complaining of the “unfair, unsustainable and escalating pressures on Kent”.
KCC says that between 2006-15, some 4,000 UASC were looked after but between 2015 and the present, there have been 16,000.
Currently, there are 1,012 former UASC care leavers in the county over the age of 21 compared to 893 who are British-born citizens.
The council says it gets funding of £1,000 per week for asylum-seeking children under 18, £270 per week for those under 21 but nothing for those supported until the age of 25.
The council was unclear, when asked, how much would be needed to fund care leavers as it stands today.
KCC says further pressure comes from Kent currently hosting around 1,300 looked-after children placed by other councils, over half from London, impacting Kent schools and services including social care and health.
Cllr Kemkaran said the event was staged to illustrate the government’s lack of funding and “lack of control over our borders”.
She added: “It’s causing a huge problem that we are having to deal with here at KCC. It is exactly the same team of people looking after children in care and the care leavers…they are delivering the same, excellent, outstanding level of care across the board.
“The only difference is KCC is funded properly by government for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children up to the age of 18 but after the age of 18 that funding drops off dramatically but after 21…we have no funding from central government.”
She said the demand on KCC services has increased four-fold in the past decade and the burden is high in Kent “because we are a border county”.
Cllr Kemkaran added: “When unaccompanied children rock up on our shores, we are legally obliged to put them in our children’s care services and look after them…up to the age of 25.
“Our staff cope brilliantly – they are professional, dedicated – but successive governments have failed abysmally to secure our borders. The small boats are going to keep coming as the weather improves in spring and summer…and on those boats, which are mostly filled with men, there are a few children dotted around and it is those children we become immediately responsible for.”
The previous Conservative administration fought a long battle for better funding for UAS and an improved national transfer scheme (NTS), which disperses youngsters to other councils around the country.
Cllr Kemkaran has also called for a meeting with the Home Office to outline the pressures faced by KCC and demand the ministers “take it seriously”.
She said that many of the asylum-seeking children have been in the system for years and created “a bulge” of over-21s who cannot work because their immigration status has not been determined.
They now need KCC support for housing, food, clothing and driving lessons which increases the financial burden, said Cllr Kemkaran.
Richard Streatfeild, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition at KCC, said: “Of course Reform is trying to deflect attention away from the Ofsted report downgrading.
“Children’s services have been the jewel in the crown at KCC for about a decade. It’s not as if you couldn’t see this problem coming and shows a Reform administration failing as a corporate parent.
“It’s not as if the children arriving on small boats have just appeared from nowhere and it’s only this Ofsted report that has prompted this sudden writing to the government. It is a smokescreen for failing Kent’s children.”
‘Challenges’
Chris Palmer, Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services, said: “I’m extremely proud of the outstanding work Kent’s Children’s Services continue to deliver, despite the significant pressures and challenging circumstances they face.
“While we welcome recent improvements to the Government’s National Transfer Scheme, Kent is still dealing with the long‑term consequences of the period when the system failed. The large and rising number of out‑of‑county children placed here also makes it increasingly difficult for us to provide timely support for Kent children who need our help.
“We call on government to take notice of these challenges now and work with us on a national solution once and for all.
“I want to thank everyone in Children’s Services for their dedication, professionalism and ongoing commitment to children in Kent.”
Letter to Home Office
KCC’s letter to the Home Office states: “Kent has long taken pride in supporting vulnerable children and young people.
“However, the scale of the pressures we face as those former UASC have moved into adulthood, with Kent’s number of UASC care experienced adults remaining the same over a number of years, is now without precedent and is placing a severe and unfair strain on our services, resources and local communities.”
The Home Office said: “Local authorities have a statutory duty to support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and care leavers, and we are committed to working closely with them to help them meet these obligations.
“The Home Office already provides additional funding contributions to help local authorities meet support costs.”
Ofsted inspection
The Ofsted inspection, carried out last November, showed as being “good” in the areas of the “impact of leaders on social work with children and families” and “experiences and progress of children who need help and protection”.
The “experiences and progress of children in care” was “outstanding” but “experiences and progress of children care leavers” now “requires improvement to be good”.
KCC’s overall rating is “good”.
The inspectors noted: “Children in care, including those who arrive in Kent as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, receive a sensitive, compassionate and equitable service and some outstanding support that makes a positive difference to their lives.”
The report adds: “However, a decreasing number of children are in education, employment or training and in suitable accommodation. Staff from statutory partner agencies are engaged to positive effect when children are at risk of exploitation.
“This is not consistently the case for care leavers, and for many of those in custody, the support they receive does not meet their needs.
“Experienced and committed leaders know the needs of children well and how effectively their services are performing. Well-researched and targeted service design continues within the context of a large two-tier authority.
“However, the strategic response to care leavers has been less timely. Senior leaders have identified the same areas for improvement as the inspection team, but corporately, the response has been slow.”
Her excuses make perfect sense. I’ve long insisted that these people should be distributed more evenly around the country (including Scotland and Wales).
These people are looked after by the LA until they are 25 years of age, that means top of the housing list, can you see why so many people come and wrongly claim to be children.
Probably a daft question but why do care leavers have to be supported until they’re 25 ? If 21 is the cut off for funding then make 21 the age over which there is no statutory responsibility for local government supporting them. Problem solved.
The government says “Care leavers in the UK receive support until they are 25 to bridge the gap in family support, ensuring they have the same stability, housing, education, and financial security as their peers. Under the Children and Social Work Act 2017, local authorities are mandated to provide a Personal Adviser (PA) to guide them through education, training, and independent living.”
I think most young people would still be able to rely on support from their family into their 20s (and probably beyond) so it seems fair that youngsters leaving the care system would have that support also, in my opinion.
That’s helpful thank you. I don’t disagree with the logic. However, if the Government are mandating this then they should fund it. When local government reorganisation happens and we have a East Kent Unitary, this will partly become an East Kent financial problem rather than a county one.
round them up and deport them , however they dress it up they are here illegaly
No need to round them up Real World,they are here already, and deport them to where exactly?
I suppose you are in support of the ghastly abuses of the American constitution, where the poor, dispossessed, and non WASP minority are hounded, shot, and abused, by nameless thugs employed by ICE.Is that what you want an ICE for the UK,in the same way as Reform wants a DOGE?
What I dislike about racists, is their false patriotism, and their denial of being racist.If you must be racist, at least admit it.
As for Kemkaran,I think expecting the govt to get her cabinet off the hook, is as likely as Farage,appealing to our better sides and to have some Christian charity towards those less fortunate than ourselves.
May your God be with you.
I for one would have no problem with a UK version of ICE to deal with illegal immigration & doubt that I’m the only one.
If that makes me a “racist” within your definition of the word, that’s fine. I have no desire to be liked by you.
The real meaning of the term has been diluted by it’s constant use to try & shame anyone with a different opinion. Rendering it virtually meaningless & somewhat comedic in this context.
Nicely said.
Let’s hope your the first innocent person to get the “ice treatment” then when they start as it’s been proven they hurt and abuse anyone.
Anyone wishing for what’s happening in America to happen here really isn’t bothered about facts or laws and certainly isn’t a patriot.
ICE is operating on datamatching targets – they have a list of people who appear to have no recorded legal immigration status, are claiming benefits, and have an address to go with that claim. Those are the people they’re going after to check if they are in US legally or not. Your assertations are toxic, divisive, deliberate misinformation based on your political preferences. Mine are based on facts uncovered by doing real, proper, in depth research. Everything in this post is easily verifiable – for those who want to check its accuracy.
It’s not a matter of like, it is a matter of being honest with yourself and others.
You bandy the word illegal, as it is some kind of justification for brutality.All I am suggesting is that we allow those seeking sanctuary to present themselves at our border, and for them to make their case for a limited period of sanctuary, until they can return with safety to their country of origin.Those seeking only economic salvation are unlikely to get past the border checks.
I also want to see the checks for eligibility for asylum to be done quickly and fairly and at the moment I think that may not be happening, because the Home office is in dire need of administrative reform.Where I agree with you and your groupie is that those in charge of the home office are not up to scratch, which is why Starmer and his predecessors kept shuffling the (rat) pack and coming up with shouty incompetents, some of whom are now with Reform.