‘Care-Experienced’ - The Tenth Protected Characteristic?
Photo credit: Focus Foster Care: The journey to becoming foster carers – Experience of the assessment process - Focus Foster Care
Care-experienced persons are those who have spent a period of time in foster care, and as a result of this experience may experience discrimination within their adult life. This includes discrimination from employers, education providers, and the criminal justice system, as well as prejudice from their peers. This experience can be further compounded with additional factors such as lack of support systems and social capital, can contribute towards the poorer outcomes seen with care-experienced people, including lower educational performance than their non-care-experienced peers. As someone living in a fostering family, I am all too aware of this reality, and it has led me to question whether a solution may be found in utilising the Equality Act (2010), namely, by bringing “care-experienced” within the Equality Act 2010's protected characteristic framework.
"As someone living in a fostering family, I am all too aware of this reality..."
To argue this, first it must be assessed whether “care-experienced” actually meets the criteria for a protected characteristic. According to Malleson (2018), this criteria includes that the trait can be clearly defined, that inequalities are existent, and that it is in the interests of those with lived experiences of care. To begin, the definition of care-experienced can be considered quite contentious. As a standard, a care experienced individual refers to someone who spent time, as an under-18, in foster care. However, within this category, there is much variation. Some care-experienced people will enter foster care and remain in care until aging out at 18, others will only be in care for a brief period before being adopted or returning to live with their parents, and others will be in and out of foster care throughout their childhood. This means that there is not a clear-cut meaning to “care-experienced” - something which is further made to be the case by the fact that such a standard does not necessarily always account for people who spent time as children in the care of family members in a more private, informal manner than kinship care arranged by a local authority.
"care-experienced individuals are over-represented in the prison population - with 24-31%"
In this way then, the label of “care-experienced” is one that can be debated, which then acts as an argument against making the trait a protected characteristic. However, I would argue that this weakness of the “care-experienced” identity is not one that is insurmountable. In order to account for such variation in the definition of care-experienced, the term could be explicitly defined as the following: “having remained in foster care, or the care of relatives (formally or informally), for any period of time throughout your life”. This is similar to the definition adopted by UCAS (with regards to university applications) and is inclusive enough to minimise any debate regarding what does and does not count as care-experienced. Since this first criterion (of definitional stability) would therefore be met, the
next criterion to be judged is whether inequalities are evident.
"the term could be explicitly defined as the following: “having remained in foster care, or the care of relatives (formally or informally), for any period of time throughout your life”."
To assess this, the literature specialising in outcomes of care experienced individuals can be drawn upon. For example, research has found that care-experienced children and young people, compared to their non-care experienced peers, show consistently lower educational achievement (Carey, 2023). This includes care-experienced young people being less likely to enter higher education at ages 18/19 (Harrison, 2017). Furthermore, care-experienced individuals are over-represented in the prison population - with 24-31% of adult offenders being care-experienced (UK Parliament, 2026) - and are more likely to end up homeless (BBC, 2025).
Particularly highlighting the inequalities faced by care-experienced people is a recent report by the Department of Education (2026), which found that care-leavers have a death rate four times greater than that of the general population. The inequalities faced by care-experienced people can also be seen on a more personal, individual level - care-experienced individuals have reported encountering negative attitudes from the public (Channel 4 News, 2015). Similarly, they have also reported experiencing differential treatment from teachers, including concern and sympathy, and lower expectations for behaviour and engagement. This last point is one that is especially interesting to me, as it reminded me of work by Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968) which found that, when teachers had lower expectations of students, this manifested into lower performance from students
(and vice versa).
"care-leavers have a death rate four times greater than that of the general population."
In this way, it may be the case that sympathetic, well intentioned teachers are inadvertently also contributing to the inequalities faced by care-experienced individuals, particularly in regard to lower educational attainment. All in all then, it is sufficient to say that care-experienced people clearly experience inequalities as a result of their identity as care-experienced. Another criterion met. The final criterion which must be met in order to strengthen the argument for the “care-experienced” identity marker to become a protected characteristic is that it be in the interests of those with lived experience as “care-experienced”. To account for this, surveys have been carried out with care experienced individuals by the Children’s Commissioner for England.
"...reported experiencing differential treatment from teachers, including concern and sympathy, and lower expectations for behaviour and engagement."
From these, it is evident that the views of care-experienced people on the subject is diverse. Some support the idea of “care-experienced” becoming a protected characteristic, arguing that being care-experienced potentially affects an individual for the rest of their life, so by becoming a protected characteristic, affected people could become empowered to enact change. They also argue that a protected characteristic offers care-experienced people meaningful ways to actually combat discrimination, for example by taking legal action. This then suggests that it is in the interests of those with lived experience that “care-experienced” becomes a protected characteristic. However, this is not the only opinion of care-experienced people.
Others consider it a bad idea to make the label a protected characteristic, since this would potentially act as negative acknowledgement of their disadvantage, possibly triggering a self-fulfilling prophecy. Concerns were also raised about people being pressured to reveal their experiences in care, as well as doubts of the efficacy of protected characteristics in genuinely tackling discrimination. These are all valid concerns, which suggest that it is not the interests of care-experienced people to have the label be formalised into a protected characteristic.
Whilst it is important to take into account the concerns of those with lived experience, before dismissing an idea altogether it is important to first consider whether their concerns can be addressed. In this case, some concerns can be addressed. Namely, the concern that, as a protected characteristic, “care experience” would be something people are pressured to share, and thus a potential negative acknowledgement of their disadvantages. To minimise this potential issue, it can be emphasised that protected characteristics are not mandatory to share (for example with employers or education services). People can choose whether to select “care-experienced”, “not care-experienced”, or “prefer not to say” in any forms. Regardless of whether they do this, they can still if needed access the legal protections which come from a protected characteristic.
"the government should seriously consider, perhaps via a parliamentary debate, adopting “care-experienced” as the tenth protected characteristic"
A concern more difficult to address is the actual success of protected characteristics in reducing discrimination. However, to actually address this first requires data on the effectiveness of “care experienced” as a protected characteristic in reducing discrimination for care-experienced people. Without it being a protected characteristic, its supposed lack of efficacy is only a hypothetical. Upon becoming a protected characteristic, if proven to be ineffective, research can be done to better understand why this might be the case, and reform may be possible - helping both increase the effectiveness of the “care-experienced” protected characteristic, and other protected characteristics. As such, this concern can also
potentially be addressed upon actually formalising the trait into a protected characteristic.
"People can choose whether to select “care-experienced”, “not care-experienced”, or “prefer not to say” in any forms."
In sum, I would argue that we should be in favour of making “care-experienced” a protected characteristic. Clearly, care-experienced people, as a result of being care-experienced, face social inequalities. Though some issues may crop up with the inclusivity of the standard definition of “care experienced”, this can be solved by ensuring the definition used for the protected characteristic is clearly defined to be more broad. Furthermore, though some people with care experience may be wary of the identity marker becoming a protected characteristic, the concerns they’ve raised are not insurmountable, and others think the protected characteristic status would provide meaningful support for care experienced people to tackle discrimination.
Taking this all into account, I believe the government should seriously consider, perhaps via a parliamentary debate, adopting “care-experienced” as the tenth protected characteristic under the Equality Act (2010).
References
Carey, Malcolm. (2023). Understanding the reduced educational attainment levels and poor 'life chances' of many children and young people in care. Youth and Policy.
Channel 4. 2015. First-Cut: Kicked out Kids. First Cut: Kicked Out Kids | Channel 4
Childrens Commissioner England. (2023). Should care experience be a protected characteristic? Should care experience be a protected characteristic? | Children's Commissioner for England
Harrison, N. (2017). MOVING ON UP: Pathways of care leavers and care-experienced students into and through higher education. National Network for the Education of Care Leavers (NNECL).
John-Baptiste, A., and Chamerlain, C. 2026. "You really are on your own": A study of the early deaths of young people who were in care. Department for Education (DfE). ‘You really are on your own’ - A study of the early deaths of young people who were in care’
Malleson, K. (2018). Equality Law and the Protected Characteristics.” The Modern Law Review, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 598–621. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26647135.
Roberts, G. 2025. Warnings after young care leavers face increase in homelessness. BBC
Rosenthal, R., Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. Urban Rev 3, 16–20.
UK Parliament. (2026). Police Custody: Care Leavers. Questions for Ministry of Justice. Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament
Comments