Vox Meditantis

What is Mockingbird?

At its heart, the Mockingbird scheme represents a simple yet profound idea: that foster carers should not be left to struggle alone. The model creates “constellations” of six to ten foster families grouped around a central “hub home” carer. This hub carer, an experienced foster parent, provides planned and emergency sleepovers, peer support, training, and social activities for the satellite families in their constellation. The aim is nothing less than recreating the supportive structure of an extended family for some of our most vulnerable children and their carers.

Origins and Journey to Britain

The Mockingbird story begins not in Whitehall or Westminster, but in Seattle, Washington. Founded in 2000 by Jim Theofelis, The Mockingbird Society launched its first constellation in 2004. The organisation emerged from a deceptively simple principle: that young people closest to foster care issues should shape the solutions. The original model was influenced by the concept of “Grandma’s House” – that reliable place of refuge where children knew they could always find support.

From its American roots, Mockingbird crossed the Atlantic in 2015 when The Fostering Network secured a licence to implement the model in the UK. The timing was deliberate – Britain’s foster care system was already showing signs of strain, with placement breakdowns and carer retention emerging as critical challenges.

The Purpose it Serves

Mockingbird addresses several interconnected problems that have plagued British foster care for decades. The statistics paint a stark picture: nationally, approximately 8% of fostered children experience unplanned placement changes, whilst around 6% of foster carers cease fostering each year. For children who have already experienced trauma and disruption, these breakdowns represent further wounds to their sense of stability and belonging.

The programme’s theory of change rests on four key mechanisms. First, it recognises that peer support provides foster carers with non-judgemental assistance that professional supervision cannot replicate. Second, it strengthens relationships between all parties involved – carers, children, birth families, and social workers. Third, it offers practical respite care that can prevent placement breakdowns before they occur. Finally, it creates opportunities for skill-sharing and collective problem-solving among experienced and newer carers.

The model’s underpinning principles reflect a progressive approach to foster care: active child protection, viewing birth families as partners rather than adversaries, ensuring cultural relevance and belonging, and providing unconditional care. These principles represent a significant departure from more punitive approaches to child welfare.

Evidence of Success

The evidence base for Mockingbird’s effectiveness is substantial, though not without caveats. Data collected between May 2018 and March 2023 shows that 9.5% of satellite carers would have resigned without Mockingbird support, whilst 16% of placements would have broken down. The programme has prevented 507 placement breakdowns and retained 233 foster carers who might otherwise have left.

These retention figures translate into significant cost savings. The programme has avoided an estimated £6.4 million in costs through prevented placement breakdowns, carer retention, and reduced residential care entries. Independent evaluation found that for every £1 invested in the programme, fostering services saved 99 pence.

Placement stability figures are encouraging. Early evaluation found that approximately 4% of children in Mockingbird experienced unplanned placement changes, compared to the national average of around 8%. None of the foster carers participating in the initial evaluation ceased fostering during the timeframe, contrasting with national estimates.

The Paradox of Success

Yet here lies the paradox: despite these impressive statistics, some local authorities are stepping away from Mockingbird. The reasons reveal uncomfortable truths about the gap between promise and reality.

The model’s very success creates its own challenges. Hub carers, who must be available nearly 24/7, often shoulder extraordinary responsibilities without adequate compensation. When emergency placements fill hub homes, they lose their capacity to provide respite care to constellation members, undermining the programme’s fundamental purpose. Some fostering managers report feeling pressured to use Mockingbird placements when no others are available, compromising the support system’s integrity.

The Exclusion Problem

The most damaging criticism of Mockingbird lies in its exclusivity. Currently, only about 4% of UK foster carers participate in the programme. Between 2021 and 2023, just 430 new foster carers joined Mockingbird from a potential pool of approximately 55,000.

For established carers, Mockingbird offers a pathway into an inner circle of peer support and recognition. They become hub carers, attend special events, and gain access to enhanced training and development opportunities. Their voices are amplified in policy discussions, and their experiences shape the narrative around what constitutes “successful” foster care.

Meanwhile, newer carers often struggle to access these opportunities. The constellation model requires geographical proximity and careful matching of families, leaving many carers outside the catchment areas or unable to fit the programme’s structured approach. Some report feeling pressured to join despite having established support networks, whilst others find themselves paired with hub leaders whose approaches don’t align with their own.

This creates a two-tier system that contradicts the programme’s own principles of inclusion and support. The very carers who might benefit most from peer support – those who are isolated, struggling, or new to fostering – may find themselves unable to access it.

Systemic Limitations

More fundamentally, Mockingbird fails to address the structural problems that drive carer attrition and placement breakdown. No amount of peer support can compensate for inadequate social worker visits, delayed therapeutic services, or the chronic underfunding of children’s services. The programme’s “one big happy family” model, whilst appealing, risks reinforcing outdated narratives about foster care that undermine carers’ legitimate demands for professional recognition and proper support.

Critics argue that the model places additional burdens on foster carers – organising support, providing respite, facilitating training – that should properly be the responsibility of fostering agencies or social workers. This represents a concerning shift of responsibility from statutory services to volunteers, however well-intentioned.

International Alternatives

Other countries offer instructive examples of different approaches to foster carer support. Norway’s PRIDE training model provides comprehensive pre-service preparation in nine three-hour sessions, delivered by teams combining child welfare workers with experienced foster parents. This creates mentorship opportunities whilst maintaining professional oversight.

The Netherlands has developed the Foster Carer-Foster Child Intervention (FFI), which combines mindfulness therapy and video interaction training to strengthen relationships between carers and children. This targeted intervention addresses specific attachment difficulties that can lead to placement breakdown.

Sweden has invested in support measures specifically for teenagers in foster care, recognising this group’s particular vulnerability. Their approach includes both direct support to young people and enhanced training for carers working with adolescents.

Denmark’s approach emphasises the professional nature of foster care, with carers receiving structured support and regular supervision. This model avoids the potential for exploitation inherent in peer-led support systems.

The EU’s Fostering Across Borders project has developed training programmes specifically for carers supporting unaccompanied migrant children, demonstrating how targeted support can address specific population needs.

The Way Forward

Mockingbird’s future in the UK hangs in the balance. Current expansion plans suggest The Fostering Network aims to reach 250 constellations across England, Wales, and Scotland. Yet the programme’s limitations are becoming increasingly apparent to practitioners and policymakers alike.

The path forward requires acknowledging both Mockingbird’s achievements and its constraints. For the 4% of carers who benefit from constellation support, the programme provides valuable peer networks and practical assistance. These successes should be celebrated and maintained.

However, policymakers must resist the temptation to view Mockingbird as a panacea for foster care’s deeper problems. The programme’s structured approach will never suit all carers or children, and its geographical constraints mean many will remain excluded regardless of expansion efforts.

Instead, the focus should shift to developing a more diverse ecosystem of support options. This might include:

Flexible peer support networks that don’t require formal constellation membership but allow carers to connect based on shared interests, geographical proximity, or children’s needs. Online platforms could facilitate these connections whilst reducing barriers to participation.

Professional mentorship programmes that pair new carers with experienced ones without the additional burdens of hub home responsibilities. These relationships could be professionally supported and time-limited, reducing the risk of exploitation.

Targeted interventions for specific challenges, such as the Netherlands’ FFI model or Sweden’s teenage support programmes. Rather than one-size-fits-all solutions, these would address particular difficulties that lead to placement breakdown.

Investment in core services that address the structural problems underlying carer attrition: adequate social worker visits, accessible therapeutic services, and proper respite care arrangements.

Recognition and professionalisation of foster care that moves beyond the family model to acknowledge carers as skilled professionals deserving of proper support and compensation.

Conclusion

The Mockingbird scheme represents both the best and worst of policy innovation in children’s services. At its best, it provides genuine support to some of our most dedicated foster carers and creates stability for vulnerable children. At its worst, it creates false hope, excludes those most in need of support, and shifts responsibility for systemic failures onto the shoulders of volunteers.

The programme’s future lies not in wholesale expansion or abandonment, but in honest recognition of its limitations. For the minority of carers who benefit from constellation support, Mockingbird should continue. But for the vast majority who remain outside its reach, we need different solutions – solutions that address the real causes of placement breakdown and carer attrition.

The children in our care deserve better than a postcode lottery of support. They deserve a system that recognises foster care as the skilled, demanding profession it is, and that provides all carers – not just the chosen few – with the support they need to succeed. Only then can we move beyond the limitations of any single model to create the comprehensive support network that foster carers and children truly need.

Bob Lynn | © 2025 Vox Meditantis. All rights reserved.