Time to bring back children's homes?
Should England rehabilitate the children's home? In the mid-1970s, 40% of youngsters taken into care were placed in such institutions. But after a series of appalling abuse scandals were uncovered, care homes fell out of favour and the proportion placed in residential care has fallen to just 14% now.
Today's report (Looked-after Children: Third Report of Session 2008-09 [692KB PDF]) from the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee, however, believes that:
"the potential of the residential sector to offer high quality, stable placements for a minority of young people is too often dismissed."
The MPs want a "reconsideration of the theoretical basis for residential care", arguing that, with enforcement of higher standards and a greater investment in skills, "it could make a significant contribution".
Residential care is expensive. The average weekly cost of looking after a child in a care home is £2,428 compared with just £489 for foster care. But how, some might ask, do you put a price on failing these young people? Today's report is clear: "There should be no 'cheap options' in the care system".
The committee goes further:
"From time to time in the evidence we took there surfaced a suspicion that decisions taken by local authorities are motivated in some circumstances by costs, and that children do not get all they are entitled to because of pressure on councils' resources. We do not share this suspicion of local authorities' motives, but we are concerned that it can exist."
Of course it exists. Local authorities must live within their income and, much as the committee might wish it were different, the welfare of problem children is not high on voters' concerns.
The committee travelled to Copenhagen to see how the Danes manage to achieve much better outcomes from their care system. Whereas six out of ten children in care go on to higher education in Denmark, in England it is six in a hundred.
"Comparisons are not straightforward", the committee admits, but notes that in the Danish system, "over half of looked-after children are in residential care":
"In contrast to the typically low status of residential work in England, in Denmark residential care is seen as the "plum job".
The MPs also say:
"The considerably more challenging nature of the residential care population in England and the use of homes as a last resort lead us to expect poorer outcomes and a more difficult experience for these young people."
But they were convinced that it was "the characteristics of staff rather than the characteristics of the residents that in fact account for the greatest differences".
Don't blame the kids. Blame the system.
"Staff in Denmark speak in terms of emotional support", the report points out, "where staff in England will talk about procedures".
This line strikes me as perhaps the most illuminating of the whole report. A risk-averse, process-driven system is at odds with the needs of damaged children. Nurturing the most troubled youngsters through to adulthood requires total commitment and, dare I say it, love.
In England, children's homes were allowed to become joyless, even cruel institutions, warehousing the most problematic kids until they were old enough to be dumped out on the street - and with no interest in what happened next.
Unsurprisingly, the outcomes were pretty miserable. And despite improvements, they remain poor, say the MPs.
"Far from compensating for their often extremely difficult pre-care experiences, certain features of the care system itself in fact make it harder for young people to succeed: they are moved frequently and often suddenly, miss too much schooling, and are left to fend for themselves at too early an age."
Residential care has shrunk to such a small capacity, dealing with only the most troubled and troublesome young people, that it "risks making such care untenable and undesirable even for young people for whom it may be in theory the best option".
This was something that impressed me when I visited a children's home in Denmark a couple of months ago. As I was being shown around, I noticed a large, shaven-headed, heavily-tattooed man cradling a little girl of about five in his arms. It became clear this was her dad on a visit.
Whatever problems had caused the little girl to be taken into the care of the state, it was obvious that the relationship between parent and social worker remained positive. What a contrast with the attitude of a mother I met recently in Essex. A former heroin addict, the woman had had four of her five children taken into foster care and told me that, for years, she had regarded social workers as "the enemy".
Parents who desperately need support and help view the arrival of social services as a threat. Even if a family realises that it is incapable of providing the care the children require, the social worker is viewed like the Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
"It is imperative that constructive relationships between children's services and the family are established at the outset, maintained while the child is in care, and continued when they return home", today's report concludes.
Demanding a "radical overhaul" of the system, the committee seems to be calling for a philosophical sea-change as much as a structural one. Care should be seen for some children as "the best available option rather than a last resort". For that to happen, social workers must be valued.
"An effective care system can only be achieved by recruiting enough of the right people, giving them access to the right training, paying them enough, backing them up with practical support, and placing them in structures that allow them to build relationships with children and influence things on the child's behalf."
Before we can rehabilitate the children's home, we need to rehabilitate social workers.
Update 1103: You can listen below to my report from this morning's Today programme, which also featured the committee chairman Barry Sheerman and independent social worker Joanna Nicolas discussing the claims and education minister Lady Morgan.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
childrens care homes have their own associated problems, institutionalism abuse et cetera
Complain about this comment
also if the inspections are anything like residential care homes for people with learning diff. or autism, then these problems will exist with childrens homes. Inspections are usually announced so the homes can get their house in order. I witnessed many issues with the inspection system and it seemed to protect the home more than the service users using the facility. A radical overhaul of all the current systems would be needed for childrens care homes to function correctly. Unannounced visits, highly trained better paid staff, more focus on the persons well being over financial profit, (all private care homes i worked in have cut expenses at the detriment of the service user to increase profits). Private care homes only benefit the owners imo.
Complain about this comment
it was an interesting report and discussion on Today this morning. One cannot disagree with the findings.
However, in order to improve and go forward we need to understand how we got into the current mess. It is not enought to say that the Danes do it better than us, so let's go copy. Why can Denmark do a better job in the first place? Culture, attitude and management are three factors for a start.
Historically, we have always looked upon the child-care authorities as a judgement on bad parents, even a punishment. How far does the apportionment of guilt play in our attitudes to child-care? Also the management of child-care is a thankless, unrecognised and poorly rewarded task, more a vocation than a career.
Like you I find the Danish concept so much better, but how do we get from where we are to equal their seeming competence? Perhaps we have to change as a society as well.
Complain about this comment
NO way these places are what put my brother on the path he followed he was in them from age 11 to 16 then he was kicked out into the world with a healthy heroin addiction.
Complain about this comment
Given that the councils and social work system are currently putting immense pressure on the families of adults with disabilities who are happy, settled and fulfilled in residential homes to put them in inferior accomodation in the community on the grounds of cost, I cannot see them being happy to pay more for thousands of children to enter a similar system.
Sometimes, social workers are viewed as the enemy by families because they are the footsoldiers of a system that cares far more about costs than rights for service users.
Complain about this comment
We adopted two children who would otherwise be languishing in the care system, and in my opinion one idea might be to incentivise reliable parents to adopt. There is no incentive to adopt, and every incentive to foster. But the relationship a child has with a foster parent, even the very best, is temporary. Also, as fostering is now a much larger part of the overall care strategy, the foster 'system' is now seen as part of the 'care' system, whose vary name is increasingly oxymoronic. A fostered child knows he or she is 'in care' and that any relationships they might form are necessarily transient. A child can't be 'deep frozen' and thawed out when a permanent home has been found,This uncertainty whilst the 'system' drags its feet has a profound effect on a child, who grows up in a permanent state of limbo. This manifests itself in a variety of behavioural problems and we all see the results.
A foster parent can get £450 per week for a child, but if they were to adopt that child, the money would fall to zero, and you would have to claim via the Child Tax Credit system - and get next to nothing if you actually work for a living. I have seen many 'career' foster parents who see the children as a reasonably easy source of income and no more. The quality of some foster parents is sometimes so bad you begin to question how Social Services allowed them to foster in the first place! The answer is that they are desperate for outlets for problem children. But when the whole relationship is couched in financial terms, one can see why they have no long-term interest in the child. Their source of income stops the moment the child hits 16 and he or she is left to fend for themself. Any emotional connection is impossible under these conditions, and such connections are discouraged in any case. So, as the song says, where is the love?
When a child is adopted, he or she becomes part of a family with a settled and longer-term future. The all-important emotional connections can then be forged. Whilst the transaction should not be purely financial, I think that some form of tax break or special payment via the Child Credit system could and should be used. It would encourage adoption over fostering. This would not be intended to be the sole reason for adoption, as the whole point would surely be to move children into a family with one or more working parents - i.e. a typical functional family. One that doesn't have parents at home all day and claiming all their money from the State either as foster carers or in benefits. Given the outcomes for adopted children over fostered children it surely makes sense to encourage adoption.
Complain about this comment
We never get it right whatever we try and do. The ugly mistakes of the past appear to be the only guidelines we are taking into consideration here. Social workers of today are not always the right people in my opinion, to do this work with children. I truly believe that more emphasis be placed on the person rather than the qualification they hold. How do we teach a social worker interpersonal skills if they have none? how do we teach them kindness and love if they don't have it, yet they might have qualification as long as your arm. More focus on the person rather than the qualification when they are dealing with so intermit and so sensitive areas of child care are more important. First of all get the person suitable for this very delicate work, then give them the opportunity to take the formal training required.
Complain about this comment
something needs to be done becouse the system being used today has failed worse than homes ever did.
sadly the whole system needs to be looked into fully independently and social services upgraded to remove lazy and unfit social workers, case workers etc.
one can only hope change will arrive sooner rather than later.
Complain about this comment
I cannot beleive there is a call for more childrens homes. It maybe OK for the few but is definatly not the answer for the many. You only have to look at the past and the amount os abuse that was the norm beleive me I know I along with thousands of others was one of them, I was lucky enough to put it behind me.I'd be interested to know were these foster carers are getting £450.00 per week. To discriminate against foster carers is wrong the job is not easy and the majority offer children and young people a home because they want to give them stability. Foster carers are needed prior adoption were is the child supposed to stay cooped up in some institution somewhere. The fact is Baby P was let down by professionals who should have known better. We will now see an influx of children taken into care without any thought to there views on the matter, keeping them in longer well the average is about a year before some go home how much longer does it have to be?
Complain about this comment
The cost of care for kids, IS an very important consideration. It is interesting to see that residential care cost about FIVE times as much as foster care.
This latest report about the importance of a "pushy parent" encouraging children is all very well, but cannot be implemented.
Having the potential to be a pushy parent can never be a criterion for being allowed to bring children into the world - or not being a drug user or alcoholic. How about not having the finance to support any progeny, or deliberately becoming a sinlge parent ?
No family or set of parents is perfect. So how can society set better conditions for unfortunate children, who have to go into state supported care.
The country's budget is finite, and national debt is already mind-bogglingly high. All the state can do is help, WITHIN REASON.
Complain about this comment
As a worker in an authority residential care home, I totally agree with the comment previously about private homes and do not feel that profit should be made for these children.
Whilst I wholehearted feel for those who have had or are having poor care provided within residential care do feel that it is a best option for some children who cannot live within a family environment. Not even the best foster carers can physically or emotionally sustain the demands of some children in a way that a fresh rotation of a team of staff can provide.
It is interesting in a climate where teachers are again fighting for increased wages that the area of social care is often overlooked and is seriously underpaid for a job that is emotionally gruelling, demanding unsocial hours and can often involve all kinds of verbal and physical abuse.
Likewise, too often wrong decisions are made to fit financial needs rather than the child's needs.
Complain about this comment
What did you do today?.....
Today i worked five extra unpaid hours to stay with and help a young girl suffering from depression, low self esteem, rejection and many other issues pack up her possessions and drive her away from the childrens home she had been living in to another placement that she did not want to go to... I sat with her whilst she unpacked in her new place in floods of tears saying how much she would miss her home, that she felt unloved and rejected by her own family and now felt rejected by the only place she'd called home in years...Why did i have to do this? Because the council are closing the childrens homes..despite our last three inspections being rating us as 'good', despite the dedication and love of my managers and colleagues, Local government in my area has decided that the home must close.
Yes, the residential sector is fraught with difficulties and childrens homes often suffer from antisocial behaviour problems, truanting, low attainment, substance misuse and many others....but for some young people it's all they have. Foster care is a wonderful way to bring up a looked after child but there continues to be a shortage of carers and even fewer carers willing to accept young people with behavioural difficulties. Due to section 20 of the Childrens Act the majority of young people in care are not ordered there by the courts but end up there after family breakdowns...how many of you would be willing to suppport a young person rejected by their family beacuse they steal to fund a cannabis habit? or a 16 year old TWOCKER and joy rider who lashes out at their younger siblings? Young people like these still need consistency, support and boundaries but if the family refuses to take them is it fair to place them in a foster home with young children? A childrens home with dedicated, trained, patient staff can provide the stabilty these adolescents need...where else will they be able to punch through a window when they're dealing with all the hurt inside them and still be welcome the next day? Where else would someone stay up until 4am with a weeping girl who insists on slashing her arms? If the families won't take them and there aren't enough foster carers, where will they go?
Today has been one of the saddest and hardest in my residential career and i find the reports on this matter intensely ironic. Some of our young people have been living with us for years and are now facing the prospect of being seperated from their friends and carers with little notice in order to save as much money as possible. While our young people often are angry, and resentful about being in care every one of them has come to call the house their i feel privilleged to work in home and none of them want to leave. Myself and my colleagues are working to support young people with redundancy hanging over our heads due to nothing more than 'costing'. The recession has hit many but it is the most vulnerable who are suffering....
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark:
Time to bring back children's homes? NO....Since, they will return to the old days of 1970's....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
#12 has said it all..
"An effective care system can only be achieved by recruiting enough of the right people, giving them access to the right training, paying them enough, backing them up with practical support, and placing them in structures that allow them to build relationships with children and influence things on the child's behalf."
But no, all we do is make cuts, put finance first and generally make a pig's dinner of it. We can either decide to make children and their welfare a priority and put all the resources in place or continue with a patched up system where so many children suffer.
Investing in these children when they need it also makes financial sense as they are more likely to become balanced adults who make something of their lives.
Complain about this comment
I work in a vareity of children's homes run by private agencies and Children's Services and I can tell you that the majority are run efficiently and with Child Safety and safeguarding at the forefront of everyone's mind. In all of the homes I have worked in, the Ofsted visit has never been announced- true, you can usually figure out approximately when it will occur, according to the timescale from the last one, but that only means that staff need to keep things "in order" all the time, rather than rushing around at the last minute. Similarly, young people know their rights and there are agencies available to help them ,that are not linked to Social Services, so if they have a concern they always have somewhere to go.
If anything, the staff need better protection now from young people, as I have often witnessed untrue and dangerous allegations being made against members of staff- young people have always admitted at a later date that they ahve made up the allegations, and this has always happened after a full and lengthy investigation has taken place.
Children's homes are run well- children and young people are kept safe from harm- from both staff and those that caused them harm in the first case. A big commenendationmust go to the dedicated staff that work in these units, that put up with abuse and violence on a regular basis, because they know they may be able to make a psitive difference to just one young person that comes through their door.
Complain about this comment
The assertion that "In England, children's homes were allowed to become joyless, even cruel institutions" is an ill-informed blanket condemnation of children's homes. Some of these provided loving, nurturing environments. One could cite, for example, Strawberry Field Children's Home in Liverpool, run by The Salvation Army. At its 50th anniversary celebrations in 1986, many of the previous residents, now adults, were in attendance - a testament, surely, to the positive influence of the place.
Complain about this comment
Bring back more children homes are we expecting a war were there will be loads of parentless children by any chance why not bring back work houses and homes for unmarried women were the baby can be given to good money people and the mother can spend the rest of her life doing the laundry for the church till they kill themselves, this country is autistic in its thinking. I never hear reports about the middle classes who dump their kids with some cheap help, or a nursery were they can leave the child all week end or go on holiday or put their sons in boarding school at six years of age and what does that do to them? This bring back children's homes is to do with the poor as I said were is the war? father fighting for god knows what mothers doing the job the father was to do and the kids piled into homes and lost in the system. They are taken from all members of the family and they become depressed for life then they are taken out and put in the forces and become cannon fodder same as they did years and years go because they are unable to live without being told what to do. And the Govenment has rights over them most will come from poor homes and if their parents are addicts they will have poor health to start of with, but it will all come down to money in the end as Britian is money obsessed even when it comes to children, we love to live in the passed and believe it worked then when it did not and many children were damaged like my mother and her sisters and other I know ask those who have been in the system what they would have wanted they are the real experts.
Complain about this comment
Oh no!
Please not another import from Scandinavia!
Have we not learned from the debacle of Care in the Community for those with Mental Health problems? What was the most recent Government statistic? One murder and 14 serious assaults per week in 2007-08 committed by unfortunate People with prescribed Mental Health disorders!
Care in the Community! Worked brilliantly in Denmark, Sweden and Finland.
Only trouble is the 3 nations used as justification have barely got the population of London and Manchester combined between them, so, any idea of like-for-like conditions is wholly unrealistic. Plus, to their inestimable credit the Scandinavian nations do spend very heavily to ensure adequate staffing, training and provision of materials etc. within their communities.
Contrast that with UK Governments whose primary motive for changing the system in the 1980s (PM Thatcher, yet again) was looking for savings and closed the in-patient mental health facilities across the nation: Net result those in need of care, support and medication are neglected and the public is put at risk.
Now, another Scandinavian social-welfare scheme is being considered: Ironically, this time, the re-opening or creating of new in-care institutions! Almost certainly the same problems as with Mental Health Care will emerge; lack of proper funding, lack of trained staff and then the vulnerable children placed in ineffective and possibly dangerous institutions.
As the present English cared-for-children in the community system is underfunded, improperly supervised and inadequately provisioned I cannot see how reverting to the old system will improve things at all.
Complain about this comment
sarassa, I didn't say private care homes are run badly, i just commented on care standards/inspections. I dont doubt some private care homes are well run, i have worked in some brilliant learning difficulties care homes but then i've worked in some terrible ones, i imagine the experiences are similar for children homes mainly because care standards fail to pick up on the various poor standards of some homes due to informed visits. I also believe making profit over providing care is totally wrong, owners make profit at the service users and staff's expense. I do believe the council run homes and charity run are the best approach. I do agree with your issues with the 'whistle blowing' policy and staff protection/rights i was a victim of this, but not from a service user but from a 'fellow' staff member. after spending the best part of a year suspended, having an adult protection investigation against me and getting arrested i returned to work to find the staff member had been sacked and all charges dropped, but i was still left feeling like a criminal even though i had done nothing wrong, so staff rights really need to be redressed imo.
Complain about this comment
I left the care system 30 years ago, but reading the report now it
seems that depressingly little has changed.
It is of no surprise that children in care do not attain the same
merits in education as other children do.
It seems that the authorities' main goal is to feed and clothe the
children in care - and little else.
Helping children gain a decent education was a low-priority when I was
going through the system. Little was done to assess my potential. I
would never have even sat 'O' levels, had a teacher not taken care to
spot my potential and push me to do them.
There should be a greater expectation of what children in care can
achieve. I now have owned my own business, and I know many other children who have gone on to lead full and active lives.
I also know others that have been damaged by their experiences.
Unfortunately I myself had a horrific time in care, suffering abuse.
But children in care should not use their situation as an excuse for
committing crimes or to gain sympathy for their plight. We all have a
choice – and not everyone in care chooses to commit crimes. All kids
in-care should endeavour to play a full equal part in society today.
Until such times as they invest in decent, quality staff with the right
skills mix nothing is going to change.
Children would also benefit from a personalised care plan that would
allow them to reach their potential.
David Whelan
Former Boy in-care
Complain about this comment
the councils and goverment sold most of the childrens homes so vunerable children were left social services had no where to put them.no child should be brought up in a childrens home but if the alternative is back with abusers there seems to be little choice. as a foster carer my feelings are no child should spend there life growing up in and out of care give the parents one chance then put the child either up for adoption or in a long term foster placement we need more foster carers (mothers )as we used to be called .my son came to live with me at the age of two hes still living with me now aged twenty one going to uni
Complain about this comment
I think placement should take place in a regular house on a typical street in a typical neighborhood. The houses could be run by a well trained couple. That way children could benefit by having the school, parent, community partnership. The children would have a semblance of a real home with their own room, toys etc. The school psychologist could be paid a supplemental salary to coordinate care and behavioral issues. If resources in the community could be tapped such as the sailing, cycling, soccer club, hiking club, the children could attend extra curricular classes.
I think getting children out of a frenetic household, calming ther lives down and concentrating on their school and activities in a loving, supportive environment would go a long way to get children on the right foot towards a positive future. The problem of care in the past is that children were put into stressful households who like foster money but don't have children's best interests at heart. Foster parenting shouldn't be a business proposition. It's such a no brainer and yet there is so much government waste on getting it right. Children need love and guidance in a calm home that's basically it in a nutshell. Excellent care doesn't have to cost a fortune.
Complain about this comment
Any social worker can tell you that it is possible to make a million pounds in five years by opening a foster care home. Why does it cost 2500 pounds a week to keep a child in care? Why does it cost "only" 500 pounds a week to keep a child with foster parents? "Caring" is a buisiness. I personally know one couple who recently retired after half a dozen years looking after problem kids. They will never have to work again.
Complain about this comment
Because intitutonal abuse occurred in the past is no reason to assume it would occur again.
In the 70's there was little awareness of abuse and few systems in place to screen workers or monitor thei behaviour. Usually they were so understaffed that anyone willing to work was welcomed.
In Britain we have a mealy mouthed attitude to social care and the vulnerable. They are an expense and a drain on wealth. The richer we get as a nation the more resentful.
Despite all the failings of care for vulnerable chldren and the pointlessness of the at risk register, the periodic media outbursts the main consideration is still cost followed by concern for the family as an instituton. There is a fear that if care proves more successful in some cases than the family, then that somehow damages the institution.
Sadly vulnerable children fall down through the cracks.
I, for one, am pleased that at last this debate has moved on. I won't hold my breath until we see some sustbtial change though. There's been too many reports over too long a period all of which have led to few real improvements.
Complain about this comment
"The average weekly cost of looking after a child in a care home is £2,428 compared with just £489 for foster care. "
How on EARTH can they make it cost £2428 per child? The very best care in private nursing homes with 24/7 specialist care comes to about £2000/wk and the companies make a profit.
Complain about this comment
with all due respected "mariansummerlight" in place were "Acts" of Parliament which meant that care homes and institutions were supposed to be regulated and that children in care were supposed to protected.
To assume that the level of abuse which took place in the past would not occurr in the future seems to me and others who were abused in-care to be a simply wrong assumption. If it was not for former children and others highlighting such historical institutional abuse it simply would have remain hidden and covered up to this day.
Proper regulation and oversight is nessecary to prevent abuse occurring also a voice has to be given to those in-care enabling those who are vunerable to speak out.
David Whelan
Complain about this comment
This is a society run by a government which despises marriage and family values. In the streets of poor countries one sees homeless cats and dogs prowling as they seek food. Here, the streets are filled with feral children, often the third generation of the offspring of benefits-dependent single mothers. Having wrought so much damage, it is heartbreaking that we must trust these bureaucrats with vulnerable children. Maybe an international charity can take over the care and support of these children. Not so glamorous as the so-called Third World, but maybe Geldorf and Madonna could get involved.
Complain about this comment
As always people forget that these Scandinavian countries can run this way because there are sufficient taxes to pay for it. The average person can pay 50-60% income tax, with VAT and council taxes being higher than the UK too. Until people are willing to pay the cost of decent services, rubbish is what they will get.
A big change in culture is also needed amongst the people who are in this system - I have heard Social Services being referred to as 'The SS' intentionally as a direct reference to Nazi Germany on many occasions on parenting websites, as though having your child put into protective care is some kind of attack on the parent rather than a move to protect a child. The old chestnut of personal responsibility is still sorely lacking in today's Britain.
Complain about this comment
If labour hadnt got rid of the "Special Schools" then this kind of problem could have an easy fix without costing the tax payer hand or fist imo. As it stands, any new service, let alone one to open up "new" Children's homes should be scrapped till the economy is sorted out. As for those private ones, there is obviously a case to look into how they are spending "tax payers' money, not to mention some kind of action to force the parent to foot some of the bill.
Complain about this comment
Suspect that Care Home model has more benefits than option of leaving children to go feral in their birth environment - the result of poor or non-existnent parenting.
Problem is - it's costly. Who's going to pay for it? I'm single with no children - conscious decision - I can't afford them. I'm 110% sure that I don;t want to pay one penny to bring up other peoples children when they failed to consider whether they had the resources (or interest)to rear offspring.
Complain about this comment
Responses to above.
No 12. You hit the nail on the head. WE DO NOT NEED QUALIFIED SOCIAL WORKERS TO DO THE JOBS THAT ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED!!! (Think about it ... do we have to be 'educationally qualified' to be good parents?) But we do need people working with children to be well paid and respected.
No 14. Of course they won't. They are very different today than they were in the 70's.
No 24. It does not cost £489 for a foster placement. Unfortunately this figure is aggragated from Local Authorities having different methodology for reporting. Its closer to £800
No.26 - You are comparing it to adult care. Its a completely different ball game (Trust me - I have worked in both sectors and there are a significant number of additional costs for children.) Anyone wanting to know how it costs this much - do the research - It really does and thats without any profit!!
The answer ?? ... One size doesn't fit all. Get an independent person who is not a health professional, education psychologist, social worker to lead on arranging a placement for a child in care. Let them be the co-ordiantor who gets multi-agency teams to work in harmony. Allow the professionals time to focus on the child and the childs needs thus enabling someone who has time and skills to find the right placement for that particular child! Sometimes it'll be fostering and sometimes it'll be a childrens home. But is has to depend on what the child needs and wants! This independent person should also have skills and knowledge of placement costs. There is growing evidence that investing in this independent process improves placement stability. PLACEMENT STABILITY is the one key factor that allows kids to build friendships, gain social skills, develop attachments, achieve in education, partcipate in positive activities! This all means better adults who do not fill our courts and prisons, do not offend, do not need Adult Mental Health Services. Instead we will have children who grow up positive, happy and worthy members of society and whom contribute to society rather than cost a fortune.
Complain about this comment
Not all foster parents are just after the money. Mine found me on the streets twice as a young adult and gave me a home again without accepting money from me (not that I had any!) and helped me put my life back together again. I've spent the last few years running a sucessful business...I could never have imagined being a success at anything before I met them and would not have been able to do so without thier continued freindship and emotional support. I'm also bipolar and when ill am cared for 'in the comunity'. Trust me it's better for some of us than being in hospital unless really necesary. It works because I still have the support of my foster family, have excellent Social Workers and a really good Crisis Team.
I realise I have been lucky, and not everyone else has, but please remember for all the complaints, that many people become carers becase they DO care. And they can make all the difference. For some of us it has been literally between Life and Death.
Complain about this comment
Oh! here we go again. The old single mother argument. Why do they always blame single mothers? I find it really offensive. There are probably more disturbed children coming from drug addicted two parent families than single ones. The problem is that some people have an instinctual understanding of what children need, some have training and others are mostly clueless. Do you know that best practices in child development has only been around since the turn of the century? Now that we have the knowledge there is no reason to have so many suffering children. Quality intervention and help needs to occur at a young age before any damage takes place. Quality care can come from anybody whether married or not. It's a question of selflessness and whether you honor children or not.
Complain about this comment
chicagojlo (#29) I'm afraid certain sections of the profession don't help themselves. When you hear about social workers barging in and whipping apparently well-cared for children away from what appear to be loving and stable homes because they're 'too fat' or because some over-zealous doctor (with his own targets to hit) has decided that a bruise obtained during a lunchtime kickabout must be parentally inflicted it's hard for parents to see them any other way than as the unaccountable target-obsessed parenting police doling out summary justice.
When stories subsequently emerge about those same social workers who believed little Amy was in 'imminent danger' from the weekly trip to McDonald's deciding that a young baby should stay in a skanky flat where the floors are covered in dog excrement, there's no food in the fridge and the mother is too busy getting off her face on crack to change its dirty nappy - then act all surprised when the hitherto-undetected boyfriend uses them for a little anger management - well, you work it out.
I'm happy to concede that some of the public perception boils down to sensationalised reporting, but then the whole process is mired in so much secrecy it's hard not to believe the desperate, victimised parents who claim to have been told that trying to get their side of the story across means they'll never see their child again over the unfeeling and stonily bureaucratic face of an organisation which sees human beings in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.
Oh, and whilst I believe fostering is infinitely referable to institutionalisation, you're never going to attract more carers if they think they'll have to crash diet to ten stone, clear the house of Scotch or answer 200 quick-fire questions about whether their sex life can be considered 'normal' enough to satisfy the supreme judgment of some embittered 45 year-old radical feminist with no kids of her own. People have' flaws'. No-one's perfect. If the criteria for having one's own kids were even a tenth as strict as those for looking after someone else's, the human race would have died out decades ago.
Complain about this comment
When talking about the costs of fostering and the costs of a childrens' home, you have to factor in all of the costs.
Fostering isn't just about the foster allowance to the foster carers. The child has its own social worker, a support worker - plus a support team, a reviewing officer, an educational specialist, and other people involved in activities.
The foster carers also have their own supervising social worker.
How much does all this cost? Not to mention all the meetings, and the cost of extra school support, teaching assistants, invigilators etc etc for the difficult ones. I know. I've got one. He is a nightmare and I wish I'd never started. It has ruined my life. I don't recommend it. And I don't get anywhere near the fostering allowance that others get. Because I am his grandmother.
I have a sister who is a very experienced social worker in child care. She used to run a residential house for children (before it was dismantled) and she feels that for many they can be a positive experience. Not least because they can see that they're all in the 'same boat' as it were. Backup is at hand for difficult situations, and support for when a break is needed, which with a steady team is invaluable. And would be someone the children already know, not another foster home used for respite care.
Someone mentioned boarding schools. Well - there you have a very good example, much the same.
Complain about this comment
#23 (Joan Olivares) makes good sense. I was thinking along the same lines, having read about the UK charity, SOS Childrens Villages, who house abandoned/orphaned children in Africa and Europe. The children are brought up in a house and environment as similar to a family home as possible. Just a few children live in a house with a mother figure to take care of them. From what Ive read, they are housed in an SOS childrens village with all its own facilities, and the idea is that they have the same familiar environment and caring adults all their lives until they are adults. They get a good education and all their needs are taken care of.
Perhaps with some modifications, this idea could work in the UK, housing the children in ordinary houses in the community, with well-trained women or couples to run the houses. The carers would have to be thoroughly assessed, and be people who have the commitment to stay with those same children until they are adults. Its obvious that the best place for children is in a family home situation with caring adults who remain constant in their lives. Children should not be moved around from one foster home to another, nor be housed in a large institution like the care homes of the past. If houses like the SOS houses were run here, they would have to be monitored regularly, and care plans drawn up based on the individual needs of each child.
Perhaps the SOS charity can liaise with the government to see if their ideas can be put in place here. The charity has very good outcomes for the children in their care, using this method, and it seems logical that its in the best interests of children to be housed this way. The children have the stability and security of knowing the same familiar people are caring for them on a daily basis, taking an interest in their education and every aspect of their lives, basically doing what a loving parent does. That is what a child really needs.
Complain about this comment
My brother was placed in a childrens home when i was very young, he had a difficult time there!
now many years later i find my own child made a "looked after child" this happened 3 years ago.
my physical disabilities where the reason given as to why social workers deemed it neccassary to remove my child. I suffer from M.E/CFS. they said i can no longer provide for my child needs,even though i as a single disabled mum did so for 12 years priar.I have had to deal with several social workers since my child went into care and have had the most awful time, treat like a second class citizen. this has resulted in me not being alowed any reasonable contact with my child as social workers placed my child in a private foster home and banned me from having contact, not even alowed a photo or letter. my child is 15.
as you can see i am not in favour of childrens homes nor social workers acting like they are god. in a GOOD childrens homes,contact with existing family members and good support systems would be benificial for both child and parents.
In a bad childrens home, hell is the word my brother used.
In isolated foster care homes with only a social worker one a month if your lucky checking on you, children are isolated and vunerable..
there must be a better solution!
Complain about this comment
Shonshona, I'm sorry to hear about your son. However it sounds as though you made the classic and entirely understandable mistake of asking social services for help. Don't ever expect these people to assist you or understand; their sole purpose is to tick boxes and hit targets by standing as judge, jury and executioner, with the punishment on summary conviction being the loss of one's kids to a secret and unaccountable court which will jail you dare you publicly challenge its decision.
Persecuting a disabled person, particularly one who's managed without help thus far is disgusting in this day and age (when disability is meant to be a protected class and elicit state assistance rather than punishment), but as you point out social workers are no longer answerable to anyone which has led to them strutting around with this God-like, unchallengeable arrogance in the knowledge they hide behind the immensely broad 'Every Child Matters' in order to behave however they like, treat people with disrespect and (unlike other professionals) never face any sort of consequences.
I've lost count of the number of stories I've heard of people who've gone to social services in good faith because they're struggling and want to be a better parent to their children and ended up losing them, often on the most spurious grounds. I believe there was an MP campaigning to open up the family courts, introduce an appeals system and make social workers answerable for their decisions but it was sneerily dismissed by Harriet Harman. Power corrupts and all that. As I said I only wish they were as keen to remove kids when they're at genuine risk of injury or death rather than moving heaven and earth to keep them in unsuitable homes to prove some sort of political point.
Complain about this comment
As someone who spent their formative years, from 6 to 16 in a children's home, I really have to wonder how this can even be considered. I, and I know many others, were subject to institutionalises abuse from both staff and peers .. sometimes of extreme violence. We, the lucky ones who escaped with our sanity, have normal lives ... but no thanks to what we were subjected too. The number of cases of documented, and reported abuse, is well below the actual number. Why? Because we have real lives, some very successful, and don't want to go down that long traumatic road again. Reporting and pursuing allegations from 40 years ago just isn't worth the candle. Let's not regress back to these horrendous Victorian institutions which in may cases were no better than the workhouse.
Complain about this comment
Children's homes have declined in use because of the problems associated with them. When there is evidence to show that these well-know problems have been solved, then children's homes will be a good idea. Until then, I think they should be used with caution.
Complain about this comment
As a result of a family death, I was left to deal with a very troubled teenager of 17, criminal record, school refuser etc. We were able to get him into a Foyer project, for young people aged 16 - 25 who are unable to live with their family, but arent ready to live alone. It bore many similarities to a children's home, except the residents were no longer children. And it focussed on life skills and emotional support. The young man in question is now in work, in his own flat, a far cry from the boy who went in there. There needs to be more places like this.
Complain about this comment
What cost can you place on a child's happiness and well-being ??
I was in a children's home for 6 years in the early 70's with my sister. We were extremely well looked after - it meant that we had 'an extended family' - some of which are still in contact after all these years.
Complain about this comment
There is plenty of evidence that if you train and then provide good support to foster carers to look after teenagers in particular and you fund them appropriately, that it is far better for the teenagers to be in a foster home as opposed to a Children's home. It is also more cost effective. Foster carers will fight for the kids to get the best support.
What is truly awful is that young kids, some only 7 or 8 years old, are being placed into children's homes with older teenagers with really difficult behaviour. These homes are then poorly staffed (in terms of staffing levels) so these young ones can end up being neglected if a situation arises which means one of the older ones needs constant monitoring. Institutions cannot parent.
Does no one recall the 12 year old who disappeared from a children's home in Wigan and then came to light on a British Airways flight from Heathrow? Had he been missed?
To be honest, if I had a magic wand, I would close all of the children's homes down as they do not meet children's needs in an acceptable way.
Complain about this comment
Children in care is a more expensive option than foster care,£2428 compared to £489 per week. What about the 1000's of children being cared for by their parents who only receive £56.00 per week carers allowance and are penalised if they take a job that pays £95 a week by having their carers allowance stopped, or become ill and have to claim incapacity benefit and lose their carers allowance.
Complain about this comment
I recently applied for a job to work in a children's home. I didn't get the job. I scored well with the young people - the feed back was I had one of the highest scores they'd ever seen from the young people themselves but I didn't know enough about the law and procedures - I had applied for a very junior role. What struck me most was the staff were all very detached from the children. They spoke of them in very neutral ways. They were a commodity, a problem to be resolved but never a person. I am a mum to two teenagers and my husband says our home is a teenage drop in centre as many of my children's friends confide in me and this was why I thought I might be suited to such work.
It seemed to me that the children recognised this in me even though the system didn't - what struck me most was that they were after all just children, children that in the main life had thrown a series of circumstances and who were there through no fault of their own. I naively thought that an interest in the children and a caring nature would be enough. Clearly the system needs to change.
Complain about this comment
I work in the community and my job makes me see certain things that are OK and other things that are a concern in the long term. The kids of today know what they can get away with, Kids homes are inspected by government appointed agencies or departments, just like schools -- they give a warning or tip off that they will be visiting.
The manager or headteacher will start to go through their list of things to do before the inspectors arrive.
There should be no warning at all, they should turn up at the front door and knock, knock without any warning, Just like Sir Alan Sugar does sometimes on the apprentice.
If there is nothing to hide, then there should be no problems. there should be more people who visit on the inspection team at kids homes not just the normal two or three. they should check everything from staff rota's to if the kitchen and bathroom floors have been mopped.
Keeping kids from getting bored is the biggest issue. They can cause big trouble and damage if they are not met at least half way with thier demands. Apparently records are kept of each single issue within the day at a kids home in bound A4 lined notebooks. But the biggest issue is that if staff forget to write something or don't write something then there would be a clash of stories between a kid and staff. The government needs to introduce a better system than what is in place currently, There are a lot of flaws in the system. The managers have a lot of staff who have been at the same home for a long time and who move around to other homes with the same habits and lazy attitude.
The kids are the priority but they don't get the full care that they should be given. The staff are only there for the money and overtime -- a high hourly rate. not all staff are dedicated to the cause and some waver under the pressure of trying to keep the kids happy.
One thing that has always struck me in my 40 years in the community is that the Jewish, Muslim and Chinese families do not seem to put there kids in care.
Maybe I am not seeing the full picture and am in the wrong area but The majority of kids in the homes that I have visited on my duties have been either White British or Black African / West Indian origin.
Kids know what grant or allowance money they will get and what amount it will be and how many times a year they will get it. Having seen more than 75% of the care system in my area, I would never put any child in a home, I do not fully trust the staff -- some staff are young i.e 18 or 19 years old and do not have all the experience.
For example a kid tells staff that something is wrong within the home they are in, and that they will only tell that staff member because they trust them, the kid asks that no other member of staff finds out about their issue or problem. The staff member agrees and the kid speaks about the problem / Issue. 10 mins later, because of the law that staff member tells the home manager and all the other staff. So the kid has been stabbed in the back and may as well have kept their mouth shut.
The whole system needs a big review before I would ever trust it. God forbid that mummy and daddy end up in a accident and die and the kids get put into care, oh dear what a nightmare.....
Complain about this comment
Thanks for writing this article Mark Easton and for DARING to mention the word LOVE ! We need to post a BillBoard all around the UK with the old saying that "One can always tell how civilized a country is by its treatment of its vulnerable populations".
From your description of the Danish child care, it seems that Denmark is way ahead of the UK in the civilization stakes.
Complain about this comment
As a first-timer to this site I would like to make a few points and put a different perspective on others made. I was a single mother left to struggle with my 2 young children in some extremely difficult situations not of my making but received no help from Social Services (their father was of no help at all: he'd wanted children but not the responsiblity so I'd thrown him out years before). I complained but it got me nowhere. These people then took my children from me, through the courts, lying and twisting the truth, claiming I'd had loads of various types of help when they knew I hadn't - as local authority reports show. These people don't give or get help for parents in difficult positions but interfere and dictate to parents instead, hence the Nazi connection. Plenty of examples of social workers behaving in this manner have been covered in the media over the years. The social workers in my case had a lot of help from the child psychologist and Guardian ad Litem involved, lying and twisting the truth also, as I can prove. In fact, between them, they actually put my children in danger. My younger son ran off (aged 10) from a children's home with bruises on his upper arms due to being restrained by a male care worker but the court never heard of this. If I'd done it, the social workers would have made a point of it and I would have been in real trouble. Lots of things happened to my children in care that would have landed me in real trouble if I'd done them. Later, in another home, my son was being restrained and fought back. He was the one who was charged with assault. He was an 11 year old child, small for his age, who was extremely unhappy at being in care, against adults. I know care workers often suffer abuse but this was cowardice. In a planned encounter he was sexually abused while in this home at the hands of an adult friend of an older fellow resident; he later had to give evidence in court. Perhaps if social workers put as half as much effort into saving children like Baby P (who they must have known was definitely at risk) as they do at taking children into care like mine - we simply needed help - then a lot less children would suffer horribly and needlessly and die. Many of these social workers aren't interest in the cost but spend what suits them and on what suits them. They're not interested in the children, but on giving the impression they're doing their jobs when clearly they are not - taking kids into care, especially for adoption purposes, is a feather in their caps, whether it's necessary or not. We need social workers - or similar - who care about chilren, not themselves; those who have good listening skills and so who the children can talk to/confide in are most important. It is hard for children to form attachments in children's homes as staff often leave and they are deprived of the love only a mother can give - my younger son cried to sleep every night. 18 months after a full care order was granted he was returned to my care when, following changes of social workers, it was accepted I was the best person for him to be with and that he wanted to be with me. This contradicted everything the court had been told. My other son wasn't much better off. He ran away from his placement and refused to go back. By that time he was too old for Social Services to do anything about it. Perhaps local authorities should look to improve children's homes and at how money is spent; they should also accept responsibility when things go wrong instead of blaming others (parents like me) and using them as scapegoats to cover their failures. It is not, or should not be, about targets and procedures but lives, and our children are the future. In many cases, social workers are the enemy.
Complain about this comment
Healthy and stable environment is essential to the wellbeing of children. Children are likely to develope mental or behavioural disorder if they live in an unhealthy/ unstable environment.
Local authorities should provide mental health care to those children who are being looked after by social services in order to monitor their mental health.
If possible, local authorities and the central government should consider sending these children to private boarding schools for their education. It may sound expensive but at least, these children will have a good education and we'll be able to solve the problem of foster care and adoption.
We need to act now!
Complain about this comment
The care system is not working at present. My experience of it is a) as local authority solicitor and b) as a worker in youth justice who routinely visits secure children's homes.
The Danish system which is mirrored elsewhere in Europe is interesting and we could learn much from it: residential care is not seen as the worst option; houses are run by very highly qualified house parents and care staff. In UK residential homes are the dustbins of the system with staff poorly paid, poorly trained and unmotivated. This compounds the negative experiences for these often very damaged young people.
The move to 'commissioning' has been disastrous. Care homes are no longer, in most instances, the responsibility of local authorities with appropriate oversight by senior people in children's services and elected members. Places are purchased in privately run care homes which are a) in it for profit and b) often purporting to offer services which they cannot in fact provide. This is particularly true of establishments taking young people who might otherwise be in secure care but in nearly all cases they are taking the most challenging, most needy, most problematic young people who are often placed a long way from their home authority.
What is needed to improve the situation is:
* much enhanced status and, of course, much better pay for residential care workers;
* a more integrated system under the control of individual local authorities, not farmed out to 'independent providers';
* a recognition that a time in a secure placement (a good one!) can be a positive step for a young person, giving time to address issues in depth;
* a national network of specialist placements under the control of a national agency to ensure that the needs of the most challenging young people can be coherently addressed;
* 'cporporate parenting' needs to be taken much more seriously than it is in many authorities: the local authority muct continue to take principal responsibility for a child wherever he/she is placed;
* most important of all, we need more social workers; they need to be properly paid and recognised for the vital work they do. The prevailing climate and general social attitudes in Britain today are sneering and negative about 'interference' until of course we get a case like Baby P.
Complain about this comment
I moved into a childrens home xmas eve when I was 12, went back home Feb 28 the following year. I received more care and attention in that short time than my whole childhood. Please look at it from the child's perspective not politics. With the right staff it can give the child a breather and see what life is like in the outside world.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS