|
Deloitte MCS Limited was
commissioned by the Department for Children,
Schools and Families to undertake a fact finding
review into children’s residential care services
in England. In accordance with the brief, the
scope of this project was to undertake primary
and desk based research to gain insight into the
children’s residential care market and to
provide insight into the optimal level of
provision of places in registered children’s
residential care homes in England.
The result, a report titled
"Determining the Optimum Supply of Children’s
Residential Care" (Research Report No:
DCSF-RW023), was
published on 12th October 2007. It raises
some very pertinent issues which we hope will be
taken seriously by all those involved in the
decision making process particularly panel
members and commissioning manager) for Children
Looked After by their local authority.
The report clearly states that "negative
perceptions of residential care have
contributed to a preference for other types of
care for looked after children, sometimes
at the expense of
long-term positive outcomes for children
who would benefit from residential care".
It continues;
"the perception of residential care has a
serious impact on the level of demand for
residential care placements and the supply of
beds. This study has found that the largely
negative perception of residential care has
resulted in the service often being used only as
a
‘last resort’.
The
average age of children in residential care has
continued to rise. This trend is linked to the
attitude towards residential care as a ‘last
resort’; the reluctance
of authorities to place children in residential
care until all other options have been exhausted
and a presumption
that, in general, children will achieve better
outcomes in a home environment, such as foster
care.
The consequences of this
may include:
1)
Fewer residential care placements are planned as
part of a positive intervention but are instead
emergency placements or a
last resort
option when all else fails.
2)
Artificially
suppressed demand: if residential care were seen
in a more positive light,
demand for placements may increase.
The report offers evidence of the negative
perception of Residential Care: "Care
providers suggested and
social workers confirmed
that numerous foster placements would be tried
before considering a residential care placement.
This substantiates the widely held belief among
interviewees that residential care is the ‘last
resort’. With few exceptions, only those
children that have been unsuccessful in a number
of foster placements, or else cannot obtain a
foster placement, enter into a care home. The
negative perception of residential care
therefore can be a largely self-fulfilling
prophecy. This belief is substantiated by
one
representative organisation
involved in the research;
“The reality is that whatever
type of child is placed in residential care they
are often placed at an age and stage that is
something of a ‘last chance saloon’; as such,
many inevitably become part of a self-fulfilling
prophecy.”
There is an
assumption
that the number of children currently in care is
an adequate reflection of demand. However,
interviews with care providers and social
workers conducted as part of this study
indicated that
residential
care may not be used optimally at present,
largely because of negative perceptions
surrounding residential care. This suggests that
demand may currently be suppressed below optimum
levels and that both demand and the quantity of
beds required could change if such perceptions
were addressed.
Examples were also provided of
residential care not being used at the right
time such as:
“An eight year old child who was traumatised
because of abuse was sent into foster care on
the assumption that this was the solution
because he was still young. But then only a few
years later, the same child becomes more
difficult to deal with, partly because he’s
physically bigger and has adolescent issues to
deal with. I believe that if that eight year old
child had gone into a more therapeutic
environment for a year, he would have had the
opportunity to deal with the issues and equip
himself with a toolkit to help sustain a foster
placement later on in life.”
A care provider
The report
reiterates our own strongly held oppinion that; "perceptions
need to reflect the realities of
residential care
so that it is given the right place in the care
system and can
become a
planned part of a positive intervention when
appropriate.
Children typically progress to
residential care along a ladder which begins
with family support and then steps up to foster
care before residential care is considered".
The authors of the report
propose rethinking this outdated model of
placement decision-making and adopting
an alternative and more
optimal position for residential care within the
care system whereby "residential care is no
longer automatically the ‘last resort’ but an
alternative
solution viewed positively for the outcomes it
can achieve in the right circumstances.
It is also considered as a time limited
intervention into which children may
enter and leave
at any stage
of care. Consequently, children and young people
may step down the ladder of care and miss steps
out where non-adjacent provision suits them.
It is
encouraging to note that the authors of the
report state "there
is some evidence of local authorities moving to
holistic strategies for their care services, so
that there is more
flexibility for
children’s needs to be met
through whichever care option is most
appropriate for them at each stage of
development. This enables the child to
move between
fostering, residential care, preventative and
support services
as and when needed.
One independent care provider
stated that “Local authorities are trying to
push children along because they are often
putting costs
ahead of needs.
There is a trend of putting children who need
solo care into dual or group provision and those
who need dual or group care into fostering.”
Evidence of the impact of short-term funding
constraints was provided by a care provider who
responded to a tender which had stated that
60% of
the decision would be cost based, while
only 2% would be based on evidence of the
provision of quality care.
In our oppinion, this is
shocking ; Far from believing that "Every Child
Matters" this example shows that for one
authority "Only Money Matters"!
To gain a link to the original research report,
click the button
 |
