ListenUK
Yes, private homes do care for their children
It's wrong to claim that residential care companies are profiteering
Zoe Williams criticises the number of children's homes run by private companies, whose motives she questions (Who profits from being in care? It's not the children, 1 November). She deplores the "eye-poppingly expensive" cost of private residential childcare – yet an average council-run children's home placement costs £2,767 a week compared to £2,472 in the private and voluntary sector. She compares the annual costs of residential care, or fostering, with the fees for Eton. But England's 6,000 young people in care need intensive support, 24/7 staffing, and treatment that integrates care, education and health to meet profound, complex and enduring needs caused by terrible neglect and abuse. We cannot compromise their quality of care: not addressing the needs that brought them to a children's home in the first place would increase their chances of ending up in prison or needing mental health support – costing more in the long term.
Williams states that "only 2.5% of children's homes have an Ofsted rating of 'outstanding'," using a figure for homes declared outstanding at every one of six visits in the past three years. In another context, the last full year's Ofsted figures show 26% outstanding, 54% good, 18% satisfactory and just 2% inadequate. Homes are rigorously regulated and have steadily improved, but must always aim higher. Providers are certainly not complacent, knowing it isn't ownership but leadership and quality of staff that provide consistent effective care.
Williams asserts that the sector is dominated by "one or two private equity companies"; but on checking we found that only about one-fifth of all non-statutory registered beds have such backing. Other large providers, bank-backed or privately financed, take such ownership to around a third. Most are small and solo providers, whose viability is being squeezed by government cuts, which could lead to a devastating loss of expertise and experience.
Her focus on finance diverts us from the troubling fact that children are often denied residential care in the first place. England generally uses residential options as the last resort – a false economy – while Europe selects residential first, with fostering following a successful residential stay. In England most young people arrive at residential children's homes at about the age of 16 and stay for six months, following numerous failed placements. This mismatching of provision is despite the law requiring councils to make the "most appropriate" placement.
If a series of failed placements is inflicted on deeply disturbed children, their original feeling of abandonment is exacerbated. When they reach the placement they should have had years before, the damage is truly deep – one reason why, as Williams highlights, "44% of 16-year-olds who leave care [are] still not in education, employment or training three years later".
Williams lambasts local authorities for placing children out of their local area. Some areas have more homes than others. The reasons are complex and often unique, but the simple connection of cheapness isn't accurate. Distant placements should be made only on clinical grounds – either for safety reasons, for example taking them away from abusers and pimps, or because nearer specialist resources aren't available.
We're with Zoe Williams that the policy priority must be the looked-after children. But pioneering private providers are part of the solution.
Jonathan Stanley
29 November 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/children-welfare-priority-private-homes
