Listen to thisUK
The prime minister was still at the despatch box last week, having moments before announced that he and Nicky Morgan had asked me to review the residential care of children, when the emails, Linked-In messages, and tweets started to rain upon my phone. The deluge has continued reflecting, I think, widely held, passionate, but often remarkably conflicting views about residential care. Two of the social work professionals who, over many years now, I have turned to for advice and guidance were in touch very quickly The first insisted that residential care was the best option for more children than currently live in homes, the second told me that it was vital to reduce the use of care homes.
Which of them, if either, is right? What do we need to do about residential homes for children? If I’m clear about anything, it’s that I don’t know what the answer is. The call for evidence that I have issued is not just a bit of process. The handful of people on Twitter who bleated that I’d already agreed with the Tory government what my conclusions will be, are mistaken. I don’t know what I’m going to say. I don’t know what needs to be done.
I know that there has been a remarkable change in the use of residential care in England, and indeed, in the use of care generally. When I talk to younger children’s social workers, I often note their surprise when I tell them that, despite recent increases, the size of the care population in England has dropped significantly in recent decades. In 1981 there were 92,000 children in care in England. Of these, almost two-thirds, about 58,000, lived in residential homes. (So there were almost as many children in children’s homes in 1981 as there are in all forms of care now.) Since then large orphanages, which were a notable part of the landscape in most towns and cities, have closed. as the voluntary sector – in part panicked by the emerging evidence of abuse – withdrew with some speed from running care homes.
The number of children now in residential care in England is about 8,000 (about 9% of the care population). That’s just 14% of the number in 1981. We know that these children are more likely to be older (most of them are over 12), male (64%), have had numerous care placements (over 25% will have had at least five previous placements) and have the most complex needs. Thirty-eight percent have a statement of special educational needs and 62% have a clinically significant mental health need.
We know that children who are looked after fare less well on a range of metrics than children who are not looked after. That comparison, however, is often misleading and care is often unfairly blamed for poor outcomes, the cause of which often originated in the neglect and abuse experienced before being taken into care. But since the prime minister’s announcement, a number of people have reminded me of the particularly poor outcomes for children from residential care. And yet, the data appears to demonstrate that if children have longer placements in care homes, the stability provided improves outcomes.
For example, drug abuse falls significantly the longer a child is in a residential home. Despite this, the vast majority of placements last less than a year.
So should residential care be used as a last resort, or seen as a constructive element, and the right long-term placement for some children?
We spend £1bn on children’s residential care. Much as I have often admired those who work in homes and their passion for the children in their care, it’s hard to believe that such a sum cannot be spent more effectively.
The people who know best, I suspect, will be those who live or have lived in homes, and those who work there. I shall spend a lot of time in the next few months listening to and learning from them.
Martin Narey
3 November
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/03/childrens-residential-care-ideas-government-review
