Do we need more male social workers?
- Yes, social work teams need to reflect the communities they support. (68%, 604 Votes)
- No, it's your qualities as a social worker that count. (32%, 283 Votes)
Total Voters: 887
Loading ...The government will legislate to tackle “profiteering” from children’s care placements in England, a minister has vowed.
Children’s minister Janet Daby said that the forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing Bill would strengthen regulation of the sector to “return children’s social care to delivering high quality outcomes for looked after children at a sustainable cost to the taxpayer”.
Her pledge came as Ofsted, in a bid to influence the legislation, called for new powers to regulate providers of children’s care placements, including in relation to profit-making.
‘Profiteering from vulnerable children unacceptable’
Daby, a former fostering social worker, was responding to a written question from fellow Labour MP Helen Hayes about what the government would do to tackle “excessive profits in the residential children’s social care sector”.
In her response, the Department for Education (DfE) minister said that “profiteering from vulnerable children in care [was] unacceptable” before saying that the Children’s Wellbeing Bill would tackle the issue.
Her comments follow longstanding concerns about profit levels among providers, particularly the largest, enabled by their leverage over councils needing to place children, often at short notice, amid an insufficiency of placements.
Profit levels of largest providers
In its 2022 report on the placements market, the Competition and Markets Authority found that, among the largest 15 providers, profit margins averaged 22.6% in residential care and 19.4% in fostering.
Since 2020, English council spending on children’s homes has risen sharply, with the cost of these placements increasing by 13% in 2021-22 and 15% in 2022-23, according to a recent report commissioned by the major children’s charities (source: Pro Bono Economics, 2024).
The number of registered places in mainstream children’s homes has grown by 28% over the past four years, compared with a 7% decline in the number of approved mainstream fostering households from 2019-23.
Promised children’s social care regulation
The Children’s Wellbeing Bill was announced in the 2024 King’s Speech, meaning it will be debated during the 2024-25 parliamentary session and should become law next year.
Initial information on the bill did not include any pledges to tighten the regulation of children’s social care services – a pledge in Labour’s manifesto – but Daby has now confirmed that the legislation will enable the government to deliver on its election commitment.
It is not clear as yet what the bill will contain on regulation and how far it will draw upon work commenced under the previous government to address service costs, profit levels and placement sufficiency through the so-called market interventions advisory group (source: Children and Young People Now).
However, last week, Ofsted set out a wish-list of measures for ministers to include in legislation, to bolster its regulatory powers over children’s social care services.
Ofsted’s call for new powers
This included being able regulate profit-making by large groups that provide multiple social care and education services, “to make sure their decisions are made in children’s best interests and not solely for profit”.
Ofsted also called for powers to:
- Regulate groups providing children’s homes or other social care services, including being able to restrict growth where there are systemic issues across multiple settings, requiring group leaders to tackle quality issues revealed by inspections and being able to enforce actions at a group-wide level.
- Fine unregistered settings, to deter providers from operating them. Its current powers are limited to prosecution, which Ofsted said was “costly and time-consuming”.
- Refuse registration applications based on need, for example, in areas, such as in the North West, that are oversaturated with children’s homes.
Other measures proposed by the regulator included setting quality standards for all places where children live away from home, including residential special schools, to ensure consistency across all settings, and enabling registered managers to be able to move from one setting to another without having to re-register, reducing burdens on providers.
Regulator ‘optimistic’ about reform
The proposals were made in response to the Big Listen, Ofsted’s biggest ever consultation, which also resulted in its plan to scrap single-word judgments for inspections of local authority children’s services and of children’s social care providers.
Its national director for social care, Yvette Stanley, said the regulator could not “pre-empt future ministerial decisions” but it was “working very closely with DfE officials” and was optimistic about the prospects for reform.
Daby indicated that the DfE was looking at at least one aspect of Ofsted’s proposals, on the location of children’s homes.
In answer to a parliamentary question, from Labour MP Mohammad Yasin, on the issue, Daby said: “The department is developing options in regard to planning of children’s homes,
including considering the location of new homes and registration requirements.”
Ofsted’s proposals were welcomed by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS), which has long sought action to tackle profit levels among children’s home providers.
Children’s directors seek ‘bold action’ on ‘huge profits’
ADCS vice president Rachael Wardell said it supported the regulator being able “to look at the contribution groups of providers make to children’s outcomes and experiences, and their use of scarce public funds”.
“In recent years there has been a trend towards business mergers and acquisitions giving rise to some very large providers and an expansion of private equity investment in children’s homes, which is increasingly being seen in the childcare sector too,” she added.
“We await the government’s response to these asks and hope to see bold action from ministers to prevent huge profits being generated and extracted from the system on the backs of vulnerable children and young people, in particular.”
Daby’s commitment to ‘cracking down on excessive profits’
For the government, Daby added: “We know that all too often care placements for vulnerable children come at a massive financial cost to councils and a human cost to young people who aren’t getting the support they need.
“We are committed to cracking down on providers making excessive profits, and our Children’s Wellbeing Bill will strengthen regulation to make sure every child has a safe, loving home.”
Meanwhile, the DfE has selected two areas – Greater Manchester and the South East – to test the commissioning of care placements by region-wide bodies, rather than individual local authorities.
Regional care co-operatives – proposed by the previous Conservative government are designed to give councils – collectively – greater clout over providers to shape services across their regions and ensure sufficient high-quality placements for children in care.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Oxfordshire County Council 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Webinar: building a practice framework with the influence of practitioner voice 
‘They don’t have to retell their story’: building long-lasting relationships with children and young people 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
How managers are inspiring social workers to progress in their careers 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
As with the legislation, and especially the secondary legislation, for vulnerable adults, the Children Act 2006 permits if not encourages market mechanisms in the delivery of Children’s Services.
The ‘third party’ delegations of ‘the duty of care’ most include tighter responsibility and requirements for information management and retention; Council’s have a 100 year rule but as contracting authorities (and their providers) limit these obligations to the life span of a contract with, and at best a 10yr max expectation. And, the ICO position, as laid out by the current case law definition of ‘to hold’ directly interferes with previously guaranteed rights owed by the State to Children.
The primacy of the child’s Care Plan (which is a binding contract) must be placed on the face of the incoming Act, as a bear minimum.
The relationship between Ofsted and IRO’s clearly spelt out with the a statutory mechanism of action in light of dissatisfaction. For example, the LAC903 returns don’t require the recording and monitoring of ‘disruption meetings’ ~ which tend tobe avoided by the (mis)use of the statutory reviewing system. Similarly, and especially with secure reviewing and OAP reviews, risk escalation canbe and is used to ratchet up costs and places competing providers, and the Children’s advocate knowingly or not, in a ‘hidden bidding’ scenario where the wishes and feelings of, and especially a detained, child at the whim of competitive rivalry.
The systemic perpetuation of previous or antecedent financial and/or sexual exploitation must not be ignored ~ it happens where statutory decision-making is totally skewed by commercial gaming. It isn’t a new phenomena.
And, in respect of profiteering will the face of Bill include on the requirements for the suspension of ‘State Aid’ rules? A legacy of the EU it’s a requirement for all competition dependant in whole or part on State Aid to tendered at the lowest cost to the tax payer. Will the Bill specify how the requirements for the satisfaction of MEAT during the procure procedure will be made ~ the derogation to the Public Procurement Act 2023 may seem OK, but really? The available procure procedures, despite the increased flexibility of the 2023 Act, aren’t and have never been suitable for Children’s Services. They are predicated on the assumption that they are used solely for highly prescriptive, standardised and routine services. And, that the idea that such services, for children in this instance, can be advertised on the basis of selling ‘lots’! I know, right?
RCC’s aren’t a bad idea. The implementation is though very different and the devil is very much in the detail.
If Government is seeking a regional platform for Children’s Care then where’s the announcement for Children’s Trusts ~ the iterations have been coming for an age and using Teckal Exemptions already proven; where’s the joined up thinking and what are the s75 NHS Agreements going to look like?
At best the development of a vacancies data base will be achieved; the ownership of the information gathered, it’s status and standing ie the indivisible requirements a whole new story ~ the biases are towards, what?
This isn’t about rubbishing RCC’s is about seeing the multifaceted nature of the voids, not by pitching voids against voids but rather noticing what’s missing ~ the primacy of the child!
Out of interest, and following the coverage of David Howe and Attachment Theory, one way to consider the impact of policy is through Zizek’s Parallax Gap ~ the speed with which spend decisions are made and the requirements for ‘heads on beds’ profit/loss accounting and totally at odds with the black-bag life many children who are simply swept along. And, for the handling of an evaluation methodology suited to understanding the nature of voids see Bojan Radej ~ the University of Ljubljana School of Social Work recently hosted a conference (September 2023) on such, with UK evaluation researchers participation.
This has been going on for years. The private sector should have no place in the care of looked after children, blatant profiteering and exploitation of local authorities who are already stripped to the bone financially and therefore unable to invest in their own in-house provisions. It’s a vicious circle which only benefits one group of people, private sector providers.
so where are the missing data sets, including s174-s177 Company’s Act 2006 requirements ? blaming the private sector is too vague a response ~ the co-option of out-going public sector services managers, usually as part of a severance deal including public sector wage and pension protection, has meant entire budgets have been taken ‘off book’ to demonstrate efficiency gains. cherry picking is the norm and right across all service areas, but especially within children’s services ~ insider knowhow of price/risk escalation sewn-in? the mess makes Eron look like a walk in the park but maybe the data sets are missing for a reason, no?
This needs to looked at in Adult Social Care. Having “for profit” and “care” in the same sentence should not be a thing. The whole concept is abhorrent. I appreciate that support comes at a cost, but quality of support must always trump cost. A review of our taxation and reducing the gap between our wealthiest citizens and our poorest needs to happen.
The creeping privatisation of care provision for both adults and children has been going on for years. Minimising costs (not a bad thing, entirely) but maximising profit. This needs redressing and working back towards a fully transparent not for profit structure of all care provision. In which those who directly provide the care are adequately rewarded and thus retained.
Support Foster carer, starting with an income that reflect the work undertaken daily. The emotional toll on Foster carer, need financial support to ensure they can practise good self care and meet the needs and demands of Foster children.
Often i wonder why the parents of children removed or looking to be removed are not offered greater financial support to allow them to grow as parents/individuals, access support, reduce financial stress and strengthen their independence which would give them a greater chance of having their children returned to their care.