IFA’s the data shows, provide placements for the most difficult children the local authority doesn’t have capacity or expertise in looking after. This is routinely evidenced in both the data / research published, but also in the referrals that IFA’s receive. It local authorities had this capacity, then undoubtedly they would use this first. The reality is that demand for placements demonstrates the current need for addition placement capacity to provide for that need.

The Fostering Regulations are the same for both IFA’s and local authorities / Trusts! Ofsted’s framework of assessment (SCCIF) don’t differentiate, so as long as an SSW is fulfilling their role correctly, then the focus of their work is exactly the same. Whilst IFA’s may be more mindful of ensuring there is an effective working model to support the agency, local authorities have always been in the same position but appear to ignore they are not a monopoly provider for the last three decades. In my current role, our SSW’s have a caseload of 12-14 foster carers, whilst I am aware that my local Trust give their SSW’s a caseload of over 20! Which would you want if you were a foster carer? Further when LA’s seem to go to great lengths to aggriavaite their own foster carers (See Norfolk who have form on doing this), then why shouldn’t foster carer’s have the option to look at other alternatives? Foster carer’s should (and are) free agents to ply their skills with anyone they feel comfortable and supported with.

Further, the experience of Peterborough City Council’s to outsource their fostering / adoption service was an abject failure. Despite TACT being awarded a 10 year contract, the partnership lasted less than 2 years. It didn’t save the council any money (and they are very coy about telling anyone how much this cost them!), and in the charity’s financial records for TACT shows a write down of over £1 million.

I do note with some disappointment that my local authority, (now Trust) fostering service has recently been rated as ‘Requires improvement to be good’ across the board. The Trust’s children’s service itself is in no better position. To describe the local authority as being ‘focussed on the child’ is patently wrong as their continued challenge to provide an adequate service is clear to everyone.

Numbers of foster carers – always an issue not enough people want to foster.
Govt insistence on ‘permanency’ means that availability of so called short term foster placements are reduced.
Govt insistence on continuing to work parents with no ability to safely and appropriately parent means children are left in damaging homes until removed later and with more challenging needs meaning foster carers les able to manage, children get a bad name, carers refuse to take / back to top of circle . Not enough placements.