Looked-after Children - Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents


4  Ensuring a sufficient supply of good quality placements

The importance of placement supply

81. Placements often break down because of lack of support. Others break down because they were not the appropriate placement for that child in the first place, or because the child's introduction to the placement was too abrupt and unsettling.[185] The Government's target for placement stability has not been met. At 31 March 2008, of children under 16 who had been looked after for more than 2.5 years, 67% had been living in the same placement for at least two years or were placed for adoption.[186] Despite recent incremental improvement, this is some way short of the target of 80% by 2008.[187] The Children's Rights Director, Dr Roger Morgan, told us that, "When we ask children about their key expectations and the one thing that staff need to get right for them in care, the answer is the right placement".[188] Poor placement "matching" largely occurs because of a lack of choice.[189]

82. The Government expressed a wish in the Care Matters Green Paper (not explicitly repeated in the White Paper) that all children in care be offered a choice of placements by their local authority, and be given details about the placements in advance.[190] This situation is far from being a reality for most looked-after children.[191] In 2006, only 52% of local authority fostering services and 60% of independent fostering agencies were meeting the requirements for placement matching as set out in the National Minimum Standards.[192] Roger Morgan reported that about half of children in care express concern that the matching of child to placement had not worked, that they had only one placement option, and that there was no back-up plan in place if it began not to work out.[193] He described how children feel about the process of finding them a placement:

    They want to meet a number of possible foster carers and not just have the social worker saying, 'We have found foster parents for you'. They want to be able to do visits and to have back-ups if the first introductions do not work out. It might not be that the people are wrong or that they should be disapproved, but the child might think, 'I do not feel totally at ease in this family, can I have a look at a different one please?'[194]

83. Section 9 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 places a new general duty on local authorities to take steps to ensure sufficient accommodation that is appropriate for the needs of the children they look after within their local authority area, unless that is inconsistent with a child's welfare. The principal aim of this measure is to reduce the number of inappropriate placements in accommodation outside the boundaries of the child's local authority ("out-of-area" placements), which are notably more difficult to support adequately.[195]

84. There are indications that it will be an extremely tall order for local authorities to fulfil this new duty, so far are we from the ideal situation at present. The proportion of children placed in out-of-area foster care has increased over the past five years.[196] Local authorities are worried that it will be difficult to meet the new requirements, especially if there is a very narrow interpretation of their "local area".[197] We heard from both foster carers and young people that placements often appear to be made solely on the basis of wherever a bed happens to be available, sometimes with little regard for the most basic considerations of compatibility with either the carer or other children in the same placement.[198] Children report delays in being placed because of a shortage of carers, which is particularly acute in some parts of the country such as inner cities.[199] Ofsted told us that while processes to secure sufficient placements had improved in most areas, overall choice and quality in placements were still matters of concern. They noted that placement choice is particularly limited for children from minority ethnic groups, those in sibling groups, and children with complex needs.[200]

85. The exercise of choice and the ability to make good matches between children and placements require surplus and flexibility in the system.[201] Much more than one place per child is needed to achieve sufficiency. Professor Ian Sinclair explained that because of the number of factors on which social workers ideally try to match—ethnicity, age, the skills and location of the foster carer, number of children, and so on—it is "mathematically extraordinarily difficult to have enough vacancies".[202]

86. Some of the changes in policy envisaged by Care Matters will only become a reality for children after a substantial increase in the selection of placements that are available at any one time. Greater use of "shared care" arrangements, which provide respite as a family support service, and arrangements to allow young people to stay with their foster carer past the age of 18, will place further demands on the supply of placements.[203] Opportunities for children who come back into care after a period at home to return to the same foster carers, or for young people who take up university places to be able to live with their foster carers during vacations—ideas suggested to us by foster carers—would depend on an ability to keep places open for them.

87. The Care Matters Partnership worried that any restriction on out-of-area placements would pressurise local authorities into accepting lower standards for carers in their own area.[204] Pauline Newman told us that Manchester City Council's efforts to enforce higher standards among their foster carers led to a reduction in the number of available places.[205] The Children and Young Persons Act 2008 enables Ofsted to issue compliance notices to residential care providers who are failing to meet required standards; homes that do not take steps to remedy identified failings may have their registration cancelled, and the Chief Inspector can serve a notice preventing new admissions to establishments if necessary.[206] The emphasis on eradicating substandard practice is of course welcome and necessary, but the fact that it is likely to further contract the supply of placements cannot be ignored.

88. Improvements in stability, choice and matching, and developments such as more post-18 fostering, depend on a much greater supply of placements. We are already starting from an inadequate base, and improving the quality of placements may in the short term further reduce the supply. We recommend that the Government assess at a national level the supply of placements that will be needed to make the Care Matters reforms a reality. The problem of how to ensure sufficient placements cannot be solved merely by imposing a new duty on local authorities; the Government must do more to enable them to meet it without making any compromises on quality.

Foster care

89. A national shortage of foster carers is the most obvious barrier to securing the necessary availability of placements.[207] Foster care currently accounts for 71% of all placements, and family placements continue to be the preferred option for the large majority of looked-after children.[208] The Fostering Network's most recent estimate put the shortfall at 8,200 carers in England.[209] Yet Care Matters has relatively little to say about recruitment of foster carers, which is a task performed by local authorities and independent fostering agencies themselves.[210] What the White Paper does say about training and skills development for carers is very welcome, but is unlikely in itself to effect a step change in recruitment.

90. Although it should not be regarded as a panacea, recruitment cannot be considered in isolation from the issue of payment for the work of fostering. The majority of carers do not go into foster care for financial reward, but the adequacy of payments is for many the deciding factor in whether they can afford to do it.[211] There are two main types of payment to foster carers: allowances, which are intended to cover the costs incurred in caring for a child, and fees. In 2007 the Government introduced national minimum allowance levels; the Fostering Network told us that compliance has been "extremely patchy".[212] Fee payments, meanwhile, vary dramatically between different local authorities and other fostering agencies, with local authorities being free to develop systems that they deem appropriate to local needs and affordable within their budgets.[213]

91. A survey by the Fostering Network in 2007 showed that, across the UK, 40% of foster carers do not receive any form of fee payment. Some carers are paid at a level that enables them to work full-time on fostering, while others are expected to do so without receiving commensurate remuneration. Only 11% of foster carers in England have full-time employment outside the home.[214] The Fostering Network argued that the severe shortage of foster carers can only be addressed by a fee payment system "equating with comparable employment in the children's workforce".[215] They pointed out that:

    No other profession that works with children is expected to do so altruistically, and no other professional has the responsibility to look after a child who is not their own for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year with little or no respite.'[216]

Modern fostering, furthermore, entails a wide range of tasks and responsibilities beyond providing care to the child.[217] Kevin Williams, Chief Executive of TACT,[218] told us that a good level of remuneration is crucial to the ability of independent fostering agencies to attract new entrants to foster care, especially those with relevant experience from other areas of children's services.[219]

92. Although Care Matters set out the Government's intention to ask agencies to publish their payment schemes, the Government has stated that it will not impose any standardisation of fees across the country.[220] Robert Tapsfield, Chief Executive of the Fostering Network, argued that a degree of national standardisation in payments "would help people who are considering becoming foster carers to make sense of what is on offer and what they are being told. The picture today is confusing."[221] The Fostering Network suggested that 52-week payment schemes would significantly aid recruitment and retention of carers; at present some fostering agencies pay retainers to carers when they do not have a child placed with them, but others do not.[222]

93. We consider it unrealistic to expect a step change in foster care recruitment to take place without greater equity in fee payments, based on an amount that will allow people to dedicate themselves full-time to this important work when necessary. While local circumstances and the many different types of foster care will always require some variation, we cannot expect more people to consider fostering as a potential career without greater clarity about the financial terms that are on offer. We recommend that a national framework for fee payments be developed, and that it include stipulations about 52-week payments or retainers when foster carers do not have placements. We are aware that children and young people are firmly of the opinion that some carers are motivated only by the financial reward available.[223] However, we consider that we should be able to trust in the approvals process to weed out such applicants; concern on this point should not prevent adequate and equitable reward being made to those who do this demanding work.

94. The Care Matters Green Paper set out proposals for "a mandatory national registration scheme for foster carers, putting them on a par with their colleagues in social work, residential care and other parts of the children's workforce."[224] However, despite the strong endorsement of a working group chaired by Lord Laming, the White Paper did not contain this proposal.[225] The Government rejected an amendment to the Children and Young Persons Bill which sought to make this provision, saying that it did not wish to impose on locally-recruited foster carers the same sort of conditions imposed on social workers by national registration.[226] Witnesses told us that the status and profile of foster care would be enhanced by a national registration scheme for carers.[227] Registration of other sections of the children's workforce has been seen by the Government as a strategy for improving standards and giving reassurance to the public. Robert Tapsfield argued that registration would "reinforce and emphasise the status of foster care and the high regard in which we hold it and the general public should hold it too."[228] It would have the practical benefit of enabling carers to transfer their accreditation between fostering services, rather than having to go through another approval process.[229] Registration could also be used to guarantee a standard of pre-registration training, and to ensure that carers undertake regular training as a condition of their registration.[230] We recommend that the Government reconsider its opposition to a national registration scheme for foster carers. We believe that such a scheme would be a useful tool to improve quality and take-up of training, and to cement the status of foster carers in the teams of professionals caring for a child.

95. Robert Tapsfield drew our attention to the situation of foster carers who have an allegation made against them, who, unlike teachers or social workers in similar circumstances, often face suspension with no fee or allowance until the case is resolved. The Fostering Network reported that around a third of all carers will face an allegation at some point in their fostering career, the vast majority of which turn out to be unfounded.[231] Despite government guidance that 80% of cases should be resolved within one month, research by the Fostering Network in 2006 indicated that half of investigations lasted three months, and 10% took more than a year.[232] Robert Tapsfield told us that, "In effect, we are asking foster carers to put their lives, and the lives of their families, on the line for these children and when an allegation happens, we are often leaving them completely unsupported until the allegation is resolved."[233] We consider it unacceptable that foster carers are not afforded the same considerations as other professionals in the children's workforce when an allegation is made against them. We ask the Government to stipulate that carers continue to receive fee and allowance payments while an allegation against them is being investigated.

Residential care

96. Residential care accounts at present for only 14% of placements for looked-after children in England, the proportion having steadily decreased from 40% in the mid-1970s.[234] This is low by comparison with other European Union countries; in Denmark and Germany over half of looked-after children are in residential care, in the Netherlands just under half, and in France just over a third.[235] The long-standing policy preference in England for foster care can be attributed to a number of factors: persistent problems with the quality of residential care, instances of child abuse in homes, the high cost of these placements, and the influence of theories of attachment which favour foster care as being closer to a 'normal' upbringing.[236] All of these factors have resulted in residential care being largely regarded as a placement of last resort for extremely challenging young people who are difficult to place in foster homes, and who have often experienced many breakdowns already.[237] Residents consequently represent a particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged minority within the care population.[238]

97. As the number of places in residential care has contracted, there has been a decisive shift away from large institutions towards smaller homes with high ratios of staff to young people.[239] At the same time, different models of fostering (such as "multi-dimensional treatment foster care")[240] are being developed to cope with some of the most disturbed and challenged young people, who would previously have been catered for in children's homes.[241] We welcome the Government's investment in programmes that aim to improve the capacity of foster placements to benefit the most challenging young people. We hope that this will allow residential care to be considered on its merits rather than as a last resort for children who have been especially difficult to place elsewhere.

98. The proportion of the care population in residential care varies significantly between local authorities (from 4% to 28%), and councils adopt differing policies towards its place in their care system.[242] Steve Goodman, Hackney Council's Deputy Director of Children & Young People's Services, told us, "My personal view is that we should not have children in residential care. That should be the last option".[243] Director of Children's Services Marion Davis explained that Warwickshire County Council decided to close all its own residential care over 20 years ago; over 90% of the county's looked-after children are now in foster placements.[244] On the other hand, as we saw on a visit to the county, Hampshire County Council has preserved its significant in-house provision and views it as a valuable component of their placement supply. Pauline Newman told us that Manchester City Council has recently opened six new, small children's homes because "it was necessary not to put our eggs in one basket […] My view is that you need a range and choice of places and situations."[245]

99. While clearly endorsing foster care as the placement of choice for the majority, the Care Matters White Paper is nevertheless careful to support the use of residential care when it meets the needs of a particular child, or in conjunction with foster placements.[246] Witnesses explained the importance of retaining the option of residential care as the placement of choice for a small number of children.[247] Young people themselves have told us that some of them prefer the idea of living in a residential home to foster care;[248] this may be because if they cannot live with their own family, they feel that they do not want another one, or because they are weary of repeated placement breakdowns in foster care.[249] Mike Stein, Research Professor at the Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, told us that "there are some very good examples of small children's homes with positive cultures and a high degree of stability and structure where young people know what they are doing and can leave care successfully".[250]

100. It was suggested to us that it is unhelpful to think in terms of a dichotomy between family and residential placements.[251] Kevin Williams, Chief Executive of charity and fostering agency TACT, explained:

    There is the possibility of having children who move from residential care into foster care, who have a relationship with residential providers who continue to support them while they are in foster care. I think too often in the care system we move children from placement to placement and see the previous placement as an end rather than a transition […] they may need to go back to residential care for periods, for support.[252]

We recommend that the Government commission research on the flexible use of residential care as part of a planned package of care, and that it consider the resource and structural implications of enabling such uses.

THE RESIDENTIAL CARE WORKFORCE

101. We visited Copenhagen to investigate some aspects of Denmark's child care system, including why such a high proportion of its placements are in residential care in comparison to England. Research shows that confidence in residential care in Denmark appears to be well-founded; residents are considerably less likely to be out of education or employment, and are by some margin at less risk of teenage pregnancy or engagement in criminal activity than their counterparts in England.[253] There is also a marked difference in the reported quality of life of children in institutions in Denmark; Petrie and others (2006) conclude from a number of indicators that residents have more opportunities to enjoy themselves, more involvement in decision-making, and a "cosier", more "home-like" environment.[254] They also tend to stay in one placement for longer.[255] These comparisons are not straightforward; the considerably more challenging nature of the residential care population in England and the use of homes as a last resort lead us to expect poorer outcomes and a more difficult experience for these young people.[256] Pat Petrie, Professor of Education at the Thomas Coram Research Unit, told us, however, that it is the characteristics of staff rather than the characteristics of the residents that in fact account for the greatest differences.[257]

102. Two aspects of the workforce were particularly striking to us: firstly the level of qualifications, and secondly the type of training. Almost all residential care staff in Denmark—and indeed the majority of staff who work directly with children in any setting—are qualified as "social pedagogues" through a three-and-a-half year degree-level course. Social pedagogy has no direct professional equivalent in the UK, though it is a common approach in France, Germany and elsewhere. It was described to us as "education in its broadest sense"; the discipline focuses on child development, group dynamics, creative play activities, and the importance of building a relationship with a child.[258]

103. In England, the 2005 National Minimum Standards for residential care specify that at least 80% of staff should have a Level 3 NVQ in caring for children and young people, a qualification that usually takes around 18 months to complete and is substantially work-based. This standard, low though it is, has proved difficult to meet; 36% of staff still have no qualification at all.[259] The low level of staff qualifications is a matter of huge concern, especially given the extremely vulnerable nature of children in residential care in England.[260] In reference to the recommendations of Sir William Utting about residential workers' qualifications made in 1991, David Crimmens of the School of Health and Social Care at the University of Lincoln, commented, "I do not understand why, after all that time, we have not managed to educate to A-level standard people who work with some of the most troubled and troublesome children in our society."[261] Jane Haywood, Chief Executive of the Children's Workforce Development Council, told us that, without fully trained and skilled workers, residential care is tantamount to "warehousing" children.[262] Better training could improve workers' capacity to participate in decision-making for individual children alongside social workers and teachers, and their ability to prevent incidents escalating to the stage of involving the police.[263] We heard a measure of support for the suggestion that the Level 3 NVQ become a mandatory minimum for all residential workers, perhaps enforced through registration with the General Social Care Council.[264]

104. We recommend that the Government show its commitment to addressing underperformance against the current National Minimum Standards for staff qualifications by making the Level 3 NVQ mandatory at the soonest practicable opportunity, and by analysing the reasons for the persistent failure of the sector to meet this standard. In the long term, a more coherent and ambitious strategy for the residential care workforce must be a priority, above and beyond the set of professional standards promised by the 2020 Children's Workforce Strategy.

105. The distinctive social pedagogical approach influences the ways in which staff in Denmark interact with children. Staff in Denmark speak in terms of emotional support in scenarios where staff in England will talk about procedures.[265] David Crimmens told us that Danish pedagogues taking part in a research project in England were "appalled by how manager-dependent many of the residential workers were".[266] Professor Pat Petrie described the confidence pedagogues have in their own skills and authority; one consequence appears to be a higher success rate in getting the children in their care to attend school.[267] The approach and skills base of staff in Danish homes underpins their optimistic view of residential care; workers in Denmark told us that they aimed to make residential settings places where young people can see that they were helped to turn their lives around and where they were able to have good experiences and new opportunities.[268] In contrast to the typically low status of residential work in England, in Denmark residential care is seen as "a plum job".[269]

106. One aspect of practice which particularly struck us during our visit to Copenhagen was the universal expectation of frequent contact between children in residential care and their birth families. In one home, for example, all the children's parents were invited to dinner once a month. We are aware that this could be a reflection of the less challenging circumstances of the average resident in a Danish home compared to an English home. Nevertheless, the continued importance of parents to children appeared to be a fundamental tenet of care that staff felt a responsibility to uphold. Social pedagogic training emphasises the importance of working with the family as well as the child to a much greater extent than is expected in English settings.[270]

107. David Crimmens suggested that social pedagogy could supply "something that has been missing from residential care for a long time: […] a cohesive philosophy and understanding of what we are trying to do when we look after other people's children in a residential context."[271] Professor Ian Sinclair concurred that residential care needs to have "a clear value base" to be successful; in England "the theory of residential care […] has become very individualistic, whereas the essence of residential care is that it is a group experience and that is the important thing about it."[272] Pedagogic practice could even be extended to foster care and to family support work.[273]

108. Care Matters contained a proposal to trial social pedagogy in residential care settings in England. We received enthusiastic endorsement of this proposal from local government representatives.[274] Jane Haywood, however, sounded a note of caution: a new approach to children's care cannot simply be imported to the UK context. The relationship of pedagogues to other roles in the care system would need careful consideration.[275] The social pedagogy pilot programme is very welcome. We urge the Government to think broadly and creatively about the possible future applications of the social pedagogy approach in the care system rather than looking to import wholesale a separate new profession.

109. Professor Sinclair told us that residential care "has major potential and some way of unlocking it needs to be found."[276] We agree. Although convinced that foster care is the preferable placement for the large majority of children in care, we are concerned that the currently small capacity of the residential sector, and the concentration of the most vulnerable young people within it, risks making such care untenable and undesirable even for young people for whom it may be in theory the best option. There is undoubtedly good practice in the sector in England, and we have seen in Denmark that it is not inevitable that residential care produces poor outcomes. We have no reason or desire to cast any doubt on the dedication and professionalism of the residential workforce in England, but it is also abundantly clear that a higher level of qualifications and a different way of thinking about care could make residential care a more acceptable option for the young people who would benefit from it most.

110. While the emphasis the English care system places on family environments is right, the potential of the residential sector to offer high quality, stable placements for a minority of young people is too often dismissed. With enforcement of higher standards, greater investment in skills, and a reconsideration of the theoretical basis for residential care, we believe that it could make a significant contribution to good quality placement choice for young people.

Local authority commissioning

111. There is some concern that costs and commissioning processes are preventing children having access to the widest range of placements. Kevin Williams, Chief Executive of TACT, claimed that young people are often placed 'in-house', that is in a local authority's own provision, even when more suitable provision may be available elsewhere; inappropriate placement makes breakdown more likely.[277] We heard from Kevin Williams and Robert Tapsfield of the Fostering Network that local authority managers are unwilling to commission from the independent sector because of costs and "ideological reluctance".[278] Kevin Williams told us he was concerned that commissioning is dictated by price rather than outcomes or overall value, and that this will eventually squeeze small, high-quality providers out of the market.[279] The New Economics Foundation argued that commissioning decisions made on the basis of price disincentivise the development of niche provision (largely private or voluntary sector) that is very effective over the longer term, and may thus deprive some children of the most effective type of placement for them.[280] We seek reassurances that cost constraints are not compromising children's access to the most appropriate placement for them, and that children's views are given particular consideration when 'value for money' decisions are made about providers.

112. Robert Tapsfield argued that the ability to make good placements matches is also hampered by the practice of spot-purchasing, when placements are procured in an ad hoc manner as the need arises, rather than through planned commissioning of independent sector placements according to anticipated demand.[281] We are concerned that spot purchasing of placements on a large scale would indicate a failure of needs analysis and planned commissioning. We recommend that the DCSF's Commissioning Support programme explicitly addresses good practice in planning for the future needs of the in care population.


185   Ev 4 [Barnardo's]; Q 44 [Dr Morgan, Maxine Wrigley]; Q 134 [Robert Tapsfield] Back

186   DCSF, Statistical First Release 23, September 2008 Back

187   DCSF, 2004 Spending Review Public Service Agreement target 5 Back

188   Q 10 Back

189   Q 18 [Dr Morgan]; Ev 314 [Ofsted] Back

190   Care Matters Green Paper, para 4.10 Back

191   Q 140 [Robert Tapsfield] Back

192   Care Matters Green Paper, para 4.25 Back

193   Q 10 Back

194   Q 44 Back

195   Care Matters White Paper, paras 3.66 ff. Back

196   DCSF, Statistical First Release 23, September 2008 Back

197   Q 495 [Pauline Newman]; Q 499 [Marion Davis] Back

198   Annex Back

199   Q 18 [Dr Morgan] Back

200   Ev 314 [Ofsted] Back

201   Q 499 [Marion Davis] Back

202   Q 142 Back

203   Q 285 [Steve Hillman]; Q 505 [Steve Goodman]; Q 506 [Marion Davis]; Ev 233 [LGA] Back

204   Ev 81; The Care Matters Partnership is a partnership between the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, and Coram Families. Back

205   Q 465 [Pauline Newman] Back

206   Children and Young Persons Act 2008, Sections 26-9 Back

207   Q 140 [Robert Tapsfield] Back

208   DCSF, Statistical First Release 23, September 2008; Care Matters White Paper, para 3.57 Back

209   Ev 59 Back

210   Care Matters White Paper, para 3.44 Back

211   Q 144 [Robert Tapsfield]; Q 148 [Kevin Williams]; Ev 58-9 [Fostering Network] Back

212   Ev 59 Back

213   Ev 58 [Fostering Network]; Q 144 ff. [Robert Tapsfield] Back

214   Ev 58 [Fostering Network] Back

215   Ev 59 Back

216   Ibid. Back

217   Ev 55 [Fostering Network] Back

218   TACT-The Adolescent & Children's Trust-is a national charity working with children and young people involved in the care system, and a fostering and adoption agency. Back

219   Qq 140, 148 [Kevin Williams] Back

220   Care Matters White Paper, para 3.42 Back

221   Q 145 Back

222   Ev 59 Back

223   Annex Back

224   Care Matters Green Paper, para 4.34 Back

225   Lord Laming, Care Matters: placements working group report (DfES 2007), para 89 Back

226   HC Deb, 8 October 2008, col 362  Back

227   Q 154 [Kevin Williams] Back

228   Q 154 Back

229   Ev 57 [Fostering Network] Back

230   Ibid.; Q 128 [Kevin Williams] Back

231   Children, Schools and Families Committee, First Report of Session 2007-08, Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords], HC 359, Ev 45 Back

232   Ev 58 Back

233   Q 148 Back

234   DCSF, Statistical First Release 23, September 2008; Health Committee, Second Report of Session 1997-98, Children Looked After by Local Authorities, HC 319-I, para 33 Back

235   P. Petrie, J. Boddy, C. Cameron, V. Wigfall, A. Simon, Working with children in care: European perspectives (Open University Press 2006) Back

236   Petrie et al, Working with children in care, pp 12, 38; P. Petrie and A. Simon, 'Residential care: lessons from Europe', in Chase, Simon, Jackson (eds.), In Care and After: a positive perspective (Abingdon 2006), pp 119-120; Q 161 [Robert Tapsfield, Prof Sinclair, Kevin Williams]; Ev 314 [Ofsted] Back

237   Petrie et al, Working with children in care, p 92 Back

238   Petrie and Simon, 'Residential care', p 120 Back

239   Q 287 [John Hill]; Q 451 [Les Lawrence]  Back

240   Multi-dimensional Treatment Foster Care caters for children and young people with very complex needs and challenging behaviour, combining high levels of supervision, parenting training, and access to a multi-disciplinary team. The DCSF has run pilot projects with local authorities for three different age groups. Back

241   Q 129 [Robert Tapsfield] Back

242   DCSF, Statistical First Release 23, September 2008 Back

243   Q 464 Back

244   Q 452 Back

245   Q 465 Back

246   Care Matters White Paper, para 3.57 Back

247   Q 249-50 [David Crimmens]; Ev 26 [Barnardo's] Back

248   Annex Back

249   Q 52 [Maxine Wrigley]; Q 251 [David Crimmens]  Back

250   Q 287 Back

251   Q 250 [David Crimmens] Back

252   Q 129 Back

253   Petrie et al, Working with children in care, chapter 6 Back

254   Petrie et al, Working with children in care, pp 35 ff. Back

255   Petrie and Simon, 'Residential care', p 122 Back

256   Q 162 [Professor Sinclair]; Q 287 [Professor Stein] Back

257   Q 276 Back

258   Qq 247, 268, 276 [Professor Petrie]; Q 267 [David Crimmens] Back

259   Ev 26 [Barnardo's]; see also Ev 318 [Ofsted]. Back

260   Ev 213 [ADCS] Back

261   Q 247 Back

262   Q 250 Back

263   Q 319 [Bob Ashford, Chris Callender]; Q 262 [David Crimmens] Back

264   Q 257 [David Crimmens, Jane Haywood]; Ev 216 [GSCC] Back

265   Q 252 [Professor Petrie] Back

266   Q 262 Back

267   Q 274 Back

268   Petrie et al, Working with children in care, p 97 Back

269   Q 248 [Professor Petrie]; Ev 451 [Les Lawrence] Back

270   Petrie and Simon, 'Residential care', p 124 Back

271   Q 275 Back

272   Q 162; see also Ev 341 [NCERCC]. Back

273   Qq 256, 267 [Professor Petrie];Q 267 [David Crimmens]; Ev 233 [LGA] Back

274   Ev 213 [ADCS]; Ev 233 [LGA]; see also Ev 346-7 [NCERCC]. Back

275   Q 268 Back

276   Q 162 Back

277   Q 140 Back

278   Qq 138, 141 [Kevin Williams], Q143 [Robert Tapsfield] Back

279   Q 123 Back

280   Ev 322 ff.; see also Ev 345 [NCERCC]. Back

281   Q 140 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 20 April 2009