4Valuing care
89.As stated earlier, we welcome the Government’s work on adoption, residential care and social work reform in recent years. However, this focus on other placement options has contributed to a common belief that foster care is of lesser status. Many respondents to our inquiry said that while adoption is promoted as the ‘gold standard’, fostering was seen as “a stepping stone towards adoption rather than the best service to meet need in its own right”,158 a “second or even third best option”,159 and “the poor relative, not given the backing it deserves”.160 The ADCS and BASW both believe that the Government needs to act to tackle these views:
the debate must be broadened to reflect the range of permanence options available … the narrative around the care system, including the notion that adoption is the gold standard in permanence, must be challenged.161
90.People have also raised concerns that the way fostering is portrayed is too negative. We heard that “media coverage can give a polarised view of either the super human foster carer or the abusive foster carer”,162 and, as was highlighted in our predecessor Committee’s report into social work,163 stories related to children’s social care in the media invariably focus on negative or tragic instances. Phrases such as ‘languishing in care’ devalue and stigmatise children in care and those that work with them, while the overtly negative narrative implies that children in foster care are inevitably headed towards negative outcomes.164
91.It is widely held that a more positive narrative of the care system and the role of carers needs to be articulated by all agencies, including the Government.165 As Dave Hill stated, “we are not doing enough to talk about how foster caring is a great thing”.166 In 2016 our predecessor Committee called on the Government to launch a national public awareness campaign to celebrate the positive aspects of social work and boost the profile of the profession.167 We believe that the Government should do a similar thing for fostering. While portrayals need to be accurate and realistic, it is vital that the positive impacts of foster care and foster carers in improving the lives of vulnerable children are more widely acknowledged and celebrated.
92.However, valuing foster care does not just mean boosting its profile and praising carers. In order to demonstrate that it really does appreciate the hard work of all those involved and the benefits that foster care can bring, the Government must support for the foster care system, and provide it with the resources it needs to function effectively.
Capacity
93.As of 31 March 2017, there were 53,420 young people living in foster care in England. This is an increase of 4% on 2016, of over 6% on 2012, and of more than a third since 2002.168 The number of foster carers has been decreasing over the last few years,169 and Ofsted’s most recent annual statistics show that there have also been drops in the number of fostering households. However, the number of approved foster places rose by 3% between 2015 and 2016, to 83,175, and 61% of fostering places were filled while 23% were vacant, with the remainder not available. This means that there were more vacancies in 2016 than in the previous two years.170
94.However, the scale of available capacity in the foster care system is misleading. While there are currently more placements than young people requiring foster care, this does not mean that there are a large number of options for each child needing to be placed—”They are not all real vacancies”.171 There are many potential places that cannot be used, for a variety of reasons. Carers living near county borders are often unable to offer placements to children from a different local authority even though they may live nearby; some available placements may not be appropriate for a child because of their particular needs; and carers are assessed according to what types of young people they wish to care for, so may be unable or unwilling to take placements outside of their range. As one witness pointed out, “foster carers are registered based on the age of the child they want to look after [ … ] so depending on the demographics of what children are in care, we cannot say that there is a surplus”.172
95.While the Department for Education stated that “there is no overall shortage of foster carers at a national level”, it did accept that there are shortages in some areas and for some specialisms.173 It has been suggested that the Government carry out a national survey of fostering households, so as to gain a clearer idea of the demographics of the foster care system and contribute to a comprehensive gaps and needs analysis to enable better planning and targeted action.174
Issues that affect capacity
96.There are several factors which are affecting the available capacity of the foster care system, besides growing numbers of children entering care and falling numbers of carers. There is an uneven geographic spread of carers across the country, with councils struggling to recruit carers in areas of high property prices or levels of deprivation.175 In the current economic climate, more people are living with their parents until a later age, and many families have to support their children for longer, inhibiting their ability to welcome other young people into their homes.176 As already detailed, increasing take-up of Staying Put also reduces the number of available places.177
97.Another factor which is placing additional pressure on the foster care system is the rising numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) entering the care system. Figures for 2016–17 show that the number of looked-after UASC rose by 6% on the previous year, to 4,560, to make up 6% of the overall looked-after children population. There has been a rise of 134% in the number of UASC since 2013.178 55% of UASC live in foster placements.179
98.There is an uneven geographical split in terms of placement of UASC around the country, with the vast majority based in London and the South East—Kent experienced a 136% rise between 2015 and 2016180—although distribution is being spread wider due to the implementation of a National Transfer Scheme.181 Funding is also an issue, with research by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services finding that 43 of 44 local authorities felt national funding was not sufficient, with some predicting budget pressures of £1.5–£2 million. The ADCS projected a cost to local authorities of £3.4 million per annum per 100 UASC over and above Home Office grants, which cover no more than 50% of costs incurred by the local authority.182 Growing numbers of UASC also place additional burdens on the foster care system as 41% are said to have mental or psychological health needs, are also more likely to remain in care until they are 18 than other young people, thereby requiring longer support from local authorities, and will require placement with experienced and highly-skilled carers.183
Need to increase capacity
99.The figures show that there are technically enough foster carers (72,670) and foster places (83,175) to care for the number of young people requiring foster care (53,420). However, the Fostering Network has stated that 7,600 new foster families are needed to adequately meet need in England,184 with its Chief Executive, Kevin Williams, telling us that “the system as a whole is under immeasurable strain at the moment”.185
100.Fostering does not work on a simple one-for-one basis: not all carers are suitable to care for all ages of children, and many young people in care have differing needs which require a diverse pool of foster carers. As one witness told us, “It is not about a bed. We do not put children in beds. We match them with a carer who meets their needs”.186 The fostering system requires a surplus of available places for young people needing foster care so that they can be suitably matched with the best and most appropriate foster carer.
101.Capacity in the foster care system must be increased. There must be a range of placements options for young people requiring foster care so that they can be assured of the best and most appropriate home.
102.The Government’s approach to dealing with capacity issues must not only focus on increasing capacity but also look to support children and families before they reach crisis point and need to enter the care system. The Government must be proactive, and focus more energy and resources on early intervention. More support must be given to children and families when they first need help so that, where possible and appropriate to do so, they are enabled to stay together.
Recruitment
103.The number of foster carers in England has seen small yearly decreases since a peak in 2013–14. As of 31 March 2016 there were 72,670 approved foster carers in England, including family and friends carers and short-breaks only carers, down from 73,845 in 2015 and 74,125 in 2014. Ofsted’s latest annual statistics show that there was a drop of 2% in the number of initial enquiries between 2015 and 2016, following a decrease of 10% the previous year, and a drop of a third in the number of applications. These are decreases from 2013–14 of 11% and 45% respectively. The completion rate for applications was also the lowest in the last four years, but the approval rate was the highest, up 13% on the previous year, suggesting that agencies are improving the filtering of good potential foster carers.187
Advertising
104.As being a foster carer is a difficult and all-consuming role, there are challenges in attracting new people. However, the current state of the recruitment market is not conducive to rectifying this situation. As every foster care provider advertises and recruits separately, the market can become crowded and confusing for prospective foster carers, especially with the differences in types of provider. Often, prospective foster carers will end up just contacting the provider which advertised most effectively or expensively, rather than the one who would be the best fit or offer the best support.188
105.We also heard from current foster carers who told us that many depictions of fostering in marketing and advertising campaigns are unrealistic and inaccurate, and lead to new carers being unprepared for the realities of fostering. Anne Sayer said that current recruitment drives focus “on the idea that you can be a foster carer if you have room in your heart and room in your home. It does not come close to the complexity in any shape or form of what foster caring involves”.189 Brian Roberts, who works with other foster carers, told us that “I will tell it like it is, and certainly that appears to be very different [ … ] from what is the marketing drive for fostering”.190
Minority communities
106.There are particular difficulties in recruiting from minority communities. Penny Appeal pointed out that the most effective way of recruiting new carers—referral from existing carers—is hindered by the low numbers of people from those backgrounds currently fostering or employed as staff by fostering providers, and that as targeted recruitment tends to require disproportionately increased resources, many services do not consider it a financially viable option.191
A national recruitment campaign
107.As a result, many people have suggested to us that there ought to be a national recruitment programme for foster carers, as the Government runs for other professions, such as teaching.192 We were advised that this should focus online and on social media, rather than traditional ‘side of a bus’ advertising, and should involve current foster carers, as they are widely recognised to be the best method of attracting new people to foster.193 We heard evidence that targeted or innovative recruitment campaigns have effected real improvements: one witness said that a programme involving young people in recruitment of carers stimulated many times more enquiries to local authorities than the previous year, while Andy Elvin, Chief Executive of TACT, told us that his organisation, who are running Peterborough’s fostering and adoption services, are set to increase recruitment in that area by 1,500% this year.194
108.However, we were advised that any recruitment drive must place an emphasis on speedy and supportive responses to enquiries,195 and must be dictated by need. Anne Sayer told us that “at the moment there is a big emphasis on frontloading fostering through recruitment, a very wide, broad-brush, recruitment drive”.196 This is not what is needed. While there is a need for more foster carers to increase general capacity, it is more important that increases in carer numbers reflect the characteristics and needs of the looked-after population. Alison Michalska echoed many in saying that the emphasis in recruitment should be on “offering a more diverse foster carer supply”197—carers who are able and willing to care for adolescents, children with disabilities or additional needs, large sibling groups, and those from different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds, including unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
109.The vast majority of foster carers in England—around 87%—are white. However, more than a fifth of young people in foster care are from minority backgrounds. In 2016, nine local authorities198 reported having no long-term foster carers from minority ethnic groups.199 It is not essential to place young people with carers from the same backgrounds, or match placements along ethnic, religious or cultural lines. However, it may be suitable to do so, or desired by the young person, in some situations. It is vital that all carers are given support in working with young people from different backgrounds.
110.The Government should establish a national recruitment and awareness campaign for foster carers. This should:
- focus on areas of the country where more carers are particularly needed;
- seek to increase the number of carers from ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds which are currently lacking in representation; and
- target those with specific skills—such as in working with young people with disabilities or special educational needs—in which there is currently a need for greater support.
Relations between foster care providers
111.There is a mixed economy of care options within the fostering system. The majority (two-thirds) of young people are placed with local authority foster carers, with the remainder cared for by independent fostering agencies (IFAs).200 IFAs receive referrals from local authorities when they have been unable to place a child with their own carers, and the agency then attempts to find a suitable placement from their own carers. Some local authorities pay by the placement, while others have standing contracts with independent agencies. Some IFAs are commercial and profit-making, while others are voluntary or not-for-profit. There are differences between IFAs and local authorities: IFAs tend to have higher proportions of carers and children from minority backgrounds, and children with disabilities, and are also more likely to have larger households. The majority of short term, short break, and long term/permanent placements were offered by local authorities, while IFAs offered most emergency, parent and child, and multi-dimensional treatment placements.201 The number and percentage of children placed with IFAs has been increasing over recent years, but showed a slight decrease in 2015–16, while applications by prospective new foster carers are split roughly 50/50 between local authority providers and independent agencies.202
112.There are different views within the sector regarding the role of private companies, particularly commercial ones, being involved in the care of vulnerable children.203 However, Kevin Williams from The Fostering Network said IFAs had “led the way” in professionalising the role of foster carer,204 and both the LGA and the ADCS believe that they have vital roles to play in the foster care system.205 IFAs also tend to have better inspection results: Ofsted rated almost 90% of IFAs as “good” or “outstanding” for ‘Children looked after and achieving permanence’, compared to 35% of local authorities.206 However, these figures need to be treated with caution as local authorities are graded for their entire range of children’s services while IFA inspections only focus on fostering.
113.Many independent fostering agencies were set up to cater for specific groups of young people, for example those from certain ethnic backgrounds or with additional or challenging needs, or were started by carers or social workers breaking off from the local authority system aiming to offer a more personalised type of care. However, with the growth and increased demands of the foster care system, IFAs now provide foster placements for a much wider range of children.
114.We were told that relationships between IFAs and local authority providers are “strained” or “mixed”,207 and that there is often a “them and us culture”.208 The NAFP said that in their experience “the tone of some local authorities is resolutely anti-agency”, with some being “directive, oppositional and suspicious”,209 while Barnardo’s told us that there has been a noticeable “decline in the level of collaboration between local authorities and IFAs”.210
Allegations of profiteering and ‘golden handshakes’
115.Much of the opposition to IFAs stems from financial concerns. For example, local authorities told us that they often struggle to compete financially with IFAs in the marketing and recruitment of foster carers.211 In his review of the residential care system, Sir Martin Narey expressed concern at the level of profit made by some commercial fostering agencies providing foster placements.212 This practice was called “completely unacceptable” and “immoral” by Councillor Richard Watts and “obscene” by Andy Elvin.213 Sir Martin suggested that while he was “unconvinced” about the alleged excessive profits in privately-run children’s homes, “there may be rather more to concern us when it comes to private foster care”.214
116.Independent agencies have also been criticised due to reports of the use of ‘golden hellos’ or ‘golden handshakes’—the practice of recruiting local authority carers into the private sector by offering financial incentives, then charging local authorities higher prices to use their services. Dave Hill called the practice “immoral and wrong”.215 Many have called for such incentives to be banned, with some agencies deciding to stop using such payments in the wake of such criticism.216 However, it is hard to ascertain how common or widespread the practice of offering golden hellos is—the Children’s Services Development Group claimed that the extent of the practice has been “heavily exaggerated and distorted”217—and representatives of the independent sector have countered that local authorities also use various types of inducement to attract carers, including increased allowances, ‘no council tax’ incentives and the promise of additional placements.218
Commissioning
117.The other main issue of contention between local authorities and IFAs regards the process for commissioning placements. When they are unable to place a young person with one of their own foster carers, a local authority will seek a placement through an IFA, usually on the basis of a pre-arranged framework of cost and provision agreed between the authority and the agency. However, it has been reported that the cost of a placement with an IFA can be much higher than with a local authority carer: Sir Martin Narey’s report suggested that private sector operators can charge up to 92% more than the local authority’s direct recruitment costs, with voluntary providers costing 79% more,219 while the LGA claimed that IFA placements can cost twice as much as an in-house placement.220 Andrew Ireland, on behalf of Kent County Council, told us that at the height of the pressures in dealing with unaccompanied asylum seeking children in 2015, they found that independent agencies raised their prices.221
118.Independent providers have denied that their services are more expensive, claiming that direct price comparisons are often flawed and not carried out on a like-for-like basis. They also pointed out that IFAs are required to provide monitoring and quality assurance information to local authorities at a level and regularity not applied to in-house services.222
119.IFAs have also suggested that this belief has led to local authorities prioritising their own in-house provision, even when a placement with a local authority carer may not be the best match for the child in question. We heard that local authorities usually prefer to offer placements to their own carers first and fill up their in-house provision before referring out to independent agencies, for reasons including maintaining “clear and open lines of communication”,223 keeping with carers they know well,224 and making the most of funds already committed to in-house provision.225 However, many agencies believe that this predisposition to in-house provision—a “discernible and worrying trend”, according to the NAFP226—is not conducive to finding the best and most appropriate placement. The National Fostering Agency said that “the arbitrary movement of placements by a local authority to an ‘in house’ carer on the basis of cost is not acceptable”,227 while the NAFP criticised an “economic model that needs to fill up the chosen service first (in this case an in-house fostering service that is the automatic preferred provider without any prior process to determine if that is best), rather than choose what is best for each child”.228
120.There is concern over the “growing trend” of price-led commissioning by local authorities.229 We were told of several examples of procurement exercises “where the emphasis is on price over quality or outcomes”, with contracts regularly weighting up to 70% on price and 30% on quality.230 Additionally, many contract frameworks have capped pricing, which can lead to agencies not offering their services as part of these frameworks as they do not feel they can offer an adequate level of care and service for the limited price.231 As a result, the Children’s Services Development Group questioned whether local authorities’ commissioning policies were in the best interests of the children in their care:
This focus on cost fails to sufficiently regard the quality of care or outcomes delivered by IFAs. By predominantly rewarding only the cheapest providers, the overall quality of care children receive will be compromised.232
The NAFP summed up: “Price not quality is the key driver. And the understanding of price is very poor”.233
121.Several witnesses suggested that one of the causes for this prioritisation of cost over need may be the fact that local authorities are both purchasers and providers of fostering services, thereby questioning the objectivity of current commissioning arrangements:
Almost all LAs host the foster care commissioning/placements team within the same directorate as the in-house foster care service. As such the objectivity and equitability of any commissioning approach is undermined. This bias towards in-house foster care creates an un-level playing field.234
122.Kevin Williams pointed out that the current commissioning system is dated, as despite over a third of placements being in the independent sector processes are still predicated on a belief that IFAs are supporting local authorities, rather than working together and jointly.235 Because of this, and because the tensions and pressures inherent and evident in the current system are souring relations between foster care providers and encumbering all parties’ abilities to find the right placement for a child in need, witnesses called for a new national commissioning or procurement framework, to replace the existing model.236
Commissioning has not moved on far enough from procurement that commoditises units in order to negotiate price. That model does not fit well with children’s services.237
123.Independent agencies are a valuable part of the care system, and generally provide high-quality levels of service and care to the young people and carers they work with. Yet conversations and considerations around the inter-relationships of local authority and independent foster care providers are largely dominated by financial concerns. As Harvey Gallagher told us:
If the conversations and the collaboration are only about money, that makes it very difficult to develop services that are genuinely collaborative and will genuinely meet the needs of children.238
Kevin Williams concurred, arguing that debating whether local authorities are better or cheaper than IFAs is a narrowing of wider and more important issues, and that the focus should be on how the system is funded, and how that money is used efficiently and effectively.239
124.The quality of foster care provision must always be paramount. We are concerned by the extent to which commissioning and placement decisions are made on the basis of cost. The Government must provide local authorities with the resources they need to ensure financial concerns do not take precedence over the needs of the child. The Government should also require standardised cost analyses of local authority and IFA placements.
New ways of working
Funding and resource pressures
125.One of the primary reasons for the pre-eminence of cost in decision-making and commissioning of services is the impact of the increasing funding and resource pressures local authorities are currently facing. Overall government expenditure on foster care has increased each year along with the number of children in foster care since 2010, from £1.27 billion in 2010/11 to £1.55 billion in 2016/17. However, as a result of the way that local government finance settlements work, it is not possible to clearly track change in local government funding for children’s social care. Real terms expenditure per child has seen yearly decreases since 2012/13, from £20,820 per child to £19,740.240 With regard to local authorities more generally, the Institute for Fiscal Studies reported that councils have seen an average real-terms funding cut of almost 25% since 2009, while analysis by the National Audit Office found that the Government reduced its funding to local authorities by an estimated 28% in real terms between 2010–11 and 2014–15.241 Further planned cuts brought the total reduction to 37% by 2015–16. Recent analysis by the Local Government Association found that in 2015–16 councils exceeded their budgets by £605 million providing services for children in care, with a funding gap of £2 billion expected by 2020.242 Andrew Ireland from Kent County Council suggested that the fact that so many authorities are overspending challenges the notion that placement decisions are made largely by cost.243
126.The strains on local authorities were widely recognised by witnesses. Andrew Ireland told us that “the squeeze is absolutely real”,244 while Iain Anderson, Chief Executive of the National Fostering Agency, said that the pressures they are under are “tremendous”. He added that, as a representative of an independent fostering agency, “I don’t envy them”.245 We were warned that funding cuts will mean fewer services for foster carers and children in care. Andy Elvin stated that “you cannot do more with less in this situation. You will end up doing less. It’s inevitable”.246
127.When questioned on the financial challenges experienced by local authorities, the Minister said that funding for children’s services is up to individual authorities to allocate from the Government’s block funding of local authorities:
They have a £200 billion package through to the end of this decade, so they know what their funding will be. They make the decisions. We have local democracy in this country.247
He added that money does not always equal results:
There is not a straightforward correlation between what a local authority spends on children’s services and the services they get [ … ] this idea that the more you put in, the more you get out, does not necessarily follow. Some of the best local authorities are doing it on quite lean funding, but doing it very well indeed.248
This was supported by Ofsted, which has found that some inadequate authorities are among the highest spending, and concluded that “regardless of context, providing outstanding services is possible and that good is a standard that any local authority can achieve and maintain”.249
Innovation
128.As a result of the resource pressures, local authorities are looking to innovate and find new ways of working that improve efficiency and effectiveness. Many projects being trialled or implemented by councils are backed by the Department for Education’s Innovation Programme, which was launched in October 2013 and supports programmes which test new and effective ways of delivering support for children. This has been backed by over £200 million of Government funding, and has supported almost 100 projects.250 The Government attempted to encourage authorities to innovate further by seeking to introduce a clause into the Children and Social Work Bill which would exempt them from some children’s social care legislation which currently prevents trialling of new ideas. However, this was met with staunch opposition,251 and the Government eventually dropped the controversial exemption clauses.
129.There is enthusiasm for innovation within the sector. Simon Bower, from Bournemouth Borough Council, believes that “There is definitely the appetite to do that”,252 while Steve Walker from Leeds City Council said that the Innovation Programme has “stimulated a culture of openness among local authorities” who are now “very keen to share”.253 Melissa Green, on behalf of The Fostering Network, said that “We would encourage anything that allows services to think differently about what they do and home in on what their challenges are”.254 Witnesses told us that they are keen to establish and make use of a body of evidence and learning that can inform their work and promote a culture of evidence-based practice.255
130.The then Minister for Children and Families, Edward Timpson MP, told our predecessor Committee that he “subscribes to a ‘what works’ view of the world”,256 while Graham Archer, Director of Improvement and Learning for Children’s Social Care at the Department for Education, said that there is “a systematic desire to see practice informed by learning, and to see innovation as a standard part of what we do”.257 However, he added that while “there are some powerful benefits from bringing either specific services or the whole of the children’s social care services together”, it was not easy to do:
It takes a certain amount of bravery among both politicians and officers in local government to share ownership, decision-making and accountability [ … ] I think it is doable and there are some good examples. I am not going to pretend it is easy, but it is something we should encourage, particularly where there are economies of scale in a difficult fiscal environment that there will be more of in the future.258
131.Given the well-evidenced improvements made in areas with access to the Innovation Programme, we recommend that the Government extend the time period and at least double the funding given to the Programme, so that more children and young people are able to benefit from early intervention and improved services.
Different structural models
132.As well as innovating within their own practice and processes, many local authorities have been exploring different ways of structuring their children’s services departments and delivering their services.
Combined local authorities
133.In 2011 three London councils—Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, and Hammersmith and Fulham—brought their children’s services departments together to create one children’s service. It was estimated that this ‘tri-borough’ arrangement would save the councils £13 million a year, and in 2016 Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea became the first local authorities to have their children’s services rated as Outstanding by Ofsted. The tri-borough was regularly praised by the Government: the former Minister for Children and Families, Edward Timpson MP, told the previous Committee that the councils were “examples of how, if we deliver services differently [ … ] we can improve services”.259 However, in March 2017 the councils announced that they were terminating the tri-borough arrangement, citing political differences and disagreements between the partners, though the shared fostering and adoption service will be maintained.260
134.Steve Miley, the Director of Children’s Services responsible for the tri-borough fostering and adoption service, told us that this set-up brings many benefits to its constituent councils. By pooling carers it provides greater opportunity for successful matching, and avoids duplication by having joint marketing and recruitment campaigns. This arrangement also enables the councils to identify best practice, by comparing and contrasting previous processes and ways of working. Mr Miley said that the tri-borough has already reduced its use of independent agencies by 25%, and has increased recruitment of carers.261 While there are challenges to such collaboration between authorities—the optimum size for such merging is yet to be established, and it was pointed out that it is difficult to join services without merging politically, as was the case with the tri-borough262—Mr Miley told us that other local authorities are similarly thinking about bringing their services together.263
135.Many local authorities are already co-operating and collaborating, without unifying the entirety of their service. Our predecessor Committee took evidence from representatives of the South Central Independent Fostering Agency Framework, a partnership between 14 local authorities in the South Central regions of England who are working together to improve the quality and sufficiency of placements within the region, and Leeds City Council, who are part of the White Rose Framework, collaborating with services across Yorkshire and the Humber. Jonny Woodthorpe, Commissioning Co-ordinator for Bournemouth Borough Council, suggested that there is potential for even greater efficiencies if regional consortia also work together.264
Trusts
136.In December 2015 the then Prime Minister David Cameron announced that poor-performing children’s services which showed little sign of improvement within six months would be taken over by a trust led by a new service leader and formed of high-performing local authorities, child protection experts, and charities.265 Since then, several councils have made the move to the trust model, using slightly different arrangements. Some, like Doncaster and Slough, had independent trusts imposed on them by the Government following successive inadequate Ofsted judgements. Others made the change voluntarily: Sunderland’s children’s services are run by an arm’s length company owned by and accountable to the council, but with an independent board of directors, and Birmingham and Reading are currently in the process of following this model. An alternative method has been to establish a community interest company. Since April 2014, children’s services for Richmond and Kingston councils (and for Windsor and Maidenhead since August 2017) have been run by Achieving for Children, which was created and is owned by the councils, but which delivers services independently.
137.Mark Douglas, Chief Operating Officer for the Doncaster Children’s Services Trust, told us that the benefit of the trust model is that it separates the service from the struggling council provision:
Only a clean break between the local authority in terms of management of services could deliver the improvement and change that was required [ … ] I do not believe that we could have created the change and the pace of change and improvement had we remained with the local authority.266
He added that separation from the council had “detoxified” the service in Doncaster.
138.Intervening and taking over struggling children’s services departments by using the trust model appears to be the Government’s preferred method of driving improvement. However, many have taken issue with this practice. Much opposition has revolved around the destabilisation involved in restructuring, and the disruption and cost involved in conversion, estimated at £3–3.5 million a year during the process.267 Others have highlighted that those services which have undergone the change have not seen major or quick improvements: the Children’s Services Trusts in both Doncaster and Slough were rated inadequate after making the transition.268 However, these inspections were conducted relatively soon after the change, and results reflect the level of improvement required. Birmingham City Council’s services have been found to have made “notable improvement” and are making steady progress,269 while in August 2015 Kingston became one of the first areas to jump two Ofsted grades in one inspection, improving to good in all categories from inadequate in 2012.270 Speaking from his experience, Mark Douglas told us that while “the trust arrangements in Doncaster would not be right for everybody and I would not suggest it is a ‘one solution fits all’-type approach”, the costs and difficulties in establishing a trust need to be measured against the cost of systemic failure.271
139.Professor Ray Jones stated that he thought that the trust model is the “wrong intervention”:
What we do not want to do is create additional complexity and cost and time delay. What you want to do is inject a resource into a local authority with some power, to be able to give direction, to make a local authority do what it needs to do, to understand what it needs to do, but at the end of the day still have a local authority that can take overall responsibility still for its children’s service.272
Outsourcing
140.Since April 2017, Peterborough City Council’s permanency service, which includes its fostering and adoption services, has been run by The Adolescent and Children’s Trust (TACT), a national fostering and adoption charity. The permanency service is based at city council offices, and is overseen by a joint board that includes senior staff from both the council and TACT. Responsibility has not devolved from the authority, but TACT have provided them with “new leadership, new training, new direction”.273 Andy Elvin, Chief Executive of TACT, told us that the main benefit of this arrangement is that it allows a dedicated focus on the permanence services, as they do not have responsibility for child protection. He said that fostering services are often “Cinderella services”, not given the attention they need, as the primary focus for councils is child protection: “Child protection is all-encompassing [ … ] care may not be optimal, but it is rarely dangerous. Something that happens in a foster home is unlikely to cost you your job or cause a council member to resign. In child protection, all the risk is there.274
141.It is believed that organising services in this way will reduce the council’s reliance on more expensive independent fostering placements, enable improved recruitment and training of local foster carers—Mr Elvin claimed that TACT are going to increase recruitment in Peterborough by 1,500% “because we are good at recruiting in a way that local authorities are not”275—and allow them to offer improved services and support for their children and carers, with a department dedicated to foster pay and a 24/7 support service staffed by qualified social workers.276 Mr Elvin said that several other local authorities had held conversations with TACT, and that, subject to results in Peterborough, he would expect more to make the move to a similar model:
If you can contract out to someone who is dedicated only to that part and can more or less guarantee decent Ofsted results, that is going to be very attractive for local authorities.277
142.However, there is opposition to the outsourcing of children’s services, whether involving organisations such as TACT or through the trust model.278 There are fears that these changes may lead to the growth or acceleration of a marketplace or of privatisation in the sector. In evidence to us the Minister said that the Government only intervenes when it has to:
There is no reason why, once those services have been fixed, they should not return back to the local authority. There is certainly no agenda from this Government to privatise the situation.279
‘Churn and change’ versus stability
143.There has also been criticism of the assumption that “transformation [of children’s services] itself brings longer-term benefits for the service user” and an “expectation of improved outcomes in the medium to long term”.280 Professor Ray Jones has written that this is a “staggering assertion”, questioning why “churn, change and fragmentation” is preferred over “continuity, coherence and co-operation”.281 Professor Jones believes that taking services out of councils “is not a quick fix or an easy solution”, as it introduces instability and delay instead of enabling councils to build a strong and stable workforce and an organisational culture which can drive improvement.282
144.The Government’s focus on removing control from local authorities in order to improve standards is borne out by the evidence the Minister gave to us. Mr Goodwill claimed that “it is all about leadership I’m afraid”:
Where you see children’s services failing, it is down to leadership. If you have got a good director of children’s services and a good cabinet member leading that, they can improve the service they give.283
145.While the introduction of new, high-quality and experienced leadership can energise a struggling system and introduce new ways of thinking or working, changing leadership alone when issues arise does not facilitate the development of long-term strategies, or allow authorities to learn and develop from their own experience. This churn and change causes instability for all involved including, perhaps most damagingly, the young people in receipt of these services:
The recent history is that about a third of children’s services directors changing every year. We just need to calm it all down a bit. We need to reintroduce some stability and some consistency and some calmness [ … ] Somewhere along the line we have to build stability in our organisations at the top [ … ] so that we can give stability to children.284
As witnesses told us, “you don’t necessarily need to change a model in order to effect change”.285
146.Local authorities’ children’s services need to improve. While funding and resourcing will always be an issue, particularly with an increasing number of children in care, we welcome attempts to innovate and find new, efficient and effective ways of working. However, it is vital that change is not imposed for change’s sake, or before internal improvements can take effect. We recommend that the Government place a greater emphasis on providing support and guidance when considering intervention.
161 Association of Directors of Children’s Services (FOS0099), para 3; Q145 [Dr Ruth Allen], HC (2016–17) 681
163 Education Committee, Social work reform, Third Report of Session 2016–17, HC 201, pp 26–7
164 Centre for Research on Children and Families, University of East Anglia (FOS0067), para 4.2; Local Government Association (FOS0050), para 7.1; Q103 [Andy Elvin], HC (2016–17) 681; Q151 [Jon Fayle], HC (2016–17) 681
165 Essex County Council (FOS0052), para 63; Association of Directors of Children’s Services (FOS0099), para 15; Q122 [Andrew Ireland], HC (2016–17) 681
166 Q151, HC (2016–17) 681
167 Education Committee, Social work reform, Third Report of Session 2016–17, HC 201, p 27
168 Department for Education, Children looked after in England (including adoption), year ending 31 March 2017, 28 September 2017, p 8; Department for Education (FOS0086), para 9
169 See paragraph 103
170 Ofsted, Fostering in England, 2015–16, 28 February 2017, p 7
171 Q103 [Harvey Gallagher], HC (2016–17) 681
172 Q110
177 See paragraph 44
178 Department for Education, Children looked after in England (including adoption), year ending 31 March 2017, 28 September 2017, pp 6–7
179 Association of Directors of Children’s Services, Safeguarding Pressures Phase 5—Special Thematic Report on Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking and Refugee Children, November 2016, p 19
180 Department for Education, Children looked after in England (including adoption) year ending 31 March 2016, 29 September 2016, p 6
181 This was introduced by the Government in July 2016, and is predicated on each local authority accepting UASC up to 0.07% of its child population in order to ensure equitable distribution across the country.
182 Association of Directors of Children’s Services, Safeguarding Pressures Phase 5 - Special Thematic Report on Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking and Refugee Children, November 2016, pp 27, 30; Q102 [Andy Elvin, Andrew Ireland], HC (2016–17) 681
183 Q102 [Andrew Ireland, Harvey Gallagher], HC (2016–17) 681
184 The Fostering Network, ‘Over 9,000 more fostering households urgently needed during 2016’, 7 January 2016
185 Q55, HC (2016–17) 681
186 Q56 [Jackie Edwards], HC (2016–17) 681
187 Q154 [Matthew Brazier], HC (2016–17) 681; Ofsted, Fostering in England, 2015–16, 28 February 2017, pp 10–12
189 Q3, HC (2016–17) 681
190 Q9 [Brian Roberts], HC (2016–17) 681
192 Q151 [Dave Hill], HC (2016–17) 681; Qq13, 41 [Alison Michalska]; The Adolescent and Children’s Trust (FOS0072), para 5.2; Q103 [Andy Elvin], HC (2016–17) 681; Q63 [Andy Elvin, Steve Miley]
193 Q135 [Katy Willison]; Q103 [Andy Elvin], HC (2016–17) 681; Q10 [Gemma Ronte], HC (2016–17) 681
194 Q137 [Luke Rodgers]; Q61 [Andy Elvin]
195 Q64 [Andy Elvin]; Q103 [Iain Anderson, Andrew Ireland], HC (2016–17) 681; Q206 [Steve Walker], HC (2016–17) 681
196 Q3, HC (2016–17) 681
197 Q13; Q56 [Jackie Edwards]; Q57 [Professor Harriet Ward], HC (2016–17) 681; Q103 [Harvey Gallagher, Andrew Ireland], HC (2016–17) 681
198 Knowsley, North East Lincolnshire, North Somerset, Redcar and Cleveland, Rutland, Sefton, Shropshire, St Helens, and West Berkshire.
199 Ofsted, Fostering in England, 2015–16, 28 February 2017, p 8
200 Ofsted, Fostering in England, 2015–16, 28 February 2017, p 15
201 Ofsted, Fostering in England, 2015–16, 28 February 2017, p 5
202 Ofsted, Fostering in England, 2015–16, 28 February 2017, p 10
203 Reverend Andrew Gale (FOS0006), para 1; Q38 [Michael Fesemeyer], HC (2016–17) 681; Q87 [Andy Elvin], HC (2016–17) 681; Wandsworth Foster Carers’ Association (FOS0034), p 14; Q44 [Professor Ray Jones]
204 Q69, HC (2016–17) 681
205 Local Government Association (FOS0050), para 2.4; Association of Directors of Children’s Services (FOS0099), para 12
212 HM Government, Residential Care in England, July 2016, p 23
213 Children & Young People Now, ‘Call for ban on ‘golden hellos’ in fostering’, 7 September 2016; The Guardian, ‘Why do we let fostering agencies profit from caring for vulnerable children?’, 11 January 2016
214 HM Government, Residential Care in England, July 2016, p 23
215 BBC News, ‘Foster carers ‘poached with golden hellos’, 5 August 2016
216 Children & Young People Now, ‘Major foster care firm scraps ‘golden hello’ incentives’, 9 September 2016; Q103 [Iain Anderson], HC (2016–17) 681
218 National Fostering Agency (FOS0076), para 5; Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers (FOS0101), para 33; Children’s Services Development Group (FOS0051), para 6
219 HM Government, Residential Care in England, July 2016, p 24
221 Q88, HC (2016–17) 681
222 Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers (FOS0101), para 6; Children’s Services Development Group (FOS0051), para 20; National Fostering Agency (FOS0076), para 21; Q86 [Harvey Gallagher], HC (2016–17) 681; Q38 [Gemma Ronte], HC (2016–17) 681; Q72 [Kevin Williams], HC (2016–17) 681
231 Q97 [Iain Anderson], HC (2016–17) 681
234 Children’s Services Development Group (FOS0051), para 10; Action for Children (FOS0079), para 6.2; Q38 [Anne Sayer], HC (2016–17) 681
235 Q69, HC (2016–17) 681
236 Q84 [Andy Elvin], HC (2016–17) 681; Children’s Services Development Group (FOS0051), para 22; Q69 [Kevin Williams], HC (2016–17) 681; Q195 [Melissa Green], HC (2016–17) 681
238 Q83, HC (2016–17) 681
239 Q72, HC (2016–17) 681
240 Department for Education, ‘Statistics: local authority and school finance’; Department for Education, Children looked after in England (including adoption), year ending 31 March 2017, 28 September 2017
241 Institute for Fiscal Studies, A time of revolution? British local government finance in the 2010s, October 2016; National Audit Office, The impact of funding reductions on local authorities, November 2014
242 Local Government Association, ‘Children’s social care at breaking point, council leaders warn’, 9 August 2017; Q153 [Councillor Richard Watts], HC (2016–17) 681
243 Q95, HC (2016–17) 681
244 Q106, HC (2016–17) 681
245 Q106, HC (2016–17) 681
246 Q105, HC (2016–17) 681
247 Q120
248 Q121
249 Ofsted, Social care: The report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2016, 28 June 2016, p 14
250 Spring Consortium, ‘The Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme’, accessed 30 November 2017
251 Q78 [Kevin Williams, Professor Harriet Ward], HC (2016–17) 681; The Fostering Network, ‘Children and Social Work Bill’; Community Care, ‘Scrapping red tape or safeguards? The fight for the future of children’s services’, 13 October 2016
252 Q188, HC (2016–17) 681
253 Q186, HC (2016–17) 681
254 Q199, HC (2016–17) 681
255 Q185 [Steve Walker], HC (2016–17) 681; Q186 [Melissa Green], HC (2016–17) 681
256 Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee on 4 May 2016, HC (2015–16) 690, Q226
257 Q183, HC (2016–17) 681
258 Q194, HC (2016–17) 681
259 Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee on 4 May 2016, HC (2015–16) 690, Q226
260 Community Care, ‘Councils to scrap ‘Tri-borough’ deal for social care services’, 29 March 2017; Q50
261 Qq50–3
262 Qq51–2 [Andy Elvin]; Q54 [Professor Ray Jones]
263 Q50
264 Q201, HC (2016–17) 681
265 HM Government, ‘PM: We will not stand by—failing children’s services will be taken over’, 14 December 2015
266 Q62
267 Q60 [Professor Ray Jones]; Community Care, ‘The new service models shaking up children’s social work’, 19 January 2017
268 Community Care, ‘Are independent children’s trusts really the answer to struggling services?’, 8 June 2016
269 Birmingham Mail, ‘Ofsted praises improvements at Birmingham’s children’s services’, 13 June 2017
270 Achieving for Children, ‘Children’s services improvement’, accessed 29 November 2017
271 Q62
272 Q60
273 Q61
274 Q84, HC (2016–17) 681; Q46
275 Q61
276 Q47 [Andy Elvin]
277 Q84, HC (2016–17) 681; Q46
278 The Guardian, ‘Outsourcing children’s services is not a quick fix’, 7 October 2016; The Guardian, ‘New report is the next step to privatising children’s social services’, 12 December 2016
279 Q140
280 Department for Education, The potential for developing the capacity and diversity of children’s social care services in England, December 2016, p 9
281 The Guardian, ‘New report is the next step to privatising children’s social services’, 12 December 2016
282 The Guardian, ‘Outsourcing children’s services is not a quick fix’, 7 October 2016
283 Qq122–7
284 Q54 [Professor Ray Jones]
285 Q199 [Melissa Green], HC (2016–17) 681
21 December 2017