60,000 children who need us to care more and for longer

Whatever disappointments and concerns arise from the Queen’s Speech, it is commendable that government has found time for a Bill on children in care in England and Wales. Alongside major political issues such as climate change, immigration, pensions and counter-terrorism, parliamentary time will justifiably be allocated for this small but highly vulnerable group.

There are currently about 60,000 children in care who have experienced family breakdown and are mostly living in foster and residential homes. They emanate from the poorest, most socially disadvantaged families and the majority have been neglected or abused. Some are adopted. Many soon return home, with family support, but the long-term prospects for those who do not can be uncertain.

Some readers may recall that I wrote an article in the April 2007 edition of Parliamentary Brief highlighting the many concerns held by child welfare researchers about the preceding green paper Care Matters, which most importantly, had a highly negative tone. It revealed an over-simplistic understanding of the care system, it was preoccupied with educational achievement at the expense of wider concerns and it lacked an evidence-base.

Whether that article and researchers’ other efforts had some influence, or however else it came about, the subsequent white paper seemed to have been written with a better understanding of the complexities of providing social work and related services for children and families in crisis.

The Children and Young Persons Bill, as outlined, will generally continue this trend. Of course we await the detail but it would be difficult to argue with most of its aspirations. For example, there is no dispute with aiming to narrow the gap in ‘outcomes’ between children in care and their peers, including educational achievements.

It is stated that young people will not be ‘forced out’ of care before they are ready. If they are to be accommodated for longer, this will have resource implications. Most who stay beyond the age of 16 eventually have to leave their foster and residential homes on their 18th birthday to live independently, much younger than most of the population who are better equipped to cope and who have families to back them. Advice and support help, but they are no substitute for living with those who care. It is no wonder that so many care-leavers fail.

It would be unusual to see some proposals appear in an act of parliament as they seem more administrative in nature: for example, there is the requirement to ensure that children in care do not move school in the two years before their GCSEs ‘except in exceptional circumstances’ and, similarly, there is the obligation for social workers to visit children regularly.

I do not recall having met a social worker who actively avoids children for whom they are responsible. If we want more frequent contact to occur we have either to appoint more social workers or modify some of the systems and paperwork that prevent them from spending more time with children and parents.

But the most contentious measure in the Children and Young Persons Bill is likely to be the power to delegate certain responsibilities for children in care to independent ‘Social Work Practices’. This is the compulsory element of privatisation that nowadays seems to appear in social policy legislation. It is unclear what exactly could be delegated and how these practices would be regulated. At least these measures are to be piloted and evaluated rather than immediately introduced.

The green paper suggested that independent practices could retain a surplus or ‘profit’ if children in care were successfully adopted. This is both dangerous and unnecessary. Genuinely wishing to improve the welfare of severely deprived children should be motivation enough.

David Berridge is Professor of Child and Family Welfare, University of Bristol.