Looked‐after children placed in externally purchased residential care

Abstract

In the desire to improve outcomes for children in care, the issue of those individuals placed by local authorities in residential establishments run by external agencies has become especially salient. In addition to questions of quality and value for money, there are concerns about children becoming detached from local services, especially as many of the placements selected are outside the local authorities' geographical boundaries. This study looks at 262 children so placed in eight English local authorities. It was found that although there were common presenting problems, such as a need for specialist therapy or to reduce difficult behaviour, the children's circumstances varied and four distinct groups of children with common needs were identified. The use of such placements also varied across the authorities and did not mirror their numbers of children in care. The factors associated with the use of externally purchased residential placements and differences between those placed internally and externally are explored. A framework for developing new approaches for difficult adolescents and suggestions about fruitful service development are offered.

In, out and after care: Young adults' views on their lives, as children, in a therapeutic residential establishment

“…Children in TCHs will tend to have experienced greater adversity in their lives, including maltreatment, and a more negative experience of the care system, both of which probably combine to result in their having greater emotional and behavioural needs (Bullock, 2009). …”

“…Although it may not be without its challenges, the impression from our, and other, work is that LAC value LSW and can benefit from it. LSW is likely to be worthwhile for many LAC but particularly those in TCHs who tend to have especially chaotic and traumatic backgrounds (Bullock, 2009). …”

“…Although the disquiet of former and current LAC is understandable, it has to be recognised that there are tensions in this area that can present staff with formidable challenges. While it is wholly appropriate, in principle, to promote LAC's social interaction, this has to be set against the fact that some LAC (Farmer and Pollock, 2003), and even more so those in TCHs (Bullock, 2009), may be vulnerable and/or a risk to others. This situation may call for special measures in terms of LAC's dealings with other people, including certain restrictions on their friendships to keep them and/or other people safe (Baldry and Kemmis, 1998).…”

“…One of the interventions often advocated for these children is placement in specialist facilities, which are known by a variety of terms, such as therapeutic children's homes (TCHs), in England (Bullock, 2009), and residential treatment centres (RTCs), in the US (Butler and McPherson, 2007;Connor, Doerfler, Toscano, Volungis and Steingard, 2004).…”

New challenges or different opportunities? Voluntary adoption agencies and the shifting terrain of childcare services

“…At a time of increasing public sector austerity, there is good evidence that adoption provides a more cost-effective option than fostering (which still caters for 75% of looked after children). This is true both in the short term and in terms of saving the longer term social costs that result from poor childcare outcomes (Bullock 2009;Groves 2010) Yet the pressure upon local authorities to place more children for adoption and to do so more quickly, does not sit easily with the extent of cuts now being implemented by central government and which local authorities will have to manage. With decision-making about the cuts being handed down to local authorities, central government is not in a position to guard those services which it views as having potential for improvement or development.…”