The Guardian view on unregulated children’s homes: a national scandal
There were several problems with last month’s announcement by the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, that the government would ban the placement of looked-after children under 16 in unregulated accommodation in England. The most obvious was that it is perfectly clear that this should have happened a long time ago. What on earth are we doing, is surely the only sensible reaction, upon learning that vulnerable younger teenagers (and teenagers in care are by definition vulnerable) are being placed in settings where they are not cared for?
Of the 6,190 children living in such placements in March last year, 90 were under 16. More than half (3,400) were living independently in flats or hostels while the rest were in what is described as “supported” arrangements, which sounds reassuring until you learn that there are no rules about staff qualifications, that these children are in sole charge of their healthcare, including specialist appointments, and can be left without adults regularly for significant periods. Last year BBC Newsnight found evidence that these young people were vulnerable to grooming gangs. In 2016 one young man, Lance Scott Walker, was stabbed to death by another resident of his unregulated west London home. In just under a decade, the overall number of children in such settings has almost doubled.
Children’s campaigners who had hoped for a full review of the care system are now worried. Modelled on a similar exercise carried out in Scotland, the cross-departmental investigation would have covered the experiences of all children in care. Instead it appears that a review promised by last year’s Conservative manifesto is likely to be overshadowed by child protection. Meanwhile the tightening up of rules governing unregulated accommodation for those aged 16 and 17 threatens to regularise what ought to be an unacceptable situation, in which children who are subject to “care orders” are not in fact cared for.
What makes this whole situation all the more jarring is that not long ago Conservative ministers were trying to level things up for older teenagers. The “Staying Put” policy championed by former children’s minister Edward Timpson gave 18-year-olds the option of remaining with foster carers until they reached 21. Lack of funding meant the policy had limited success, and it was never extended to children’s homes, but at least it recognised the injustice of a world in which some young adults are supported by parents well into their 20s (and beyond) while others must fend for themselves before they have had the chance to cast a vote.
It hardly takes an expert to point out how damaging this is. Poor outcomes for care leavers are a widely recognised problem. Rapid growth in the number who are effectively leaving care aged 16 can only make matters worse, especially when BAME and unaccompanied children, who arrived in the UK as refugees, are overrepresented (more than half of those in unregulated settings are BAME). Ministers should reconsider their priorities. As a first step, consultation must be widened with a view to capturing lookedafter teenagers’ views. There is nothing to be gained, and a great deal to be lost, by continuing to disregard them.