Reimagining Children’s Residential: From Crisis Management to Strategic System Design

After reading the latest publications from Ofsted alongside commentary from the Children’s Homes Association, it’s clear there is a lot of tension between rapid growth in provision and the ongoing struggle to find suitable placements for the children who need the most support. This post shares a brief reflection on what those documents reveal, and how we might better understand the structural causes behind the current instability.

England’s care system for children and young people is in a (long) period of escalating instability, in which local authorities face unprecedented difficulty finding suitable placements, especially for children with high and complex needs. This persists despite significant growth in registered provision: the latest Ofsted annual report highlights a fifteen per cent increase in the number of children’s homes over the past year, bringing the sector to its largest size in history. Yet numerical expansion has not generated a corresponding improvement in sufficiency, nor meaningfully relieved pressure on local authorities.

The paradox, at first glance, is perplexing: more homes, yet increasing unmet demand. This reflects not provider indifference or lack of investment, but a system in which new provision evolves largely without coordinated national or regional sufficiency planning. Decisions about where homes are developed or acquired are shaped by a complex interplay of factors: the availability and suitability of properties, local commissioning relationships, regulatory considerations, access to a stable workforce, and financial risk. While some provision inevitably emerges in lower-cost housing markets, there are also many providers who have invested substantial capital in high-quality homes in areas where property values are higher, because they view high-quality living environments as essential to therapeutic work.

However, in the absence of consistent strategic oversight from government and clear commissioning direction, the pattern of provision can still become uneven. Some regions end up with clusters of generalist homes, while others struggle to secure specialist environments capable of supporting children with significant emotional, behavioural, neurodevelopmental or mental health-related needs. In these contexts, it is not surprising that young people with complex needs experience rejection, instability and displacement, not because providers are unwilling to care, but because they are operating within models that are financially and operationally fragile, and subject to regulatory pressures that make risk-tolerance extremely difficult.

For those young people, the result is a pattern of instability that compounds trauma. Too often, placements are disrupted because services are not resourced to deliver the intensity of support required, rather than because staff or organisations lack commitment or compassion. The evidence base increasingly shows that these disruptions reflect systemic conditions: financial models based on occupancy rather than support intensity; workforce shortages that make one-to-one and two-to-one support difficult to sustain; and inspection frameworks that can inadvertently penalise providers for accepting and persevering with young people whose lives are complex and unpredictable.

Where suitable regulated placements cannot be found, local authorities are left with few alternatives. They often resort to emergency, unregulated or temporary arrangements which, although sometimes the only viable option in the moment, can be unsafe, isolating and financially punitive. Rather than a temporary stopgap, these arrangements have become a structural feature of the system, absorbing children who are already marginalised into situations that compound risk and developmental harm. It is not unreasonable to describe this as a market failure; it is also, fundamentally, a failure of public policy and governance.

The critique articulated by the Children’s Homes Association (CHA) challenges the dominant narrative around this failure. While Ofsted has drawn attention to profiteering, market distortion and the proliferation of inexperienced providers, CHA argues that the tone of regulatory commentary risks obscuring deeper structural drivers and unintentionally undermining the work of those providers who are genuinely striving to offer stable, high-quality, therapeutic care in a challenging environment. Long registration delays, inconsistent regulatory interpretation, and lack of targeted investment in specialist provision have all contributed to the conditions in which high-cost, low-value emergency placements flourish.

Commercialisation in children’s social care is neither new nor uniform in character. Many of the private organisations now operating in the sector emerged precisely because local authorities lacked the capital, flexibility and speed to build provision themselves. In many cases, private providers have absorbed substantial financial risk and invested heavily in high-quality environments, workforce development and therapeutic models. But in the absence of a coherent, planned approach to sufficiency, these organisations have also been left to navigate fragmented commissioning arrangements, forecast unpredictable demand, and make decisions within a regulatory framework that can sometimes feel contradictory, risk-averse and misaligned with therapeutic ambition.

The result is a distorted ecosystem that is neither fully market-driven nor genuinely planned. It is reactive. It is transactional. And it is, above all, crisis-oriented. Children enter placements in states of distress and uncertainty, only to find that the systems surrounding them are equally unstable. Staff turnover, commissioning disputes, inspection pressures, financial constraints and the absence of long-term planning all contribute to an environment characterised by churn. The most vulnerable young people, those who require the highest degree of relational persistence, containment and therapeutic consistency, experience the greatest instability.

Reform, in this context, cannot focus exclusively on improving the behaviour of individual providers or tightening compliance frameworks. That may address symptoms, but it does not resolve causes. A meaningful shift requires a re-orientation from reactive risk-management to proactive system design. England needs a national and regional planning approach that situates provision in those areas where children need it, rather than allowing capacity to evolve solely in response to market incentives. It needs investment mechanisms that recognise the inherent cost of working with children with complex needs, and accept that small, high-support homes simply cannot be made viable without capital support. It needs a regulatory architecture that enables and incentivises providers to persevere with difficult placements, rather than quietly shaping admissions around inspection risk to ensure organisational survival.

Most critically, the system needs to reassert a core principle: that residential and supported accommodation are not merely custodial arrangements, but therapeutic environments in which children can rebuild capacities eroded by trauma, adversity and relational disruption. The workforce that delivers this support requires more than compliance training; it requires structured development, clinical supervision, emotional containment and professional recognition. This is a skilled profession, not custodial labour. Failure to resource and value it as such guarantees instability.

Stability, in fact, may be the single most important outcome to prioritise. Without it, education, health, identity, relationships and self-regulation are unlikely to take root. And yet, the current system treats stability as a by-product of placement matching, not as a structural design goal. Children move because systems are unstable. Systems are unstable because they are under-designed, under-resourced and under-planned. These dynamics reinforce one another, producing outcomes that are both predictable and avoidable.

There is, however, room for optimism. The emergence of regulated supported accommodation for older adolescents reflects an important recognition that developmental needs do not end at sixteen, and that independence cannot be cultivated in environments characterised by neglect or minimal support. The growth of therapeutic models across residential care, while uneven, signals a broader cultural shift in how we conceptualise the purpose of provision. Many local authorities are seeking to commission differently, and many providers are eager to innovate and collaborate. What is missing is a coherent framework that connects these aspirations to strategy, capacity and investment.

If England is to build such a framework, it must begin by recognising that scarcity, fragmentation and crisis are not inevitable outcomes of caring for traumatised young people, but the product of policy choices. A system that relies on emergency placements is one that has failed to plan. A system in which provision is distributed according to property value rather than child need is one that has failed to govern. And a system that repeatedly expects traumatised children to adapt to instability, rather than building environments capable of containing it, is one that has lost sight of its purpose.

There is no cheap or immediate solution. But there is a clear direction: coordinated sufficiency planning; targeted investment in specialist, high-support provision; professionalisation and resourcing of the workforce; regulatory alignment with therapeutic ambition; and commissioning models that reward stability and outcomes rather than throughput and cost suppression. These are not ideological aspirations; they are pragmatic conditions for moving the system beyond perpetual crisis management.

Children do not need more placements. They need homes that are designed for who they are, where they are, and what they have lived through. Until infrastructure, governance and commissioning reflect that basic truth, the contradictions of the current system will continue, and the consequences will be borne not by regulators or providers, but by children whose futures depend on our willingness to imagine and resource something better.

From Rigid Labels to Flexible Care Interventions

The language and terminology used in residential children’s services significantly impact practice and perceptions. Traditionally, distinctions have been made between “care” in children’s homes and “support” in supported accommodation. However, this binary classification often oversimplifies the reality of service delivery and fails to reflect the continuum of care needed by young people as they transition through different settings. Recent discussions have highlighted inconsistencies between the Supported Accommodation Regulations and the interpretations of professionals, more or less involved in the sector, leading to confusion and debate about whether services should be categorized as care or support and what kind of intervention can be provided in supported accommodation.

To address these issues, this document proposes a redefinition of terminology by introducing “controlled care” and “guided care.” These terms aim to clarify the nature of care in different settings, providing a more nuanced and accurate framework. Additionally, the document explores how staffing ratios intersect with these care models and the need for terminology that aligns with regulatory expectations and practical realities.

Addressing Inconsistencies in Terminology

Recent debates have emerged due to inconsistencies between the Supported Accommodation Regulations, the expectations set and the public interpretations. The regulations acknowledge that care is a continuum, recognizing that young people’s needs evolve over time and that care should adapt accordingly. However, in practice, many providers face challenges in reconciling this continuum with the often-rigid categorizations of “care” versus “support” used, for example, by Ofsted during inspections and registration visits.

Regulatory Confusion

The Supported Accommodation Regulations outline that care provided in supported accommodation should be seen as part of a continuum, meaning that support and care are not mutually exclusive but interconnected. This perspective aligns with the understanding that young people need different types of care at various stages of their development and transition.

Despite this, in recent communications, it appears that the stricter dichotomy between care and support is being enforced. Providers are often left grappling with whether their services are delivered the interventions that can be delivered, being classified as “care” or “support,” leading to unnecessary debates and inconsistencies in how services are evaluated and understood.

 “Controlled Care” and “Guided Care”

To resolve these inconsistencies and better reflect the realities of residential services, this document proposes using the terms “controlled care” and “guided care.” These terms are designed to capture the different approaches used in children’s homes and supported accommodation while acknowledging that both types of services provide care in their own ways.

1. Controlled Care

Controlled care describes the approach typically used in children’s homes, where a high level of supervision, routine, and regulation is necessary. This approach is essential for creating a stable and secure environment for young people who have experienced significant trauma or instability. “Controlled care” emphasizes the role of structured environments, consistent boundaries, and oversight in ensuring safety and supporting the young person’s immediate needs.

The term “controlled” is intended to reflect the need for regulation and structure, not to imply authoritarianism or rigidity. It highlights that the care provided is designed to stabilize and support young people in a way that prepares them for future independence. Controlled care is characterized by its focus on keeping safety and stability through a carefully managed environment.

2. Guided Care

Guided care refers to the approach used in supported accommodation, where the focus is on promoting independence while providing necessary support. In this setting, care is less about direct oversight and more about guidance and mentorship. Staff members act as advisors and facilitators, helping young people develop life skills, make informed decisions, and navigate the transition to independent living.

“Guided care” emphasizes the supportive role of staff in fostering autonomy and personal growth. It reflects a flexible and responsive approach, adapting to the needs and progress of the young person. The goal is to empower young people to manage their own lives with the help of a supportive framework that encourages independence and self-confidence.

Staffing Ratios

Staffing ratios in residential children’s services play a crucial role in ensuring that young people’s needs are met effectively and safely. However, the notion that staffing ratios alone decide whether care is “controlled” or “guided” oversimplifies the situation. Instead, the essence of care is defined by the approach and intent behind staffing practices, not merely the number of staff members present. This section explores into how staffing ratios intersect with care models and the importance of practice over numbers.

Practice Over Numbers

Staffing Ratios and Care Models

Staffing ratios refer to the number of staff members compared to the number of young people in care. Higher staffing ratios can provide increased supervision, support, and safety, which is particularly important in environments requiring intensive care. However, the mere presence of a higher staff ratio does not automatically translate to “controlled care” or “guided care.” The key factor is how staff use their time and resources.

For example, a residential setting with a 1:1 or 2:1 staffing ratio might be thought of as indicative of “controlled care,” particularly if the focus is on constant supervision and behaviour management. However, this high ratio could also exist in “guided care” if the staff’s role is primarily to mentor, support decision-making, and encourage independence.

Conversely, a children’s home with a lower staffing ratio might still implement “controlled care” effectively if the staff are trained to manage behaviour and support structured routines within the available staffing framework. The emphasis in controlled care is on keeping a stable, safe environment through intentional practices, not just the number of staff on duty.

The Importance of Approach

The effectiveness of care is determined by the approach taken by staff members. In a controlled care setting, staff might use higher ratios to ensure safety and structure, but their practices are oriented towards maintaining order and stability. In a guided care setting, even with higher ratios, staff would focus on promoting independence, offering guidance, and facilitating personal development.

Therefore, a nuanced understanding of care requires examining how staff interact with young people, how they manage their responsibilities, and how they apply their training and skills in different settings. Staffing ratios are a tool that supports these practices but do not define them.

Flexibility and Adaptation

Dynamic Needs of Young People

The needs of young people in residential care are dynamic and can change over time. Staffing ratios alone do not account for the evolving nature of these needs. A young person may initially require a more structured approach with higher staff supervision but may later benefit from a more guided approach as they gain confidence and skills.

For instance, a young person with complex behavioural needs may start in a controlled care environment where staff ratios are high to provide consistent supervision and intervention. As the young person develops and their needs change, the care approach might shift to guided care, even if staffing ratios remain the same or change. This transition can involve staff focusing more on mentoring and less on direct supervision.

Integrating Care Approaches

A flexible care model integrates both controlled and guided elements based on the individual’s needs. In practice, this means that care providers need to be adept at adjusting their approach in response to the young person’s progress. Staff might use a structured environment to provide stability but also incorporate elements of guidance as the young person becomes more capable of managing their own behaviour and making decisions.

For example, in a children’s home, staff might initially use a controlled care approach to stabilize a young person’s situation. As the young person’s behaviour improves and they become more self-sufficient, staff can gradually introduce guided care practices to foster independence, while still maintaining necessary oversight.

Balancing Supervision and Autonomy

Ensuring Safety While Promoting Independence

In both controlled and guided care models, the balance between supervision and autonomy is crucial. High staffing ratios can provide the support necessary for young people who need a controlled environment, but they can also support guided care practices if staff use their time to encourage independence and self-management.

A well-designed care model ensures that young people receive the appropriate level of supervision to stay safe while also being given opportunities to develop autonomy. For instance, staff in a controlled care environment might use their higher ratios to establish routines and boundaries but also engage in activities that promote the young person’s growth and decision-making skills.

Examples of Effective Practice

Controlled Care with High Ratios: In a children’s home, a high staffing ratio can be used to implement consistent routines, manage behaviours, and ensure safety. For example, staff might work individually with young people on specific goals related to behaviour management while also creating a stable and structured environment.

Guided Care with High Ratios: In supported accommodation, a high staff ratio can be leveraged to provide extensive mentoring and support. Staff might use one-on-one time to help young people plan their daily activities, set goals, and navigate challenges, while still maintaining a focus on encouraging independence.

The Challenge of Defining Children with Complex Needs

The term “children with complex needs” is often used in residential and supported accommodation settings, yet it remains a difficult concept to define clearly. This ambiguity stems from the fact that “complex needs” is not a fixed category but rather a fluid and dynamic spectrum of physical, emotional, behavioural, and social challenges that vary greatly from one individual to another. The complexity lies not just in the presence of multiple needs but in how these needs interact and evolve over time, requiring a highly individualized approach to care and support.

For instance, a young person might be considered to have complex needs due to a combination of mental health issues, such as anxiety or depression, alongside learning disabilities, behavioural difficulties, or a history of trauma. However, another young person with entirely different challenges – such as chronic medical conditions combined with social isolation and emotional dysregulation – might also fall under this category. The broad range of factors that can contribute to a child’s complex needs makes it impossible to establish a single, clear-cut definition.

Moreover, the complexity of a young person’s needs can change over time, influenced by their environment, developmental stage, and the effectiveness of the support they receive. A young person who requires intensive support at one point may, with appropriate care, progress to needing less structured intervention, while another might require more support as their needs evolve. This fluidity further complicates efforts to categorize or define complex needs rigidly.

The recent position taken by Ofsted, suggesting that children with complex needs should not be placed in supported accommodation, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of complex needs and the capabilities of supported accommodation settings. This stance is not only overly simplistic but also counterproductive, as it fails to recognize the flexibility and adaptability that supported accommodation can offer. By assuming that these settings are inherently ill-equipped to handle complex needs, Ofsted overlooks the reality that many supported accommodations are specifically designed to provide the tailored, responsive care that these young people require. Such a blanket policy risks depriving children with complex needs of the opportunity to develop independence in a supportive environment, where their needs can be met with personalized care plans and skilled staff. This approach undermines the potential for supported accommodation to serve as a vital step in a continuum of care, where even those with significant challenges can thrive with the right support.

In supported accommodation, the challenge is to create care models that are adaptable and responsive to these varying and shifting needs. Rather than attempting to fit young people into predefined categories, the focus should be on understanding each individual’s unique circumstances and crafting personalized care plans that can adapt to their changing needs. This approach recognizes the impossibility of a one-size-fits-all definition and instead emphasizes the importance of flexibility, continuous assessment, and a holistic understanding of each young person’s situation.

By acknowledging the difficulty of defining complex needs, supported accommodation providers can avoid the pitfalls of rigid classification systems that may fail to capture the true nature of a young person’s experiences. Instead, they can develop more effective, individualized strategies that truly meet the diverse and dynamic needs of the children in their care.

When Guided Care Can be Used in Children’s Homes

Children’s homes are traditionally associated with a more structured, controlled environment designed to provide stability and safety for young people who have experienced significant trauma, instability, or complex behavioural challenges. However, even within these settings, the principles of “guided care” can be effectively integrated to promote the young person’s autonomy, personal growth, and eventual transition to more independent living.

Guided care in children’s homes focuses on blending the necessary structure with opportunities for young people to take more control over their daily lives and decision-making processes. It involves staff acting as mentors and role models, providing support that is responsive to the young person’s evolving needs while encouraging them to develop the skills and confidence needed for independence. This approach recognizes that, even within a controlled care environment, young people can benefit from guided support that prepares them for life beyond the children’s home.

Implementing Guided Care Practices

  • Personalized Support Plans: In children’s homes, guided care can be implemented through individualized support plans that reflect the unique needs and aspirations of each young person. These plans should incorporate goals related to increasing independence, such as learning daily living skills, managing emotions, or navigating social relationships. Staff can work collaboratively with the young person to set achievable milestones and provide the guidance needed to reach them.
  • Shared Decision-Making: A key element of guided care is involving young people in decisions about their care and daily routines. While maintaining necessary boundaries and oversight, staff can encourage young people to express their preferences, make choices, and take responsibility for certain aspects of their lives. For instance, they might be involved in planning meals, choosing activities, or setting personal goals. This shared decision-making fosters a sense of ownership and helps young people develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
  • Mentorship and Emotional Support: Staff in children’s homes can adopt a mentoring role, offering not just supervision but also emotional support and guidance. By building trusting relationships, staff can help young people explore their interests, understand their emotions, and develop resilience. This mentorship approach aligns with guided care by focusing on the young person’s overall development, rather than just managing behaviour.
  • Gradual Increase in Responsibility: Guided care in children’s homes can also involve a gradual increase in the young person’s responsibilities as they demonstrate readiness. This might include tasks like managing their own time, handling money, or participating in household chores. These opportunities to practice responsibility in a supported environment help prepare young people for the greater independence they will need when they transition out of the children’s home.

Balancing Structure and Flexibility

While children’s homes inherently provide a structured environment to ensure safety and stability, integrating guided care requires a balance between maintaining necessary controls and offering flexibility. The goal is to create a supportive environment where young people feel secure enough to take risks, learn from their experiences, and grow. Staff must be adept at adjusting the level of guidance based on the young person’s progress, ensuring that the care provided remains responsive and developmentally appropriate.

The Benefits of Guided Care in Children’s Homes

Integrating guided care within children’s homes offers numerous benefits. It helps young people develop a stronger sense of self, improves their decision-making abilities, and enhances their readiness for independence. Moreover, it can lead to more positive outcomes by reducing reliance on external controls and empowering young people to take charge of their own lives.

Guided care also promotes a more holistic approach to care, where the focus is on the young person’s long-term well-being and success, rather than just immediate behavioural management. By combining the stability of a controlled environment with the growth opportunities of guided care, children’s homes can better support the diverse needs of the young people they serve.

When Controlled Care May Be Necessary in Supported Accommodation

Crisis Situations

In cases where a young person experiences a significant crisis – such as severe emotional distress, a mental health episode, or a sudden behavioural escalation – immediate intervention is required to prevent harm. During such times, staff may need to implement more controlled care practices, such as increased supervision, stricter routines, or temporarily limiting certain freedoms to ensure the young person’s safety.

For example, if a young person exhibits self-harm behaviours or becomes a danger to others, it may be necessary to increase monitoring, reduce their autonomy temporarily, and create a more structured environment until the crisis is resolved. Once the situation stabilizes, staff can gradually return to the guided care approach.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Young People

There may be instances where a young person in supported accommodation is particularly vulnerable – whether due to external threats, exploitation risks, or personal challenges – that require a higher level of control and supervision. For instance, if a young person is at risk of being drawn into criminal activity or is facing external pressures that could lead to harm, staff might need to enforce stricter boundaries, curfews, or supervised activities to protect them.

In such cases, controlled care practices might be adopted temporarily, ensuring the young person is safe while longer-term solutions are developed. The focus remains on safeguarding while still aiming to return to guided care as soon as possible.

Behavioural Management

If a young person exhibits persistent behaviours that endanger themselves or others, it may be necessary to adopt more controlled practices temporarily. This could involve implementing stricter routines, reducing access to potentially harmful activities, or increasing staff presence to manage behaviours effectively. The goal remains to transition back to guided care once the young person demonstrates improved self-regulation and stability. If this will not be possible, consideration for another type of setting must be given.

Balancing Controlled Care and Guided Care in Supported Accommodation

The key to effectively integrating controlled care practices in a guided care setting is flexibility and a clear focus on the young person’s long-term development. Any shift toward controlled care should be:

  • Temporary and Proportionate: Controlled care practices should be used only for as long as necessary and should be proportionate to the risks involved.
  • Clear Communication: Young people should understand why controlled care practices are being implemented, with a clear plan for returning to a guided care approach.
  • Collaborative: Whenever possible, involve the young person in decision-making, helping them see these measures as part of a supportive process rather than punitive.
  • Review and Transition: Regularly review the need for controlled care practices and plan for a transition back to guided care as soon as the situation allows.

Conclusion

The debate over the classification of care and support in residential services, particularly the idea that children with complex needs should not be placed in supported accommodation, highlights a significant disconnect between regulatory expectations and the realities of care provision. This rigid approach fails to acknowledge the flexibility and adaptability inherent in supported accommodation settings, which are often well-equipped to meet the complex needs of young people through tailored, guided care. The insistence on separating care and support categories overlooks the potential for supported accommodation to offer both the structured support and the developmental opportunities necessary for young people with complex needs.

The real challenge lies not in the terminology or rigid categorizations, but in ensuring that care models are responsive and individualized. By recognizing that both “controlled care” and “guided care” can coexist and that supported accommodation can effectively address complex needs with the right approach, we can better serve the young people who rely on these vital services. It is crucial to move beyond simplistic regulatory classifications and focus on the quality and adaptability of care practices, ensuring that every young person receives the appropriate level of support they need to thrive. Only then can we create a more coherent and effective framework for residential care that truly meets the diverse and evolving needs of young people. Looking forward, there is a tremendous opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of residential care by embracing innovative practices and fostering a collaborative approach between regulators, providers, and young people. By building on the strengths of both care models and continuously adapting to the evolving needs of those we serve, we can create a more inclusive, supportive, and effective framework for residential care. This forward-thinking perspective holds the promise of delivering even better outcomes for young people, ensuring they have the tools and support they need to achieve their full potential and build a brighter future.

[repost] A Reconsideration of Inspections in Children’s Homes and Supported Accommodation

[this post was originally published in March 2024]

Back in 2016, Sir Martin Narey urged the government to “review the practice of using one- or two-word judgments when inspecting children’s homes”, assuming that these judgments might do” a disservice to some thoughtful reporting”. This led to some discussion, but the system remains unaltered. Last year the discussion around the appropriateness of Ofsted’s single-word grading system was reignited following the death of Ruth Perry.

With the publication of the Supported Accommodation Inspection Framework this week, Ofsted confirmed a change in this approach, presenting a summary outcome instead of the usual 4-point scale, at least during the first round of inspections.

However, this does not change the underlying issues around this methodology. The current focus on judgments in inspections of children’s homes and supported accommodation services, while aiming for improvement, might have unintended consequences. This post argues that relying on predetermined judgments might limit the effectiveness of these inspections and suggests a more holistic approach focused on understanding a service’s full picture through comprehensive reports.

While it is agreed that the reports present much more than just the judgments, it is also a reality that in many areas the main, in not only, focus, is on the grade itself.

The Problem with Predetermined Judgments:

  • Narrow focus: Framing inspections around specific judgments risks overlooking crucial aspects of a service’s quality. This could lead to services prioritizing achieving those judgments over addressing the underlying needs of children and young people.
  • Diversity and complexity: Children’s needs are highly individual and complex. Preset judgments may not capture the nuances of individual journeys and potentially disadvantage those with unique challenges.
  • Pressure for appearances: When judgments become the main or sole metric, it can create pressure for services to “game the system” by manipulating data or focusing on superficial improvements that don’t translate into actual positive change for children.

Towards a More Holistic Approach:

Instead of relying solely on predetermined judgments, inspections should:

  • Produce comprehensive reports: These reports should delve deeper, providing detailed information about the service’s approach, environment, staff qualifications, and engagement with children.
  • Mandate thorough reading: By requiring everyone involved, including social workers, local authorities, and the public in general, to read and engage with the full report, a deeper understanding of the service’s strengths and weaknesses can be fostered, facilitating collaborative improvement efforts.
  • Shift the focus: The focus should shift from “meeting” judgments to fostering ongoing development and improvement based on individual needs and the unique context of each service.

Benefits of a More Nuanced Approach:

  • Improved service quality: A focus on understanding the service’s overall functioning can lead to more relevant and sustainable improvements that meet the specific needs of the children and young people using the service.
  • Empowerment and collaboration: Requiring everyone to read and engage with the full report fosters a sense of shared responsibility and empowers stakeholders to collaboratively address identified needs.
  • Transparency and accountability: A more transparent process builds trust and accountability, enabling all involved to work towards better serving vulnerable children and young people.

Additionally:

  • Local Authorities (LAs) should move away from the practice of relying on inspection ratings when making placement decisions (several are the occasions where referrals are sent requiring a minimum specific judgment). Instead, LAs should analyze the full inspection report to gain a comprehensive understanding of the service’s strengths and weaknesses.
  • LAs should engage in detailed discussions with providers regarding the report, focusing on specific areas of concern and exploring the provider’s plans for improvement. These fosters open communication and collaboration, ultimately leading to better placement decisions that prioritize the individual needs of each child.

This proposed approach is not advocating for neglecting accountability. Rather, it suggests moving beyond a narrow focus on predetermined judgments and towards a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the services caring for some of society’s most vulnerable individuals. By encouraging deeper engagement with detailed reports, we can empower stakeholders to work collaboratively and ensure these services are truly serving the best interests of the children and young people in their care.

Beyond Labels

I’ve been sitting quietly (most of the time…) watching the discussions unfold around #care and #support in residential children’s services, especially following the recent #Ofsted posts and webinars. It’s fascinating how certain terminology, once removed from guidance, has found its way back into the conversation.
The confusion around care classifications and debates about appropriate intervention in #supportedaccommodation has prompted me to write a small(ish) article about this.

In this soon-to-be-published article, I introduce new terms to bring clarity and offer a more flexible, nuanced approach that aligns with the realities of service delivery. Ultimately, this is about truly complying with the current #regulations (something that, somehow, seems to have been overlooked or forgotten…).

It’s time to move beyond rigid labels and focus on what truly matters: meeting the evolving needs of young people.

This will also be one of the major topics of discussion at the upcoming FEVACA 2024 Conference (https://lnkd.in/ehZMQVgi).

[001.24] Focusing Beyond Judgments: A Reconsideration of Inspections in Children’s Homes and Supported Accommodation

Back in 2016, Sir Martin Narey urged the government to “review the practice of using one- or two-word judgments when inspecting children’s homes”, assuming that these judgments might do” a disservice to some thoughtful reporting”. This led to some discussion, but the system remains unaltered. Last year the discussion around the appropriateness of Ofsted’s single-word grading system was reignited following the death of Ruth Perry.

With the publication of the Supported Accommodation Inspection Framework this week, Ofsted confirmed a change in this approach, presenting a summary outcome instead of the usual 4-point scale, at least during the first round of inspections.

However, this does not change the underlying issues around this methodology. The current focus on judgments in inspections of children’s homes and supported accommodation services, while aiming for improvement, might have unintended consequences. This post argues that relying on predetermined judgments might limit the effectiveness of these inspections and suggests a more holistic approach focused on understanding a service’s full picture through comprehensive reports.

While it is agreed that the reports present much more than just the judgments, it is also a reality that in many areas the main, in not only, focus, is on the grade itself.

The Problem with Predetermined Judgments:

  • Narrow focus: Framing inspections around specific judgments risks overlooking crucial aspects of a service’s quality. This could lead to services prioritizing achieving those judgments over addressing the underlying needs of children and young people.
  • Diversity and complexity: Children’s needs are highly individual and complex. Preset judgments may not capture the nuances of individual journeys and potentially disadvantage those with unique challenges.
  • Pressure for appearances: When judgments become the main or sole metric, it can create pressure for services to “game the system” by manipulating data or focusing on superficial improvements that don’t translate into actual positive change for children.

Towards a More Holistic Approach:

Instead of relying solely on predetermined judgments, inspections should:

  • Produce comprehensive reports: These reports should delve deeper, providing detailed information about the service’s approach, environment, staff qualifications, and engagement with children.
  • Mandate thorough reading: By requiring everyone involved, including social workers, local authorities, and the public in general, to read and engage with the full report, a deeper understanding of the service’s strengths and weaknesses can be fostered, facilitating collaborative improvement efforts.
  • Shift the focus: The focus should shift from “meeting” judgments to fostering ongoing development and improvement based on individual needs and the unique context of each service.

Benefits of a More Nuanced Approach:

  • Improved service quality: A focus on understanding the service’s overall functioning can lead to more relevant and sustainable improvements that meet the specific needs of the children and young people using the service.
  • Empowerment and collaboration: Requiring everyone to read and engage with the full report fosters a sense of shared responsibility and empowers stakeholders to collaboratively address identified needs.
  • Transparency and accountability: A more transparent process builds trust and accountability, enabling all involved to work towards better serving vulnerable children and young people.

Additionally:

  • Local Authorities (LAs) should move away from the practice of relying on inspection ratings when making placement decisions (several are the occasions where referrals are sent requiring a minimum specific judgment). Instead, LAs should analyze the full inspection report to gain a comprehensive understanding of the service’s strengths and weaknesses.
  • LAs should engage in detailed discussions with providers regarding the report, focusing on specific areas of concern and exploring the provider’s plans for improvement. These fosters open communication and collaboration, ultimately leading to better placement decisions that prioritize the individual needs of each child.

This proposed approach is not advocating for neglecting accountability. Rather, it suggests moving beyond a narrow focus on predetermined judgments and towards a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the services caring for some of society’s most vulnerable individuals. By encouraging deeper engagement with detailed reports, we can empower stakeholders to work collaboratively and ensure these services are truly serving the best interests of the children and young people in their care.

[010.23] The Social Sciences ADNetwork

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to share some news about my participation in the creation of a Supported Accommodation Providers Association. Today, I wanted to share something else that I am also involved with and that is creating a lot of excitement. The Social Sciences ADNetwork.

The SSADNetwork is a network to foster collaboration, knowledge exchange, and professional development in the field of social sciences. The intention is to create a dynamic network that brings together researchers, practitioners, and professionals from diverse disciplines to engage in meaningful dialogue, share insights, and explore innovative approaches to address the pressing challenges of our contemporary society.

And we already had some exciting people joining the SSADNetwork Scientific and Professional Panel

One of these people is Professor Malcolm Payne, who will be facilitating a social work workshop in November, about “Social Work Practice Theories: New Trends and Practical Implications“. This workshop is a unique opportunity to explore the latest trends in social work theories and their practical applications. Whether you’re a seasoned social worker or just starting your journey, this event is designed to enhance your skills, increase your impact, and align your practice with contemporary approaches. It’s the perfect chance to stay at the forefront of the social work field and make a real difference in the lives of those you serve.

And there will be several other news very soon 🙂

[009.23] Supported Accommodation Association

As many of you may know, my passion and commitment to supporting individuals in care and care leavers have been the driving forces behind my journey in the realm of supported accommodation. I’ve always believed that collective action and collaboration can lead to transformative change, and I’m excited to share with you a significant chapter in this journey – my involvement, as part of FEVACA, in creating the Supported Accommodation Association (SAA).

A Vision Takes Shape:

The journey of creating the Supported Accommodation Association began with a shared vision among like-minded individuals and organizations. We came together with the idea of fostering a community where the voices of young people in care and care leavers and providers are heard, their needs addressed, and their futures empowered.

The Inaugural Meeting:

It all started with a landmark meeting that united over 100 supported accommodation providers from various regions and services. This gathering was not just a meeting; it was a platform for shared experiences, constructive discussions, and a commitment to take action.

During this meeting, we made a momentous decision: the creation of the Supported Accommodation Association. The association’s mission is to elevate the quality and standards of supported accommodation services throughout England and ensure that the rights and well-being of residents are prioritized.

Introducing the Young People in Care and Care Leavers Advisory Group:

One of the most remarkable outcomes of this initiative is the formation of the Young People in Care and Care Leavers Advisory Group. This group represents an empowering space where the perspectives, experiences, and aspirations of young people take center stage. I’m incredibly proud to share that representatives from this group will have seats on the association’s board, actively influencing our direction.

Empowering Voices:

This venture is all about empowering voices. It’s about ensuring that young people, who are often the most affected by supported accommodation services, have a say in shaping the policies and practices that impact their lives. We want to create a platform for their unique insights and experiences to drive positive change.

I’m thrilled to be part of this incredible journey, surrounded by passionate and dedicated individuals who share my commitment to making a difference in the lives of young people in care and care leavers. I invite you all to follow this blog and stay updated on our progress, initiatives, and stories of positive change.

Together, we are on a path to amplify voices, foster inclusion, and create a brighter future for young people in care and care leavers. I can’t wait to share more about our work with you, and I’m grateful to have several of you alongside me on this meaningful journey.