Growing gap in secure care options for children in crisis

Latest research by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (NFJO) has highlighted worrying trends over the past three years in the placement of vulnerable children into secure settings for welfare and mental health reasons.

Data analysis by the NFJO as part of an evidence review found that the number of applications made to the High Court to deprive children of their liberty under the “inherent jurisdiction” rule rose from 108 to 579 per year.

Inherent jurisdiction is a legal mechanism that allows an application to be made to a higher court for a legal order. It can be used when no other statutory mechanisms for depriving a child’s liberty apply – for example, if no place is available in a secure children’s home (SCH).

Alternative settings

Children subject to inherent jurisdiction applications are placed in alternative settings such as unregulated placements or non-secure children’s homes. According to the NFJO review, the surge in use is in part driven by a lack of capacity in registered SCHs.

However, rather than painting a picture of a secure accommodation system struggling to keep pace with demand, the analysis highlights a different dynamic at play.

In 2019/20, there were 228 children aged 10-17 accommodated in SCHs, a decrease of 43 or 16 per cent compared with 2018/19. Meanwhile, the number of applications to secure accommodation fell by a quarter from 401 to 301 between 2017/18 and 2019/20 (see below).

Separate data published in late 2021 by the National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS) shows that the proportion of accepted referrals to SCHs has fallen from 58 per cent in 2018 to 50 per cent in 2020.

It means between 2018-20, the number of children referred to, accepted by and living in SCHs has fallen while at the same time the number of deprivation of liberty applications made to the High Court through inherent jurisdiction surged by 462 per cent to outnumber applications made under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 for the first time.

“This suggests that demand for secure accommodation has not in fact decreased since 2017/18 but that practice and the legal mechanisms used to deprive children of their liberty has changed,” the NFJO states in the review. This, it says, is a “major cause for concern” as orders made under inherent jurisdiction lack the formal review and regulation requirements of care orders under the Children Act 1989.

The NFJO also points out that unlike children held in other settings, children deprived of their liberty under inherent jurisdiction do not appear in published administrative data or records. This it says is also concerning as there is no public record of where they are placed, what restrictions are placed on their liberty, or their outcomes. For example, a report by the children’s commissioner for England found that some children deprived of their liberty through inherent jurisdiction were placed in caravan parks.

Lisa Harker, director of the Observatory, says: “Something is clearly not working. The use of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is intended as a last resort, yet last year hundreds of children were deprived of their liberty in this way, often ending up in caravans or holiday lets without the properly regulated care they so desperately need.

“These are the most vulnerable children in our society, but at this point they simply disappear from view, with no data recording what happens to them.”

Children’s social care experts say the key problem is a lack of appropriate placements in SCHs to meet children’s complex needs.

Charlotte Ramsden, president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, says there is a “growing gap” between the “complex and overlapping needs of children in crisis” and the range of services available.

“Where it is not possible to secure a place in a SCH or with another registered provider, local authorities will look to assemble a highly bespoke placement with intensive wraparound support, often costing tens of thousands of pounds per week while alternatives are sought,” she says.

Additional investment

Ramsden adds that £259m of additional investment in children’s residential care, including secure children’s homes, announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review “is welcome, but it will take some years for the full benefit to be felt”.

Jonathan Stanley, director of the National Centre of Excellence for Residential Child Care, says there are insufficient places for children with high-level needs.

He explains: “Any admission has to match and risk assess to the group of young people already in residence. Staff must have the knowledge, skills and experience to meet the needs. Vacancies would be filled if it were possible.”

Stanley says “expedient policy moves” to fund the expansion of existing SCHs and a small number of new council-run homes will increase capacity but will not solve workforce problems including low skills and pay.

With the use of unregulated settings for under-18s in care the subject of a legal challenge and the Care Review set to report in the spring, there is every chance that changes in placement practice could happen before the extra capacity in SCHs comes on stream.

SECURE CHILDREN’S HOMES

• SCHs are specialist residential homes authorised to restrict children’s liberty

• There are 14 SCHs in England and Wales for children aged 10-17

• Places are administered by the Secure Welfare Coordination Unit funded by the Department for Education

• Children are placed in SCHs by local authorities under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 or by the Youth Custody Service

• Children are placed in SCHs for welfare, care and offending reasons.

Source: Nuffield Family Justice Observatory