Case for Change: Sector responds to Care Review’s first report

However, others have branded the review’s initial report as “weak” adding it “stops short” of setting out a plan for reform.

• Related news: Care Review lays out key reforms for ‘shaky’ social care system in first report

• Blog: Care review - A ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity?

Review chair Josh MacAlister has today put forward his priorities for improving England’s “shaky” children’s social care system which he described as “financially strained and risk-averse”.

The review’s initial report, published today (17 June) following the project’s launch in January, calls for the prioritising of family support over care proceedings and child protection investigations, greater use of adoption and kinship care and improved joined-up working to protect vulnerable teenagers from becoming involved in violent crime.

Here sector leaders share their views on Case for Change:

Javed Khan, chief executive at Barnardo’s: “We welcome Josh MacAlister’s powerful Case for Change and especially its focus on supporting families before they reach crisis point.

“He rightly identifies that improving outcomes requires significant funding, but also an overhaul of the system itself.

“The report adds weight to our calls for a Family Hub in every community, so all families can access support and help – physical and virtual – when they need it. That means better support for parents with babies right through to help for teenagers at risk of online grooming or criminal exploitation.

“Josh rightly highlights that care should ‘build not break’ relationships – which we know are key to helping children recover from harm and go on to achieve a positive future. So for children who can’t stay with their families, we need a system that finds them the right placement first time – wherever possible.

“Crucially, we must ensure that ‘care’ does not just stop at 18 – or even 21 – young people need support to access safe and stable accommodation as well as education, training and work.

“Barnardo’s is leading the way with some innovative programmes and partnerships across the country – but there’s a long way to go, and we’re delighted to be working with Josh to achieve the change young people deserve.

“Ultimately, we must ensure that the most vulnerable children and young people receive the care, support and love we provide to our own children.”

Charlotte Ramsden, president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS): “The Case for Change reiterates a series of very important issues that ADCS has been raising with government over the last few years. From the value of early help, the impact of poverty on children’s lives and outcomes, the marketisation of services for vulnerable children, the slow pace of change in youth custody responses, funding and the lack of co-ordination for child and family policy across government. 

“As well as highlighting concerns, which the report does well, we must also recognise the incredible work undertaken by our social workers, and the wider workforce, on a daily basis. Social workers operate within a strict legislative framework and under intense scrutiny from many different angles. Yes, the workforce must be empowered to make the best decisions for children and families, but appropriate and measured checks and balances are also needed to support this life changing work, which can be absolutely transformative for children and families. For too long external influences have driven risk averse cultures and we need to challenge this.

“We have one of the safest child protection systems in the world and it is vitally important to work to keep families together where that is right for children. However, whilst by no means perfect, care can be and is the right place for some children and we must work to make it the best place possible for those who need it. Children should not be stigmatised for the impact of their life experiences or mistakes the adults in their lives may have made. We all have a responsibility, including government, to challenge lazy stereotypes, to be ambitious about what children in care and care leavers can achieve. There are fundamental issues raised within this report, such as the contributory causal relationship between income and state intervention, along with the racial disparities that exist. The review must therefore seek to understand not only the symptoms, but the root causes and solutions, which may be beyond the gift of children’s services, such as welfare and benefit policies. We all have an important part to play, not least central government.

“The review calls for a vision for children’s social care, we think this must go further and be part of a coherent and strategic long-term plan for childhood, from the early years through school and adolescence to adulthood. One that integrates services at the national level and recognises the systemic barriers facing children, particularly those growing up in poverty and deprivation. Providing the right support at the earliest opportunity for children and families is key but we must also not lose sight of the child. Their welfare and rights must always be at the forefront of decision-making.”

Victoria Langer, interim chief executive at Become: “From the calls to our Care Advice Line, we see first-hand how children in care are frequently let down by not having anyone pushing for the support they are entitled to. As a result, many young people are missing out on a range of support, from basic household goods to funding to go to university. We know that when charities like Become step in and advocate for these young people, these basic entitlements are often unlocked very quickly – so we fully support the notion of the state being a ‘pushy parent’ for young people in care and care leavers.

“The review must now work alongside those with lived experience to rebuild a system without cliff edges and where young people can expect love, stability and safety. Anything less is not good enough.”

Carolyne Willow, director at Article 39: “It’s hard to be optimistic about this review because it has not yet shown itself able to stand up to government. The report displays real sensitivity and compassion for children and their families in many respects, but the review’s failure to challenge the government’s decision to only guarantee care to looked-after children aged 15 and younger is hopelessly weak and contradictory. This is perhaps not surprising since the review is effectively part of the same government department which is creating a two-tier care system, and resisting our legal challenge.

“Reading between the lines, it does seem that the review is following a number of well-trodden government paths but is stopping short, at this stage, of explicitly setting out its plans – such as support for deregulation, more children’s social care services moving out of local authorities and reducing protections for vulnerable teenagers. It’s going to take a lot of trust and goodwill in the coming months to engage with this process without feeling a lingering sense of political manipulation, whether that is intended or not.”

Emily Aklan, founder of the Hope Instead of Handcuffs campaign: “It is such a relief to hear such powerful words from Josh. Working on the front line with our most vulnerable children, I have witnessed first-hand the devastating effects of decade-long cuts. I wholeheartedly agree with Josh’s statements – the system is in a precarious state so it’s vital that we reform it so that vulnerable children get the care they need to fulfil their full potential.

“Josh is right that early interventions need to be prioritised. What’s more, we need to shine a light on abhorrent practices which have been left to fester to the severe detriment of children – for example, it is shockingly still legal for providers of secure transport to handcuff innocent children in care. With no requirement to report the use of handcuffs, this practice has become widespread and unchecked; and is just one aspect which plays into the wider issues in the children’s social care system.”

Donna Molloy, policy director at the Early Intervention Foundation: “The Case for Change makes a strong, timely case for radical reform of the children’s social care system and wider system of support for families. Too many families are caught up in a system that simply doesn’t work for them. Parents who come looking for help are subjected to intrusive and stressful child protection investigations, whilst the meaningful support that can make a real difference for them is, all too often, lacking.

“Resources are increasingly stretched and skewed towards crisis services and away from early help. We need a strengthened family support system that can work with parents and children to build on their strengths, improve family relationships and prevent problems getting worse.  Well delivered, skilled family support provided at the right time, can significantly improve children’s lives and lead to wide ranging economic and societal benefits.”

Tulip Siddiq MP, Labour’s shadow minister for children and early years: “Rising child poverty and deep cuts to preventative children’s services by successive Conservative governments have pushed many more children into care and allowed problems to reach crisis point.

“The conservatives are simply not doing enough to support families or look after the most vulnerable. The recent approach of underfunding and outsourcing children’s social care has failed children and the social work and care professionals who work tirelessly to support them.

"After failing to ban unregulated accommodation for all children in care, there is no evidence that ministers will deliver the reforms that are needed to stop vulnerable young people falling through the cracks.”

Jonathan Stanley, consultant at the National Centre of Excellence for Residential Children’s Care (NCERCC): “The analysis of residential children’s care is weak. It is not asking any questions that have not been asked continuously over the past two decades.

“There is the need for the Care Review to open up its definition of ‘family’ to include created families that residential care can be. It is a major gap and prevents addressing areas as widely and deeply as necessary, for example relationship based working, a strength of residential care and one that could be drawn upon for other services and settings. Unfortunately there are some indications that the review, no matter what it says, has adopted a negative view of residential care, for example when describing foster and residential care as being carried out  by ‘strangers’. This is not how it feels to children or their workers.

“The review is too hesitant in its recognition of the positives of residential care. To increase stability the review must address the use of residential care and end the idea and practice of ‘last resort. You get positive children’s homes in positive children’s services.

“The review makes an error by not including that the residential care sector is a monopsony not a market. The local authorities determine the functioning of the market, not providers. The review also fails to recognise the failure of a market mechanism for high level and complex needs, the provision that is scarce.”