'Dreadful day for children in care' - campaigners react to supported accommodation changes

Following a Department for Education consultation, unregulated placements which do not provide care for children aged under 16 have been banned from today (9 September).

• Analysis: Put end to unregulated provision for under-18s, urge campaigners

• Blog: Ban on unregulated care for under-16s ‘must be enforced effectively’​

For unregulated settings housing young people aged 16 and 17, a set of national standards have been put in place.

The changes have amended the Children Act 1989 statutory guidance on care planning and placements. 

In 2018/19, more than 600 children under 16 were placed in unregulated supported accommodation, compared to more than 6,000 annually aged 16 and 17.

The government reviewed the practice last year after concerns were raised over the safety of such placements.

However, campaigners say the changes remove the legal right for looked-after children aged 16 and 17 to receive care and gives the green light for more to be placed in unregulated supported accommodation.

The #KeepCaringTo18 movement, spearheaded by children’s rights charity Article 39, has seen practitioners, academics and charity leaders come together to call for an outright ban, with nearly 4,000 signatories to an online petition.

Many took to social media to react to the introduction of the legislation.

Together Trust tweeted: “Over 6,000 children already live in places where they don’t receive any care. This number is no likely to increase. We reject this age-based discrimination.”

Katharine Sacks-Jones, chief executive of charity Become, added: “The law has changed so under-16s can no longer be put in unregulated accommodation BUT 16-18 year olds still can. This creates a two-tier system where older children can be treated differently and not cared for. Unacceptable they are not entitled to care.”

Carolyne Willow, director of Article 39, described the changes as “a dreadful day for children in care”.

She said: “Ministers have changed the law to make it mandatory that children in care are cared for where they live, but they have only applied this to those aged 15 and younger. What kind of parent decides to ration care to children on the basis of age? What kind of parent looks at their daughter or son approaching their 16^th birthday and thinks they’ll soon be able to manage without care? What kind of parent would make it a family rule that only children under the age of 16 are guaranteed care? 

“These are children who are in the care of the state, family courts have made care orders in respect of many of them. Boys and children from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities will be hardest hit by this change to the law. It’s simply intolerable.”

Last month, the High Court granted Article 39’s request for a judicial review disputing the government’s refusal to extend the ban on non-care placements to 16- and 17-year-olds. The hearing is due to take place in December.

Meanwhile, research by Together Trust suggests children in unregulated supported accommodation have worse education outcomes.

It found that 67 councils were responsible for 3,253 children aged 16 and 17 who were not in education, employment or training (NEET) for all or some of their time in non-care settings.

Six councils had more than 100 children of compulsory education age that were Neet and living in unregulated accommodation. This included 460 in Kent, 307 in West Sussex and 260 in Enfield. In addition, the proportion of children living in a non-care setting who were Neet was over 50 per cent in Knowsley, Greenwich and Trafford.

Ali Gunn, campaigns manager for the Together Trust, said: “Our research, along with countless testimonials from care-experienced people shows that being placed in a non-care setting has a detrimental impact on young people’s educational outcomes, relationships and personal safety.

“It is a deeply depressing day today. This change in legislation is discriminatory and will cause preventable harms for children in care. All children need care in the home where they live up to at least the age of 18 and we will continue to fight to see that happen.”