Sector criticises ‘unsafe’ proposals for supported accommodation

The consultation sought views on a range of proposed quality standards for such settings for older teenagers in care, sparking backlash from children’s social care organisations and charities.

It closed on 16 January after a six-week consultation period over the festive period, despite campaigners urging the government to extend the deadline.

• Unregulated accommodation for 16- and 17-year-olds cannot be normalised

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

Respondents to the consultation have criticised the proposals for failing to meet the needs of looked-after children, since the proposals do not include any requirement to provide day-to-day care for children aged 16 and 17. The use of such settings for children under-16 was banned in September 2021.

Responding to the consultation, children’s rights charity Article 39 described the move as “institutional neglect”, adding: “The Department for Education must be aware that it is creating a permissive environment for neglect with its proposals, and that children will continue to be lured or forced into an entirely false realm of independence at age 16.”

The charity noted that non-care settings are profitable for providers and cheaper for local authorities than regulated care settings, but warned that normalising this type of accommodation is “a disastrous move for children.”

“This policy development has not been led by the interests of children. Instead it is seeking to formalise what has generally been an unplanned and chaotic, crisis-driven response by local authorities to an increase in the numbers of teenagers entering care against a backdrop of austerity which has harmed children, families, neighbourhoods and critical public services.”

Article 39 also expressed concern about the inspection requirements proposed for unregulated accommodation, saying: “The draft standards and proposals for rudimentary inspection will not meet the needs, or fulfil the rights, of looked-after children. They are discriminatory and inadequate, and will not protect highly vulnerable children.

“More children will die and suffer serious harm without significant improvements to the proposed regulatory framework. Revisions must include a requirement that children receive care where they live, appropriate to their age and individual needs.”

The charity is urging the government to “radically improve” the proposed standards, registration and inspection requirements, and to introduce legislation which will prevent children leaving care at age 16, unless it is an informed choice by the child, and is "demonstratively in their best interest".

The National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care (NCERCC) also criticised the proposals in its consultation response, which it described as “inherently unsafe”.

It added: “The standards show that ideology, pragmatism and price have been allowed to take precedence ahead of issues such as child-centredness, evidence, and theory and practice developed over decades.”

The NCERCC argued that quality standards around Ofsted inspections and registration for unregulated accommodation should offer the same protections as those in regulated children’s homes, adding: “It is simply incomprehensible that different standards can justifiably be implemented in different settings working with either very similar or identical groups of children.”

The NCERCC noted a number of potential unintended consequences which may arise from the proposals if they are passed, including the obstruction of correctly assessed care placements, fragmentation of the current provision, and an increase in the need for intensive support for children.

It also noted that the standards proposed were audited by an academic expert group with little sector knowledge or experience, adding: “These standards would have benefitted from being intensively scrutinised from a dispassionate perspective. The major concerns that exist would have been flagged and hopefully rectified prior to presentation in the public arena.”

The Association of Directors of Children's Services' (ADCS) consultation response said it supports the goal of ultimately improving services and support, but added: "There are significant concerns amongst our membership that the standards as drafted might present an immediate, and ongoing, barrier to registration leading to provider withdrawal. Consideration should be given to a phased introduction or the prioritisation of the standards so that core expectations are clearly articulated alongside ‘go further’ options."

It also said: "ADCS does not yet believe the proposed approach for mobile or temporary settings is right and would welcome further discussion on this point. There is a risk this could replicate the challenges emerging from the first phase of these reforms whereby local authorities are unable to find registered children’s homes to accept under 16s with complex needs."

The ADCS added its membership is concerned about the risk of unintended consequences, saying: "Some of the concerns raised by ADCS members have already been covered here, including provider withdrawal and the impact of this on young people plus the ability of local authorities to meet important statutory duties in terms of placement sufficiency. The introduction of new expectations and standards will undoubtedly result in higher costs for providers, whilst on the one hand greater consistency in quality and experiences is desirable, additional costs will certainly be passed on to local authorities as the only purchasers of these placements."

The government is expected to introduce these regulations in spring.