Viewpoint: The pursuit of discounts will come at a high price

In this environment, there remains a group of vulnerable young people in care who still require services. The number of looked-after children continues to increase. This, and the uncertainty of future levels of demand for care services, makes the planning process for local authorities and providers a difficult balancing act.

In order to streamline the contracting processes, local authorities have formed purchasing consortia which, understandably, concentrate on price-driven contracting, thereby reducing costs. The issue for the provider is to deliver cost savings, quality services and keep children safe, which is quite a tall order.

But without guaranteed placement volumes for providers, it has not been possible to achieve savings and discounts for local authorities. Providers have also been able to opt out of tendering processes, knowing that if they continue to recruit carers in the right locations, they will still attract referrals when children cannot be appropriately matched elsewhere.

Despite developments in the commissioning process, there is a need to reduce these expensive emergency spot-purchase placements. Working within tight timescales where decisions might be rushed will often result in a child not being placed in the most appropriate setting or placement.

Budget cuts might force budget holders to think short-term, instead of focusing on the long-term needs of the child. In practice, this means seeking a discount at every opportunity, without fully understanding the importance of re-investment in future service development.

In addition, there are constant price cut requests from authorities for accommodating children with complex needs where interventions have delivered positive outcomes. The notion is that the child is "cured" and therefore, the support services that help to deliver those outcomes can be withdrawn.

We know that placement stability, educational attainment and training and employment opportunities post-16 enhance the life chances of children and young people. Maintaining the focus on investment in young people's future benefits us all in the long run.

The bottom line is that supportive services have financial implications, but to my mind it is a price worth paying. To achieve positive outcomes for children, you need to maintain positive inputs.

Many local authorities have started to combine and outsource back-room operations, benefiting from efficiency savings. But will local authorities be brave enough to take that step and outsource part or, indeed, the whole of children's services to achieve savings and secure quality provision?

The coming years will bring further change and we must continue to look at innovative methods of practice to safeguard vulnerable children.

David Oldham is chief executive of Foster Care Associates

LEGAL REPORT CARE PROCEEDINGS

Case Name: D

Case Number: 2010 EWHC 3342

Judge: Mr Justice Hedley

Location: High Court of Justice, Family Division

This case concerned care proceedings against four children. W was the mother of all children, and D was the father of the two younger children. W and D were separated, and the local authority had become involved with the family when they had been living together, following an incident in which one of the children suffered burns while left alone in the bath and allegations of emotional abuse by the mother. D sought unsupervised contact with the four children.

The father had previously been acquitted of the murder or manslaughter of K, his child from a previous relationship. The local authority had only recently become aware of this.

The issue in the case was whether the local authority should be permitted to conduct a fact-finding hearing into the father's alleged involvement in the death of K. It felt the hearing was necessary to assess the risk posed by D.

Hearing decision

The court declined to order a fact-finding hearing. Justice Hedley found that ordering a fact-finding hearing would be disproportionate to the benefits that would be obtained, because: the father only sought contact; there was a real risk that the perpetrator of K's murder would still not be identified; and, allowing for the scarce resources of the family justice system, the fact-finding should not take place.