Why illegal children’s homes are being paid up to £2m per child by councils
Why illegal children’s homes are being paid up to £2m per child by councils
Why illegal children s homes are being – In recent years, the system of placing children in care has become a subject of intense scrutiny. A growing number of councils in England are facing a dilemma: either accommodate vulnerable children in legally recognized homes or risk placing them in unregistered, and therefore illegal, settings. Despite a 2021 government ban on housing under-16s in such homes, the practice has persisted, often at significant cost to public funds. Some placements are reportedly costing up to £2 million annually per child, raising questions about the effectiveness of current oversight mechanisms.
The Hidden Cost of Care
When I first investigated the issue, I found that unregistered placements were not only common but also deeply concerning. One such example was a bungalow that appeared unassuming at first glance. Privacy film, incorrectly installed, peeled off the windows. Inside, the walls were covered in flaking wallpaper, the carpets were worn, and doors were in disrepair. Yet, the provider was charging a council in another region £13,000 a week for the care of a vulnerable teenage girl. This girl required the support of three full-time staff members, highlighting the resource-intensive nature of such cases.
Just miles away, another illegal home operated from a council-owned property. A tenant had sublet the space to a company that billed a different local authority thousands of pounds weekly. These instances underscore the financial burden councils bear, even as they struggle to meet the needs of children with complex care requirements. The report I authored five years ago led to a government decision to ban unregulated placements in England, targeting homes that lacked proper registration or inspection by Ofsted.
Despite this, the trend has not reversed. According to the Public Accounts Committee, around 800 children in England are still placed in unregistered homes, defying the ban. This inconsistency raises concerns about the quality of care these children receive. Dr. Mark Kerr, chief executive of the Children’s Homes Association, described the situation as a “Wild West” in his recent remarks. He emphasized that the current system has failed to create enough specialized facilities for the most vulnerable children over the past decade.
“This is the culmination of 10 years of systemic failure to develop specialist provision for our most vulnerable children,” Dr. Kerr said.
A System in Disarray
While the majority of children are placed in foster care, adopted, or legal residential homes, those with the most challenging needs often find themselves in unregistered placements. Local authorities have reported difficulty in securing suitable accommodations, leading them to rely on alternative solutions. In some cases, this has meant partnering with companies that operate outside of regulatory frameworks.
Interestingly, the number of registered children’s homes has actually increased significantly. Ofsted data shows a doubling of registered homes from 2,209 to 4,455 over eight years. However, this growth has not kept pace with the rising costs. Councils in England have seen their expenditure on residential care homes double in the last four years and triple in the past eight. This financial strain has pushed some authorities to seek out unregistered options, even when legal alternatives exist.
One notable case involved Staffordshire council, which spent £2.6 million last year to care for a teenage girl in a registered placement. The girl required up to five staff members, demonstrating the high operational costs associated with specialized care. The council attributed part of this expense to the NHS, which covers half the cost of such placements. Yet, the average weekly cost for a registered home is now £6,100, or £318,000 annually, revealing the substantial financial commitment needed for legal care.
Contrast this with the unregistered homes, which have become a focal point of concern. These settings often lack the oversight and structure that registered homes provide. During my recent visits, I observed a caravan in Lancashire where a 12-year-old boy was placed in a care arrangement that also used narrowboats. Children frequently moved between these locations, sometimes without clear accountability or support systems. In contrast, his brother had been in a stable and more affordable foster placement for years, highlighting the disparity in care quality.
Another example came from Portsmouth, where a 14-year-old at risk of falling from windows was placed in a flat above a shop. The lack of proper facilities and safety measures in such settings can leave children in precarious situations. A whistleblower shared with me that they had witnessed a boy living in a house where the sofa was propped up with two bricks, and another reported seeing a child barricaded inside a room with minimal space and no escape routes.
Reforming the System
The question remains: why do councils continue to use unregistered homes if they are legally prohibited? Some argue that the shortage of specialized provision forces authorities to make difficult choices. However, the financial implications are undeniable. With costs for registered homes climbing, the appeal of cheaper unregistered options becomes harder to resist.
Counterintuitively, the surge in unregistered placements has coincided with a dramatic increase in registered homes. This growth has been fueled by a wave of new providers entering the market, many with no prior experience in child care. Private equity firms and property investors have capitalized on this opportunity, driving up prices and intensifying competition for limited spaces.
As the situation evolves, the challenge lies in ensuring that these children receive the support they need without compromising their safety or legal protections. The government must address the systemic gaps that allow unregistered homes to thrive, even as the sector expands. This requires not only increasing the number of registered facilities but also implementing stricter regulations and oversight to prevent exploitation.