100,000 children in care soon.

[sage]

The amount of children in care has soared over the last dozen years. 

As a Foster Carer and Teacher I have my own views, but what does everyone think explains this issue? 

[Day]

Assuming most would be from parents that have drug or alcohol issues, you would need to look into why addictions are on the rise.

The recent national lockdowns won't have helped, whilst I wouldn't say I personally have an alcohol problem, I did consume more myself mostly through boredom.

Are birth rates on the rise through lockdown as well? Wouldn't surprise me.

[Angry Ram]

Socially we are poo as a species now. Roles and responsibilities, everyone expects someone else to pick up their slack.

I remember when we first had Medium Angry, I was poo scared of not being a good dad and not providing for the family. I may be an old fart but some old standards are hard to beat. You have role and you take it seriously. 

I'm no expert mind, just my view from the outside. 

Question for the better informed.

Is it worse in any particular demographic? 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Angry Ram

[Wolfie]

a) We're getting better at identifying children at risk

b) There are more children at risk

Answer: Probably both.

See, it's easy.

[sage]

49 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Socially we are poo as a species now. Roles and responsibilities, everyone expects someone else to pick up their slack.

I remember when we first had Medium Angry, I was poo scared of not being a good dad and not providing for the family. I may be an old fart but some old standards are hard to beat. You have role and you take it seriously. 

I'm no expert mind, just my view from the outside. 

Question for the better informed.

Is it worse in any particular demographic? 

There is a disproportionate (around 50% extra) children in care from ethnic minorities, but a very similar amount from ethnic minorities when you take socio-economic background into account. ie you are as likely to go into care if you are poor regardless of your ethnic heritage.

The numbers started going up dramatically in 2010 (i was recruited in 2012 and started in 2013) and has kept increasing ever since. There hasn't been a specific recorded risk in children going into care yet (2020), but with domestic violence on the increase, 2021 and 2022 are expected to show some form of increase.  I don't think this is mainly a covid issue per se, just another factor.  

In relation to @David's post, alcohol and drug abuse/addiction often play a part as most children go into care as a result of neglect or abuse. One interesting statistic is that whilst children in care has gone up dramatically in England, Wales and NI, it has dropped significantly in Scotland. That would suggest government/local authority policy and policy differences are a key player in this. Scotland retained SureStart which was massively cut in England. 

[Angry Ram]

4 minutes ago, sage said:

There is a disproportionate (around 50% extra) children in care from ethnic minorities, but a very similar amount from ethnic minorities when you take socio-economic background into account. ie you are as likely to go into care if you are poor regardless of your ethnic heritage.

The numbers started going up dramatically in 2010 (i was recruited in 2012 and started in 2013) and has kept increasing ever since. There hasn't been a specific recorded risk in children going into care yet (2020), but with domestic violence on the increase, 2021 and 2022 are expected to show some form of increase.  I don't think this is mainly a covid issue per se, just another factor.  

In relation to @David's post, alcohol and drug abuse/addiction often play a part as most children go into care as a result of neglect or abuse. One interesting statistic is that whilst children in care has gone up dramatically in England, Wales and NI, it has dropped significantly in Scotland. That would suggest government/local authority policy and policy differences are a key player in this. Scotland retained SureStart which was massively cut in England. 

Obviously you are closer to this than me but do you think that people attitude has changed with the increase of social care any government provides nowadays? What I am trying to say is that it is easier now to put a child in care or abandon it knowing that the might of the state will step in? 

 

[sage]

53 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Obviously you are closer to this than me but do you think that people attitude has changed with the increase of social care any government provides nowadays? What I am trying to say is that it is easier now to put a child in care or abandon it knowing that the might of the state will step in? 

 

A child going into care being the parents decision is very much in the minority. In the majority of cases it is the decision of the social workers and occasionally the children themselves. The parameters have changed a little after some high profile cases such as Baby P, which explained the rise in 2010 but not the ongoing rise.

It's a sad state of affairs, perhaps saddest for those who don't go into care who should do.       

[Angry Ram]

29 minutes ago, sage said:

A child going into care being the parents decision is very much in the minority. In the majority of cases it is the decision of the social workers and occasionally the children themselves. The parameters have changed a little after some high profile cases such as Baby P, which explained the rise in 2010 but not the ongoing rise.

It's a sad state of affairs, perhaps saddest for those who don't go into care who should do.       

In your opinion, too much State intervention? Baby P was horrific but sometimes these things can cause over caution?

[sage]

14 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

In your opinion, too much State intervention? Baby P was horrific but sometimes these things can cause over caution?

No i don't think so. There will be the odd case but they are outweighed by those who should be care but aren't. 

The way to reduce the numbers, other than generally better economic times, is preventative programmes like SureStart where inexperienced or vulnerable parents are guided in bringing up children. It's one of the biggest political mistakes in the last decade to defund it. Not only is prevention better than the cure, it is usually cheaper.  They way to keep children with struggling families is to support those families not vilify them. 

[BucksRam]

I don't have a huge amount of experience in this area to be honest, however I do know that the little boy adopted by some friends of ours was in care as a result of having parents who were alcoholics and drug users, which sickeningly resulted in some pretty horrendous abuse.  I'll leave the detail there but suffice to say he's now getting the love and attention every child deserves.

I would guess COVID hasn't helped from both sides.  So many people losing work creating increased stress and issues at home thus speeding up the process that leads to some kids being taken into care.  Similarly, and again this is a guess, with COVID and lockdown, I'd assume the amount of kids being re-homed over the past 18-24 months has decreased quite significantly, resulting in increased numbers remaining in care. 

[Wolfie]

57 minutes ago, sage said:

The way to reduce the numbers, other than generally better economic times, is preventative programmes like SureStart where inexperienced or vulnerable parents are guided in bringing up children. It's one of the biggest political mistakes in the last decade to defund it. Not only is prevention better than the cure, it is usually cheaper.  They way to keep children with struggling families is to support those families not vilify them. 

I have to agree with that. Mrs Wolfie is responsible for finding placements for kids in Lincolnshire and she's currently paying up to £16,000 a week, depending on the needs of the individual.

I tend not to ask her about her work stuff because I find it hard to listen to the stories of abuse and neglect. Just yesterday we were loading up the car at B&M Bargains with treats and little presents for her to box up and distribute to some of the kids her team look after, and who won't get anything at Christmas otherwise. It's heartbreaking.

[Comrade 86]

The government. 

 

[Miggins]

It's such a complex issue, as you know @sage. When I was teaching I didn't teach too many fostered children, but those I taught were from abusive and neglected backgrounds, mostly involving drug abuse and neglect.

Poverty is an issue although many families who live in poverty guard their children fiercely.

Parents whose own parents were poor role models and so they have never experienced how to bring up their own offspring in a loving but disciplined way.

Parents with poor mental health who find it a struggle to look after themselves, let alone challenging youngsters.

Recent court cases where authorities have been charged with neglect, making them more vigilant.

On a more personal note, my nephew was put into care when he was only a few months old. His teenage mother was having an affair with a married man and had children by different fathers. My nephew has cerebral palsy and was fostered until my sister and her husband adopted him when he was two. I cannot see his mothers actions as anything but utterly feckless and his father likewise.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Miggins

[sage]

1 hour ago, BucksRam said:

I don't have a huge amount of experience in this area to be honest, however I do know that the little boy adopted by some friends of ours was in care as a result of having parents who were alcoholics and drug users, which sickeningly resulted in some pretty horrendous abuse.  I'll leave the detail there but suffice to say he's now getting the love and attention every child deserves.

I would guess COVID hasn't helped from both sides.  So many people losing work creating increased stress and issues at home thus speeding up the process that leads to some kids being taken into care.  Similarly, and again this is a guess, with COVID and lockdown, I'd assume the amount of kids being re-homed over the past 18-24 months has decreased quite significantly, resulting in increased numbers remaining in care. 

If children are re-homed in a foster placement, they are still 'in care'. Residential units take up around 14% of those in care. Around 3/4 are in foster care with the rest placed with extended family or in supported living.

[GboroRam]

My experience, which is a lot less than sage's, is there's a bunch of reasons. 

1. The cyclical nature of care. The number of children who have come to us who's parents also were in the care system, is depressing. How we break that cycle will be tough. 

2. Addiction. Drugs and alcohol are very common in cases of neglect. 

3. Mental health. Often accompanying drug and alcohol abuse, I've seen too many parents not psychologically capable of caring for their children. 

Having fostered I think 14 children (need to count them again!), none of them had parents saying they didn't want Parental Responsibility. They perhaps took all the wrong decisions, refusing to engage with social services, the courts and even their own solicitors. One was under protection from family knowing their whereabouts due to previous actions towards the child, so they were completely out of the loop. One was an orphan as both drug addict parents fatally overdosed while child was very young. But the rest had parents who were incapable of seeing they would never be able to care properly for their children, despite what they wanted. 

[angieram]

3 hours ago, sage said:

No i don't think so. There will be the odd case but they are outweighed by those who should be care but aren't. 

The way to reduce the numbers, other than generally better economic times, is preventative programmes like SureStart where inexperienced or vulnerable parents are guided in bringing up children. It's one of the biggest political mistakes in the last decade to defund it. Not only is prevention better than the cure, it is usually cheaper.  They way to keep children with struggling families is to support those families not vilify them. 

Totally agree with this. I specifically mentioned in another thread that Surestart was a programme that began as a charity and was picked up and mainstreamed into government funded provision because of its success.

I can't comment on it later being defunded without breaking the rules of the Forum but LOOK IT UP.

[Rev]

2 hours ago, angieram said:

Totally agree with this. I specifically mentioned in another thread that Surestart was a programme that began as a charity and was picked up and mainstreamed into government funded provision because of its success.

I can't comment on it later being defunded without breaking the rules of the Forum but LOOK IT UP.

Don't worry @angieram, there's a replacement on the way announced in the recent budget.

It's nowhere near as wide ranging, nowhere near as well funded, but it's on its way.

Arriving nationwide about the same time as HS2.

[1of4]

My wife worked on various programmes, ran by surestart, that were designed to help mothers and thus help their children live a better life. 

 It can't be a coincidence that since the defunding of the surestarts programme, more children are having to be taken into care.

The cost of putting a child into a council run carehome can be 3 to 4 thousand pounds per week. This cost can be multiplied by 4 when putting a child into a privately run home. 

Me not being at all cynical about the reasons for defunding the surestart programme. But I do wonder who are the owners of these private carehomes, that are making vast profits from these unfortunate children.

[Stive Pesley]

12 hours ago, 1of4 said:

The cost of putting a child into a council run carehome can be 3 to 4 thousand pounds per week. This cost can be multiplied by 4 when putting a child into a privately run home. 

Me not being at all cynical about the reasons for defunding the surestart programme. But I do wonder who are the owners of these private carehomes, that are making vast profits from these unfortunate children.

We got part way through the process of applying to do respite foster care  (via the council) before Covid and the thing that struck me was that the Council were competing with private companies to find foster carers. But that set up is stupid - because if the Council don't have enough Foster Carers, they have to "sub-contract" the care to the private companies. Which involves paying over-the-odds to the Private  comapnies - which in turn means that the private companies can pay more to the Foster carers. Which means it's more lucrative for foster carers to go with the private companies, which leaves the Council with a lack of foster carers! Then you get on to the little matter of the Private Companies being far less stringent on the acceptance criteria (because their eyes are on the dollar and not the kids wellbeing), so it's yet another system rigged to funnel public taxes into private companies ?

But to get back the question of "why the increase in kids in care?" I thought that @Norman wrote a really good post in the Children In Need thread last week about people in the prison system that reads across here. Without a fundamental change in the way society deals with breaking the cycle it won't ever be fixed 

 

 

[Wolfie]

5 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

We got part way through the process of applying to do respite foster care  (via the council) before Covid and the thing that struck me was that the Council were competing with private companies to find foster carers. But that set up is stupid - because if the Council don't have enough Foster Carers, they have to "sub-contract" the care to the private companies. Which involves paying over-the-odds to the Private  comapnies - which in turn means that the private companies can pay more to the Foster carers. Which means it's more lucrative for foster carers to go with the private companies, which leaves the Council with a lack of foster carers! Then you get on to the little matter of the Private Companies being far less stringent on the acceptance criteria (because their eyes are on the dollar and not the kids wellbeing), so it's yet another system rigged to funnel public taxes into private companies ?

 

Agree with all that but I don't have any evidence for the bit in bold - Mrs Wolfie has never flagged that up as a concern.

What she does report, though, is that there is a greater chance that private foster places break down, due to challenging behaviour (for example) and it's then usually the councils which have to pick up the pieces - and the tab for the expensive care of the troubled individuals.

I know that in Lincolnshire at least, they are currently trying to increase the number of council run children's homes, to bring more of the care in-house and hopefully get a better handle on the costs.