The sinking feeling is familiar now, says Anna*. It\u2019s Friday, the clock is ticking, and there is a vulnerable child in her care for whom \u2013 despite hitting the phones for days \u2013 she cannot find a place. Once the foster carers have been exhausted, and the registered private children\u2019s homes begged, there is nothing for it but to look elsewhere.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt always seems to be on a Friday that you are struggling to place a child,\u201d says the social worker. \u201cThey need somewhere safe tonight. You\u2019re calling everywhere, already knowing the answer will be, \u2018we haven\u2019t got any spaces\u2019. And then you\u2019re left with what\u2019s left of a hotel, a caravan \u2026 somewhere you know isn\u2019t right, but you don\u2019t have a choice.\u201d<\/p>\n
A report has revealed that the number of children being placed in \u201cemergency\u201d illegal settings alongside agency staff \u2013 sometimes houses, sometimes rapidly rented Airbnbs or holiday camps \u2013 has increased by more than 370% in the last five years. In 2020 it was 144 children \u2013 by 2025 it was 680.<\/p>\n
Another former social worker told the Guardian that the youngest child she had placed in an unregistered, and hence illegal, setting was five, and on one occasion the only available accommodation she could find was a barge.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou are constantly having to do the wrong thing because that is the least worst option, and that is just soul-destroying,\u201d she says. \u201cSocial workers are being forced to break the law because they have no other choice.\u201d<\/p>\n
These settings are not registered \u2013 as they should be by law \u2013 with Ofsted. They are meant to be temporary, but a recent report by the children\u2019s commissioner<\/a> found the average placement lasted six months \u2013 one child had been in a \u201choliday camp\/activity centre\u201d for almost nine months.<\/p>\n The children being put in these homes are some of the most at-risk children in England<\/a>. They are more likely to be involved with gangs, county lines, serious violence, exploitation, or have experienced severe mental health crises, according to the report by policy analysts Public First, for the charity Commonweal Housing.<\/p>\n They are young people such as Nonita Grabovskyte, who was struck by a train on 28 December 2023, two weeks after turning 18. An inquest into her death heard<\/a> that, before she took her own life, she was put in unregistered privately run supported accommodation. The teenager was autistic and had a history of mental ill health, disordered eating and self-harm. The operations director of the home she was placed in had no social work qualification, no training in autism and last attended safeguarding training in 2021 or 2022.<\/p>\n Or like Alice*, an at-risk 15-year-old, who, in 2024, was moved 300 miles from her home to escape sexual exploitation. A court heard she was plied with alcohol and sexually assaulted by two ex-soldiers who had been paid by a private firm to care for her in an unregistered house, LBC and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported<\/a>.<\/p>\n So, why are some of the most at-risk children in England being placed in illegal settings? An increasing population of looked-after children, coupled with a shrinking supply in settings that can cater for complex cases, is part of the problem. The number of looked-after children has risen by nearly 20%<\/a> over the past decade, with about 83,600 children now looked after by the state<\/a>. There are now 14,840 more children in care than there were in 2014, <\/strong>but 2,165 fewer fostering households, according to the Institute for Government<\/a>.<\/p>\n Some experts blamed the shortage of available places for children with complex needs \u2013 in foster homes and residential homes \u2013 on the dominance of the private sector in child social care.<\/p>\n \u201cWe as the local authority have a legal obligation to look after children in our care,\u201d says one social worker. \u201cBut there is no legal obligation on private providers to accept them.\u201d The report reflects this, stating that some registered settings are anxious that taking \u201chigh-risk\u201d children could damage their Ofsted rating.<\/p>\n While Wales has legislated to eliminate profit-making from children\u2019s social care<\/a> services, and Scotland is trying to limit for-profit<\/a> operators, in England more than 80% of child residential homes are for profit<\/a>.<\/p>\n Recent analysis for the Guardian found that nearly a quarter of foster places in England are provided by private equity-backed<\/a> firms. In 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority warned that some children\u2019s home owners were making excessive profits while carrying too much debt \u2013 exposing children and councils to unacceptable risks<\/a>.<\/p>\n One former service manager said a critical shortage of fostering places \u2013 half of which are run by private providers<\/a> \u2013 was a key problem. \u201cThey\u2019ve ruined it for children,\u201d they say. \u201cYou will be over a barrel. They\u2019ll say, \u2018Yeah, I got a foster carer, how much are you prepared to pay?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n A private foster care provider \u2013 who said unregulated settings gave a bad name to all companies in the sector, including those acting legally and ethically \u2013 told the Guardian that responsible providers did sometimes turn down young people with complex needs because it was \u201cmore important to have young people who we can care for rather than having young people to fill beds\u201d.<\/p>\n Costs have also spiralled. Councils\u2019 spending on child residential care has almost doubled in five years, according to<\/a> the National Audit Office, totalling \u00a33.1bn in 2023-24, with each child costing an average of \u00a3318,400 a year. One interviewee told the report that the cost of placing a child in an illegal care setting could reach as high as \u00a330,000 or \u00a340,000 a week, and that \u00a320,000 \u201cwas not an unusual figure\u201d.<\/p>\n One former director of children\u2019s services said the majority of illegal placements were \u201clow frequency, high risk, high cost\u201d, adding that local authorities were hampered by a \u201cquasi market with overdemand and undersupply\u201d where the state was the only customer. \u201cNo DCS lightly makes the decision to do something that is unlawful,\u201d he says. \u201cBut on occasion we have no solution \u2013 the alternative is we walk away, we fail in our legal duty and we leave that child on the street.\u201d<\/p>\n Government minister Josh MacAlister, who led an independent review of child social care<\/a> and is now in charge of overhauling the system, has vowed to crack down on profiteering<\/a>. The government insists the children\u2019s wellbeing and schools bill will give Ofsted stronger powers to stop unregulated providers, while a \u00a388m recruitment drive<\/a> aims to generate 10,000 new foster places.<\/p>\n But government figures also quietly acknowledge they cannot, in the short term, stop profit in the sector: there would simply be nowhere for children to go. The government has consulted on setting up a national register of foster carers, which \u201cwould be an immediate and practical solution\u201d, says Sarah Thomas, chief executive of the Fostering Network. \u201cNot everyone wants this level of transparency, but in our view a register should always best serve the interests of the children,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n For now there are no easy fixes. Anna says many of her colleagues have left child social work because they felt undervalued and unsupported. \u201cThe hardest part is it doesn\u2019t have to be this way \u2013 a lot of it could be avoided if carers and staff were properly supported and valued,\u201d she says. \u201cBut they aren\u2019t. So children pay the price.\u201d<\/p>\n * Names have been changed<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The sinking feeling is familiar now, says Anna*. It\u2019s Friday, the clock is ticking, and there is a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":906216,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[13,12,14],"class_list":{"0":"post-906215","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-news","8":"tag-headlines","9":"tag-news","10":"tag-top-stories"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/116435500848527670","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/906215","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=906215"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/906215\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/906216"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=906215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=906215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=906215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}