Children going into care - ten year high

[romaarco]

I read a few weeks ago that the numbers of teenagers going into care has steaily increased over the last ten years and is now at a ten year high.

Does anyone know what is behind this - is it parents not coping or parents being abusive or poverty or more mental health problems in teens because of social media etc?

This applies to children of all ages, incidentally. But the second highest group of children being taken into care is 10 years up. The highest is 0 - 2

I know from experience that children very rarely do well in care. It is very rare that they find adults who care about them and give them support and there is a high chance they will be not given the emotional care they need and also that they will be exploited.

OP, educational outcomes are in the public domain - you can see averages by LAC/CIN status on the govt website if you look.

I would put good money on it having at least something to do with a complete failure or both children and adult’s mental health services.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of why it is happening and how that has changed over time.

I think one of the biggest failures is not so much in the care system, but in how we deal with care leavers. It is also very much based on the type of care they receive.

Probably because early intervention and support services have been completely slashed, if not cut to the bone.

The support structures that kept children with their parents (sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly) have evaporated. Situations are falling apart harder and in more horrible ways.

[quote bestsoupintown]@romaarco nowhere did I say it was positive that more children are in care.

I also didn't say that only children with specialist needs are placed in residential units, I said that LAs are reluctant to do so and will try hard to place with family or foster caters first if that's what's appropriate.

Please don't misrepresent what I have said. I am also not going to be giving personal information beyond what I have already. [/quote]
I am sorry if you think I misrepresented, the key thing I thought you said was that things are better for children in care now, and I wondered what led you to believe that. No worries at all that you don't want to reply and apologies if I offended.

@ThirdElephant

Are numbers up for all age groups or does the ten year high with older kids tally with a decrease in 2-8s going into care?

I think it is an increase in all age groups.

This bull shit about kids in care really gets on my nerves. Yes kids in care have poor outcomes across the board but that because they have been neglected and abused - not because they have been or are in care.

Actually kids in care have far better access to a wide range of service's to try and boost their outcomes - but fundamentally, its the parents fault. Not being in care.

26 years experience working with looked after children as a social work manager.

To answer your question. Asylum seekers have raised some of the numbers of the 10+ Yr old. 0-2 have risen because its proven that young children have better outcomes if they go into care, sooner rather than later.

I was neglected but loved. Glad I didn't end up in care though

I think part of the rise might be improvements in safeguarding. Most public services have a statutory responsibility to flag any concerns about children and frontline staff in these services are better trained than ever to pick up on neglect/abuse. It's not perfect and cases are still missed, but it's a lot better than 20 years ago.

I am a leader in an SEMH school and around 60% of our intake are young people in care. The school is owned by a private company which also runs numerous other similar schools, secure units and children's homes around the country. Many of our students have been placed in one of our children's homes because foster/adoptive placements have broken down. The young people have usually suffered horrendous abuse in their earliest years and have been placed in the case system because of that, often living in 5-10 Foster homes before coming to us . Children attend our school from age 5 to 18. Our young people can be incredibly volatile and often dangerous. Many already have criminal records. There is loads of self harm. Ultimately, they are just lonely kids who are desperate for love and they often idolise their birth parents/mums without acknowledging the horrific abuse they suffered. Our young people have sooooo much potential and we push them to ensure all year 11 students leave with 5 qualifications including GCSE English and Maths.

Austerity

The way out of this mire all starts with free, accessible contraception and decent maternity and early childhood care. Societies that fail to care for mothers and allow them real choices will see these consequences 10 years down the line.

We run a child contact centre, several users are parents whose children are in foster care, all are in foster care due to addiction. Addiction is such a problem and so many children's lives are ruined by it

Thanks to everyone who responded.

For some children the only option is removal, but I believe that for many families (or the majority possibly) having more effective interventions in the home would be better for the children. I am not sure the comparison with cin works in fact as there will be a difference between a CIN/their family getting effective home intervention and a CIN/their family who do not. The problem is not just funding, though funding is a huge problem, it is also how effective the offered interventions are.

I was speaking to a social worker who worked with families just before removal not long ago and I asked her if there was a place for a charity which went into homes in crisis and gave practical and emotional support to help hold them together and she said it was an amazing idea and that it would be welcomed across the board.

Vast amounts of public money are channelled in the direction of care and I feel could and should be diverted to helping at ground roots and I think that there is a lack of general awareness of.

But I don't think it is just to do with money. I don't think the lives of people living in the poorest and most dangerous and most deprived and isolated communities (whether or not there is DV and substance abuse) are well enough understood by services, and it means that the help being provided or offered is not effective help.

I have said "many/majority of families" above because that is the impression I get from talking to people who are directly involved, but I wanted to get wider opinions, hence this thread.

@SlidDownTheElephantsTrunk

This bull shit about kids in care really gets on my nerves. Yes kids in care have poor outcomes across the board but that because they have been neglected and abused - not because they have been or are in care.

Actually kids in care have far better access to a wide range of service's to try and boost their outcomes - but fundamentally, its the parents fault. Not being in care.

26 years experience working with looked after children as a social work manager.

To answer your question. Asylum seekers have raised some of the numbers of the 10+ Yr old. 0-2 have risen because its proven that young children have better outcomes if they go into care, sooner rather than later.

Your 26 years don't tally with the testimony of the adults I know, who went into care because of neglect, but only experienced serious physical abuse, sexual abuse, pscyhological abuse and emotional neglect after going into care.

My question was only about the 10 plus - thank you for your input there, however, that asylum seekers have raised numbers.

@MrsPworkingmummy What you say here is really helpful, thank you. Are the children all assessed and supported by clinical psychologists and do they all get therapeutic input advised by psychs? Does psych input into developmental trauma etc inform how you work with the children? Do the children see their birth families and do they all get counselling to help them come to terms with their birth family circumstances and early life experiences, and their experiences with foster families/adoptive families?

Sorry, a lot of questions!

Op I don't want to give too many outing details, but I work in an authority where the two biggest reasons for child protection plans are neglect and harm relating to domestic abuse (usually emotional neglect category).
There are a few reasons identified for the massive increase in children coming into care, particularly older children in our area, but in our area it's a very specific legacy of local authority cuts. The govt changed how childrens services were funded which meant deprived areas (like ours) that used to get an extra boost, were essentially told to be good little capitalists and generate our own income. Not very easy to do when you've got very limited options (not much real estate we can make money from where I work!)
That meant for 5-10yrs we batted away a LOT of neglect cases due to lack of social workers, lack of people to even pick up the phone. Signposted them to charities that were also on their knees. Colleagues in health were also limiting what they were doing for the same reason. And police. Children had repeat child protection plans. Things were bad.

A few years later things got bad enough that our authority was able to 'prove' things were dangerous. Cue reinvestment (via our authority knowingly going into debt) More social workers. More assessments. More children coming into care, but specifically more older children who had experienced lower level but grinding neglect.

Noone in our sector wants to focus the money on the expenditure on children's homes - we're often frustrated by the costs and the lack of good matches - putting children where there's a vacancy instead of where is the best fit for them. In our area they are investing in the preventative services but it's going to take a few years, especially as our charity services are still decimated. Many went under and funding is so hard to get in that area that the things we want - befriending services for vulnerable parents, mentoring services for teens, children's centres that provide parenting courses on how to handle teens, support for dads etc - just don't exist.

Well, except that plenty of abuse and neglect goes on in care as well.

I imagine (hope) that it is far less now than historically, but it's not true to say that care doesn't and can't cause its own damage.

I have a relative who decided to go into care at the age of 14. She wanted to hold the family to ransom, basically. She went into a teenage hostel. A lot of the teenagers were in there because they could be. They were fully supported to leave home. Compared with the teens who'd I'd worked with during my time as a CP SW, they mostly didn't leave to escape a terrible home life. The rise in numbers will be partly because of poorer mental health, issues being amplified because of lock down and better intervention. As said by a pp, if there's younger children in the house, parents aren't given the option of the young person remaining in the home.

Also I know your question about clinical psychs and counselling wasn't directed at me, but very few of the children I've worked with have been ready for that input in childhood. More usually it's therapeutic parenting - to help with the real basics, such as recognising their own emotions, building small amounts of trusts in relationships. It's common for children to be in homes where a clinician will advise the carers on how to best support and respond to the child. Many of the children we work with have a younger emotional development age due to trauma, and attachment/trust issues with the people they live with, along with all the other issues that come with being a young teen generally. It's got to be at the child's pace.

@Kneesaregood

Also I know your question about clinical psychs and counselling wasn't directed at me, but very few of the children I've worked with have been ready for that input in childhood. More usually it's therapeutic parenting - to help with the real basics, such as recognising their own emotions, building small amounts of trusts in relationships. It's common for children to be in homes where a clinician will advise the carers on how to best support and respond to the child. Many of the children we work with have a younger emotional development age due to trauma, and attachment/trust issues with the people they live with, along with all the other issues that come with being a young teen generally. It's got to be at the child's pace.

Thank you so much for your other post. What you have said here about clin psychs isn't right - the children really need this input from the outset, much of the therapeutic parenting is out of date - attachment forms part of developmental trauma and the help the child should get will depend on when the trauma happened, and it needs a clin psych to assess that - without that and proper help the child will get worse.

Children just are not getting what they need.

But what you described sounds just horrendous - it must be really tough dealing with that day to day. I have worked on commercial private/public projects and my concern is that the private sector and really, really good at negotiating contracts with LAs - I hope that I am wrong but the changes are there is not value for money and the dc are not getting the help they need.

sorry, I meant private sector are good at negotiating and the chances are there is not value for money.

Some clinical psychs are going to be up to date in this field, others not so much in my experience.
I think working in a multi-disciplinary way is more valuable than relying too much on any one professional group.

I am a foster carer. I'm not sure if this is an across-the-board policy, but I'm my area children won't be seen for therapeutic input until they're in a stable placement that is able to support them.

The young person is already going through so much trauma bouncing from one carer to the next, not forming any significant attachments, unsure if "home" will still be "home" next week, potentially changing schools and losing friends along the way.

They can't begin to deal with their past traumas until their present situation isn't terrifying.

With respect i disagree about the clin psych input. Those professionals are suitably qualified to assess if a child is ready for direct therapy. How can a child engage in therapy if they don't feel emotionally safe at home? If they aren't at the stage that they can recognise or name their own emotions? If they have parents on a pedestal and can't comprehend that a parent made any mistakes? You can't force a service on a child because the adult would be more comfortable with them having it. In some cases it's applicable but not all. Think it how many adults go through difficult events but aren't ready for counseling until years later.
Most of the children I have arranged counseling for have wanted to talk about usual childhood things - dating, friendships etc - not ready to delve into the big stuff.
For many, that time comes in adulthood, often when they have children of their own. I do believe that we should provide better support to care leavers in that regard.

In terms of the right help, the match is key, and the shortage of places when they're needed is a massive issue. For example you could have an amazing home with on site therapy, access to vocational skills, beautiful surroundings. If it's far from home and a child feels they're being deliberately distanced from family and friends, it doesn't matter how good the home is, it's not right for them. Councils can't negotiate with companies when we're competing to get a vacancy in the first place. We can try and hold them to account but the reality is we don't have an alternative and they know that.

One other aspect is there is a very well publicised shortage of homes that can support children who are at their most vulnerable/damaged - secure beds or equivalent . As homes have too many referrals they can naturally select the young person who is least likely to disrupt others in that home. Which means those who have the more extreme behaviour and the most need are the hardest to find homes for and sadly the most likely to be moved around and not receive the support they need.

Ps thank you for your comments, it is an ethical quandry to work in a system with such flaws, the alternative of walking away feels wrong too. So I just try to be realistic and change and influence what we can, which I think is broadly in line with a number of my colleagues.

Sorry my comment was directed at @romaarco not at @NeverHomeAlone