To think this is a shocking waste of taxpayer’s money??

[Ticklyoctopus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v12dwddmwo.amp

Not the boy having some form of placement or help of course, but 300k for a little over 4 months! I’m sure this will be ‘controversial’ but I think we need to seriously rethink how much can be spent on just 1 person, unless (for example) they need round the clock nursing care to stay alive and specialist medical equipment of course.

Not odd at all, I simply confused you with another poster. Soz!

Still odd to assume you’re objective while someone with a different experience isn’t. You started a thread about a child’s welfare placement (it’s not an SEN placement), mistakenly thought he was 17, suggested he’ll ’just become a criminal anyway’ and have turned the whole thing into a rant about the costs of SEN provision.

Not sure how objective any of that is.

Been off so not fully caught up but wanted to say actually I can see a future where this community care theme might improve, thanks to AI taking office jobs. A lot of people will find they have time to volunteer, retrain and do things in the community that would be beneficial to the care sector. My worry, sadly, is men in general, as we have seen repeatedly that they can't all be allowed access to vulnerable people.

I do also think we are going to need to have some form of community retraining approach with maybe bodycams like police to protect both kids and the carers eventually. My opinion on this is you have it on at all times other than in the bathroom and breaks. If anything happens and you go to court and the camera was off it is assumed you are guilty. There should be no justification for having turned it off and being in uniform/protective role.

Yes, it is a strange thing I agree. Lots of oddities in the secure estate, all hidden.

I think it reflects the idea that children accommodated on welfare grounds are still seen as naughty and troublesome and therefore less in need of/deserving of protection. That’s definitely evident in this thread too (not by you).

This.

There is a dire shortage of specialist residential places. Private providers know this and have local authorities over a barrel. In my previous council area, some private providers hiked up their prices by 100% in a single year, leaving the council at risk of bankruptcy.

I've been saying for ages that the system for funding social care in this country is completely unsustainable, and the government ought to be reforming it as one of their top priorities. This would inevitably involve central government funding and I'd like to see more services brought in-house.

But not enough people care about this issue. They're too busy haranguing the government about "boat people".

"Surely the kid gets what it needs, the parent has been part of the decision making on how to spend the money but the state ultimately keeps control of it"

I expect you have never had the experience of waiting for health, social care, education or the DWP to provide something. You have also not had the experience of the lack of joined upness of the first 3 organisations or the fact that many of the people you come across in those organisations have no clue your child's needs

Nobody’s ranting. If you’re reading it as a rant, that’s a you problem, everyone else seems perfectly calm. Trying to dress everything up as ‘odd’ doesn’t make it so.

I agree with this 👆 I worked with educating adults with disabilities. A few would be seriously mentally unwell and dangerous. We with drew their placement because they were dangerous for everyone including the public. There needs to be more places for the mentally ill. Sectioning them when they actually harm themselves or someone else is not being proactive. Also discharging them when they look better is not always a good thing, as they stop their medication and end up just as violent.

If you are a good parent and all the things for your child are paid for rather than the money paid to you then you will not mind. The child is provided for just no cash changed hands.

Parents of disabled children should be able to have the freedom to spend their child’s money on what is right for their child. It’s already a life full of battles and challenges for the child and the parent when the child has a disability, so it wouldn’t do those families any favours to then be financially controlled and to go along with what the government has chosen for the child in terms of support rather than the parent who will have a much better idea.

Inherited debt and severley cut public services - all caused by Conservative policy.
I wouldn't like Labours job of picking up and trying to put right all that is wrong.

My LA budget was cut and cut and cut under Conservative reign Millions each year. We met the loss of money….by cutting services, selling off buildings, removing provision and staff.

No other way.

Labour can't win. Criticised for talking about raising taxes to fill the inherited black hole, criticised for lack of services and provision.

Local authorities used to provide services

We were told they were inefficient and private was better

Private = profit for shareholders

Hence charging huge fees

To those asking "what will happen in future?" Be very afraid. Euthanasia for the elderly, weak and frail, especially if they can't fund their own care Dressed up as autonomy / right to choose. Initial robust safeguards watered down over time (as happened with abortion law. Previously only permitted in extreme circumstances, now right to choose. This may well be a good thing. don't want to derail the thread) But the economy will recover once we're not paying social care costs and politics will go on

There absolutely needs to be oversight of how a limited pot of money can best help the most children, just like a parent does in a family. You don’t send one child off on a 3k school skiing trip while barely able to feed and clothe your other children. My DS went to an amazing council run special school which was undoubtedly fantastic value for money, he progressed wonderfully there and now works full time. Our tax system is a mess with ridiculous marginal rates of tax which are ruining the economy so raising more money through increasing income tax/NI.reducing thresholds shouldn’t be considered an option. Spending this amount of money on one child for 17 weeks is ridiculous

Exactly - we need community shake ups around what roles are better played by the govt; fighting a losing battle with boat people (once they are out of hotels our bills for them will decrease dramatically, but where they then go is an issue), or fixing the social care sector. I was so amazed more people didn't see the huge gap in Labour's manifesto here, as it was barely mentioned while trying to win over Reform's voters. We need them to be more vocal about things they can actually change on the ground for youth and old alike.
ETA that this should be looked at alongside vacancies caused by AI - sectors that might be able to be recruited with relevant knowledge to support and brainstorm new ways forward.

"Parents of disabled children should be able to have the freedom to spend their child’s money on what is right for their child."

That poster wants to waste money creating and funding a system which is not in the best interests of the vast majority of disabled children. If Social Care think there is a problem with spending in a particular family then there is a case for intervention but otherwise leave parents to make decisions as they are people best equipped to make them.

The amount of money that the govt/LAs have to spend is limited. This seems to me to be well over what is reasonable. I totally understand that those around this child will be arguing for a high level of resources, however, at the end of the day there simply isn;t enough money to fund all the support needed, this could have benefitted many more children rather than one. I am of the view that there needs to be far more scrutiny over expenditure and in some cases sad though it is the money cannot be allocated at such a level or in some cases at all.

"I totally understand that those around this child will be arguing for a high level of resources, however, at the end of the day there simply isn;t enough money to fund all the support needed, this could have benefitted many more children rather than one"

This child will have to be accommodated somewhere. It is likely that all cheaper options refused.

It is huge sums of money, but so many people don't want to be advised by the gov on how to run their own family. This works well in most cases, as with mums being single parents and having exes suggest they are overspending, it's rarely the case and far more usually a case the general public don't fully understand the costs of care, which are greatly reduced when these children and adults can stay at home but are still high.

I do think there is an argument for better education alongside sex education that having babies with disabilities isn't easy and the genetic as well as lifestyle factors that can up the chances of having kids with disabilities - older aged parents, drugs and alcohol, etc. Not to make villains of parents who have kids with SEN but so the next generation are aware and can chose to avoid having the same situation, as I see some could be avoidable. I don't think boys realise leaving kids until they are 40+ ups the chances their child might be neurodivergent, for example, and I do think they should be given that information in order to make informed choices.

Who are you to decide what is a poor quality of life though? Hospitals will take parents to court if they believe it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from a ventilator such as the cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans.

Doctors can also predict that a baby may never be able to walk or talk etc and sometimes they are very wrong and the baby exceeds all expectations. If you had it your way, they'd just be killed at birth to save money because that's what this is about. Not the child's quality of life, money.

This actually came up a few weeks ago in an interview on the radio (Today or PM) with a woman who works for one of the autism societies. The interviewer asked her if rates of autism were rising, and she said that they didn’t think so because rates of profound (nonverbal, needing 24-hour care) autism were stable, going back decades. She said the diagnostic criteria have been broadened under the autistic spectrum term and that accounts for apparently higher rates, but also increased awareness and rigidity in schools, higher stimulation in the environment.

As pp mentioned Downs kids used to be sent away, perhaps those profoundly disabled autistic children with the behaviours you describe were also looked after in secure units?

Social care is a statutory service, and a heavily-regulated one. Local authorities aren't allowed to say, "we'll wash our hands of him, he's too expensive. We'll allocate the funding to six children with more modest needs instead."

This is one of the reasons that private care providers have local authorities over a barrel.

It’s really nice to see the points raised here, including some very challenging ones, being debated with consideration and thought.

I have said elsewhere that the optimist in me (who tends to live in a downbeaten state of disappointment) is hoping that RR is actually preparing something radical for the budget, really taking tax, spending, and welfare back to the ground and rethinking it- because it needs it.

The pyramid of a wide working base and a narrow point of people supported by the state through old age pensions and welfare has inverted through a bit of a perfect storm- a massive generation all retiring at once with very long life expectancy, on very generous pension settlements, while a falling birthrate and falling wages means that those below pension age are unable to produce enough for the state to be able to maintain the accepted social contract.

Successive governments have dodged the issue and avoided tackling it because pensioners tend to vote more than younger people, and governments are driven by fear of the media barons driving public opinion away from them and voting them out. Basically because the solutions are likely to hurt, because they mean accepting falling living standards for most people.

Well, we’re seeing that now already without any benefit of solving these problems; a bold government would take advantage of that. If our struggles mean that things improve in the future maybe it’ll be worth it.

@Cattenbergyes, the LAs are in a very difficult position. Private providers have sprung up in many areas and are making a large profit in some cases. This particular case is very interesting in that it’s clear the chaotic home life is a contributing factor, the article implies the child did not have severe or moderate learning difficulties, of course we don’t know so we can only assume and I wouldn’t like to prejudge this case. However, as a general rule, I do think that this area needs to be looked at and the allocation of spending should be reviewed and re-considered. I don’t believe this government or successive governments have really got any idea of what really goes were to go to one of the areas such as Liverpool, Hull, Middlesbrough, Glasgow or any other area of deprivation. However, what is really bizarre is that they have put the money into London, outside London very little funding has been given. That is why it’s so irritating when they quote these successful schools and programs either aimed at disadvantage or various ethnic groups etc etc and how successful they are as they are all based in London. If you live in Greater London and are disadvantaged you have a far far greater chance of social mobility than in any other area which in it when we talk about levelling up just makes situation. In fact, I would go as far to say that if you were disadvantaged in London, you have far greater chance of social mobility than if you were slightly below middle income levels in certain other parts of the country which is why it is so ridiculous

A cursory search shows every study suggests the opposite?

I think you’re confusing increased diagnosis - which is certainly the case - with increased incidence, which the pp explained isn’t the case.

No, I don’t mean the kind of autism that flies under the radar.