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.

SEMH, I know of two children stuck in children’s critical care beds as they’re waiting for specialist MH units. The local policy in that area is these children stay in critical care. The high cost of the packages at home/ placements is due to staffing- people on 3 or 4 to 1.

What do you mean a public who don’t want councils to spend money? The public get no say in what is spent at all.

This. I do not know how we’ve got into the situation where there is not public outrage about people profiting off children’s homes. Genuinely Dickensian stuff.

Well there’s public outrage here!

To supervise 1 person at a ratio of 2 to 1 24 hours a day is going to require 8 point something members of staff say 9 to cover holidays and sickness. I reckon staffing costs will be at least £6k a week.

I agree.

They have tried to find alternatives and couldn't so it seems as though they weren't left with much choice because they had to do something.

This boy is 17. If he is medicated and sectioned/ incarcerated how much do you think that will cost taxpayers over the next 60-odd years of his life? Surely it’s better to spend money on him now in the hope he can be rehabilitated than to write him off at 17 and no doubt be spending money on keeping him hospitalised or imprisoned for the rest of his life.

I mean that people voted for austerity and want council tax bills to be as low as possible. The result of that was that councils did things in the short-term to balance the books (like get rid of the care homes they themselves ran) which cost more money in the long-term.

If a child has had such a fucked up life that they have become a danger to themselves and others such that they need round-the-clock 2:1 security people at their side at all times whose only role is to keep the child and others around them safe and that is needed 168 hours a week, and other staff are needed for providing education and other care needs on top of that, and each staff member is working no more that 35 hours per week, then you are talking easily 6 full time employees - possibly mich more - to provide the necessary care for one very screwed up child, most of which need to be very highly trained and qualified professionals earning a lot more than minimum wage. There isn't a threshold at which it is reasonable or ethical to decide that a child's life isn't worth saving or that we don't have to try to meet their needs because of the complexity of those needs.

Sure, but their needs should be met in a facility run by the state. That helps many children. Not in a facility run for mega profit.

He also doesn't seem to have been currently convicted of a crime!

Yes, horrible! The idle rich just get richer!

But we can’t just spend spend spend, particularly where (like in this case) there is little chance of return. In theory everyone should have everything they want but that just isn’t realistic.

That doesn't surprise me.

It can be the same but to a lesser extent for other reasons too such as my son couldn't be discharged from hospital until certain things were in place due to his disability but it worked out that things were in place and sorted so he could be discharged on his discharge date which definitely isn't always the case.

I spoke to a few parents who had children in hospital not because they medically needed to be but because they couldn't be discharged until other things were in place.

I’m glad - but it’s been in the news for ages about the profits from children’s homes and there doesn’t seem to be much public interest - compared to say immigration and other front page things.

But housing children in care isn't a 'want'. I honestly don't know what you think the council should do? Put him on the streets? The judge said the only other option was less good and as expensive:

Judge Parker said the only alternative was "unregulated" accommodation which he said was often just as expensive and could be ineffective.

There should be a cheaper alternative, but if a family court judge who sees this stuff every day is saying there isn't, I think we should believe him - and agree with him that there needs to be government action on this. Blaming individual councils for paying the money seems so wrong-headed. They're not doing it because they don't know the value of money, they're doing it because they're out of other options.

I am fairly pragmatic and I do wonder how this young man would react if given the choice of four month placement or the choice of a little supported flat somewhere where would learn life skills, regular therapy, a college placement doing something practical. Driving lessons.

I suppose what I’m asking is if you are going to spend hundreds of thousands on one person what’s the best way of spending it to achieve the best possible long term outcome.

It’s a complete Catch-22.

• The Conservative government has slashed local authority budgets, drastically reducing LA spending.
• At the same time, SEND needs are rising.
• Local authority provision hasn’t kept up, and in many cases has been scaled back or closed entirely.
• Yet LAs remain legally obliged to provide care, support, and educational placements.
• Savvy parents pursue judicial review, and courts find in favour of parents in around 97% of cases.
• Every high-cost placement for one child means less funding available for everyone else.
• Meanwhile, private companies step in to fill the gaps—often backed by hedge funds or private equity—and extract profits from the system.

All the while, LAs have no realistic way to rebuild the budgets or infrastructure needed to restore their own provision.

Meanwhile Labour are criticised for suggesting raising taxes ( and on here even CiN and Sara Cox criticised for raising money to support charities working with vulnerable children)

My council had this profiteering as an agenda item in their public meeting this week, councillors are challenging the system.

I thought this. A small flat somewhere with money for driving lessons, daily visits from a social worker and some sort of counselling plus gym membership etc to keep him busy. Even that would be nowhere near 17k a week, 2k a week maybe? At most?

So what would you do with this child?

I think giving him unsupervised accommodation was made illegal in 2023: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-bans-unregulated-accommodation-for-young-people-in-care

Previously 16 and 17 year olds could be put in 'supported' accommodation - though I don't think the reality of this was as cosy as your idea (no gym memberships!) and there was a campaign against it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60360891

Presumably this is one of the reasons that care costs have gone up so much, as it must have increased demand for places and also older children are more likely to be complex cases.

In fact, from that article:

"Places in supported accommodation are usually far cheaper for councils than children's homes, often costing several hundred pounds per week.
The current cost of a place in a home regulated by Ofsted is about £4,500 per week. If the child is vulnerable, that can rise to £10,000 or more."

No idea but I’m sure the only answer can’t be 17k a week - he’ll be 18 in a matter of months.

Where were the government/social services when this boy was clearly being brought up in awful surroundings? Yes it’s always the parents responsibility but they are not always capable and hence the need for a state system that looks out for children’s welfare. How many children from difficult backgrounds do you think end up with mental/physical health problems or on benefits? Costing the tax payer. Money better spent at the start of their life, & maybe better prospects over all if they think even if their parents don’t give a shit their country do. All this sort of stuff should be government run, non profit.

You don’t think giving a kid who’s already been exploited by criminal gangs his own mostly unsupervised flat and some cash for driving lessons might just make him more vulnerable? Like it or not he’s still legally a child - would you accept your own vulnerable 17 year old with a past history like that in the article would be safe and well supported living alone with a gym membership and a daily pop in from a social worker?

Plus there’d be outrage about state funded gym memberships and driving lessons for what will not be seen by society as a deserving cause.

There are no simple or cheap answers to this.