Welcome to another week.
Think tank, The Social Market Foundation (SMF) examined inspection data from Ofsted, and discovered that almost 50,000 vulnerable children were being cared for in areas where council services were failing them.
SMF offers the key stats below, inside their press release:
- 63% of Local Authorities in England were providing services for vulnerable children which either “required improvement” or were “inadequate.”;
- 47,085 children – 65% of all looked-after children – are looked after in Local Authorities that are deemed to be falling short of a good standard;
- Of those children, 13,790 are receiving care services judged as “inadequate”, which is the worst possible grade.
SMF produced a report with all their findings, which they’ve entitled, “Looked-after children: the Silent Crisis.”
The think tank is calling on the government to address the findings:
“It is remarkable that the fact that nearly two thirds of Local Authorities being judged in need of improvement or inadequate over looked-after children is scarcely discussed at Westminster. This would not be the case if such levels of failure were found in our school system, where 78% (secondary) and 90% (primary) are judged to be either good or outstanding..
This issue clearly needs to receive more attention from politicians and policymakers, and with improvements in the data available, we now have the ability to see where we are going wrong, and how we might improve the situation of looked after children.”
Today, Ofsted launched a beta site where members of the public can search for and access inspection reports for a wide range of bodies and child welfare practices.
Our question this week then, is this: why do you think the government continues to overlook the quality of care councils offer vulnerable children?
Researching Reform 
I think the reason is at least partly because the care system seems to go under the radar until there is a major scandal like Rotherham. And I believe that there is a prejudice against ‘looked-after children’, many thinking they are the architects of their own misfortune, or that ‘the sins of the parents are visited on the children’. This is sometimes the case, unfortunately, but very few people seem to consider that it is more often the ‘sins of the system’ and of social workers too eager to place kids in care. Quite a few M.P.s seem to go along with these attitudes.
Hopefully, with Rotherham, Oxford, Sheffield and other cases, people will become less trusting and/or complacent, and M.P.s more aware. And dare we think, Councils and social workers will become a little more human in their approach to children in care? And actually start caring?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Question It! | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE : seeking Justice for Hollie
No it’s because there are no votes in it (yet) but still millions of £s being made by adopting and fostering agencies and also special schools charging the authorities 3 times what it cost to send Prince Harry to ETON !
What they are totally ignoring in this enquiry is the way children in care have laptops and mobile phones confiscated to isolate them from family and friends !Forbiddento speak their own language if they come from a non English speaking country even to each other (if they are siblings)
Worse still if parents visit they are forbidden to disclose abuse they suffer in care from members of or friends of Foster families,and forbidden to discuss their possible return home to their parents also !
Murderers and rapists in prison have none of these shocking restrictions as they can phone out and discuss anything they wish and say anything they like to visitors in any language they like !
Why do we treat innocent children worse than the most vile criminals?
Lastly Why does this so called think tank ignore completely how these children are mentally tortured by those supposed to be helping them?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Why do we treat innocent children worse than the most vile criminals?”
Maybe its because Prisoners get visits from help groups and campaigners for human rights etc to make shure they are not being mistreated.
Children in care get no access to such people. only the SS and their ilk have access and thats how the Abuse is perpetrated with no Policing what so ever.
Central Govt are to blame for allowing Councils to have way too much power and control. effectively a Dictatorship in every City.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Possible because it would be too damn expensive to put things right so they would rather sideline it instead.
or maybe because they simply couldnt give a damn what happens to the children of working or none working class parents from mainly underprivileged areas.
LikeLike
“Care” is the one place where you can legally abuse a child and get paid for it.
Government language is that of farming after all.
Children are mere calves being fattened up to be sold off later.
Thousands of children in corporate care are so well looked after that they disappear without trace to be slaughtered,raped, tortured etc.
No change in our his story.
Business is Business….!!!!!!!
LikeLike
I do suggest Natasha that you send these comments to the” think tank” to at least ask for their opinion !
LikeLiked by 1 person
I invited them to interview yesterday x
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on World Peace Forum.
LikeLike
We know that in the long term that a disproportionate level of care leavers become addicts or criminals but what is their health in the short term? Whilst in care what are the illnesses they suffer from?
A child forcibly taken from their homes & family is the most traumatic event that could happen in a child’s life & they would not be able to articulate how they feel. It’s my guess is that their initial tears & screaming would give way to acceptance. They adapt to the environment they find themselves in. They are powerless to change anything so they suppress their emotions. I now believe it’s those suppressed feelings that are the basis of all chronic illness that manifests in later life.
It’s not just physically but mentally. It was found in 2009 that 45% of looked after children in England had a diagnosable mental health disorder compared to 1 in 10 of the general population. It was thought by caregivers to be more. This has a knock on effect on the child’s social, education & health well being.
Since the research advocates “earlier intervention” it suggests that blame has been put on the parents for their actions before the child went into care & ignores the possibility that taking a child away from their family has caused the damage to the child.
Further research however suggests that whilst the mental issues were diverse & differed according to age, “placement disruption” resulted in a higher need of services.
The conclusion was that support should be given to those vunerable children but has that happened & where is the evidence?
A decade has passed, more children have been taken into care despite, we are told, diminishing funding so how can they possibly deal with the original 45% (possibly higher level) of children in care that was found in 2008/9 to have mental issues with more children likely to have the same issues.. The fact is they can’t. The system is broken. Instead of trying to fix it they need to change it. Leaving the children at home with support to the family has to be a better way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Nuremberg trials of the Nazi rulers established that an order to committ a crime against humanity must be disobeyed itherwise the perpetrator will be jailed or worse.
To take and confiscate a baby at birth from a mother who has not committed a serious crime is a breach of human rights and a crime against humanity.All those who commit this crime should be jailed for a very long time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ian, I agree but this legalised kidnapping of children is rife & despite so called austerity measures in place there is no slowing down in taking children into care.
Due to the level of kids being taken into care the pool of foster carers has been sucked dry. Such is the desperation for more foster carers, that a recent Surrey advertisement cited a spare room as the main criteria for fostering. Potential foster carers did not need to have children of their own, so no experience needed to look after vulnerable children. A work ethic wasn’t required either as you didn’t need to be in work. Age wasn’t a concern so long as the assessment started before you were 70 years old, ironically family members have been rejected if they were beyond 60 years old! Surrey is not alone, advertisements are all over, everywhere from hoardings to annoying pop ups on screen. One wonders what has been paid out in marketing alone, over the years & has it been worth it!
There is something very wrong when foster carers are paid in excess of £400.00 per week per child when families of the general population are increasingly on the breadline. If they take two children, that’s £800.00 per week tax free. That’s not all they get, you have to add on the rest of their benefits & freebies! Special Guardians get an even better financial deal.
The younger children are lured away from their families & financially incentivised into compliance, by being given presents/pocket money & having their rooms decorated as they want & being taken to different expensive entertainment venues, something that their families often couldn’t afford but none of that prepares them for the future when all of that stops. Instead they should supporti the family.
Some teens from 14years old whilst still in care are not so lucky. Over 3.090 possibly a lot more, were shacked up in cheap B&B or caravan park with no adult support or supervision. They are not on holiday they are living there. Isn’t residential living in hotels & caravan parks actually against the law! We are constantly told it’s all about the child but I haven’t seen any evidence of that yet!
A new report by the Association of Schools & College Leaders (ASCL) has warned of “a rising tide of poverty” among school pupils. The report highlights the impact of cutbacks to local services at a time when schools are seeing their budgets slashed. Of 400 school leaders surveyed by ASCL, 90% said the gave clothes to disadvantaged children & over 40% needed to operate food banks or give food parcels to pupils & their families. ASCL general secretary Geoff Barton said schools across England & Wales were being forced to act as an unofficial 4th emergency service for pupils facing poverty. He added that schools are having to pick up the pieces after a decade of austerity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Govt think tanks are too busy dealing with what they see as far more important issues such as brexit and how to fix our failing economy after the 2008 banking crash.
kids in care and the issues of dodgy LAs telling lies in case files and committing perjury in the Family courts doesnt even show a blip on their radar.
LikeLike
Sorry I’m out of date with Fostering allowances. They start at £450.00 per week for a child at 11 years old. £23,400 per annum, tax free. With no qualifications. Additional benefits too.
The Local Government Association (LGA ) have stated it costs £56,000 to keep a child in care each year!!! (Does it cost more or less to keep teens in B & Bs or caravan parks instead of fostering?) 75,420 children were in care at the end March 2019.
£3billion extra funding by 2025 is being demanded because of a short fall due to rising numbers of kids going into care to continue to prop up the current (failing) level of services. The number has increase every year since 2008 when 60,000 children were in care.
The current model is broken. Just think how much better it would be if that money was used to support families instead. I’m amazed that the Government Think Tanks haven’t worked that out yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The figure of 75420 children only applies to England but in Great britain when you add in Scotland and N.Ireland the figure is around 100,000 children in care !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ian, That just makes things worse.
LikeLike
Yes it does ! But as long as judges or their wives have shares in adoption and fostering agencies that make millions of £s every year don’t expect any changes to come soon !
LikeLike
has there been any judges proven to have shares in these agencies ?
from a conflict of interests point they should be held to account.
LikeLike
Two or three cases were reported to me and the newspapers but the judges in each case were adamant that there was no conflict of interest;I did not note the names of those who came to me but will do so next time but apparently legally there is no conflict as to whatever their wives own !
LikeLike
personally i would say its a serious conflict of interests.
LikeLike
So would I but they do not ;I am sure a contributor to this forum was involved in such a case not long ago ;Maybe Natasha could remember ?
LikeLike
As Cilla Black would have said.
thats a Lorra Lorra money being made out of the misfortune of others.
LikeLike