The English system for accommodating children in care is broken. Demand outstrips supply and the uneven spread of children’s homes across the country, especially for children requiring specialist care, forces councils to increasingly rely on private, unregulated accommodation.
This situation is about to get worse. The law around how teenagers in care are housed has changed. On September 9, a piece of legislation, entitled the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, came into force. It states that councils can now place children aged 16 and 17 into unregulated accommodation. Also called independent and semi-independent housing, this is non-care accomodation. The occupants, who are legally still children, only receive support, not care, as they would in foster care or a children’s home.
Typically, this sees young people aged 16-25 sharing communal facilities, while having their own room and bathroom. They are responsible for meeting their own health needs. They have full control of their finances. They are permitted to stay away overnight. And, crucially, there is no direct supervision provided by adults. Any support that is provided by adult workers aims to help them to live independently.
In many cases, however, it is unsuitable. A freedom of information request saw the department for education reveal that, between April 2018 and September 2020, ten children died while living in supported accommodation, of whom half took their own lives.
While the reasons for these deaths will be complex, the children’s rights organisation Article 39 asks if things may have been different had their housing situation provided them with more care.
This change in legislation is likely to have disastrous consequences. Here are four reasons why.
It denies teenagers their legal status as children
When the state becomes the parent, it has a duty to nurture and care so that children reach their full potential. For 16 and 17-year-olds, this new legislation seems counter intuitive. By contrast, children who live with their families leave home, on average, at around 23.
Research shows that for some, the move to non-care placements is too much, too soon. They feel ill-prepared to move out, both practically and emotionally. Care leavers have been found to want a safe space to practice their independence, without worrying that they might suffer consequences such as homelessness or failing in education if they make mistakes.
It undermines their health and wellbeing
However, as children in care transition to independence – between the ages of 16 and 18 - they have been found to often not engage with the support services that could help them. There is a distinct possibility that by removing the care that is provided at 15, health appointments can be missed and conditions worsen or go untreated.
As my research and other studies have found, key workers in children’s homes go to great lengths to improve children’s wellbeing and bolster their ability to look after themselves. Many fear this good work will be undone if they are abruptly left to fend for themselves.
It makes them vulnerable to exploitation
At its worst, non-care accommodation places vulnerable children with other, often older individuals who have a range of complex problems. This has been found to put children at risk of involvement in exploitation and organised crime, including county lines drug dealing. It also puts them at greater risk of going missing for long periods.
Young people themselves cite the lack of a place to call home, instability, uncertainty and the sense of powerlessness leading – directly or indirectly – to their being exploited. They consider themselves different, and as having to manage without the same kind of care and attention that other children receive.
It threatens their educational outcomes
By law, children must continue their education or training until the age of 18. However, this new care legislation effectively means the state considers that teenagers taking their GCSEs can fend for themselves.
Generally, children in care do less well in education. A recent report by the Together Trust, highlighted that over 3,000 children aged 16 and 17 were out of education, employment or training – thus categorised as NEETs – for all or some of their time in unregulated accommodation.
Conversely, research shows that the presence of supportive adults promotes positive educational outcomes, particularly for children who spend longer in care. This would then most apply to those 16- and 17-year-olds who are transitioning out of the care system.
These children deserve stepping stones to independence, not a cliff edge. The state – their de facto parents – should never leave them without the supervision and support that would ensure they are safeguarded against harm. Would our politicians think this good enough for their own children?
Lisa Huddlestone does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Read the full article here.
This content was originally published by The Conversation. Original publishers retain all rights. It appears here for a limited time before automated archiving. By The Conversation