What Works For Children’s Social Care (former organisation that merged to become Foundations) were commissioned to carry out this research by the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care to inform the Review’s understanding of the area and to support the formulation of recommendations.
The report found there was a clear sense from stakeholders interviewed that the ability of SCHs to meet their original purpose – to safeguard society’s most vulnerable children – has been compromised. It found lack of provision oversight and complex needs were key problems.
A thematic analysis of stakeholder views and recommendations on the commissioning of secure children’s home (SCH) places in England. This is an important area of research given the cost of these placements and the complexity of needs of young people in these settings. We found broad agreement among stakeholders that in order to achieve improvements, central government should play a bigger role in facilitating coordination, accountability and oversight of referrals and placements in SCHs.
The main objectives of this report were to investigate existing commissioning and allocation practices for SCHs and their impact on children and young people.
Research questions:
To understand why commissioning and sufficiency challenges persist in SCHs we:
We invited all SCHs in England to participate in the in-depth interviews, as well as a sample of LA commissioners, representatives from the Youth Custody Service (YCS), Ofsted, the Secure Welfare Coordination Unit and several third sector organisations.
There was broad agreement that national oversight and centralised commissioning are required to improve SCH provision, although there was no clear consensus around how and by whom it should be done.
Stakeholders reported that there is a significant overlap in the needs and characteristics of children placed in SCH for justice and welfare reasons. However, because there is no shared accountability and no joint commissioning, placement outcomes were often seen to be arbitrary and not child centred. In addition, the perceived lack of coordination with and support from mental health services meant that SCHs are seen to be struggling to meet children’s mental health needs.
Interviewees recognised the challenge in bringing change, especially given the legal distinction between justice and welfare placements, and the organisational hurdles associated with cross-organisational coordination. Most interviewed stakeholders therefore appealed for central government to facilitate a process through which improved coordination, accountability, and oversight can be achieved.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.