Hidden Children An investigation into Unregistered Children’s Homes Public First /Commonweal April 2026

Interesting to read a report from an organisation outside of the sector repeating  things known for decades, and not addressing things unaddressed for decades.

The report states the current predicament and origin of the use of unregistered homes, ‘there are not enough specialist, stable and highly supported placements for teenagers who pose or face serious risks. Specialist homes have closed, specialist foster carers are scarce, and it is easier and less risky to open standard children’s homes than to cater for the most complex young people’

The report identifies the multiple high level co-occurring and interacting needs of the children. A greater linking to the Nuffield Family Justice Observatoruy work would strengthen the publication. The report “the combined impact of several needs, rather than the severity of any single need”, making children both more vulnerable and in need of more specialised (and expensive) support.

It does not state that providers who cannot meet the needs are required by regulation to refuse a placement though it does explain refusal can be because of the abilities of the staff or the current needs to the group already living at the home. This compliance with the legislation has been erroneously described as ‘cherry picking’.

This perjorative diverts and deflects attention. The report notes that the policy focused on enforcement, with proposed new powers for Ofsted to fine those running unregistered homes, does not appear to ‘shift behaviour in a high-profit, high-pressure market for emergency placements’, and ‘tougher sanctions’ make for risks without ‘without fixing the underlying shortage and complexity that create demand’.

The report has a new perspective. ‘If, however, Ofsted’s fining powers were adequate enough to deter unregistered placements, then local authorities may no longer have an incentive to report them to Ofsted for fear of losing what may often be safe if imperfect and temporary settings.

And, ‘concerningly, one interviewee raised a similar concern, asking what would happen to looked-after children if an authority refused to use unregistered placements for fear of financial sanctions?’

What is interesting is that all of the knowledge and reporting published over many years does not address the obvious, if, as the report says, “local authorities are backed into difficult corners” then why do they not open their own provision?

There are some local authorities where they do not face the situation of having, as the report observes ‘…built a system where local authorities can be forced to break the law in order to keep extremely vulnerable children safe, because the legal, regulated system cannot respond quickly or flexibly enough’. With a good number and a range of homes directed by need local authorities are able to respond to provide a home that matches needs, or if not, are able to open one, usually short term, with their own staff using overtime and a manager to oversee, whilst seeking registration.

This surely must be the way forwards. Is this not what the current DfE funding for new homes is for?