skip to Main Content
Looking to read the latest articles? Please click here
NCERCC Analysis And Learning – New Ofsted RCC Registrations April – August 2020

NCERCC Analysis and learning – New Ofsted RCC registrations April – August 2020


  • Demand has been met with a response.
  • Looks unplanned and uncoordinated
  • Appears to address immediate situation
  • Size and character seem insufficient.
  • No one dominant narrative rather there are multiple narratives, some seeming, at this time, contradictory.

2,592 children’s homes at 31 August

78% private companies, 16% LAs 6% voluntary organisations

The additional 176 homes opened in England provided a total of 608 new places. In the same period, 43 homes de-registered, removing 168 places.

Multiple narratives are necessary to understand the granularity. It is complex.  Sophistication not simplification is necessary.

Large companies (not same size as Ofsted) = 14 providers, 31 homes, 17 by 3 providers (1×3 (2 = regional contract); 1×5 in 1 LA; 1×9 in 1 region

Medium providers = same region 17 providers/18 homes; adjacent region 4 providers/4 homes; at distance 2 providers/3 homes

Small providers = expanding same region 43 providers/50 homes; adjacent region 3 providers/3 homes; at distance 5 providers/5 homes

New providers = 41 providers/48 homes – few offering specialisms

RSS as RCC = 7 providers/8 homes

LAs = 11 LAs/13 homes –  I region 3 homes in sep LAs. 1 LA opened 3.

Vol orgs – 7 providers – almost all specialist needs

Noteworthy – small number unregulated to regulated. Observable reticence.


  • Density in some regions and LAs. These are regions and LAs where there is already a density of provision eg NW – new homes were mostly opened by providers from within the region and in response to local calls for homes in the form of tenders
  • LAs making known their needs attracts provision – big majority through formal arrangements (tenders, frameworks, contracts) attracts provision for generic needs; relational attracts provision for specific needs
  • New homes esp in NE London (in response to local tenders/frameworks? – then why not others in South and West?). Contrary to the narrative that the cost of property prohibits opening. The local authorities where homes have been opened suggests that these have occurred. New homes overwhelmingly are by new providers.
  • 2% for the West Midlands suggests there are specific reasons to be surfaced.
  • South West new homes seem targeted to meeting specific needs.
  • South East 4% affected by property prices (but not now London?)
  • The NE/Y&H and NW 7% all seem driven by local LA need.
  • Low figures in East may be geographic in reason
  • East Midlands increase due to activity of a few LAs.
  • Kent had few homes opened. Kent providers now migrating to adjacent LAs.
  • Outer London LAs in need of provision had no few homes.



Lack of strategy – local, regional and national especially for specific needs, and an integrated workforce strategy.

There is an urgent need for a suite of new analytic datasets moving beyond the descriptive requirements of the Sufficiency duty that can provide the foundation for a new form of regional needs-led planning. No current projects exist that meet this need.

Specifics – what might be effects on…?

  • RMs and RIs
  • Consultancy
  • Resilience
  • Effect on already existing providers
  • Occupancy
  • Some regions and LAs have not attracted large providers