Residential Child Care matters arising from initial reading of Children’s Wellbeing Bill
- Overall – details need enhancing – who has this expertise?
The Parliamentary process will need to enhance it considerably. It is unclear as to the practice and context that will be created. Does the current Parliament have the requisite knowledge to enhance? If not, where will the expertise come from? There are very few anywhere who possess this knowledge of the care and commercial interface.
The focus is bricks and mortar/heads on beds but thin on the resilience of practice.
The major weakness is not to be strongly addressing the development of the workforce and leadership of Residential Child Care.
- Regional Care Cooperatives
Absence of Specificity – action required.
Requirements, strategies, and commissioning necessitates Specificity not Sufficiency and this requires an underpinning needs profile analysis. Without specificity 3e cannot be met and would be open to challenge by a young person either as a child or subsequently. The Sufficiency Duty will need to be ended, and a new duty of Specificity enacted. Not to do so will compromise children’s needs by the categories not being co-occurring needs but broad catch-alls like SEBD/SEMH.
Absence of workforce development – action required.
Strategies do not include specific requirement for workforce development of all providers overseen strategically by RCC, or that the RCC will ensure leadership is ensured i.e. all homes have knowledgeable and experienced RM, and there is a pool of people to become RMs.
The focus is bricks and mortar/heads on beds but thin on resilience of practice.
Body corporate
To be truly a co-operative of options given a new body will be best – but what is it? The current description by activity reads more as a Public Service Mutual, a commercial vehicle for Strategic Supplier Resource Management.
- Financial oversight
Financial oversight – lack of clarity – action required.
Define strategic significance – numbers or needs.
eg few HSB provision (few therefore any provision is a substantial share of this specific market)
eg London has fewer homes.
The scrutiny on exactly what the definition of ‘therapeutic’ or any specific model of care becomes important.
The sustaining of a provider is subject to the knowledge, experience and skills of significant people in the provision – what it they are no longer employed then the provision’s viability is parlous.
How to evaluate ‘know-how’? How to sustain ‘know-how’?
Independent financial review
Few are such qualified with both care and business financial acumen? This will affect cost.
The person being reviewed pays the reviewer? How to determine the fee?
The findings will be open to challenge and appeal – will this not take time?
Could it get lost in the setting of legal precedent, or will providers just look at it and exit sector? Or alternatively, rather than close would providers reduce admissions or ‘mothball’?
Disguised profit arrangements
The arrangements included will include all services (rent, maintenance, HR, etc) including Not For Profit providers e.g. voluntary organisations or Community Interest Companies? These have been the providers governments have been seeking to attract.
Value For Money
What and who determines VFM? Is it a valued provider? Value meaning outcomes, or cost, or formula for both? Or local therefore not accruing travel and accommodation costs for visits and reviews etc?
What if tendered and contracted, or in-house, services are not proven to be VFM? This would be challengeable by other providers?
Annual return
An additional cost to providers – to be passed on to LAs?
