The locations of more than 1,700 children’s care homes have been disclosed for
the first time as Michael Gove pledged to tackle the “wall of silence” over
child protection. It illustrates starkly how the homes are heavily concentrated in just two areas
of the country, the North West and the West Midlands. [source: Telegraph UK]
The Telegraph UK
written by John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor
Thursday September 12, 2013
Some of Britain’s most vulnerable young people have effectively been handed over to paedophile gangs because of “absurd” and “bewildering” secrecy rules surrounding children’s homes, Michael Gove warns on Friday.
In a withering assessment of the child protection system, the Education Secretary says officialdom and red tape have prevented the authorities from stepping in to protect children and have helped grooming rings to operate.
He also condemns social services departments across the country for the “indefensible” practice of “decanting” problem children to far-flung homes, away from friends and family, and routinely located in some of the country’s worst crime hot spots. And he voices dismay at how children’s homes have failed to provide basic protection while costing taxpayers on average six and a half times as much to care for a single child as it would cost to send them to Eton.
Mr Gove makes the comments, in an article for The Daily Telegraph, as his department publishes the most comprehensive information ever compiled about children’s homes in England.
The report, seen by The Daily Telegraph, exposes how councils in England are spending more than a £1 billion a year to care for fewer than 4,900 children. It calculates that councils now spend an average of £4,000 a week — or £208,000 a year — to place one child in a home, several times what it could cost to educate them at some of Britain’s top public schools.
In some cases the total amount spent is running at several times that level. According to the figures, one council — Bexley in Kent — spent more than £58,000 a week per child — £3 million each — on specialist privately run homes last year.
The 52-page dossier, compiled in the wake of the Rochdale grooming scandal, establishes statistically for the first time that the majority of children’s homes are situated in neighbourhoods blighted by crime. Three out of 10 are located in the worst crime hot spots in the country. It also reveals the locations of the 1,718 children’s homes in England, showing how they are heavily concentrated in just two areas: the North West and the West Midlands, both of which have been at the centre of grooming scandals.
The report discloses that more than half of children in homes have been sent to areas far from family and friends and other support networks, potentially making them more vulnerable to abusers.
Among the details being published are comprehensive lists of the social services departments that place the highest proportion of children outside their area or more than 20 miles from home. It includes the names of 14 councils that place all of the children under their responsibility outside the immediate area — while having homes on their doorstep filled entirely with children from other regions.
It also shows that, when inspected, almost 30 per cent of children’s care homes fell below the Government’s preferred minimum standard.
The Rochdale case, in which nine men, predominantly of Pakistani origin, were last year jailed for grooming and raping a group of girls as young as 13, shone a light on the practice of councils sending vulnerable children to homes hundreds of miles away from friends and family.
The dossier gives the most complete picture ever published of the children’s home system, which has changed rapidly in the past decade, with small, privately run settings, usually housing just one or two residents, almost completely replacing traditional council-run institutions.But Mr Gove admits that until the scandal his department lacked even basic information about where children’s homes were located, who was responsible for them and whether they passed even basic standards. “To my astonishment, when I tried to find out more, I met a wall of silence,” he writes.
Explaining how Ofsted was barred from sharing basic information even with the police because of data protection rules, and “other bewildering regulations”, he adds: “There was one group of people, however, who did seem to possess all the information: the gangs intent on exploiting these vulnerable children.
“They knew where the homes were; they knew how to contact the children: at the fish and chip shop, the amusement arcade, in the local park, or just by hanging around outside the houses.
“In the name of 'protecting children’ by officially 'protecting’ their information, we had ended up helping the very people we were supposed to be protecting them from. We shielded the children from the authorities who needed to be looking out for them.”
As well as changing the “absurd” secrecy rules, he said officials had finally begun compiling detailed information.
“One figure stands out: almost half of children are placed in homes outside their local authority areas, and over a third are sent more than 20 miles from home,” he writes. “That is indefensible. So, too, is the fact that more than half of children’s homes are in areas with above-average crime levels.”
David Simmonds, of the Local Government Association, said children could be placed outside their home area for their own safety, to break gang affiliation, to place them near other family members or to access specialist services. But he added: “The historic problem of the clustering of lots of children’s homes in a small number of areas that may suffer from higher deprivation is something we agree needs to be addressed.”
*********************************
The Telegraph UK
written by By John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor
Thursday September 12, 2013
The councils responsible for sending the largest numbers of vulnerable children to care homes in distant parts of the country are named publicly for the first time.
Maps compiled by officials at the Department for Education show the local authorities which rely on placements in other council areas as well as those most likely to send children at least 20 miles away from their home.
A series of reports ordered in the wake of the Rochdale sexual exploitation scandal highlighted how children send far from their familiar support networks of family and friends could be more vulnerable to grooming rings.
A clutch of densely populated London boroughs dominate the list of those which send the highest proportion of children needing residential care to far flung areas.
In Southwark and Brent more than 80 per cent of children placed in care homes last year were sent more than 20 miles from home while in Lewisham, North Somerset, Milton Keynes and Lambeth the proportions were all over 70 per cent.
A separate map shows those which send the highest proportion of children to another borough – which could in some cases include a neighbouring area.
A total of 16 local authorities placed all of the children under its responsibility who needed residential care in homes outside of the immediate area.
They are: Bexley, Bracknell Forest, Brent, Bromley, Enfield, Hackney, Kingston Upon Thames, Merton, North Somerset, Peterborough, Poole, South Gloucestershire, Southwark, Swindon, Warwickshire, Windsor and Maidenhead
Yet almost all of those local authorities also had homes in their areas entirely filled with children from other areas. They were: Bexley, Bracknell Forest, Brent, Bromley, Enfield, Merton, North Somerset, Peterborough, Poole, South Gloucestershire, Swindon, Warwickshire, Windsor and Maidenhead.
No comments:
Post a Comment