RESIDENTIAL CARE: GOOD INTENTIONS, GOOD ENOUGH? DFE COMMISSIONED REPORT - LGIU
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Residential Care: Good intentions, good
enough? DfE commissioned report
Date 11 January 2018
Author Andrew Crompton
LGiU/CSN Associate
Summary
Good Intentions, good enough? A review of the experiences and outcomes of children and young
people in residential special schools and colleges (November 2017) is a DfE-commissioned review
by Christine Lenehan and Mark Geraghty on residential special schools and colleges. In response,
on the day of publication, the DfE published Statutory visits to children with special educational
needs and disabilities or health conditions in long-term residential settings: Statutory guidance for
local authorities, health bodies and health or educational establishments.
The report outlines a vision for meeting the needs of children and young people currently in
residential provision, some of which would be through improving support in mainstream schools
and local communities to potentially reducing the need for residential provision. Proposals are
made for future practice that can meet the needs of these children. Current provision and place
planning is explained and the impact it has on children and families.
The report contains a number of recommendations focused on creating an improved framework
within which planning and commissioning can take place, and on improving the quality of
experience and outcomes for children and young people within this sector. In response, the DfE
published Statutory visits to children with special educational needs and disabilities or health
conditions in long-term residential settings: Statutory guidance for local authorities, health bodies
and health or educational establishments. A national leadership board for this area of provision
has been established, and a new resource developed by ASK Research and Coventry University
on effective practice has been published.
This briefing will be of interest to elected members and senior officers with responsibility for, or an
interest in, special educational needs or disabilities (SEND), children’s social care, and the
commissioning of health services for children with SEND, including those involved in the provision
of Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS).
Background
Concerns about the incidence of the abuse of children living in residential settings have provided
the impetus for numerous reviews. Reports include the Utting and Warner reports in the 1990’s,
and those triggered by more recently events in Rochdale and Rotherham Borough Councils (see
Related Briefings).
A House of Commons Education Committee report Residential Children’s Homes, published in
2014, recognised the complexities and costs of the sector, and the potential implications for further
© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg
Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate
internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.
You can find us on Twitter at @LGiUchange. The policy focus on children in residential settings widened as result with a consultation
on standards for children’s homes and a revised Ofsted framework following. A further report,
Children's residential care in England (Martin Narey's independent review), was published in July
2016.
The widening and deepening of our understanding included a recognition that there is a wide
range of needs and provision within this sector; including secure placements, care placements,
and a range of specialist residential settings focusing on particular health conditions or special
educational needs. The sector includes both public and private provision, that can perceive its
main links as with care, health or education services more widely, and some of the highest cost
provision to the public purse. Good Intentions, good enough? came from a recommendation in the
Narey report that the residential special schools sector warranted separate consideration.
Briefing in full
The issue of strategic planning and the way local authorities commission provision raised by the
Narey report is considered by Good Intentions, good enough? in the specific context of residential
special schools. A further concern identified by Christine Lenehan in an article published by the
National Children’s Bureau (NCB) is why some children with mental health needs were “bouncing
back and forth between in-patient care and residential special schools”. The report also seeks to
understand better the outcomes and experiences of children in the sector.
The report details an overall decline in numbers since 2010, especially within the independent
non-maintained sector. Placements cost between £35k and £350k per year with expenditure in
this sector estimated to be around £500m.
Four broad categories of students are identified:
a) autism, communication difficulties, severe learning difficulties; often exhibiting challenging
behaviour that arise because of difficulties communicating;
b) those with social, emotional and mental health needs (SEMH); often linked to attachment
difficulties and with challenging behaviour which reflect underlying mental health difficulties
(anxiety or depression, self-harming or substance misuse);
c) those with profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) and health needs that require
intensive specialist support. Some have life-limiting health conditions and require
specialised health support to help to manage these conditions;
d) those with a special educational need or disability but moderate or no learning difficulties
(hearing or visual impairment, Asperger’s syndrome, or a physical disability).
The report recognises that pupils in all groups may have no specific learning difficulties, although
these can arise as a result of their health or social circumstances. Negative experiences in
mainstream provision are identified as a frequent reason for a child developing challenging
behaviour or mental health issues which subsequently trigger a search for residential provision.
The Report’s Vision
The authors believe that reducing the pressure on residential school placements can be achieved
in two ways. Firstly by improving the capacity of mainstream schools to meet the needs of these
© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg
Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate
internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.
You can find us on Twitter at @LGiUchildren, and secondly by developing a range of flexible support provision locally, not all of which
needs to be residential. They give the example of Oxfordshire County Council who partnered with
MacIntyre to develop Endeavour Academy, a special school for autism that also offers extended
day activities, short breaks and residential care. This in turn will enable better commissioning, and
may also reduce the need for residential placements and hence reduce costs.
“In a future where provision for children and young people with SEND was working optimally,
residential special schools and colleges would provide specialist support and expertise to a small
number of pupils with particularly high needs. The price of these placements would be linked
clearly to the services provided, and parents would not feel they have to fight to access them.
Some of those currently in residential schools and colleges would instead have their needs met in
mainstream schools or non-residential special schools close to their homes”. There would be a
more cohesive and systematic approach that provides a clearer and more open process for both
families and children, so they “can understand what is happening to them and why” (Lenehan in
NCB article).
For this vision to be delivered, planning and commissioning would need to encompass:
• LAs using data to forecast demand for places, then working with providers, parents and
CCGs to develop and commission a range of services to meet these needs locally;
• schools working with LAs to recognise those likely to develop high needs early in their
schooling, and supporting them proactively to reduce the severity of these needs;
• CCGs and social care teams designing holistic support for children, young people and their
families, particularly through mental health services, short breaks and building parental
capacity;
• holistic support that crosses the boundaries of education, health and care, would be
provided so residential placements are only used where appropriate;
• families enabled to make informed choices and remain in local provision as far as possible;
• mental health services that “enable children and young people to attend their local school or
colleges”.
• stretching outcomes for these children and young people, who would be supported to
transition to the adult services they will need;
Residential special schools and colleges would;
• be open and flexible about their fees;
• work collaboratively with LAs on individual placements and future services;
• give educational progress the same priority as wellbeing;
• work to return children to local provision where they had made sufficient progress;
• share expertise and provide outreach services;
• support one another to improve;
• embed preparation for adulthood throughout the education children receive;
• enable students to make positive progression from college;
• equip them with the skills to lead their lives as independently as possible.
Mainstream schools and colleges would need to ensure:
© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg
Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate
internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.
You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU• children and young people with SEND feel welcome and would know where to get support
that enables them to meet their needs;
• good links between mainstream and special providers, enabling the sharing of expertise,
promoting better understanding of SEND and ensuring educational progress remains a
priority.
The Report’s description of reality
The experiences of children, young people and their families
The reality described by the report is that the families of some of the most vulnerable children in
the country are caught in the middle of a complicated system that requires them to understand and
navigate services, that may not be best designed to meet their needs, and that may not be
operating to the same purposes and standards.
Children and young people are described as often having negative experiences in local
mainstream and day special schools, with 70% exhibiting challenging behaviour, most of which
develops before they arrive at a residential school. Concerns are raised about mainstream schools
becoming less welcoming places over the last 10 years, and the report suggests greater clarity
about their duties under the equalities act may be needed. The report also suggests that there is a
lack of understanding of the factors that cause challenging behaviour in mainstream schools
(which are different for example for autism and those with social, emotional and mental health
needs), and a lack of knowledge about the different strategies that can help to prevent it.
Added to this the report describes a frequent absence of support and/or coordination across
education, health and social care services with a cumulative effect on children that was
“concerning”. The report recounted children and young people speaking of “intense loneliness and
increasing anxiety”, which for some led to school refusal and long periods out of education,
suggesting that a significant part of these problems stemmed directly from their experiences in
mainstream schools. This led them to seek out specialist provision, with parent/carers looking at
residential solutions where no alternatives were available in their area.
The planning, commissioning and funding of provision
According to the report, some LAs have failed “to develop provision proactively” (“shopping” rather
than commissioning in the words of the report) contributing to a scarcity of local places that can
increase prices, and put more pressure on budgets. The report suggests that, possibly because of
budget pressures, some LAs routinely challenge parental requests for residential provision, even
when they have no alternatives to offer. It also leads to some children and young people moving
out of area and away from their families and friends, creating further negative experiences for
families.
The report notes a “striking level of mistrust within the sector” as a significant factor behind the
negative experiences of residential pupils. The authors were “consistently concerned” by “how the
conflict that flows from this is affecting children and young people”, which they suggest may stem
from a “lack of understanding about the conflicting pressures that other parties are experiencing”.
LAs are under financial pressure, and face increasing numbers of pupils with high needs “at a time
when they may lack the capacity to plan strategically for them”. At the same time, the residential
special schools and colleges feel children and young people are only referred at crisis point, when
© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg
Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate
internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.
You can find us on Twitter at @LGiUbehaviours are ingrained, resulting in them feeling “isolated from or excluded by the rest of the
education sector”.
Great variations in cost across provision that is apparently similar are outlined, and examples
given where costs seemed “inexplicably high”. There was often a lack of transparency on the part
of providers feeding into LA reluctance to place, again feeding into parental frustrations. Parents
also cited this as a cause of frustration, saying that funding disputes between LAs and CCGs, and
even between education and social care teams in LAs, were delaying their children receiving the
support they felt they needed.
The report stressed that “mental health services were raised repeatedly throughout the review as
being difficult to access” saying that “the importance of adequate mental health support as part of
this holistic offer is difficult to overstate, but for many this seemed to be lacking”. The authors gave
examples (in Gloucestershire, Ealing & North Yorkshire) where a more inclusive “wraparound”
offer is being developed for children with social, emotional and mental health needs, that includes
trauma-informed practice in schools as well as both mental health and social care support outside
of them.
Current residential special school & college provision
Lenehan and Geraghty note that most parents and children were satisfied with provision,
suggesting this was both a reaction to their previous negative experiences, and a relief at finding
helpful therapeutic support. Parental concerns noted included provision not matching up to their
vision, poor communication, little effort to maintain links with local communities, specialist care
staff of low quality, and in some schools and colleges, a lack focus on educational progress.
According to the report “professional isolation was worryingly prevalent among some schools that
we visited” and networks that support the sharing of best practice amongst these schools were
described as “weak”. The report suggests one reason for this may be inadequate leadership with
DfE statistics showing that in the state-funded special/Pupil Referral Unit (PRU)/Alternative
Provision (AP) sector, leadership vacancies more than doubled between 2011 and 2016, and
vacancy rates are substantially higher than in maintained and academy primary and secondary
schools.
LAs that struggle to attend annual reviews increase further the school’s isolation, with some
schools becoming complacent in their isolation and not reporting outcomes, absences or school
closures to the LA paying for the placement. The report saw poor LA monitoring as contributing to
a lack of ambition (either for outcomes or future destinations) within the sector, summed up as a
“lack of ambition” or, in the words of one LA officer, as “pupils are generally happy and safe but
there seems little measurable progress being made”.
Recommendations
The concerns set out above led directly to the authors recommending a new national leadership
board, as well as other measures designed to create a greater sense of collegiality and a more
open and transparent arena for planning and commissioning to take place. The report suggests
that the kind of regional consortium arrangements put forward by the Association of Directors of
Children’s Services (ADCS) in their evidence may well be the most sensible way forward.
© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg
Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate
internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.
You can find us on Twitter at @LGiUThe report also suggests that an improved understanding of challenging behaviour and how to
deal with it is needed across the spectrum of mainstream schools, particularly for those with
specific disorders such as autism and for those with social emotional and mental health needs. It
also sees here an opportunity to break down divisions and barriers between residential and other
schools through the sharing of expertise in working with specific needs and better understanding
thresholds where different types of provision become appropriate.
A national framework:
• The DfE should create a national leadership board for children and young people with high
needs, reporting to the Minister for Children and Families, to take forward the
recommendations of this review, provide strategic oversight to the services they need, and
support collaborative working between LAs, CCGs and providers. Links should be made
with other boards for vulnerable children as appropriate.
• The DfE and DH should, in response to the upcoming green paper on children and young
people’s mental health, set out how mental health support will be delivered for children and
young people with SEND.
• The DfE and DH should explore, with a view to piloting, how accountable care systems can
lead to more coherence across education, health and care for children and young people
with SEND.
• To provide an evidence base on which discussions about fees can be based, the DfE and
DH should, through research, establish the average costs of services provided to children
and young people with high needs.
• The DfE should require independent schools with state-funded pupils to complete the
school census for those pupils.
• The DfE should publish destinations data for children and young people that have attended
residential special schools and colleges, taken from the longitudinal educational outcomes
dataset.
• The DfE should clarify how the Public Contracts Regulations apply to independent/non-
maintained special schools.
• The DfE should clarify who is responsible for the safeguarding of children placed within the
area by another LA.
• The DfE should publish LA visiting guidance, setting out expectations for when LAs should
visit children and young people in residential special schools and colleges
• NASS (National Association of Independent Schools & Non-Maintained Special Schools)
and Natspec (the voice of specialist further education) should encourage their members to
be flexible on the fees they charge, and work with them to develop open-book accounting.
On Planning & Commissioning
• The DfE should ensure that LAs are offering sufficient short breaks to the families of
children and young people with SEND.
• The DfE should support LAs, working with CCGs as necessary, to make the best use of
data and forecast need effectively, and give them an avenue through which to create new
provision where a requirement is identified. Providers should also be involved in these
discussions.
• Local authorities, working regionally with CCGs, parents and young people, should plan
and commission provision strategically to meet upcoming patterns of demand, locally where
© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg
Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate
internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.
You can find us on Twitter at @LGiUpossible. To support this, local authorities should build understanding and data about local
and regional trends in SEND needs.
• The DfE should work with LAs to improve understanding of when it is and isn’t appropriate
to contest a parents’ or young person’s choice of placement, and the SEND Tribunal should
produce a regular digest of significant cases to reinforce this learning.
On quality, accountability and outcomes
• The DfE should develop a strategy to ensure mainstream schools and colleges can meet
the needs of children and young people with SEND. This should include providing greater
incentives to schools and colleges to do their best for this cohort, and ensuring that leaders
in mainstream have the skills and vision to meet these children and young people’s needs.
• The DfE should consider how the mainstream school and college workforce can improve
their understanding of the reasons for challenging behaviour, and the proactive steps they
can take to reduce it for children with autism and social, emotional and mental health
needs.
• The DfE should replace the national minimum standards for residential special schools with
national quality standards. These should;
a) require that schools demonstrate how they are achieving ambitious outcomes for
children and young people, particularly those set out in EHC plans;
b) include a significant focus on how schools and colleges are ensuring progress
against the four PfA (Preparing for Adulthood) domains.
• The DfE should improve the supply of quality school leaders to the special schools and
colleges sector.
• The DfE should consider what more can be done to promote and support school
improvement in special schools. This should include promoting and facilitating greater links
between mainstream and special schools.
• NASS (National Association of Independent Schools & Non-Maintained Special Schools)
and Natspec (the voice of specialist further education) should ensure their members know
where to access school improvement expertise.
Comment
The Children Act 2004 introduced a requirement for local authorities and relevant health partners
to co-operate with a view to improving the well-being of children. The Children and Families Act
2014 required local authorities and health commissioning bodies to make joint commissioning
arrangements for education, health and social care provision for children and young people with
special educational needs and disabilities. Yet the report indicates there are still areas where
significant improvements are required in joint working. Perhaps if the SEN Regional Partnerships
which flourished during the last decade had to been allowed to decline then there would be a
better basis for joint working today.
Because this is an area which includes specialist high cost provision for relatively small numbers,
LAs that have not already done so, may find it helpful to develop joint commissioning
arrangements in regions or sub-regions. However, this report stresses the need to see this within
a continuum of other local provision that can enable children and young people to be provided with
support in their school, family and community setting.
© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg
Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate
internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.
You can find us on Twitter at @LGiUThe report is very clear that mental health services need to be considered in this context, one
supported by Prime Minister unveils plans to transform mental health support, with an expected
Children's mental health green paper possibly including a new joint working duty according to
Children and Young People Now. Readers may want to keep an eye out for the Green Paper.
DfE statutory guidance: Visiting children in residential special schools and colleges was published
alongside the Lenehan and Geraghty report. It relates to children in a range of residential provision
and not just residential special schools and colleges. It does however, provide helpful guidance on
who is responsible for notifying host and home authorities that a placement is being made, or a
review is being held. It clarifies in a table on page 7 the circumstances in which each type of
authority is responsible for visiting and when, even if not the responsible authority, they should be
informed or invited.
Most children and young people placed in long-term residential schools or colleges will have a
statement of special educational needs, an Individual Development Plan or an Education Health
and Care (EHC) plan. If they are a looked after child, they will have a Care Plan, which will include
a Personal Education Plan and a Health Plan. The new guidance draws on the Visits to Children in
Long-Term Residential Care Regulations 2011 to outline what must be covered in a report of visit,
and who should be provided with a copy. The guidance says that progress made on the targets
within any education element to plans should also be covered. Local authorities and their partners
may wish to review their arrangements for visiting children and young people placed in long term
residential settings (defined as more than 3 months) and consider how the new guidance matches
their existing practice.
External Links
DfE: Good intentions, good enough? – Residential special schools and colleges: support for
children (November 2017)
DfE statutory guidance: Visiting children in residential special schools and colleges (November
2017)
House of Commons Education Committee: Residential Children’s Homes (March 2014)
DfE: Children's residential care in England (July 2016)
National Children’s Bureau: Review of residential special schools and colleges (November 2017)
Gov.Uk: Prime Minister unveils plans to transform mental health support (Jan 2017)
Children & Young People Now: Children's mental health green paper 'to feature joint-working duty'
(October 2017)
Legislation: Visits to Children in Long-Term Residential Care Regulations 2011,
TES: Residential special schools are 'isolated' and lack ambition, review says (November 2017)
© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg
Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate
internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.
You can find us on Twitter at @LGiURelated Briefings
How Local Authorities use Secure Placements for Children: DfE research (March 2017)
DfE – Narey review of children’s residential care (August 2016)
Educational outcomes of children in care – recent research (January 2016)
Children’s Homes: Update (March 2015)
Children’s Homes Regulations: DfE consultation (October 2014)
Residential children’s homes – Commons Education Committee report (June 2014)
Children’s Home Improvement: two reports (January 2014)
Tackling child sexual exploitation and protecting children who go missing from residential care
(August 2012)
For further information, please visit www.lgiu.org.uk or email john.fowler@lgiu.org.uk
© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG. Reg
Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate
internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.
You can find us on Twitter at @LGiUYou can also read
