Department for Education’s consultation on ‘supported accommodation’ – deadline 16 January 2023

Introduction

Semi-independent and independent accommodation are types of properties where looked after children do not receive any day-to-day care. When care is provided to children in a residential setting, those who run the establishment are required by law to register the accommodation as a children’s home with Ofsted and meet nine quality standards. The absence of care is therefore the distinguishing feature of semi-independent and independent accommodation. 

In September 2021, new secondary legislation came into force which has the effect of prohibiting local authorities from placing looked after children who are aged 15 and under in any setting which is not regulated and does not provide care. Article 39’s legal challenge against this discriminatory legislation was unsuccessful. We argued that children aged 16 and 17 should have been given the same legal protection as those aged 15 and under. A week before the High Court hearing, a delegation of care experienced people delivered a petition to 10 Downing Street demanding care for every child in care; this was signed by more than 10,700 individuals.

Although the care review’s interim report supported the discriminatory secondary legislation and the development of standards which omit care, and this fact was raised by counsel for the Department for Education in the High Court in February 2022, its final report – published just three months later – recommends that every child in care receives care. The care review suggests an implementation date of 2025, however. In June 2022, Article 39 and others wrote to Nadhim Zahawi, the then Education Secretary, asking for the earliest implementation of this recommendation; we have not yet received a reply.

On children’s rights day last year (20 November 2022), the #KeepCaringTo18 campaign launched an online survey for 16 and 17 year-olds about what care means to them. The survey closed on 31 December 2022, and a summary of its findings is currently being drafted by Article 39, The Care Leavers’ Association and the Together Trust. We are hugely grateful that 355 16 and 17 year-olds contributed their views via the survey, including 58 who are care experienced.

There are different types of children’s homes, some looking after children for short periods, others for months and years. Every children’s home must have a statement of purpose which explains the kind of care it offers to children. The secondary legislation governing children’s homes contains modifications for two different types of children’s home – those providing short breaks for children and families, and secure children’s homes. The average age of children living in children’s homes is 14.6 years.       

Instead of requiring those who run semi-independent and independent accommodation to register as children’s homes, and follow the children’s homes quality standards (with any necessary modifications), the Department for Education decided in 2021 to develop separate standards which omit any requirement to provide care to children. During the High Court hearing in Article 39’s legal challenge, counsel for the Department for Education said the government had estimated it would cost around £500 million to have sufficient children’s homes in England.

More than £140 million is being spent by the government on introducing its care-less standards and three-yearly Ofsted inspections of only a sample of properties. This government expenditure includes a 14 months’ awareness-raising campaign (put out to tender with an anticipated contract price of £950,000) with a purported goal of not disrupting the market. 

The Department for Education wants semi-independent and independent accommodation to be collectively known as ‘supported accommodation’ and in this latest consultation document it proposes four categories:

  1. Single occupancy – which includes bedsits and flats.
  2. Shared accommodation/group living for looked after children (aged 16 and 17) and adults who were formerly in care.
  3. Shared accommodation/group living for looked after children (aged 16 and 17) and adults who were not formerly in care.
  4. Family-based accommodation/supported lodgings for looked after children aged 16 and 17.

The Department for Education also proposes that mobile and ‘non-permanent settings’ such as caravans, barges and boats may be registered as a form of supported accommodation for looked after children aged 16 and 17. Its consultation document states that, “In some limited and exceptional circumstances this type of provision might be the right option for young people”. It says that the following accommodation would be very unlikely to meet the new standards for supported accommodation: “Provision which is not appropriately secure, isolates young people and is located such that a young person cannot access local services such as education and health”. That the government has not categorically stated that supported accommodation will not meet the new standards if it is not safe, children are isolated and it is far away from children’s education, health care and other services speaks volumes about how low expectations have fallen over recent years in the state’s ‘care’ of highly vulnerable children. 

Children who live in supported accommodation

Research undertaken for the Department for Education asked managers in 22 English local authorities about their use of semi-independent and independent accommodation. Only one of the local authorities “thought that generally [children] in unregulated provision had fewer complex needs” than other looked after children. 

Separate research for the Department for Education showed that, on 31 March 2019: 

  • 29% – almost 1 in 3 – of children who were living in unregulated accommodation were the subject of a care order. 
  • More than half of looked after children living in unregulated accommodation were from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. 
  • 40% of children living in unregulated accommodation were unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (compared to 6% of children in care overall). 
  • Most looked after children living in unregulated accommodation were boys.

Latest data from the Department for Education shows that, on 31 March 2021:

  • 30% of looked after children living in semi-independent accommodation and 31% living in independent accommodation were the subject of a care order.
  • More than half of looked after children living in unregulated accommodation were from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. 
  • 34% of children living in semi-independent accommodation and 32% living in independent accommodation were unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. 
  • Most looked after children living in semi-independent and independent accommodation were boys.
  • 8% of looked after children living in semi-independent accommodation and 8% living in independent accommodation were disabled.

In May 2021, the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel published its annual report for 2020 which included a brief summary of an analysis of 48 incidents where children had entered care in adolescence and then died or suffered serious harm. The annual report noted that: “children were coming into care in adolescence having experienced long-term parental abuse and neglect, with significant trauma” and “where adolescent children came into care owing to previous involvement in gang-related activities or criminal exploitation, these continued once in the care system”. The summary also noted, “high levels of placement breakdown occurred as a result, with children placed in emergency unregulated placements. Mental health and other support were disrupted”. 

Article 39 will attend an information rights tribunal later this year to try and obtain the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel’s full scoping report, since we believe it is likely to contain important learning about the vulnerabilities of teenagers in care and child protection failures. The Department for Education has refused to release the scoping report, stating that the Panel only shared it with government as part of Article 39’s litigation. The implication is that the Panel’s analysis of the 48 incidents where looked after children died or were seriously harmed has not contributed to government policy development around the care and protection of vulnerable teenagers. A letter to the Panel’s Chair from Article 39 and 29 other organisations in April 2022 failed to persuade her to publish the report.   

Increased use of supported accommodation

Ofsted’s national director for regulation and social care has described as “staggering” the high number of looked after children now living in semi-independent and independent accommodation. She has commented: “While it may be true that supported accommodation is right for some children, it’s hard to believe that it’s the right option for as many as 7,000 children in care. Few would argue that the lack of suitable care provision across England is not one of the main drivers for the growing reliance on unregulated, semi-independent provision”.

Between 2008 and 2010, amendments to primary and secondary legislation were made in order to reduce the number of children leaving care before the age of 18, and to make it more difficult for local authorities to move looked after children from regulated care settings to unregulated semi-independent and independent settings:

The White Paper which preceded the changes to primary legislation in 2008 explained:

“Young people in care should expect the same level of care and support from their carers that others would expect from a reasonable parent. The local authority responsible for their care should be making sure that they are provided with this. We should not expect young people to make changes that would be difficult for any 16 year old – let alone for vulnerable 16 year olds – where the local authority has had to assume responsibility for their care. 

“No local authority should be able to make a significant change, such as a move from a care placement to so called ‘independent’ accommodation, without both the proposal being rigorously scrutinised under the established care planning process and the child confirming that they understand the implications of any proposed change and positively agree to it”.

Despite the legislative measures above, and the Green Paper ambition, there has been a substantial increase in the use of semi-independent accommodation over the past 15 years – its use has more than tripled over this time, from 2% to 7% of looked after children. In 2007, prior to the legislative changes set out above, 5% of all looked after children lived in what is now termed ‘supported accommodation’ (incorporating semi-independent and independent accommodation). On 31 March 2022, that proportion had increased to 9% of looked after children.

Year31 March 200731 March 202031 March 2022
Number of looked after children living in independent accommodation1,7001,1002,030
Proportion of all looked after children living in independent accommodation3%3%2%
Number of looked after children living in semi-independent accommodation2,6103,8705,440
Proportion of looked after children living in semi-independent accommodation2%5%7%
Total number of looked after children living in semi-independent and independent accommodation (non-care settings)4,3104,9707,470
Table 1: Increased use of ‘semi-independent accommodation’, 2007-2022

Latest official data shows that 4 in 10 looked after children aged 16 and 17 live in unregulated, non-care settings, a 5% increase on 2021. If this increase continues year-on-year, within a decade it will be the norm for every looked after child aged 16 and 17 to live in a non-care setting. The Children’s Commissioner for England warned in 2020:

“This trend towards moving the majority of 16 years olds into unregulated settings holds another danger, and that is the implicit acceptance that this is roughly the right age to move towards ‘independence’. This narrative might suit corporate parents which are faced with placement shortages, but it clashes with the needs of children and is at odds with parenting outside care, where parents are generally heavily involved in their children’s lives well up to and beyond them turning 18.”

Children who have died

At least 34 children have died while living in semi-independent and independent accommodation in England over the past 6 years. These figures are taken from:

  • An answer to a parliamentary question in February 2022, which revealed that 29 looked after children aged 16 and 17 died while living in semi-independent and independent accommodation across the five-year period 2016/17 to 2020/21.
  • Information obtained by Article 39 through a freedom of information request, showing that 4 children died while living in semi-independent accommodation in 2021/22. We were told the children were aged under 1 and 16/17. (The Department for Education refused to give precise information about the age of each child who died. It also told us it does not have data on the number of children who died while living in independent accommodation in 2021/22). 
  • An answer to a parliamentary question in December 2022, which revealed that between 1 and 5 looked after children died while living in semi-independent or independent accommodation between April 2021 and March 2022. The Children’s Minister said, “The department is not able to provide an exact figure to protect confidentiality”.

When BBC Newsnight asked the Department for Education about the 14 looked after children who had died in unregulated accommodation between April 2018 and September 2020, it was told that 53% of the children had taken their own life.

In November 2022, a father told an inquest into the death of his 16 year-old son, Ben Nelson-Roux, that he “had been seduced by the promise of his own flat by social workers”. The boy’s mother had visited him at an adult homeless hostel, and tragically found him dead. Ben had struggled with his mental health and been self-harming from the age of eight, and was known to be criminally exploited. The local authority, North Yorkshire County Council, told the inquest that it houses children with adults “in very unique circumstances” and when “they don’t want to become looked after”. The coroner’s conclusions are expected at the end of January 2023.
A serious case review was published in 2021 following the death two years before of 17 year-old ‘Sarah’ (not her real name) who had been in care since she was 15 years old. Sarah was known to be at risk of sexual exploitation, and one of the men (‘Peter’) who abused her was arrested and was subject to bail conditions not to have contact with her, yet he continued to do so. Sarah died in June 2019 from an epilepsy seizure at Peter’s home. She had epilepsy from infancy, and her family and specialist epilepsy nurse and doctor had expressed serious concerns about her living in independent accommodation. Her family was especially worried that there would be no-one there to administer emergency medication should she have a seizure. The report states, “when Sarah went into independent living, where she was most at risk, a mattress alarm was not purchased. The reason given [was] that the flat given to Sarah did not have a phoneline. This calls into question the suitability of this placement. The family felt it was wholly unsuitable and made this known on a number of occasions”.

Sarah was never happy living in the ‘independent flat’. The report explains: “From the outset Sarah was not happy in the placement and this was echoed by her family. Sarah did not feel safe and there was no night-time support for her. She regularly absented herself from the flat or had Peter staying there on the basis that she did not feel safe. Sarah remained in this placement until March 2019, when she presented herself as homeless. Sarah’s voice at this point could not have been stronger”. 

After Sarah died, it was discovered that she had not been collecting her medication for around six months. One of the serious case review's recommendations is that local authorities ensure that looked after children who have a chronic illness or condition live in places where their medical needs are met.
A pre-inquest hearing into the death of Asiah Kudi, aged 20-months, who died from starvation and influenza after being left alone for six days in a flat in a YMCA complex, heard that the baby’s mother received just two hours of support a week from the charity. The baby’s mother, Verphy Kudi, had left the accommodation to celebrate her 18th birthday with friends, and failed to alert anyone to Asiah being alone. She was convicted of manslaughter and given a nine-year custodial sentence in 2021. Verphy had been looked after from the age of 15 due to concerns she was being sexually exploited. She had lived in a children’s home, then she and Asiah moved to live in a mother and baby foster care placement, after which they both went to live with maternal grandmother. In September 2019, they moved into ‘supported independent accommodation’. By then, Verphy was treated by children’s social care as a child in need, the serious case review report stating that she did not wish to be looked after. The serious case review sums up the final months of baby Asiah’s life when she was living in supported independent accommodation with her mother, who was still a child herself (the review uses pseudonyms):

"During the last 2/3 months of Delta’s life, once they left [maternal grandmother’s] home in September, Delta’s life experiences deteriorated, with Mother seemingly having little boundaries and ignoring those that the supported accommodation tried to impose. It is horrific to learn of how Delta must have suffered in the last weeks of her life, being left alone on 7 occasions at age 18-20 months, in a very cold flat, without heating, food or drink. Given she was mobile, she was repeatedly either at great risk of accidents on these occasions, or was strapped helpless into her buggy." 

The YMCA office was staffed during the week between the hours of 9am and 5pm. Staff had no idea that Asiah had ever been left alone.

In a section titled ‘adultification’, the serious case review report observes that:

“One of the notable features about Mother is the mature way she presents, along with her intelligence and perceptiveness. Both she and [maternal grandmother] have spoken about how this meant that she felt unable to share her problems, and expose the child inside who by autumn 2019 was as she describes on the verge of breakdown. She also spoke about how frightened she was at the prospect of living independently and coping on her own, and how lonely she felt. Again, she did not share such emotions with professionals, who judged her as being this mature capable parent, despite her youth and background traumatic experiences.” 

The serious case review author quotes from the work of Jahnine Davis: “Davis points out that if we are not seeing Black children as children, and not therefore ‘acknowledging the innate vulnerability all children have, if we are dehumanising Black children; professionals are potentially increasing their risk of harm, or the harm Black children are already experiencing’”. 

An inquest will take place into Asiah’s death this year. 
In June 2021, a coroner made a Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Deaths report in respect of 17 year-old Kesia Blaine Waller who had taken her own life while living in “a residential housing unit for vulnerable young people aged 16-21”. Among the coroner’s findings was that staff had not been provided with tools to seek to rescue children and young adults from ligatures.
In December 2019, a coroner wrote to the Education Secretary after concluding the inquest into the death of 17-year-old Jacob Bates who had autism and had taken his own life after years of struggling with his mental health. Having lived in “a succession of secure placements under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Children Act 1989” from the age of 14, Jacob was latterly put by children’s social care into an unregulated home, before seeking to live with his dad. 

Although he found no causal link between Jacob’s death and his time in an unregulated setting, the coroner wrote to the Minister to prevent future deaths of 16- to 18-year-olds living in this kind of accommodation. Two former employees had told the inquest that they were left in charge after only a short period working there, and neither had previously worked with young people. The local authority had not made appropriate checks on staffing and training or the organisation’s policies. The coroner summed up: “The lack of statutory regulation is placing vulnerable young people at risk, and there is a realistic possibility that deaths may occur”.

Safeguarding concerns known to local authorities

In May 2021, Article 39 made a freedom of information request to every local authority in England (152 in total) on the number of allegations which had been made against people working with children in their area across the preceding three financial years – 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21.

We asked local authorities to provide data in respect of different types of institutional settings, including semi-independent and independent accommodation, using the following question:

The number of child abuse and/or neglect allegations against people who work with children notified to your Local Authority Designated Officer in respect of a child living in… [list of different types of settings].  

We received data for the three-year period from 64 local authorities in England (around one-third). This showed there were at least 334 allegations in total against adults working in semi-independent and independent accommodation.

In June 2021, Article 39 was provided with a copy of local authority freedom of information responses provided to UK News Media in respect of safeguarding concerns in unregulated and/or unregistered accommodation. On 15 December 2020, the news agency wrote to all 152 local authorities in England asking for data on the number of looked after children placed in unregulated and/or unregistered accommodation anywhere in the United Kingdom about whom they had received a safeguarding concern between 6 January 2019 and 9 December 2020 (703 days). It further asked for details of the children concerned – their age, sex and ethnicity – and for data on the types of safeguarding concerns.  

42 of the 68 responses from local authorities (fewer than a third of all local authorities contacted) provided UK News Media with data about safeguarding concerns raised about looked after children placed in unregulated and/or unregistered accommodation across the time period. The data shows that local authorities were notified of safeguarding concerns in respect of at least 763 looked after children.

The youngest looked after child about whom there was a safeguarding concern was aged two years (presumably placed in unregulated accommodation with their young parent). The oldest was aged 19 (4 of the 42 local authorities reported safeguarding concerns raised in respect of 18 or 19 year-olds). 

Where ages were given, children aged 16 and 17 were consistently in the majority. For example:

  • The local authority reporting the highest number of safeguarding concerns (in the North West) said these related to 152 children. Of these 152 children, 92% were aged 16 or 17.
  • One local authority (in the Yorkshire region) reported safeguarding concerns about 40 children. Of these, 38 (95%) were aged 16 or 17, one was aged 15 and the other child was aged 14.  
  • A London borough reported safeguarding concerns in respect of 111 children, all of whom were aged 16 and 17.
  • In another London borough, safeguarding concerns were raised in respect of 65 children. Of these, 97% were aged 16 or 17 and the remainder (two children) were aged 14. 
  • A third London borough was aware of safeguarding concerns in respect of 8 children, all of whom were aged 17.
  • A local authority in the North East reported that safeguarding concerns had been raised in respect of 16 children over the time period – all were aged 16 or 17.

Only one of the 42 local authorities indicated that children younger than 16 accounted for the vast majority of safeguarding concerns. This East Midlands local authority reported that safeguarding concerns had been raised in respect of 30 children, of whom 27 (90%) were aged 15 and younger. 

Half of the 42 local authorities (21 in total) provided disaggregated data showing the nature of the safeguarding concerns. The Table below shows the breadth of safeguarding concerns. The total figure in respect of the number of times particular concerns were raised (789) is higher than may be expected, given this data is from only 21 local authorities (concerns were raised in respect of 763 children across all 42 local authorities providing data). This is because often there were multiple concerns expressed for each individual child. 

In the local authority reporting the highest number of children (152 in total) living in unregulated and/or unregistered accommodation where safeguarding concerns had been raised between January 2019 and December 2020, 60 (39%) were said to present with a single need whereas 92 (61%) were recorded as having multiple safeguarding needs. There were concerns about:

  • Physical abuse in respect of 90 children aged 16/17 and 7 children aged 14/15.
  • Emotional abuse in respect of 78 children aged 16/17 and 10 children aged 14/15.
  • Sexual abuse in respect of 62 children aged 16/17 and 7 children aged 14/15.
  • Neglect in respect of 34 children aged 16/17 and 5 children aged 14/15.
  • Sexual exploitation in respect of 22 children aged 16/17 and 4 children aged 14/15.

In another local authority (a London borough), safeguarding concerns had been raised about 13 children living in unregulated and/or unregistered accommodation. Concerns relating to one of these children fell into the categories of female genital mutilation and grooming. The concerns listed for three of the 13 children were: non-recent abuse, online abuse, physical abuse, child trafficking, emotional abuse and sexual abuse. These 13 children were all aged 16 or 17 (9 girls, 4 boys).

A local authority in the North West of England reported that safeguarding concerns had been raised in respect of 34 children, all aged 16 or 17 (28 boys, 6 girls), but there had been 49 child protection strategy discussions in respect of these children over the designated period.

Table 2 below gives the total number of times each safeguarding concern was raised in respect of children (the headings were provided by UK News Media). 

Nature of safeguarding concern – unregulated and/or unregistered accommodationNumber of times raised
(n=21 local authorities)		% of total 
concerns raised
Physical abuse17122%
Emotional abuse 12816%
Sexual abuse10213%
Child sexual exploitation8911%
Neglect8411%
Non-recent abuse719%
Child trafficking425%
Child criminal exploitation375%
Domestic abuse375%
Grooming132%
Female genital mutilation40.5%
Bullying & cyberbullying30.4%
Other81%
Total789100.9%
Table 2: Data obtained from local authorities by UK News Media


Of the 42 local authorities which provided data to UK News Media, only 7 reported receiving no safeguarding concerns (4 of these said they had no children in unregulated and/or unregistered accommodation during the designated period).  

In research undertaken for the Department for Education to inform policy development in this area, only 3 of 22 local authorities (14%) said they had no concerns about the unregulated providers they use to provide homes for their looked after children.

Young people’s responses to Department for Education’s first consultation

Article 39 obtained all of the consultation responses to the Department for Education’s first consultation on unregulated accommodation. We summarised the responses from young people (the government had commissioned an academic review of the consultation responses but omitted young people’s contributions from this). Accounts of abuse and neglect shared by young people with the Department for Education via this 2020 consultation included:

  • A young man attending a consultation discussion facilitated by Article 39 (observed by a civil servant) reported that he had been the victim of a serious sexual crime by an agency member of staff at his unregulated accommodation; his perpetrator was arrested after the boy went back to his children’s home to tell the manager there what had happened to him.
  • Young people spoke of the availability of drugs, threats from gangs and being influenced (exploited) by adults living in the same unregulated accommodation.
  • A 17 year-old was rushed into hospital with damage to her lungs due to mould in the property.
  • Another 17 year-old had to be rescued from his property (‘dispersed housing’) by the police due to drug gangs. The boy had been in care since he was aged 3. 
  • A young person became ill with pneumonia due to having no heating in his unregulated property.

One young person explained the risks of children not having adults caring for and protecting them: 

“When you are in semi-independent living you need someone to keep you in line. You don’t have parents telling you off when you do stupid stuff that teenagers all do. You don’t get it explained to you why it’s stupid and why you should stop. If you haven’t got parents looking out for you, you just carry on being stupid. You also can get groomed and fall for things that you wouldn’t if you had caring adults in your life.”

Another young person said:

“There’s a lot expected of you when you’re 16 to 18. It’s not easy when you haven’t got parents or siblings or sometimes even friends. They should step back and think how we feel.”

Children’s Commissioner for England review – 2020

In 2020, the Children’s Commissioner for England reported that 30% of children aged 16 and 17 living in semi-independent and independent accommodation go missing, compared to 12% of looked after children the same age who live in care settings. The Commissioner also found that a “significant proportion” of unregulated accommodation is “very poor quality” and reported children suffering violence, hunger, accommodation which lacked basic facilities such as cutlery, pans or duvet covers, and children being exposed to criminal and sexual exploitation. Children aged 16 and 17 “frequently [lived] alongside vulnerable young adults (usually up to 25 years) battling with their own difficulties, including those struggling with homelessness, mental ill health, addiction, or even transitioning from prison back into the community”.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

In February 2022, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published its investigation report on child sexual exploitation by organised networks. This noted that: “The use of unsupervised, unregulated accommodation for children in care aged 16 and 17 who are experiencing, or are at risk of experiencing, sexual exploitation remains a serious concern and must be stopped by the Department for Education. New standards for the use of such accommodation must include measures to reduce the risk of sexual exploitation faced by children in these placements”.

Children running away and going missing

More than three-quarters of the 41 police forces who provided evidence to a parliamentary inquiry on children who run away and go missing expressed concern about children being sent out of their home area to live in unregulated accommodation, and the risks this exposes children to.

Media investigations

BBC Newsnight’s 2019 investigation into ‘Britain’s Hidden Children’s Homes’ revealed:

  • A 17-year-old, Lance Walker, was killed in supported accommodation in 2016. His death exposed the lack of information-sharing between local authorities and the paucity of provision for very vulnerable young people.
  • A young woman reported having to use her coat and blanket as a duvet and being “freezing cold” in supported accommodation. She was moved from a foster home, where she was happy, to accommodation late at night. Her bedroom was downstairs; there were no curtains and no bedsheets. She felt desperate and very alone.
  • A young woman felt “dumped and alone” in supported accommodation; she became depressed and anxious for the first time. Other young people in her accommodation used drugs and drank alcohol in their rooms; this young woman had never experienced this before and found it all “a massive shock”.
  • The Children’s Commissioner has dealt with cases of children in unregulated accommodation without any bedroom furniture apart from a mattress on the floor, and having to share toilets with adults they don’t know.
  • Young people suffered violence from staff and from other young people. They spoke of running away many times and of suffering serious sexual and criminal exploitation. 

Other media organisations, including Sky News and the Guardian newspaper (here and here), have similarly conducted investigations and found older children living in desperately unsafe situations.

In June 2022, the BBC reported that a member of staff employed by the company Calcot had been jailed for sexually abusing a 17 year-old looked after girl after she moved from one of the company’s children’s homes to a ‘supported living home’, also run by Calcot. After the abuse, the girl started to self-harm and tried to take her own life. The BBC reported: “When asked by the BBC on the steps of the court, the former office worker said he didn’t know why he had been allowed such responsibility at the Calcot home”.

Children not in education or training

In March 2021, the Together Trust sent freedom of information requests to every local authority in England asking about looked after children living in unregulated, non-care settings who were not in education or training. It found that 67 councils were responsible for 3,253 children aged 16 and 17 who were not in education, employment or training for all or some of the time. The charity’s research further revealed that looked after children living in a non-care settings are significantly over-represented among children not in education or training:

  • In Solihull, 43% of children living in unregulated accommodation were found not to be in education or training.
  • Trafford Borough Council reported that 57% of children living in unregulated accommodation were not in education or training.
  • 60% of children looked after by the London Borough of Greenwich and living in unregulated accommodation were not in education or training. 

Article 39 obtained all of the consultation responses to the Department for Education’s first consultation on unregulated accommodation. We summarised the responses from young people (the government had commissioned an academic review of the consultation responses but omitted young people’s contributions from this). Young people explained the difficulties of completing their education while living in a non-care setting:

“My local authority was poor so didn’t have many nice places for me to go. I ended up in a hostel at 16 while doing my A-levels. There was no upper limit in the hostel, so there were adults there, and I remember my room didn’t have a lock on it.” 

“Living on your own, you struggle to set your own rules, like sitting down and doing your homework. If you are young, you are really going to struggle with keeping focused with your education.”

Providers of supported accommodation

Research for the Department for Education found that three-quarters of the unregulated properties used by local authorities for looked after children (the vast majority of whom were aged 16 or 17) were run for profit. 

The Competition and Markets Authority found that care-less accommodation is the most profitable within the children’s care system. Its analysis of the 15 largest providers of children’s homes and fostering services revealed average operating profit margins in 2020 of: 

  • 35.5% for unregulated accommodation, with £330 profit per placement per week.
  • 22.6% for children’s homes, with £910 profit per placement per week.
  • 19.4% for fostering agencies, with £159 profit per placement per week.

A survey of providers by Ofsted, undertaken in 2022, elicited information from 400 providers. This showed that:

  • The 400 providers had a total of 4,200 settings.
  • The majority of providers had more than one setting, with over 60% running between 1 and 5 forms of accommodation.
  • Over a third of providers had just one setting.
  • 5 providers each had more than 100 settings.


CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

Our general response

The Department for Education’s proposals comprise:

  • Four quality standards which omit any requirement to provide day-to-day care to children. This is by design not oversight.
  • An Ofsted registration scheme which allows providers to register bedsits and shared accommodation with adults as suitable homes for looked after children aged 16 and 17.  
  • An Ofsted registration scheme which allows caravans, barges and boats to be deemed a form of supported accommodation for looked after children aged 16 and 17 in “some limited and exceptional circumstances” (not specified). 
  • The consultation further provides that other (unnamed) ‘non-permanent settings’ may be registered by Ofsted as supported accommodation. No settings, such as tents or bed and breakfast accommodation, are ruled out in the consultation document as being unacceptable for 16 and 17 year-olds. (The law protects children aged 15 and under).
  • A three-yearly cycle of ‘provider-level’ inspection where only a sample of the organisation’s accommodation will be visited by inspectors. By contrast, the law requires that children’s homes are visited by inspectors at least twice in every 12-15 months if judged less than good, and once a year if judged good or outstanding. (The requirement used to be that every children’s home was inspected twice a year but this was reduced in 2017).

These proposals do not address the gravity and scale of harm already suffered by children, and the known risks of non-care settings. The information set out above shows the serious and multi-faceted harm endured by children, the high incidence of child deaths and the absence of positive parenting (by the state) leading to children not being in education or training, or struggling to maintain their studies. Nearly all of this information is in the public domain because of the proactive work of charities, the former Children’s Commissioner for England and investigative journalists. Central government will no doubt have access to much more information than we have been able to elicit, including the backgrounds and circumstances of all the children who have died in semi-independent and independent accommodation.

The draft standards and proposals for rudimentary inspection will not meet the needs, or fulfil the rights, of looked after children. They are discriminatory and inadequate, and will not protect highly vulnerable children. More children will die and suffer serious harm without significant improvements to the proposed regulatory framework. Revisions must include a requirement that children receive care where they live, appropriate to their age and individual needs. In the 1980s and before, children were ejected out of the care system as teenagers, and expected to fend for themselves, arguably because there was not the understanding of their needs, and not enough was known about the impact of not having adult guidance, care and protection at such an important age. Today, we have decades of research and testimony from care experienced people: we cannot claim we do not know the risks or the harms.

Government policy is now actively supporting what is largely a market of property owners to house 16 and 17 year-olds for whom the care system has no suitable, caring homes. As one care experienced young man said during the Department for Education’s first consultation: supported accommodation “is like a house without parents”. It is disreputable that this is being promoted as progress. Families in wider society, policy makers included, do not routinely prepare 14 and 15 year-olds to be ready for so-called semi-independent or independent living at age 16. This is an aberration. That 4 in 10 children in care aged 16 and 17 are living in non-care settings demonstrates the ordinariness of it for the care system. But the state encouraging and coercing children in its care to live in places devoid of adult care, guidance and protection is extraordinary. It is institutional neglect. The regulation being proposed for supported accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds – what will actually be in the law – has not built upon and extended existing requirements for group living arrangements (children’s homes). It has diminished and diluted them by design.

As well as radically improving the proposed standards and registration and inspection arrangements, we urge the Department for Education to use legislation and policy to stop children leaving care at the age of 16 unless this is demonstrably in their best interests and they have positively chosen this from an informed position (with assistance from an independent advocate). While it consistently puts responsibility for decision-making about individual children back to local authorities, the Department for Education must be aware that it is creating a permissive environment for neglect with its proposals, and that children will continue to be lured or forced into an entirely false realm of independence at age 16. 

With 37% of looked after children aged 16 and 17 already living in non-care settings, the government’s insistence that supported accommodation is appropriate only for ‘some’ teenagers rings hollow. This policy development has not been led by the interests of children. Instead it is seeking to formalise what has generally been an unplanned and chaotic, crisis-driven response by local authorities to an increase in the numbers of teenagers entering care against a backdrop of austerity which has harmed children, families, neighbourhoods and critical public services. Once consolidated, it will be very difficult to reverse from this.

Non-care settings are very profitable for individual providers, they are relatively easy to set up and they are cheaper for local authorities than regulated care settings. The attraction to government is not difficult to see. But this is a disastrous move for children. ‘Regulating’ what has been patched together in a crisis at a local level is no way to develop the children’s care system. A comprehensive, integrated strategy is required which deals with longstanding fault lines in the children’s care system, above all its failure to consistently provide love and security to children when they are children, and to grasp the nettle that a commitment by the state to care for a child must contain obligations which last a lifetime. 

As the Department for Education will be aware, there is substantial research evidence showing that young people who have been looked after are more likely to do well when: they received consistent and stable care and protection as a child; they left care later (between 18 and 21 years of age); and their move from care was gradual and supported. 

The use of non-care settings for 16 and 17 year-olds is completely contrary to recent progressive law and policy, which enables children to stay with their foster carers up to the age of 21, and extends support to age 25.

Moreover, most young people in the general population live within their family home and therefore receive continuing care, guidance and protection far beyond the age of 16 or 17. The Office for National Statistics reports that in 2021:

  • 95% of children aged 16 lived with their parent or parents.
  • 96% of children aged 17 lived with their parent or parents.
  • Over half (53%) of adults aged 23 lived with their parent or parents.
  • 28% of adults in the general population aged between 20 and 34 years lived with their parent or parents. 
  • The ONS data consistently shows that boys and men are more likely than girls and women to live within their family home in adulthood. (Government data shows that boys in care are disproportionately living in non-care settings).


Q1a: To what extent do you agree with the proposed ‘Leadership and Management Standard’ and supporting guidance? 

Do not agree

Q1b: Please provide details to explain your answer 

We have focused on the text of the draft regulation, since this is the proposed secondary legislation. 

Unlike the children’s homes statutory framework, which has additional provisions around qualifications, this proposed regulation makes no requirement for the manager of the accommodation to have a particular qualification or experience. The proposed statutory requirements around staff knowledge, skills and experience are vague. The draft regulation is further inferior to the children’s homes Leadership and Management Standard in not having any requirement for the establishment to:

  • Have sufficient staff to provide care and continuity for each child; and
  • Make continuous improvements in the quality of care provided to children.

The draft regulation on the establishment’s statement of purpose misses out important features of the children’s homes regulations, including: promoting contact between children and their families and friends; meeting children’s cultural, recreational and leisure needs; and policies around restraint.

It is not clear why the government has inserted “where eligible” after the proposed requirement for DBS checks for those “delivering any part of the supported accommodation provision”. 

Q2a: To what extent do you agree with the proposed ‘Protection Standard’ and supporting guidance? 

Do not agree

Q2b: Please provide details to explain your answer 

The draft regulation is inferior to the Protection Standard applying to children’s homes in two important respects, namely:

  • There is no reference to day-to-day care and this keeping each child safe and protected from harm; and
  • There is no provision around the location of premises. 

Q3a: To what extent do you agree with the proposed ‘Accommodation Standard’ and supporting guidance? 

Do not agree

Q3b: Please provide details to explain your answer 

The draft regulation is tautological in respect of location, where it states that the registered person must “ensure that the location of the premises used for the purposes of supported accommodation is suitable for the type of supported accommodation…”. The children’s homes quality standards link location with safeguarding – see above. 

There are some positive features in the draft regulation – relating to providing a homely and therapeutic environment – but these are fundamentally undermined by the nature of the accommodation itself. How can a bedsit, a caravan or a hostel with adult strangers in adjoining rooms possibly be a therapeutic environment?

Q4a: To what extent do you agree with the proposed ‘Support Standard’ and supporting guidance? 

Do not agree 

Q4b: Please provide details to explain your answer 

The draft support standard cannot possibly compensate for all of the provisions within the children’s homes quality standards that the Department for Education has deemed 16 and 17 year-olds living in supported accommodation don’t need, namely the:

  • Quality and purpose of care standard (omitted in its entirety).
  • Children’s views, wishes and feelings standard (parts integrated into the draft standards).
  • Education standard (in small part integrated into the draft standards).
  • Enjoyment and achievement standard (omitted in its entirety).
  • Health and well-being standard (in small part integrated into the draft standards).
  • Positive relationships standard (in small part integrated into the draft standards).
  • Care planning standard (parts integrated into the draft standards).

Even where provisions have been adapted and included in the draft standards, they more often than not have been generalised to remove the focus from meeting the needs and entitlements of individual children. For instance, the children’s homes regulations require the manager to ensure that staff “help each child to understand and manage the impact of any experience of abuse or neglect” whereas the draft ‘support’ regulation requires the registered person to “ensure that children are supported to understand and manage the impact of any experience of abuse or neglect”. 

Vital requirements around meeting the emotional needs of children have been left out of the draft regulation (secondary legislation) and put into the guidance only. 

Additionally, there are very important safeguards in the children’s homes regulations which have been omitted for this type of accommodation, including: the Regulation 44 independent person; prohibited measures in Regulation 19 (many of which were introduced after child abuse scandals); and the notification of abuse, sexual exploitation and other serious events to Ofsted in Regulation 40.  

Terminology such as “transition out of supported accommodation” is impersonal and insensitive. It epitomises the care system’s harmful obsession with moving children on, rather than helping them to relax, recover, grow stronger and feel settled.
 
Q5a: Are the Quality Standards or the Guidance missing anything that you would expect of any provider of supported accommodation? 

Yes

Q5b: Please provide details to explain your answer 

We have indicated some very significant omissions in our answers above, in our responses to the Department for Education’s two previous consultations on unregulated accommodation, and through litigation we felt obligated to pursue because of the government’s failure to listen. 

We would be very happy to provide further expert advice should the Department for Education accept the principle that looked after children aged 16 and 17 require care where they live.

Q6a: Do you agree that this is the right approach to regulating mobile and non- permanent settings? 

No

Q6b: Please provide details to explain your answer 

The Department for Education has not explained why it believes caravans, barges and boats, and other mobile and non-permanent settings, are suitable forms of accommodation for looked after children. 

We do, however, believe that Regulation 3 of The Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 should be amended to make it absolutely clear what is meant by holiday accommodation. We are aware of looked after children being moved from caravan to caravan so that providers keep within the 27-day limit and escape registering with Ofsted. We are confident that Parliament has never intended that caravans and boats (or other moveable structures such as tents) become regularised forms of placements for looked after children.

Q23: What do you believe any potential unintended consequences of these reforms will be?   

As noted above, these proposals do not address the gravity and scale of harm already suffered by children, and the known risks of non-care settings. The information set out above shows the serious and multi-faceted harm endured by children, the high incidence of child deaths and the absence of positive parenting (by the state) leading to children not being in education or training, or struggling to maintain their studies. Nearly all of this information is in the public domain because of the proactive work of charities, the former Children’s Commissioner for England and investigative journalists. Central government will no doubt have access to much more information than we have been able to elicit, including the backgrounds and circumstances of all the children who have died in semi-independent and independent accommodation.

The draft standards and proposals for rudimentary inspection will not meet the needs, or fulfil the rights, of looked after children. They are discriminatory and inadequate, and will not protect highly vulnerable children. More children will die and suffer serious harm without significant improvements to the proposed regulatory framework. Revisions must include a requirement that children receive care where they live, appropriate to their age and individual needs. In the 1980s and before, children were ejected out of the care system as teenagers, and expected to fend for themselves, arguably because there was not the understanding of their needs, and not enough was known about the impact of not having adult guidance, care and protection at such an important age. Today, we have decades of research and testimony from care experienced people: we cannot claim we do not know the risks or the harms.

Government policy is now actively supporting what is largely a market of property owners to house 16 and 17 year-olds for whom the care system has no suitable, caring homes. As one care experienced young man said during the Department for Education’s first consultation: supported accommodation “is like a house without parents”. It is disreputable that this is being promoted as progress. Families in wider society, policy makers included, do not routinely prepare 14 and 15 year-olds to be ready for so-called semi-independent or independent living at age 16. This is an aberration. That 4 in 10 children in care aged 16 and 17 are living in non-care settings demonstrates the ordinariness of it for the care system. But the state encouraging and coercing children in its care to live in places devoid of adult care, guidance and protection is extraordinary. It is institutional neglect. The regulation being proposed for supported accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds – what will actually be in the law – has not built upon and extended existing requirements for group living arrangements (children’s homes). It has diminished and diluted them by design.

As well as radically improving the proposed standards and inspection arrangements, we urge the Department for Education to use legislation and policy to stop children leaving care at the age of 16 unless this is demonstrably in their best interests and they have positively chosen this from an informed position (with assistance from an independent advocate). While it consistently puts responsibility for decision-making about individual children back to local authorities, the Department for Education must be aware that it is creating a permissive environment for neglect with its proposals, and that children will continue to be lured or forced into an entirely false realm of independence at age 16. 

With 37% of looked after children aged 16 and 17 already living in non-care settings, the government’s insistence that supported accommodation is appropriate only for ‘some’ teenagers rings hollow. This policy development has not been led by the interests of children. Instead it is seeking to formalise what has generally been an unplanned and chaotic, crisis-driven response by local authorities to a significant increase in the number of teenagers entering care against a backdrop of austerity which has harmed children, families, neighbourhoods and critical public services. Once consolidated, it will be very difficult to reverse from this.

Non-care settings are very profitable for individual providers, they are relatively easy to set up and they are cheaper for local authorities than regulated care settings. The attraction to government is not difficult to see. But this is a disastrous move for children. ‘Regulating’ what has been patched together in a crisis at a local level is no way to develop the children’s care system. A comprehensive, integrated strategy is required which deals with longstanding fault lines in the children’s care system, above all its failure to consistently provide love and security to children when they are children, and to grasp the nettle that a commitment by the state to care for a child must contain obligations which last a lifetime. 

As the Department for Education is aware, there is substantial research evidence that young people who have been looked after do well when: they received consistent and stable care and protection as a child; they left care later (between 18 and 21 years of age); and their move from care was gradual and supported. 

The use of non-care settings for 16 and 17 year-olds is completely contrary to recent progressive law and policy, which enables children to stay with their foster carers up to the age of 21, and extends support to age 25.

Furthermore, most young people in the general population live within their family home and therefore receive continuing care, guidance and protection far beyond the age of 16 or 17. The Office for National Statistics reports that in 2021:

  • 95% of children aged 16 lived with their parent or parents.
  • 96% of children aged 17 lived with their parent or parents.
  • Over half (53%) of adults aged 23 lived with their parent or parents.
  • 28% of adults in the general population aged between 20 and 34 years lived with their parent or parents. 
  • The ONS data consistently shows that boys and men are more likely than girls and women to live within their family home in adulthood. (Government data shows that boys in care are disproportionately living in non-care settings).

QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED
Q7a: To what extent do you agree that this is the right approach to staff recruitment, checks, induction, staff fitness requirements, training and supervision and disciplinary proceedings? (Fully agree / Partly agree / Do not agree / Do not know) 
Q7b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q8a: To what extent do you think that the proposed approach to the service’s protection policies is the right one to ensure the welfare of young people in supported accommodation? 
(Fully agree / Partly agree / Do not agree / Do not know) 
Q8b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q9a: To what extent do you think that the proposed approach to restraint is right one to ensure the welfare of young people in supported accommodation? 
(Fully agree / Partly agree / Do not agree / Do not know) 
Q9b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q10a: Do you agree that the proposed practices around producing, storing and maintaining records are proportionate and will ensure young people are kept safe and their needs are met? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q10b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q11a: Do you agree that the proposed practices around complaints and representations are proportionate and will ensure young people are kept safe and their needs are met? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q11b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q12a: Do you agree that the proposed practices around notifications are proportionate and will ensure young people are kept safe and their needs are met? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q12b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q13a: Do you agree that the proposed business continuity requirements are proportionate and will ensure young people are kept safe and their needs met? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q13b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q14a: To what extent do you agree that the proposed roles and responsibilities of the ‘registered provider’ and ‘registered service manager’ will ensure a proportionate level of oversight in supported accommodation? 
(Fully agree / Partly agree / Do not agree / Do not know) 
Q14b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q15a: Do you agree with the proposal to limit the number of registered service managers in each supported accommodation undertaking to one? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q15b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q16a: Do you agree that the proposals around the fitness and capacity of the registered provider and/or registered service manager are the right ones? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q16b: Please provide details to explain your answer
Q17a: Do you agree these categories for supported accommodation are the right ones? (Yes / No / Not Sure)
Q17b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q18a: Do you agree with the proposal for providers to notify Ofsted of new settings and with the use of conditions to restrict providers from using new settings without having informed Ofsted? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q18b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q19a: Do you agree that the proposed Ofsted enforcement powers, offense provisions and tribunal appeal provisions are appropriate and proportionate for this type of provision? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q19b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q20a: Do you agree that this is the right approach to ensure provider adherence to the Quality Standards and the regulations across the service? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q20b: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q21a: To what extent do you agree with the proposed new registration, variation and annual fees for providers of supported accommodation? 
(Fully agree / Partly agree / Do not agree / Do not know) 
Q21b: How would the new fees affect you as a provider? 
(No effect / Minor effect / Neutral / Moderate effect / Major effect) 
Q21c: Please provide details to explain your answer 
Q22a: Do you agree that this is the right approach to ensure that providers can register before it becomes an offence to operate supported accommodation undertaking without being registered and that inspections can be carried out in the first year? 
(Yes / No / Not Sure) 
Q22b: Please provide details to explain your answer