It came as a bit of a shock to me when listening to Today on R4 yesterday that many children's homes are run by private companies. Indeed the figure is 75%.
More info here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18649389
My gut feeling is that this is appalling, that children's homes should not be run for profit; private companies should not be creaming off money provided for the care of some of the most vulnerable children in the country.
Also, the point of a market is that competition is supposed to drive service up and cost down. Surely, the only competitive advantage available here is in the cost of the 'care', so it's a race to the bottom, with the ones losing out being the children in the homes?
This isn't a dig at anyone's views, but I just don't see the logic (other than raw financial). Can anyone explain how this is a good idea?
Amen brother IHN.
This is the way the whole NHS will go if Call Me and Gidiot have their way.
Did you think fostering was not-for profit too?
I know of a very caring couple who foster upto 5 children at a time. It's their full time career and for which they get paid a sizeable wedge.
Obv there's a difference in scale, but in both cases you're counting on a level of humanity in both them as fosterers and the people who manage a home on behalf of shareholders. It's never going to be perfect, but it's not like public sector care homes havent had some shocking incidents in them. The state's most effective role is in regulation and monitoring though. If they cant get that right then it doesnt matter who's running a home.
We could of course just ask the catholic church to pick up the baton - they seem to have a great track record in this field... 😉
I couldnt believe how many there are in Rochdale!
Seems that they just ship kids from the south there to get them out of there hair, ten times more there than in London i think it said. Out of sight, out of mind, like the rich palming off their disabled kids, but thats for another day
[i]The state's most effective role is in regulation and monitoring though. If they cant get that right then it doesnt matter who's running a home.[/i]
This.
No one looks after kids 'for free' - they all want paying as individuals so I'm not sure who their employer is has relevance.
all the companys that supply goods and services to council run childrens homes do it for profit - where do you draw the line.
The key, as above, is having high standards that are enforced.
Edit: [i]the rich palming off their disabled kids, but thats for another day[/i]
the rich palm off [i]all[/i] their kids, they don't discriminate.
bland, i think property prices play a big part in the location of homes and where they're set up by both the public and private sector! same thing happens with mental health, learning disabilities etc etc
[i]Did you think fostering was not-for profit too?[/i]
No, I know it's not, I know fostering allowances are paid (indeed my sister's looking into it), and I know that they are greater than the actual cost of caring for the child so there's a 'profit' to be made.
And I know that, whoever runs childrens' homes, terrible things will happen and the system will never be perfect. But it makes me terribly uncomfortable that when X amount of money is dedicated to the care of a child, the child gets (or benefits from) X - the profit taken.
Oh, and BTW, Ive always said that there's plenty of markets that can not be allowed to be fully free. Mostly social care ones. Ive said much the same about geriatric care in previous threads.
State monitoring and regulation is effectivley the removal of full "freedom" from the market. There's not that many markets that are genuinely "free" because of various restrictions in how they operate - whether it's licensing of participants through to duty charged on transactions. But it's all on a spectrum.
[i]No one looks after kids 'for free' - they all want paying as individuals so I'm not sure who their employer is has relevance.[/i]
No, obviously, and I have no problem with people being paid to look after these children; it's important work that needs to be done well. But I'll bet you'll find that the staff in the homes are not paid very much. And whatever they're paid, that comes from the money dedicated to the care of the child [i]after[/i] the profit is taken.
(I know that strictly speaking the profit is what's left after the costs, including staff salaries, are paid, but there must be a business model that assumes a certain level of profit given the funding received)
IHN - your gut feel is conflating "money in" with "quality of output". The idea of regulation is to require level of perforance, and profitability is the ability of the provider to do it for less than the revenue received. If a private contractor can do it by whatever means open to them, for less than either the next private contractor or the state to deliver the same level of output, then there is no impact on the Child and the profitability is theirs.
Now this is where TJ would pipe up and say it's impossible to make these savings without employing Sri Lankans for £2/hr and using offshore tax dodging. But that's always going to be the colour of his point of view.
Yeah, fair enough, I get that as long as the regulatory standards are met (and obviously the setting and monitoring of those standards is whole other kettle of worms), then in theory there is no impact on the child.
But it still makes me uncomfortable that the government/local authority says "care for this child, and make sure you do all this stuff, and we'll give you £250,000". The company thinks "no problem, we can do that for £220,000, and we can keep £30,000 for ourselves". Assuming it all works perfectly, then the needs of the child are met. But these will be minimum needs and, to me, there's £30,000 that could be used for the benefit of the child and is not being.
And lets not forget that these children, like any children, need all the help and support that they can get.
My gut feeling is that this is appalling, that children's homes should not be run for profit; private companies should not be creaming off money provided for the care of some of the most vulnerable children in the country.
I agree with that gut feeling, but I guess in practice it may become more of a grey area.
So for instance if the roof of the home needs repairing, should a state supplied roofer be used, or would a local private builder be acceptable?
If the repair isn't of acceptable standard and it's provided by the state, do you have any redress?
If the gardens need tending, state supplied or private?
The rooms need cleaning, state or private?
The accounts need checking - state accountant, or private accountant?
An administrator is required - state? private?
One of children needs to go to the GP. Chances are the GP belongs to a private partnership, are they just in it to cream off money?
I've no idea what the answer is, but I suspect it's complicated.
If the state/charity/church sector was doing a top job then maybe I'd have a problem, but...