The Fairer Fostering Partnership
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Introduction
    • How To Become A Member
    • Application Form
    • Our Terms of Reference
    • Our Constitution
    • Our Charter
  • Campaigns
    • #forchildrennotprofit
    • Brad Kella’s Fostering Journey | Foster Care Fortnight
    • Fostering Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children
    • Changes to Fostering in Wales
    • Beyond Language that Cares
    • Vision for Children in Foster Care
  • Member Agencies
  • News & Jobs
  • Useful Links
  • Contact Us

Foster News:  How much does care cost?

1/8/2016

 
Picture
Over the past 18 months, NAFP has looked in detail at the way a small number of local authorities cost their own 'in-house' fostering services. It is important to understand this methodology because local authorities need to be sure that they are spending their money wisely to best meet children's needs. But it's also important because there is a widely-held belief amongst local authorities than in-house placement are 'cheaper' than external placements. That assumption alone seemingly makes it acceptable to almost always look to place a child 'in-house first' before moving on to consider options for an external placement.

We found that the methodology used to calculate and compare internal costs with external costs understates back office and support costs, and these are often attributed based on seemingly arbitrary assumptions. Little account is taken of differing needs of children when calculating cost comparisons. We know that, by and large, because of the widely used 'in-house first' placement culture, children placed with foster carers from independent and voluntary sector fostering providers (IFPs) tend to have greater needs. We might expect it to cost more to care for those children. However, the very rough in-house/external comparison homogenises children and assumes they are all more or less the same. When we drilled down and looked at the costs for certain cohorts of children, we found the in-house costs to be very similar to those of IFPs.

Add to this the huge health warning coming from the National Audit Office about local authorities understanding of their costs and it's not just NAFP saying this (and we will be accused of having a vested interest here, of course). The NAO also said that the huge range of in-house costs quoted by local authorities means they can't all be right.

My argument is that local authorities can't be sure of their own costs so how can they use this as the key reason for placing in a child in one placement rather than another? I wrote a blog recently called 'How much cheaper is enough?'. In that I also make the case that how much cheaper would one placement have to be than another to make it the 'right' one for a child? £10/week cheaper? £100/week cheaper? £500/week cheaper?

What we don't have a firm grip on, in my view, is the the significance of a 'unit cost'. For instance, if one agency pay their foster carers less, and so are 'cheaper', is that good thing or a bad thing? Foster carers, like social workers, undertake their role for largely altruistic reasons. But, like the rest of us, they also need to pay their bills and feel valued. Paying them more may not make them better, but paying them less could undervalue them and risk losing them.

And what of quality? What of outcomes? We live a world of hugely bureaucratic commissioning and procurement (only for external services; in-house services are the automatic 'preferred provider' without any procurement) that sees its role as getting unit cost down and prioritising those placements that have the cheapest weekly unit cost.

In my view, we serve children best by finding the right and best placement for them. And, in the long run, that is how we provide best value for the public purse. So, yes, in this time of swingeing cuts to local authority budgets, let's understand costs, but it's only relevant when we understand how spending that money benefits an individual child. In my opinion, the kind of rough cost estimate that we use now is not about meeting children's needs or finding the best value. In my view, it's probably about an adult pre-conceived loyalty to a particular form of service delivery. And I understand that. But my pitch is that we start to make placement decisions that prioritise children's needs, based on much better data and information. I'm up for being a part of that movement.

Source:
http://www.nafp.co.uk


Comments are closed.

    RSS Feed

    News & Jobs

    News stories and job vacancies from our member agencies, the fostering sector and the world of child protection and safeguarding as a whole.

    Browse Categories

    All
    Action For Children
    All4U Fostering
    Barnardo's
    Break
    Community Care
    Community Foster Care
    EPIC Family CiC
    Fair Ways Fostering
    FFP News
    Fostering Families
    Fostering News
    FtSE Member News
    FtSE News
    Industry News
    Kasper Fostering
    Member Job Opportunity
    Member News
    New Routes Fostering
    Pact
    Safer Fostering
    St Christopher's
    Supported Fostering Services
    TACT
    Team Fostering
    The Caldecott Foundation
    The Children's Family Trust
    The Foster Care Charity
    Together Trust
    Young People At Heart

    Photo of small child looking at yellow flower - part of FtSE's branding
The Fairer Fostering Partnership
c/o TACT Fostering
Innovation House
PO Box 137
Blyth
NE24 9FJ
[email protected]
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Introduction
    • How To Become A Member
    • Application Form
    • Our Terms of Reference
    • Our Constitution
    • Our Charter
  • Campaigns
    • #forchildrennotprofit
    • Brad Kella’s Fostering Journey | Foster Care Fortnight
    • Fostering Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children
    • Changes to Fostering in Wales
    • Beyond Language that Cares
    • Vision for Children in Foster Care
  • Member Agencies
  • News & Jobs
  • Useful Links
  • Contact Us