RCH0004

Written evidence submitted by the National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (NASS)

Background to Submission

1. NASS, the only national umbrella body for special schools outside Local Authority control, is delighted that the Education Committee is undertaking an inquiry into residential children’s homes. NASS is a national membership organisation for Independent and Non-Maintained Special Schools. We have over 220 members – almost 50% of these are registered as children’s homes. NASS broadly welcomes the Government’s plans to reform residential children’s homes but would like to focus our comments on a few areas of the proposals which we feel could be improved.

Whether the DfE’s proposed reforms to the regulation of residential children’s homes are appropriate and sufficient

2. NASS welcomes the changes to the Children’s Homes Regulations and to the Registration Regulation. We feel that regulations can be valuable in setting “absolutes” which must be followed. However, they are crude instruments in effecting long-lasting cultural change, which we believe is necessary to effect real and lasting changes. Change in the residential child care system will not occur through regulation alone and specifically not regulation which largely focuses on the responsibilities of homes themselves. Residential child care is a complex system where factors beyond what goes on in the homes themselves have a significant impact on the sector. For example, because of the high cost of land and property, new homes will be more likely to locate in relatively cheaper areas and some areas, especially in London, will struggle to attract new providers. Risk assessing the safety of an area offers something in some circumstances, such as plans to open a new home, but covers one dimension in a wider issue. It is unclear how this will support long-standing residential special schools, who may have been in an area for over one hundred years and do not have the option of relocating.

3. We also broadly support the proposal to amend the Children’s Homes Regulations to introduce a new duty on children’s homes to notify the authority for the area where they are located every time a child is admitted to a placement and when they are discharged. This should already be happening, with placing authorities notifying host authorities. As corporate parent, it should remain the placing authority’s responsibility to notify and they should be better held to account if they do not do this. Whilst we recognise the “belt and braces” approach in asking homes to also notify, in practice, homes will face higher scrutiny and higher accountability, with twice yearly inspections, than the Local Authority will. There is a danger that this will be seen as a problem with homes, rather than with placing LAs. We would be keen to see the notification requirement more closely reflected in LA inspections, with real consequences for those who do not undertake their duties. It should also be noted that there are a significant number of special schools which are additionally registered as children’s homes. The numbers in schools would be higher than in a more traditional children’s homes and, consequently, this duty is likely to create additional work.

4. We recognise that children’s homes should be required to have explicit policies about how they prevent children going missing, that are agreed with the local police. This is with the proviso that there is recognition of the many different reasons why children go missing, with specific reference to children with SEN and disabilities. Some children in NASS schools may run with little awareness or understanding of their behaviour. Whilst all good schools would seek to manage and reduce running away, this is not always straightforward. This in turn will have training implications for police forces.

5. We are not convinced of the need to introduce a duty on the registered person of a children’s home to communicate with the child’s authority to formally request a review of the child’s care plan, in cases where children are persistently missing from placement We would question what is the definition of “persistent”? Some young people with SEN have been placed in non-maintained and independent special schools because of a history of running away and a school may have specifically been chosen because its location allows the child some freedom to run, in a relatively safe environment. Good practice should indicate that persistent running away where the child appears unhappy or unsettled should trigger a care plan review. However, making this a blanket requirement seems to undermine individual professional judgments about what is appropriate in given cases.

6. We are also against the proposal that the registered person should conduct an annual assessment as to any risks resulting from the area where a children’s home is located, that must involve consulting with the local police and with children’s services responsible for safeguarding. It is difficult to see what purpose this would serve. If a previously safe area is identified as now being potentially unsafe, what is reasonable action to take? A very small home might feasibly consider relocation. However, a 120 place school, additionally registered as a children’s home, with a 100 year plus history, land, buildings and upwards of 300 staff could not move. Whilst it could be potentially useful to better understand your area, it is not likely that it is within an individual home’s ability to be able to mitigate against all identified risks. It is unclear whether this would be considered an acceptable position or if the home would be considered as negligent.

7. We support plans that all care staff in children’s homes should achieve the minimum necessary qualification, which is currently the Level 3 Children and Young People’s Workforce Diploma with mandatory social care pathway, within two years of starting employment. However, the qualification will need to be reviewed and updated regularly.  Smaller homes, especially those in the voluntary sector, struggle at times to find high quality training providers or offer financial support to staff to undertake qualifications. Many staff are reluctant to take on student loans to undertake qualifications.

8. We would also like to put on record that many children’s homes in affluent areas already struggle to recruit care staff. The requirement to attain qualifications may act as a disincentive to some from applying. In such cases, some homes may have to offer to fund training themselves, which will add significant costs.

9. We broadly support the proposal that from 2018 we should require candidates for registered manager posts to have achieved the necessary management qualification prior to appointment. We would note that when a similar requirement was introduced in schools for head teachers, the initiative was backed by a national training initiative, driven through the National College of School Leadership. If this is to be successful, social care requires a similar initiative where staff are encouraged and supported to access high quality training, which is consistent across the country.

10. We disagree with the proposal that local authority in the area where the home is located must approve the registered provider’s scheme for independent visitors to monitor the quality of the home’s care. This is impractical. Some LAs have a large number of homes located within them and would struggle to have a sufficiently large list of approved visitors or a knowledge of those proposed by the home. There is a danger that this would simply be a rubber stamping process which makes little or no difference to the quality of visits undertaken.

About us

11. The National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (NASS) is a membership organisation catering for approximately 6,000 very vulnerable children and young people in over 210 schools and organisations. It provides information, support and training to its members to advance the education of children and young people with SEN.

September 2013