Child Protection is a huge money earner and this means that decision making is not financially unbiased. Last year over 4,000 babies in the UK were placed on the 'At Risk Register' before they were born and hundreds are taken into care soon after. Without doubt some of those babies were truly at risk, but many of them were taken for very questionable reasons. Conflicts of interests, where decision-makers stand to benefit financially from the decisions they are making, can seriously bias decisionmaking.1 Very large financial interests are in play. Williams2 has suggested how some of these financial processes operate:
After 20 years of outsourcing, the bulk of children's homes are run by private companies, with money sucked upwards into one or two private equity companies, GI Partners or Bowmark Capital or BairdCapital. Two-thirds of fostering provision is controlled by the private sector. Only 11% of children's homes are run by charities; the third sector started off quite big in children's care, as you'd expect, meeting local-authority contracts by spending their own reserves. Eventually, though, the private sector underbid them, and they went bust or moved into other services.
Having whittled down the competition, the private sector became eye-poppingly expensive: £200,000 is actually a low estimate, based on overall spending of £1bn on 5,000 children in residential care homes in England. In 2009, it was leaked that CastleCare, which runs 40 homes in Northamptonshire, was charging £378,000 a year for a residential place. This would be money well spent if the care was brilliant, but it isn't. Only 2.5% of children's homes have an Ofsted rating of "outstanding...1,2
The cash flow does not stop there. Many psychiatrists, paediatricians and lawyers are earning huge fees giving councils the opinions they want. Give the wrong opinion and they are not asked again. Add to that the money paid to foster carers, care workers and social workers the costs are eye watering. Who benefits? Certainly not many of the babies and children. Indeed, if some of the money was spent on supporting families, it could have long term benefits for families and society, and cost less.
To read or download this Journal in a magazine format on ISSUU, please click here AIMS Journal, 2020, Vol 32, No 2 By Nadia Higson The Care Quality Commission (CQC) mater…Read more
To read or download this Journal in a magazine format on ISSUU, please click here AIMS Journal, 2020, Vol 32, No 2 By the AIMS Campaigns Team Trust Boards will now have a…Read more
To read or download this Journal in a magazine format on ISSUU, please click here AIMS Journal, 2020, Vol 32, No 2 We reviewed the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) 2019 su…Read more
POSTPONED FROM JUNE 2020 Making a difference past and future The purpose of the day is to celebrate what Birth Activists in general and AIMS in particular have achieved,…Read more
Chair: Professor Soo Downe, University of Central Lancashire Dr Gloria Esegbona, OBGYN and Winston Churchill Fellow 2015 Kings College Learning Institute Dr Gloria Esegbo…Read more
Registration for the NICE Annual Conference 2020 will open on 22 January 2020. For more details and to register your interest, please visit http://www.niceconference.org.…Read more
AIMS' evidence to the Health and Social Care Select Committee On April 22, the UK Parliament's Health and Social Care Select Committee opened an inquiry into the plannin…Read more
AIMS welcomes the recent publication of the RCM Clinical Briefing Sheet: ‘freebirth’ or ‘unassisted childbirth’ during the COVID-19 pandemic ( www.rcm.org.uk/media/3904/f…Read more
AIMS has had many enquiries about how to find out about, and seek to influence, local service changes during this period. Here we have included several examples of issues…Read more