1. Background

1.1. Early recollection of working as a Child-Care Worker (in the early 70s) was of establishments that accommodated between 48 and 85 children. Meal times were large, communal occasions where, from an adult point of view, more emphasis was placed on control rather than seeing them as a social occasion where adults and children came together to share a meal.

1.2. These particular ‘homes’ also consisted of ‘large scale’ accommodation such as shared bedrooms, i.e. anything up to eight children sharing a room which was more of a dormitory than a bedroom, which limited opportunity to make it personal or to achieve private space, especially when some of the beds were bunk beds!

1.3. This was the era after the implementation of the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act which, amongst other changes, introduced the concept of Community Homes in place of the previous Approved Schools which were primarily aimed at the management of delinquent boys. Whilst, at the time, this was considered an innovative and enlightened practice development, critics have suggested that many of these establishments continued, in terms of regime and approach, as Approved Schools by another name.

1.4. Large establishments such as those referred to here, were inevitably institutional and many of the basic primary care routines were organised to suit the institutions, e.g. meal times and bed times, rather than being more specifically geared towards the individual needs of the children who lived there.

1.5. Such establishments, however, benefited from ‘economies of scale’ in terms of running costs and perhaps on another level gave children a wider and larger peer group from which to choose friends and participate in activities.

1.6. Opponents of continuing with the maintenance of large establishments use the concerns of stigma, poor achievement and little concern regarding outcomes as the basis of their argument. Other research of the Approved School system concluded that its main contribution and/or outcome was to increase recidivism and ensure a future prison population.

1.7. Over recent years, particularly against the publication of such reports as the Waterhouse Report, much greater emphasis has been placed upon listening to children and young people, which inevitably can be more difficult to achieve effectively in a large group setting.

1.8. It is also worth noting at this point that the trend over the last eight years or so towards smaller establishments has not always been motivated by a desire for positive practice. Prior to the implementation of the Care Standards Act of 2000, some independent providers deliberately only established homes for fewer than three children / young people in order to avoid the need to become registered. What was generally regarded as a ‘loop hole’ in the Law has since been closed.

2. The time of change

2.1. The post ‘69 Act era did more to raise the issue of regime and environment than it did in raising the issue of the size of establishment.

2.2. Home Life, published in 1984, introduced a Code of Practice to set what is referred to as “poor standards” to achieve good practice. Although published against the backdrop of major developments in voluntary and privately run residential care for older people and other vulnerable groups, its focus on what it describes as ‘physical features’ clearly has influenced and shaped the thinking of children’s establishments.

2.3. Primarily these were :

• “The size of the building and the numbers to be accommodated in it should be considered in the context of the stated aims of the home. Development in recent years have shown that establishments catering for large numbers are unable to provide the type of care which is indicated in other sections of the Code of Practice”.

• “The aim of the home should be to provide a homely, non-institutional atmosphere which is suited to the needs of people living in it”.

• “Single rooms would normally be considered preferable to shared rooms”.

• It would be difficult to envisage how the scale of homes previously referred to could meet the expectations of this Code of Practice.

2.4. In “Growing up in Groups” (1994), Barbara Kahan observes :

“Children and young people are no different from older people in being significantly influenced by the physical condition of buildings in which they spend long periods of time”.

• Kahan considered that settings for children’s homes should be relatively small to achieve their main function of providing homes for children and young people. She further commented that large establishments would find it difficult to achieve the “home-like” atmosphere which is often “possible in establishments with only about 10 children and young people”.

2.5 Research carried out by Sinclair and Gibbs (1996) concluded that three main factors were associated with their definition of good homes. Homes are more easily kept in reasonable shape if:

• the head of the home feels that its roles are clear, mutually compatible, and not disturbed by frequent reorganisation;
•
• he or she is then given adequate autonomy to get on with the job;

• the staff are agreed about how the home should run and are not at odds with each other.

• 2.6 However, Berridge and Brodie (1998) in Children’s Homes Revisited concluded that in their study the size of the home was not a key factor. “In fact our largest home (11 residents) was also the most impressive, while the three smallest (each with 4 young people) came seventh or eighth and fourth respectively”……. “but an important point in our study is that all of our homes tend to be relatively small”.

3. The Experience of Prospects for Young People

3.1. Prospects for Young People was established in 1994, at a time when the general wave of thinking was towards the benefits and desirability of smaller scale establishments.

3.2. The first home opened by Prospects was in a building previously run by a Local Authority as a home for 23 young people living as ‘one group’. We registered it for a maximum of 9, a group which we subsequently divided into two smaller groups.

3.3. A further resource opened in 1996 was developed in a building that had previously been a Children’s Home for 21 young people. We registered it for a maximum of 4 young people.

3.4. Prospects for Young People now provides resources where the largest group is 5 and the smallest is 1. The by-line of the organisation is providing resources where “individuals can be individuals”, which is fundamentally influenced by Biestek’s theory of individualisation.

3.5. In our experience, smaller establishments are more effective in achieving the overall objective of providing care and education for children and young people with a range of complex needs. As we see it, the benefits of smaller scale resources are :

• an opportunity to achieve real and tangible outcomes for young people both socially and educationally,

• the staff’s ability to respond to individual rather than group demands – shifting the emphasis from control to developmental care,

• greater opportunity to maintain good standards of primary care particularly in terms of physical standards within each home,

• young people’s ability to develop a greater sense of identity and feel the care they receive is more personal,

• the creation of smaller staff teams, which can develop effective ways of working as a team including strategies for positive behaviour management,

• to encourage young people to use public transport and for the home to have domestic scale vehicles rather than mini buses,

• for the home to be more closely integrated into the local community.

• for young people to have less risk of being ‘lost’ in the group.

3.6. However, there are some considerations (rather than disadvantages) in maintaining smaller scale resources. These are :

• high unit costs due to smaller numbers of young people resident,

• the work becoming more intensive for staff particularly when attempting to address the complex needs of young people,

• the question of re-integrating young people into larger groups (either residentially or societally), where they are living in a resource on their own,

• needing to recruit and retain higher levels of staff,

• the issue of maintaining economic viability of a smaller resource where two young people live. If one leaves, there is a more urgent need to fill that vacancy than if one young person leaves from a group of, say, 20.

4. 2002 and Onwards

4.1. 1st April 2002 saw the implementation of the National Minimum Standards for Children’s Homes together with the Children’s Homes Regulations 2001. This represented the most significant attempt to establish National Standards for Children’s Homes since the Children Act 1989 was implemented in October 1991, which also contained the Children Homes Regulations of 1991.

4.2. The Bibliography of the National Minimum Standards reflects the extent of the terms of reference to which those working on the Standards referred, including Utting’s “People Like Us: Report of the Review of the Safeguards for Children Living Away from Home” (1997); Warner’s “Choosing with Care” (1992); Waterhouse’s “Lost in Care” (2000), which have been some of the most significant and notable reports to have been published in the last ten years.

4.3. The relevance of the National Minimum Standards to the debate around the size of establishments is that the Standards regarding the location, design and size of homes states :

• Standard 23.1 “The home’s location, design and size are in keeping with its purpose and function. It serves the needs of the children it accommodates and provides an environment that is supportive to each child’s development”.

4.4. This Standard possibly offers nothing by way of prescription to the size of the home, and in many ways merely adds to the Statement within “Home Life”, previously referred to.

4.5. However, in terms of accommodation the Standard is more prescriptive –

• Standard 24.1

“The home provides adequate good quality domestic style facilities for those living on the premises consistent with the purpose and function of the home, and is maintained in good order throughout”.

• Standard 24.2

“The home is decorated and furnished to a standard which creates a pleasant domestic environment, appropriate to the number gender mix, disability, age, culture and ethnic background of the children being accommodated.”

4.6. In both standards the emphasis is clearly on domestic style and domestic environment but how this is translated into appropriate size remains open to interpretation.

• Standard 24.5

“Each child has a single bedroom or their own area in a double bedroom, of a suitable size…………..”

4.7. Again, this is not particularly prescriptive or representative of a national view regarding the appropriate or optimum size of Children’s Homes. However, within the Children’s Homes Regulations 2001 (Ref. Regulation 4 (1) ) (Schedule 1) there is a requirement to include within the Statement of Purpose the following information –

“If the Children’s Home provides or is intended to provide accommodation for more than six children, a description of the positive outcomes intended for Children in a Home of such size, and of the Home’s strategy for counteracting any adverse effects arising from its size, on the children accommodated there”.

4.8. Is this the first indication of what, in 2002, is considered the largest size of home i.e. are of no more than six children? Clearly there is a suggestion, in referring to the “adverse effects arising from its size”, that there is a view that establishments of more than six can be counter-productive to achieving the Minimum Standards.

4.9. As the introduction to the Standards state – “The Standards are ‘minimum’ standards, rather than ‘best possible practice’. Many homes will more than meet the National Minimum Standards and will aspire to exceed them in many ways”.

(The reference to the National Minimum Standards are taken from the Department of Health or English Version as the Welsh Assembly Government has published its own version of the Standards and Children’s Homes Regulations (Wales) 2002).