Recently I was asked to lead a day on a Diploma of Social Work Course dealing with the subject of residential child care. In order to make a general point I have decided to keep the location of the seminar confidential, but it was held at a well-known university. I began by asking the future social workers what they already knew of residential child care, and received the words “orphanages”, “dormitories” and Oliver Twist.

One student was prepared to put her whole idea into a sentence: “Residential child care is what you turn to when everything else has failed: it is a last resort.” In this she echoed the sentiment of the class, the wider public, and, perhaps more significantly, the families and young people who might well be offered just such a “last resort” as a response to their difficulties.

It is over five years since the Wagner Report on residential care used the bold title, A Positive Choice, as a deliberate counter to the specific phrase, last resort. In some ways it seems as if it might just as well not have been written, for it had had no effect whatsoever on these students and their thinking. The shadow of the Poor Law and the spectre of the workhouses were simply too strong to be countered in this way.

In Britain, institutions are seen at the opposite end of a spectrum from the normal family. The former are cold and impersonal, the latter is warm and friendly. If there is a need to move a child from her family, the obvious alternative is foster care because that is seen as a variation of the normal family. I have written about this elsewhere and so do not intend to develop this thinking any further here. (See “The Ideology of Residential Care and Fostering” in Re-Framing Children’s Services, NCVCCO Annual Review No. 3, NCVCCO, 2002, 231-242.)

The Children Act is based on just this worldview. One of its principles is: “There are unique advantages for children in experiencing family life in their own birth family and every effort should be made to preserve the child’s home and family ties.” This is followed by the guidance: “When out-of-home care is necessary, active steps should be taken to ensure speedy return home.” (The Children Act: Principles and Practice, HMSO, 1989, 8, 9) Admission to care or special residential provision is seen as potentially disadvantaging or stigmatising (11).

This is par for the course. But there are two big problems. First, these principles conflict with another stated in the same document: “Young people’s wishes must be elicited and taken seriously” (12). If a young person says that she wishes to live in a children’s home, what then happens to the principles? This is far from being an academic point, as some young people have consistently said just this for many years. Second, how does the social worker weigh up the alternatives dispassionately? Isn’t it possible, however unpalatable the thought, that a social worker confronted with a situation not dissimilar to that of Victoria Climbie, for example, would err on the side of supporting the family?

We made some progress during the day as we looked at the purpose, the history, the principles and the realities of residential child care. I explained that I was not an advocate of one kind of care rather than another, but was seeking a way of responding to the needs and wishes of individual children and young people. But quite honestly, I do not see how a century or more of history and ideology can be overturned during the space of a day. Hopefully when they become social workers they will have been helped to make more informed decisions, sensitive to the needs and views of young people. But they will be part of organisations and a system that has a very definite worldview. It may not use old-fashioned terminology, but the essential polarisation between family and institution still operates, not to mention financial considerations!

It called to mind a case with which we were involved some years ago, and I ended by sharing it with the students. A local mother asked if her two children could live at Mill Grove while she was serving a term in prison. The children were keen to do so, and this is what happened. We visited the mother each week and kept closely in touch with the extended family. The children continued at their schools, and maintained friendships and out-of-school activities. When the mother came out of prison they were reunited with her in a new flat, and we continued to relate to them as before.

Under the Children Act it was necessary for us to inform the local authority of what had happened. It took the view that the children were inappropriately placed, the reasons given being that there was a departmental policy that stated that no child under the age of twelve should be placed in a “children’s home” and therefore should be fostered. As one of the children was under twelve, and the other, over twelve, this could have meant that they were split up. We pointed out that the mother and the children had expressed clear and unanimous views on the matter, but this made no difference. So the placement was treated as a private arrangement and we heard no more from the local authority. What chance would one of the students have had in this situation of materially affecting things?

I am not saying that a child’s family isn’t unique. We supported the family. Nor am I advocating residential child care in every case. It’s just that even when child and family advocate something, when it works and the outcomes are so positive, it seems to have no effect on the idea that residential child care should be a last resort. One wonders how many children have suffered directly or indirectly as a result, and how much further the Poor Law shadow will stretch.