Getting
the ball rolling in the creation of a centre
to focus on residential care
by
Kathleen Lane
In
July 2000 and January 2001 the Social Education Trust held two
seminars examining the Continental European Social Pedagogue model
of training and career pathways for care workers. At the second
event in particular a number of the participants became very enthused
about the idea of promoting a more positive environment around
caring for children in extra-familial care. There was a feeling
that after all the talking there should be a tangible outcome
and indeed SET did produce a report of the proceedings, drawing
together the ideas which had been shared. However, many of the
participants had been at somewhat similar events over many years,
which had usually resulted in a feel-good factor for a few days,
but had not made a great difference in the long run. They wanted
something more.
After
some months of gestation a small group took the initiative to
call together a big group of service providers from a wide variety
of sectors. Once again the atmosphere was positive. The majority
of those present valued high quality residential provision for
children and young people; after all, most of them were providing
it on a daily basis. Many of those present were also aware of
the contribution, which has been made to the residential child
care scene in Scotland by the Scottish Institute for Residential
Child Care (SIRCC). Although it was recognised that there were
distinct differences between the situation, which had enabled
the setting up of SIRCC and those which we face in England and
Wales, nevertheless there was a wish to explore positive possibilities.
For
a number of operational difficulties tangible outcomes have been
slow to emerge, until Wednesday 11th February 2004, when the National
Children Bureau Children’s Residential Care Unit (CRCU)
set up a seminar as the starting point for a project being funded
by SET. The purpose of the project is to carry out a feasibility
study into establishing a National Centre, which would have the
task of supporting and promoting residential child care in England.
The report on the study will be presented in September 2004.
The aims of the project are:
1.
Conduct a study to enquire into the value and added benefit for
all stakeholders of establishing a national centre/organisation/focus
for residential childcare.
2.
Explore what is needed if a ‘centre’ is to be developed;
funding, effectiveness, avoidance of duplication, national dissemination,
policy influencing, representative membership, added value, links
with other organisations such as SCIE and Government departments.
3.
Seek and gain involvement and support from the statutory, private
and voluntary providers and commissioners of residential childcare
and key national figures.
4.
Report back regularly to the management group on the progress
of the study.
The
Children’s Residential Care Unit at the National Children’s
Bureau are undertaking the work, with Sally Bamsey, the head of
the Unit, carrying managerial responsibility. Some members of
the original ‘big group’ have formed the Project Management
Group, (PMG) which will support and advise the staff involved
from the CRCU during the study and agree the final report.
The
project has the working title of Momentum as a result of a comment
made at an earlier meeting, when it was agreed that a sufficient
critical mass was needed to get up the momentum to move the ideas
forward. During the day there was certainly a strong feeling that
it is still worth putting in some effort to get this particular
stone rolling.
The
Terms of Reference for the Project Management Group as amended
on 11th February 2004 are:
1.
To represent the best interests of children and young people in
residential care, including health settings and residential special
schools.
2.
To plan and approve the project plan.
3.
To plan whom the project team need to consult with.
4.
To attend all three meetings of the PMG and to read and comment
on the draft and final report, including responding via e-mail.
5.
To plan strategically the way forward for the project.
6.
To think critically about the need for a National Centre.
7.
To support the report’s recommendations and assist in putting
them into action.
The Seminar on 11th February modelled good practice by its excellent
planning, aimed at achieving a good balance between information-giving
from the CRCU and active participation on the part of members
of the Project Management Group. The day was ably chaired by Andrew
Christie, who will also chair the PMG. There were presentations
by Sally Bamsey, giving an overview of the background and plans
for the project, and Jonathan Stanley, outlining the work of the
Children’s Residential Network. There was a warm and spontaneous
response to Jennifer Davidson, the recently appointed Director
of SIRRC, who in a very short time gave a spirited exposition
on how the organisation came into being and what it has done so
far. These plenaries were interspersed with two lots of discussions
in three groups and a working lunch, when the participants were
required to display their preparatory ‘homework’ and
put up ‘post it’ notes of ideas and useful contacts.
A
hint of the size of the task ahead of CRCU could be gleaned from
the deliberations of the group in which I participated. The issues
we touched upon included:
•
Virtual or real? It was recognised that increasingly, with the
development of technology, there is less need to be geographically
grounded. However, it was also recognised that for some time there
will still be the need for a centre to be located in a place,
which has, among other things, a traditional library and book
storage facilities, although eventually most things will probably
be stored and disseminated electronically.
• Location. Adding on to an existing facility, such as a
university had its benefits, but London is perceived to be most
readily accessible and has great attraction. There was also the
idea that an out-of-town residential centre, offering the opportunity
for residential courses and a place of rest and relaxation for
staff, could be attractive.
• The involvement of young people was raised. It was agreed
that this should be kept on the agenda for the project and that
tokenism must be avoided.
• Boundaries. The group looked at limiting or broadening
the boundaries for a possible centre. Should its focus be residential
child care or the care of children in residential settings? In
view of the numbers of children living in fee-paying and all other
kinds of boarding schools – many more than in children’s
homes, there could be a strong argument for their inclusion. There
were also many children in substitute families, which might suggest
that the centre should deal with all forms of extra-familial care.
On balance the group thought that it might be necessary to start
small and exclusively, i.e. to focus on residential child care,
but to be prepared for the extra dimensions to be added on, in
time.
