Thirty years ago at a conference, a group of social workers, foster carers and residential staff struggled with the same problem that troubles Martin Narey today (Second thoughts, 4 November). In spite of our best endeavours, too many looked-after children, particularly the older ones, experience disrupted placements one after the other and end up thoroughly unprepared for this harsh world.
This was what we came up with. Take an eight- to 10-bed children’s home (by common consent this seemed to be the ideal size from both social work and organisational perspectives); link to the home a group of say four experienced and local foster carers, who would crucially be part of the same project with the same management and some interchangeability of staff. A young person could be placed anywhere within the project, but if a move becomes necessary crucially the new placement would also be within the project, as (hopefully) would any further placements.
The theory was that if a single project can be big enough, flexible enough and compassionate enough to manage troubled youngsters within its own boundaries without moving them on, then what could be a sequence of disastrous events could just possibly have therapeutic value. Also crucially, young people would have a significant role in decision-making, even to the extent of suggesting that a resident moves elsewhere in the project to make space for someone in greater need. Allegiance to the whole project, its values and culture is what does the healing. Finally, and also crucially, evaluation would be built into the fabric of the project, not just an optional add-on. The basic idea was suggested by the then popular core and cluster concept in adult services. We simply applied it to children.
Utopian? Probably, but well worth a try anyway.
John Nelson
Formby, Merseyside
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
