It was the most brutal start to the new year imaginable for Callum McDonald. The autistic teenager was given four weeks to leave the children’s home where he had lived for five years by the Outcomes First Group, one of the country’s largest for-profit care chains.
“[Outcomes First] were completely indifferent. I was basically left to fend for myself,” said McDonald, 18, who was taken into care when he was eight years old. “I couldn’t find anywhere to stay because it happened so quickly. There wasn’t any transition period. It was just 28 days to be gone.”
Homeless and without time to find anywhere else to live in the Welsh border county of Wrexham, McDonald, was forced to leave behind the carers who had brought him up and return to his family more than 100 miles away. “I had to move back in with my dad, which can be difficult,” he said. “I was making progress but feel like I’ve been swept backward.”
The closure of his home, which was rated good, was one of the first of a series of closures this year by the Outcomes First Group, the fourth largest provider of residential places for looked-after children in England. The Observer reported last month how the group, which saw its profits jump from £3.5m in 2020 to £5.5m in 2021, blamed “market challenges” and recruitment issues for shutting 28 homes. It is owned by private equity firm Stirling Square.
Although McDonald was classed as a careleaver when he was evicted, he was still entitled to state support up to the age of 21. A leaving plan put in place by his social worker to allow him to stay in the home to complete a teaching assistant training course, which involved a nearby school placement, was ignored, he claimed. “I was at this nice little school. I knew all the children and staff. It was going well,” he said. “But then I had to leave. I felt I had been stabbed in the back because I had been in the home so long.”
One of his former carers, Helen Crewdson, said McDonald had been treated very badly by the company. “We built up a strong relationship. He is absolutely delightful – very intelligent,” she said. “[Outcomes First] had no thought or consideration for him. They were not putting his needs first [when the home was closed].”
McDonald managed to complete the course remotely after informing his tutors of his predicament. He hopes to work in schools this year: “I did it despite Outcomes First.”
At least seven of the homes shut by the group in the most recent round of closures were rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. None was rated inadequate, according to the group. Some of the affected children included those due to start GCSEs, siblings living in nearby homes who may be split up, and a recently settled four-year-old.
McDonald said the firm risked ruining the lives of children. “I know some of the homes that are closing. I can’t bear to think about some of the younger children. They need stability – that’s the whole point of the care system – but they are getting the opposite,” he said.
One extremely distressed child had to be forcibly removed from a home set for closure just over a week ago, according to a whistleblower. The boy, who has mental health problems, is understood to have refused to leave. An ambulance and the police had to be called when he smashed his room up and self-harmed before the move. The council which placed the boy in the home had to apply for a deprivation of liberty court order to restrain him and take him away in what’s called secure transport. He is now understood to have gone missing from his new home.
A senior manager from the firm, who asked to be anonymous, claimed the closures were not necessary. “This did not need to happen. Some of these were successful, well-run and happy homes, and we have inflicted more pain and damage on these children. Our job is meant to be to prevent that. There are lots of us who are now deeply ashamed to work for the company. It’s horrible and it’s just really, really sad.’’
The manager added that the new homes were not meeting the children’s needs as well. “We had children in good and outstanding homes and they have been moved to inadequate homes or homes that require improvement because that is all that is available to their local authorities. We have heard stories where children have been sobbing as they leave the homes and children who have not wanted to leave.”
Outcomes First said it was unable to comment on individual cases. “No placement decision is made in isolation without the full agreement of the local authority and social worker. Transition plans agreed by all parties were in place.
“The homes are being offered for purchase as a priority to local authorities and other parties in the residential care sector. This engagement has progressed, and capacity will be reinstated in due course.”
