Existing Dilemmas in Private Provision of Social Welfare Services in the UK - Esomake

Majorly, social welfare is known to be a public discourse. Nonetheless, there has been significant growth and development of private sector social welfare services. Provision of social welfare requires money, and as a public discourse, it taps into the coffers of the public sector. Privatisation of this sector that requires voluntary contributions raises a lot of questions when it comes to accountability. The public desires to understand whether money channelled to the institutions are used prudently and effectively. The private institutions of child social welfare have a duty to show accountability to retain a positive public image and trust. In many cases, they are exposed to accountability dilemmas.

Any private institution is viewed as a profit-making entity for the owners in the public eye. The private social welfare institutions cannot escape this tag since they are run in the model of private institutions. Their main aim and goals may be aligned to the public discourse and welfare of the children, but the public will still judge them differently. True to it, Barrow (2021) reported that about 80 per cent of children's homes are privately-owned and primarily run for profit. They profit from the services they offer; through the remittances they get from the government and other financiers for the said services. Barrow (2021) also highlighted that UK's six biggest child social care providers earned £219 million in profit in 2020. This means that the children's vulnerability is a profit-making opportunity for others in the country.

The private sector players in this industry must be keen not to be deemed profiteers of the challenges that face children. They must balance between what they make in profit and the quality of social care they render to their clients. Unlike many other industries, this is one that invites public sympathy and remorse. The people who are clients of the industry are those exposed to the harms and dangers of society. As such, any misstep by a private social care provider making a profit out of it will invite public outcry. For instance, if a provider reports profits above £50 million, and media reports indicate there is the mistreatment of children in that institution, people will demand accountability. The public will be up in arms against the institution because of the emotions attached to social care.

The primary accountability of social care in the United Kingdom rests with local authorities. The involvement of privatised care institutions is carefully managed by these authorities. Nevertheless, countless loopholes have led some to describe the arrangement as increasingly fragmented, uncoordinated and irrational. The trust placed on the private care providers is held on loose sand when such sentiments are raised. It creates disharmony between the social care providers and the regulators. This imbalance needs to be addressed to ensure that the private sector offers the right services in an environment that gives them the best chance at success.

The profiteers in the sector see it as an area of easy money. The organisation does not have to strain to make ends meet, as they only require approval to operate as a child social care institution and get funding from local authorities. This has led to the creation of voracious business models by unscrupulous business people who have no interest in the welfare of children. These are the characters that need to be weeded out from the sector. They come across as unaccountable, irresponsible, and profiteers who have no interest in social welfare. In the end, the expectant receivers of services from the private social providers have left yearning for more.