By Maksym Misichenko · The Guardian ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel agrees that the financialization of UK social care, driven by private equity firms, poses significant risks due to misaligned incentives, high fees, and regulatory concerns. The current model relies on government desperation and debt-fueled arbitrage, with potential for massive asset write-downs and service disruptions.
Risk: Regulatory risk shifting, potentially leading to massive asset write-downs and service disruptions, as seen in the Welsh model of phasing out profit-making entities.
Opportunity: None identified.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Bring your suitcase, your bin liner, your dumpy bag. They’re handing out money faster than you can stuff it in a sack. All you need do is join the market in what may now be England’s most lucrative commodity. A commodity with arms and legs, hearts and brains, thoughts and feelings. Children.
Two years ago I stumbled into this issue after discovering that children in care who were being helped by a local charity I’m involved with were suddenly being whisked away, terminating the amazing progress they had been making, breaking their relationships, their sense of home, stability and security. When I began exploring why this was happening, I could scarcely believe what I was seeing: a highly lucrative trade in highly vulnerable young people. Children in “care” were being exchanged between private equity companies for £100,000 apiece. That figure is now wrong. Today they are worth far more.
A few days ago, the Financial Times published an investigation that I defy you to read with anything but open-mouthed horror. The average charge to the state by a private provider for a child in “care” is now £384,020 a year. That’s six times what Eton charges. Some providers now levy more than £1m per child per year, rising in a few cases for children with complex needs to more than £3m.
So everyone is cashing in. Alongside the big companies, which might invest in oil, gilts or crypto one day and children the next, the reporters found that “plumbers, hairdressers and Airbnb landlords with no experience in care” are opening “homes”. There might also be links to organised crime, as you can now make more money from children than you can from drugs. The police are concerned that gangs running children’s “homes” can not only harvest state money on a spectacular scale but also harvest highly vulnerable young people, who can be recruited and exploited. I guess you could call that vertical integration.
While there is a shortage of provision in the south of England, there’s a glut in the north-west: Lancashire has 17 places for every local child needing care. Why? Because property is cheaper there. Houses can be bought for a song and roughly converted. The cheapest buildings are in places where economic and community life has collapsed, high streets are deserted and facilities shuttered. Where better to send highly vulnerable children?
This is why our young people in Devon are being swept up to 300 miles across the country. A paper in the journal Child Abuse & Neglect finds a consistent association between profit-making and the placing of children outside their local authority area. It also finds that commercial provision is associated with them being moved more often, which means greater disruption and instability. Shifting children out of their home area makes them “more vulnerable to exploitation and grooming”. Yet the children with the greatest needs are often, under this system, those placed furthest from home.
Because councils, which have not been given the capital budgets to make their own provision, are so desperate to find places, they are sending children to providers who are not only unqualified but also, in some cases, unregistered. In other words, they are breaking the law by using “homes” which haven’t even met the basic requirement to register with the regulator. These are private oubliettes – places beyond easy reach of the authorities, where children can be dumped and forgotten. They might as well throw them in a pit and be done with it.
An investigation by LBC and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that in one of these illegal “homes”, two of the “care” workers had seven convictions between them when they were recruited, including four for violent offences. They persuaded a 15-year-old girl, who had been moved by her local authority in south Wales to the house in County Durham, to take so much drink and drugs that she became stupefied, then they sexually assaulted her for several hours. The local authority’s rationale for moving her to that “home”, the investigators found, was that she was “at risk of sexual exploitation”.
A report by the Children’s commissioner reveals that unregistered placements are on average even more expensive than legal ones. She estimates that 669 young people, mostly with special needs, including some of preschool age, are now in unregistered “homes”. In reality the figure is probably much greater, as many are likely to have fallen off the records altogether.
While in France only 5% of places are run for profit, in England, the FT tells us, the figure is 84%. The reason is simply stated: ideology. Successive governments have failed to provide local authorities with the capital needed to house children themselves because they think public is bad and private is good: the foundational belief of neoliberalism. In reality we pay far more for a much worse service. Then we wonder why, though fewer than 1% of all children in England are in care, 62% of the people in young offender institutions have been in “care”.
In Wales, all new profit-making in this sector was stopped in April, and the practice is being phased out altogether. But in England, the government seeks only to tweak this immoral and dysfunctional system. As Hettie O’Brien shows in her book The Asset Class, when private equity delivers public services, chaos and disaster follow as night follows day. But Labour, like the Conservatives, seems ideologically committed to the model.
The issue is profit. Instead the Westminster government blames the problem on a shortage of foster carers. But as Martin Barrow, a journalist and foster carer who has specialised in this issue for many years, points out: “Foster care, children’s homes, supported accommodation and adoption are not interchangeable. Each can be the right option for different children at different times in their lives.” Children’s homes remain essential, but the government must regain ownership of them. As we’ve discovered the hard way with water, energy and railways, public ownership of public services works better and costs less.
There is no place for a “market” here. Children are not a commodity to be bought and sold. Private profit and public service are always oil and water. But if there is one service above all others that capital should never be allowed to get its filthy hands on, it is children in care.
- George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
- Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The sector's profitability is a function of regulatory capture and state under-investment, creating an unsustainable model prone to severe legislative intervention and ESG-related divestment."
The financialization of UK social care represents a systemic failure where profit incentives are misaligned with long-term human capital outcomes. By treating high-acuity placements as a recurring revenue stream, private equity firms have achieved high EBITDA margins at the expense of state solvency and child welfare. However, the 'market' exists primarily because local authorities lack the capital expenditure budgets to build state-owned alternatives. The current model is essentially a debt-fueled arbitrage on government desperation. Investors should note that the regulatory risk is shifting; the Welsh model of phasing out profit-making is a leading indicator of potential legislative headwinds that could trigger massive asset write-downs for providers like CareTech or similar private equity-backed entities.
The private sector provides the only rapid-response capital available to address the acute, chronic shortage of beds that the state has failed to provide for decades. Removing this liquidity without a massive, multi-billion pound state capital injection would likely result in an immediate, catastrophic collapse of emergency care capacity.
"Regulatory and reputational backlash will compress margins faster than volume growth can offset for private providers."
The article flags average fees of £384k per child annually in England's private care homes, with peaks above £1m, drawing private equity and even unqualified operators into a sector where 84% of places are now for-profit. This implies robust revenue growth for listed or PE-backed providers amid chronic local-authority shortages, yet it also signals rising political and regulatory risk as unregistered placements and cross-country moves draw scrutiny. Wales's outright ban on new profit-making models shows policy precedent that could spread. Investors pricing in continued 6x-Eton margins ignore the potential for capital-budget reversals or price caps once outcomes data on exploitation and instability become politically toxic.
Demand remains inelastic because councils lack capital to build their own capacity, so even tighter rules would likely raise fees further for compliant operators rather than shrink the private market.
"The profitability of child care is a symptom of systematic underfunding and regulatory failure, not the root cause—but it does create perverse incentives (distance placement, volume over quality) that a properly capitalized public system would not."
Monbiot's piece is emotionally powerful but economically imprecise. The £384k average annual cost per child is real—FT reported it—but the article conflates three separate failures: (1) underfunding of local authority capacity, (2) regulatory capture/enforcement collapse, and (3) profit motive. The profit motive alone doesn't explain why unregistered placements cost MORE than registered ones, or why councils use them despite higher costs. That suggests the real driver is scarcity and desperation, not margin-seeking. Wales phased out for-profit provision but hasn't solved the underlying shortage. The article also omits: what percentage of private providers are actually profitable (many operate razor-thin margins), whether outcomes differ meaningfully between sectors, and whether public provision would actually cost less or just hide costs differently through general taxation.
If local authorities have zero capital budgets and children need homes NOW, a private provider earning 15% margins might genuinely be preferable to leaving kids in emergency shelters or with unregistered operators—the article doesn't prove public ownership would have solved the shortage faster or cheaper, only that it would feel more moral.
"Without credible oversight and adequate funding, the private care sector faces material downside risk from regulatory pressure and cost controls."
George Monbiot's piece paints a stark image: private providers extracting vast sums for children in care, with unregistered homes and cross‑country placements ostensibly amplifying risk. If the FT data are accurate, the policy failure is acute. But the article risks a causal leap: higher costs may reflect complex needs, geographic price differentials, and the cost of compliance, not solely greed. The bigger missing context is the chronic underfunding and regulatory gaps in English social care; privatization can be efficient under tight oversight, but the piece hints at a systemic governance problem rather than just bad actors. Any policy shift toward nationalization or price caps would bring transition risk and potential service disruption.
Counterpoint: private providers may fill critical capacity gaps and, with strict controls and transparent outcomes, can improve quality and efficiency; the piece risks mistaking correlation (high costs, profit) for causation (poor care), and may overstate the role of profit as the root cause.
"The sector's reliance on sale-leaseback debt makes it uniquely vulnerable to fee caps, risking provider insolvency rather than just margin contraction."
Claude is correct that we are conflating profit with scarcity, but everyone is missing the debt-service trap. Private equity firms in this space often use sale-leaseback structures, turning social care into a real estate play. When councils pay these exorbitant fees, they aren't just funding care; they are servicing the debt used to acquire the assets. If the government caps fees, these highly leveraged providers won't just see margin compression—they will face insolvency, triggering a systemic collapse of the care estate.
"Sale-leasebacks turn one-time asset flips into permanent rent escalators that lock councils into rising fees irrespective of care outcomes or policy caps."
Gemini's sale-leaseback insolvency scenario overlooks how these structures embed permanent cost inflation. Councils end up paying rents calibrated to PE acquisition multiples rather than operating costs, so even stable demand produces escalating fees that outpace wage or regulatory inflation. This ratchet effect survives fee caps and makes any future public buyout far more expensive than the article's £384k headline implies.
"Fee caps without state capital investment will hollow out registered provision, not trigger PE insolvency."
Gemini and Grok both assume PE-backed providers survive fee caps through insolvency or ratchet effects, but neither addresses the actual mechanism: councils have already demonstrated willingness to use unregistered homes at higher cost rather than pay regulated rates. A fee cap without simultaneous capacity investment doesn't force buyouts—it forces councils back to unregistered placements, worsening outcomes while shrinking the compliant market. The real risk isn't provider collapse; it's regulatory arbitrage accelerating.
"Capex budgets and refi pathways can avert immediate PE insolvency, but regulatory arbitrage pushing care into unregulated spaces is the bigger risk."
Responding to Gemini: the sale-leaseback insolvency scenario may overstate inevitability. Debt-service is not a binary trap; lenders typically impose covenants, amortization schedules, and rent coverage. A cap could force refi or restructures rather than immediate collapse, particularly if councils protect capital budgets or renegotiate leases. The bigger risk is regulatory arbitrage pushing care into unregulated spaces, not solely PE insolvency—policy design matters as much as leverage.
The panel agrees that the financialization of UK social care, driven by private equity firms, poses significant risks due to misaligned incentives, high fees, and regulatory concerns. The current model relies on government desperation and debt-fueled arbitrage, with potential for massive asset write-downs and service disruptions.
None identified.
Regulatory risk shifting, potentially leading to massive asset write-downs and service disruptions, as seen in the Welsh model of phasing out profit-making entities.