SECTION V: FINANCIAL INCENTIVES AND THE BUSINESS OF CHILD REMOVAL
Follow the Money, Find the Mold
I. Introduction: Care Isn’t Free—It’s Profitable
Child protection is marketed as an emergency service, a noble intervention when families collapse.
In reality, it has evolved into a profit-generating system sustained by perverse incentives:
The more removals, the more funding
The more complexity, the more roles
The more trauma, the more services to “offer”
What masquerades as care is, in many cases, a supply chain—with the child as product, the parent as liability, and the system as vendor.
II. Who Profits from a Child’s Removal?
| Entity | Profit Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Local Authorities | Increased funding tied to high-risk designations and adoption outcomes |
| Independent Fostering Agencies | Charge councils thousands per child per week |
| Private Residential Homes | Earn up to £8,000/week per child—many owned by private equity |
| Consultants & Legal Contractors | Paid per assessment, report, and appearance |
| Therapeutic Service Providers | Bill for mandated courses, therapy, and contact supervision |
This is not protection.
It is a removal economy—and like all economies, it requires supply.
III. The Metrics of Perverse Incentive
Adoption Targets: Bonuses for “finalised” adoptions, not reunifications
Placement Success Bonuses: Paid outcomes tied to state custody
Repeat Assessment Funding: Every new “risk” renews financial flow
Deprivation Index Gaming: Poorer areas see increased surveillance—not support
Removing a child is profitable.
Reuniting a family is not.
IV. Private Equity Involvement
Childcare has become another frontier of extraction.
Hedge funds own group homes.
Equity firms run fostering agencies.
Oversight is minimal; profits are not.
Structures are optimised for fees, not care.
Children sleep in damp beds.
Shareholders sleep in mansions.
And still they claim:
“In the child’s best interest.”
One must ask—whose child?
Whose interest?
V. Suppression of Cost Transparency
FOI requests seeking clarity are met with:
“Commercial sensitivity.”
“No data held.”
“Cannot disclose contractual arrangements.”
This is not oversight.
It is strategic opacity.
If the public cannot see the contracts,
the public cannot question the removals.
VI. The Currency of Concern
“Concern” is the most lucrative currency of all.
It is:
Free to generate
Unchallengeable in tone
Justification for everything:
Emergency removal
Surveillance
Legal proceedings
Funding streams
No evidence required.
Just concern.
This is not safeguarding.
This is a morality-laundered business model.
VII. Recommendations for Audit and Accountability
We call for:
A national audit of all care sector financials
A public register of for-profit providers and their investors
Mandatory disclosure of per-child costs and contractual beneficiaries
A ban on adoption bonuses, fostering quotas, and private equity profit in social care
Until such reforms are enacted, let this stand:
If a child is taken—someone is being paid.