Copenhagen's Lessons for Britain's Broken Care System

When a state spending machine manages to burn through £3.1 billion in a single year on children’s homes while simultaneously leaving hundreds of vulnerable youth in unregistered, illegal facilities, the standard political response is predictable: send a minister on a fact-finding trip abroad.

Enter Josh MacAlister, the UK children’s minister, who recently boarded a plane to Copenhagen. His destination was Josephine Schneider’s House, a 140-year-old institution nestled in a quiet Copenhagen suburb that represents everything the English residential care model is not. In Denmark, children’s care rests on social pedagogy—a discipline blending psychology, ethics, and child development—where staff are degree-level professionals who view the job as a long-term career. At Josephine Schneider’s House, staff frequently remain for a decade or more. In England, by contrast, 53% of residential care workers have been in the sector for three years or less, driven out by modest pay and miserable working conditions.

The disparity extends well beyond staffing credentials. In England, teenagers face a rigid cliff-edge: upon turning 18, support vanishes, regardless of whether a young person is mid-way through school examinations. The Danish model permits young people to remain in residential care until age 23, easing the transition into adult independence. Equally striking is the cultural contrast: while English residential care has developed a defensive posture obsessed with risk mitigation, Danish facilities prioritize personal development and long-term family bonds.

What MacAlister witnessed in Denmark is not simply a stylistic difference; it is an economic and structural schism. Spending on children’s homes in England jumped by 96% over five years, yet standard metrics of quality have collapsed. An astonishing 83% of English children’s home places are currently operated by private entities, some earning profit margins in excess of 20%. Meanwhile, local councils spent more than £125 million last year to house 669 children in illegal, unregistered accommodation because adequate placement options simply did not exist.

By contrast, Denmark relies on a mixed ecosystem: a third of homes are publicly owned, 42% operate on a non-profit basis, and just 27% are private. Wales has already announced a total ban on for-profit children’s social care by 2030. Westminster, however, hesitates. MacAlister insists that capping private profits requires awaiting the establishment of a new market oversight body to gather financial data.

Emmanuel Akpan-Inwang, director of the Lighthouse Pedagogy Trust and leader of the ongoing sector review, rightly noted that Denmark spent over four decades refining its framework. Replicating the results will not happen through simple policy export. Can an English system overburdened by regulatory inertia and broken procurement truly learn to put child welfare above defensive bureaucracy?

Written by Freya Stensrud freya.stensrud@alpineweekly.com