Corporate parenting: Is it a viable pathway for children and young people in Victoria’s out-of-home care system?

EXPLAINER – Updated December 2025

‘Corporate parenting’ refers to the shared responsibility across local authorities, departments and organisations to make sure that children and young people in care can thrive and be safe. The role is framed as that of a responsible and invested parent. The aim of the model is to create a shared, ongoing responsibility for the health and development of children, recognising their legal and human rights.

The history and current landscape of corporate parenting globally

Corporate parenting is not a new concept, but its formal implementation in child and family welfare systems is uncommon outside the United Kingdom.

Scotland has been at the forefront of implementing corporate parenting. In 2007, the Fostering and Adoption Report exposed serious shortcomings in how children in care were supported, with evidence of fragmented services and consistently poorer outcomes than their peers. These findings led to legislative reform.

The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 legally established the duties of government bodies – such as health services, schools, housing authorities and justice systems – as corporate parents. These bodies became responsible for promoting the holistic wellbeing of children in care. In 2015, corporate parenting was formally rolled out across Scotland, ushering in a more coordinated and values-driven approach to care.

England faced similar concerns. Poor educational attainment, mental health disparities and increased contact with the justice system among care-experienced children prompted national scrutiny. The Munro Review in 2010 highlighted systemic failings in child protection services and called for comprehensive reform.

The Children and Social Work Act 2017 enshrined corporate parenting into English law. Under this act, local councils and public bodies – including elected officials, council staff and partner agencies – are required to uphold a set of corporate parenting principles. These include acting in the best interests of the child, supporting their health and wellbeing, and listening to their needs and wishes. Corporate parents have a moral and legal responsibility to make sure that the children and young people in their care lead happy and fulfilling lives.

However, the model has its flaws. In 2023, the UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) – an informal cross-party group of MPs and peers – undertook an inquiry into care-experienced children and young people, gathering testimonies from over 160 young people and 200 organisations. Many participants reported experiences of stigma, feeling ignored by professionals, and being failed by systems meant to protect them. The inquiry acknowledged that under-resourcing and inconsistent implementation have limited corporate parenting full potential. The key challenges are explored below.

Challenges and opportunities for corporate parenting in the UK

Lack of accountable standards and tokenism: One of the key criticisms raised in the 2023 All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) inquiry was that the current corporate parenting principles are too broad and lack enforceable standards. Although local councils and partner agencies are legally required to “have regard to” these principles in their work with children in care, the vague language makes them difficult to monitor and measure. Many young people viewed them as symbolic rather than substantive; they were seen as more of a compliance checklist than a lived commitment. To address this, the APPG recommended amending the existing principles to be more action-focused and specific, ensuring that organisations are held accountable for tangible outcomes.

The ‘parenting’ in corporate parenting is underdeveloped: While local authorities have invested heavily in systems, protocols, and safeguarding measures – the ‘corporate’ side – many young people feel that the ‘parenting’ aspect remains underdeveloped. Respondents called for a more aspirational and relational approach, where corporate parents push young people to pursue long-term goals, celebrate their achievements, and provide sustained emotional support. Several also highlighted the stigma and bias they experienced from professionals in education, health, and justice systems, and advocated for mandatory trauma-informed training across all corporate parenting bodies.

Limited cross sector engagement: While local authorities carry the main legal responsibility for corporate parenting, engaging other public sector organisations, such as police, health services, and employment agencies, has proven difficult. This limited collaboration has restricted the model’s effectiveness and has been a major driver behind proposals to broaden the scope of corporate parenting across government.

To address these challenges, the APPG put forward 14 recommendations to strengthen and expand corporate parenting across the UK. Key proposals include:

• Introducing legislation to extend corporate parenting duties beyond local councils to include a wider range of public sector bodies.
• Revising the corporate parenting principles to be more measurable and action oriented.
•  Establishing an independent organisation to provide training, guidance, and support to new and existing corporate parents.
•  Mandating regular reporting, requiring all corporate parents to publish parenting plans and progress reports every three years.

The future of corporate parenting in the UK

The above findings helped to create the Stable Homes, Built on Love strategy – the UK government’s plan to improve social services for children and young people. Stable Homes, Built on Love has committed to extending the corporate parenting duties of local authorities/councils to other public sector organisations. The councils will still play a primary role in corporate parenting, but responsibilities will also extend to government departments such as the NHS, police, and the Department for Work and Pensions. This system of corporate parenting was implemented in Scotland almost a decade ago, with 26 public bodies currently elected as the corporate parents of children and young people in care. A practical example of the implementation of broadened corporate parenting is the health department having responsibility for timely health assessments of children in care, and schools being responsible for supporting children in care academically.

Widening the scope of corporate parenting outside of councils in the UK is an attempt to increase awareness and understanding across services with the aim of improving the quality of care received by young people. It is also hoped to:

• Improve accountability by creating a collective duty for a range of public bodies – including health, education, and housing – to support children in care.
• Increase legal and moral responsibility through a formalised process.
• Create more holistic supports by encouraging a multi-agency approach.
• Create greater focus on human rights by showing that all children deserve equal access to care and supports across departments and sectors.

Comparison of child protection legislation in Victoria and the UK

The child protection system in Victoria is governed by the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, along with other legislation. A single department – the Child Protection Service in Department of Families, Fairness and Housing – is the legal guardian of children who are not able to live with their families, as opposed to the UK’s new corporate parenting approach based on a whole-of-government, whole-of-society approach. The Victorian system predominately employs a risk management framework to ensure the immediate safety of children and families through foster care, kinship care or residential care. There is less emphasis on broad, multi-agency responsibility than in the UK and less onus on the state to safeguard the emotional, educational, and social development of children.

In the UK, there is considerable focus on the long-term outcomes for children and in reducing the level of disadvantage that children in care face. Victoria, on the other hand, has more emphasis on ensuring the immediate safety of the child and their family, using a more individualised, case-based approach.

Potential outcomes of implementing corporate parenting in Victoria

Victoria’s child and family welfare system could stand to gain a host of benefits if corporate parenting were to be implemented. Some of which include:

• Improved coordination and collaboration: A corporate parenting model would require multiple agencies such as education, health, housing, and justice, to work together systematically, ensuring that children in care receive more consistent and integrated support.
• Greater accountability for public bodies: By assigning legal responsibility for outcomes to public institutions, corporate parenting creates clearer lines of accountability and makes it harder for agencies to ‘pass the buck’.
• A shift in focus to long-term wellbeing: Corporate parenting encourages services to think beyond immediate safety and placement needs, prioritising stability, education, and emotional development over the course of a child’s life.
• Improved life outcomes for children in care: When agencies act with the urgency and care of a parent, children are more likely to receive the tailored, ongoing support that improves education, health, and employment outcomes.
• Increased training and support for carers: Carers benefit from a system where their role is recognised and supported by a broader professional network, leading to more confident and effective caregiving.
• A cultural shift towards collective responsibility: The corporate parenting approach reframes children in care as a shared community responsibility, promoting empathy and commitment across government and society.
• Improved data sharing and monitoring: To act effectively as corporate parents, agencies must track and share data, leading to more responsive services and better-informed decision-making.
• A move towards stronger legal protections and rights for children: Embedding corporate parenting in law would strengthen the rights of children in care, giving them legal recourse when their needs aren’t met.
• Stronger resource allocation and implementation challenges: Adopting this model requires upfront investment in training, systems, and workforce capacity – challenges that must be addressed to ensure lasting change.

The UK’s experience with corporate parenting offers a roadmap, complete with its milestones and missteps, for jurisdictions like Victoria. Corporate parenting offers the potential for a cultural shift away from bureaucratic oversight and towards cross-sector collaboration and advocacy for children’s human and legal rights.

We believe it’s a reform worth considering.