“placement noun: the act of putting something or someone somewhere.”
– Cambridge dictionary [1]
I’m generally a fan of the Care Act statutory guidance. I frequently quote it in meetings and blog posts as a reminder that we have excellent legislation that promotes and protects our right to an ordinary life. The guidance translates and explains the law in a pretty clear and relatively easy to read and understand way. But some parts, especially the case studies, make me squirm, and the way the guidance refers to ‘placing’ and ‘placements’ particularly makes me go hmmm.
These terms – and my feelings towards them – are, of course, not confined just to this document.
Placement is one of my top ‘hmmm words’, because it sums up so much about what is wrong with our thinking and practice in social care.
The dictionary definition pretty much explains why.
The act of putting something or someone somewhere.
The act of putting
The word placement always makes me think of chess. I don’t know how to play chess – I’m more of a backgammon girl – but the term brings to mind fingers tightening around a chess piece after some deliberation (an assessment, forms, a panel, an MDT), hesitating slightly, maybe, (mental capacity assessment, best interests decision… (in whose best interests?)) then lifting and shifting the piece across the board (placing) – or off it altogether (an out-of-area placement).
There are references in the Care Act guidance to “Donna” / “David” / “Lucille” / “Frances” / “people” / “individuals” / “a person” / “a looked after child” / “someone” / “Ms W” / “PH” / “those”… being variously placed in “a care home”, “a care home for young people with disabilities”, “a more expensive setting”, “with foster carers”, “out of area temporarily”, “in accommodation out of area”, “in cross-border residential care”, “with a provider” and, of course, “on a waiting list”.
In social care, people don’t move house. We move people. We ‘place’, ‘transfer’, ‘discharge’, ‘admit’, and ‘refer’ people.
The act of putting.
Even when we talk about people living ‘at home’, our language still suggests we make the decisions. We pull the strings.
We aim to ‘keep’ people at home. We ‘enable’ people to ‘stay at home’ for ‘as long as possible’. We ‘allow’ people to live in their own home ‘for longer’.
Do we ever actually ask people where they want to live, or what ‘home’ means to them?
…something or someone…
“You can refer to a home that is found for someone who is unable to look after themselves, for example a child, as a placement.”
– Collins Dictionary [2]
The Social Care Future vision starts, “We all want to live in the place we call home…” [3] But our language is about others.
Those.
Them.
“The individual being placed”. “The individual placed”. “Those who are being placed”. “Those who have already been placed”. “Placed or supported children.”
The dictionary definition of ‘someone’ is “a single person when you do not know who they are or when it is not important who they are” [4], which says it all.
Maybe it’s easier to ‘place’ people when we don’t recognise them as humans? When we don’t know them as people? When it’s not important who they are?
A LAS number.
A case.
Someone.
Something.
No one.
Nothing.
…somewhere
Outside social care serviceland, if you happened to be reading a document that mentioned “placement within an authority’s own area”, “out-of-county placements”, “out-of-area placements”, “cross-border placements”, “the on-going management of the placement”, “the practicalities of day-to-day management of a placement”, “day-to-day placement management functions”, “on-going placement management” and how “authorities should record the number of placements made into their area from other territories of the UK”, you’d probably be looking at a policy or procedure relating to shipping. Containers. Distribution.
It’s the language of transactions.
“You will ensure that all cases are progressed efficiently through the system within this fast paced environment.” [5]
The social care sorting office.
The guidance refers to “a care home placement”, “placement into care home accommodation (‘a residential placement’)”, “cross-border residential placements”, “foster placements”, “placement in NHS-funded provision”.
Placements. Accommodation. Arrangements. Units. Schemes. Properties. Developments. Beds. Care settings. Housing with support. Residential care. Bedded care facilities. A vacancy. A void.
Somewhere to put someone.
Somewhere nobody calls home.
My least favourite quote in the guidance is this one:
“Lucille develops a need for a care home placement.”
A need for a care home placement? I don’t recall seeing that in Maslow’s hierarchy. Is that the top of the triangle? The ultimate destination, when “as long as possible” is no longer possible?
Outrageous.
If this was about finding better words – the ‘right’ words – the simple switch would be to replace ‘placed in’ with ‘chose to move to’. To remove ‘placement’ in favour of ‘home’. But we’re already too complicit in the deceptive adoption of words and phrases that imply humanity relationships choice control while the cogs of the machine keep turning. While “business [is] proceeding as usual: preserving one’s turf, creating dependencies, and protecting a livelihood earned by catering to people’s needs, deficiencies and problems.” [6]
As ever, this is not a case of words to avoid and words to use instead.
As always, it’s about being curious.
So next time you find yourself hearing, or reading, or writing, or saying ‘was placed’, ‘is being placed’, ‘will be placed’… ask yourself who made this decision? Was there a choice? Is that ok? “Would I want or accept that for me or someone I love?’. [7]
And next time you find yourself hearing, or reading, or writing, or saying ‘placement’, think how that aligns with the Social Care Future vision.
We all want to live in the place we call home.
References
[1] Placement, Cambridge Dictionary
[2] Placement, Collins Dictionary
[4] Someone, Cambridge Dictionary
[5] From a social work job advert, first quoted in Recruiting robots: the language of social work job adverts, Bryony Shannon, Rewriting social care, 24 July 2021
[6] No more throw-away people: the co-production imperative, Edgar Cahn, Essential Books, 2000
[7] The five tests, Gloriously Ordinary Lives
All the other quotes in this blog post are from the Care and support statutory guidance, Department of Health and Social Care, GOV.UK, Updated 22 July 2025
Rewriting social care 
Leave a comment