Scottish Government

Evaluation of Secure Accommodation Second Interim Report

Social Work Research Centre, University of Stirling
Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care, University of Strathclyde
Glasgow Centre for the Child and Society, University of Glasgow

June 2004

This document is also available in pdf format (71k)

The views expressed in the report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Executive or any other organisation(s) by which the author(s) is/are employed.

The Scottish Executive is making this interim research report available on-line in order to provide access to its contents for those interested in the subject. The Executive commissioned the research but has not exercised editorial control over the report.

The Executive has not published this report in hard copy, but was placed on The Scottish Executive on 15 April 2005 by Information, Analysis & Communication Division, Scottish Executive Education Department, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ on behalf of Youth Justice & Children's Hearings Division. For further enquiries e-mail about this specific publication, or recs.admin@scotland.gsi.gov.uk (telephone 0131-244-0316) with any general enquiries about other education research publications by IAC Division.

1. Introduction

1.1. This is the second report of the three year study on secure care accommodation. It provides a summary of work undertaken since the last report was submitted in November 2003, reports the results of the survey of secure authorisations and summarises preliminary themes emerging from interviews with key decision makers, including reporters, panel chairs, senior social work managers and front line senior social workers. These interviews have not all been completed, nor has any detailed analysis yet been undertaken, so the issues identified are highlighted only as preliminary findings.

1.2. In addition to the core research team, three others have contributed to the study in recent months. These are: MB (Stirling) who carried out the interviews with reporters and panel chairs; LH (Strathclyde) who is recruiting and undertaking field work in relation to part of the alternative sample; SM (Stirling) who is entering data from questionnaires completed by social workers and key workers.

2. Work Undertaken

2.1 In the seven months since the last report was submitted there has been progress on all aspects of the study. In addition the research team has been commissioned by the Justice Department to carry out a survey of young people placed in secure accommodation on remand. Work on this is underway and is to be completed by the end of August 2004.

2.2 Each aspect of the main study has progressed as follows:

The secure sample

2.3 A total of 54 young people have been recruited to the secure sample. Initial information has been obtained on all of the sample and the first stage follow-up has been carried out in relation to approximately two-thirds. It was initially envisaged that social workers would complete questionnaires about young people's progress, but in practice most information is being obtained through telephone or personal contact with the social worker. This increases the response rate, while also yielding valuable additional insight into young people's circumstances.

2.4 Records based data on this sample has been entered in SPSS, whilst the information from social workers' and key workers' initial questionnaires is currently being entered.

The alternative sample

2.5 Recruiting the alternative sample has continued to present quite a challenge. The aim is to recruit 30, of whom half are supported in the community and half in a residential setting. The Strathclyde section of the research team has taken on responsibility for recruiting young people sustained in residential provision.

2.6 Letters have been sent to and contact made with a wide range of resources, but, with the exception of Includem, projects and residential establishments have been able to identify very few young people who meet our criteria of: a) having been seriously considered for admission to secure accommodation; and b) having been sustained outwith secure provision for at least six months. Recruitment has been more effective when the research team has known about specific young people and have then asked appropriate staff to recruit them.

2.7 To date, 13 young people supported in the community have been recruited, while consent in being sought from a further five. Among young people sustained in an open residential setting, the number recruited is two. Consent is currently being sought from an additional thirteen young people. This part of the study is retrospective, so recruitment can continue until the end of 2004.

Cost Analysis

2.8 In March a meeting was held with the costs consultant to the study to plan the work related to costs. Much of this will be based on detailed case studies of six young people from the secure sample and six from the alternative sample. The intention is to examine and compare both the costs of services and how cost considerations influence decisions. Account will be taken of young people's routes through a range of services and consideration given to how decisions made at one point in a young person's life might have resulted in greater or less expenditure in the future. In relation to the case studies, the intention is to obtain information from the social worker and/or front-line manager. In addition there will be interviews with staff and finance managers in 4-6 authorities about policy and practice in relation to cost considerations and placement choice.

2.9 In addition to this work , key decision makers are being asked some questions about cost considerations in interviews currently underway with social work managers.

Interviews with Key Decision Makers

2.10 The purpose of the these interviews is to explore key decision makers' views in relation to:

• expectations of what secure accommodation should provide
• extent to which expectations are met
• arrangements for accessing secure places
• thresholds and considerations when placing a young person in secure accommodation
• definitions and use of 'alternatives' to secure accommodation
• influence of costs on decision making.

2.11 Interviews are being held with reporters, panel chairs, senior social work managers and first line managers. Eight authorities were selected for this part of the research as follows: Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Dundee, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, West Lothian. These were selected to provide geographical spread and to encompass authorities where differing patterns of the use of secure accommodation had been identified from our experience of recruiting the main sample and from the survey of secure authorisations. In addition to the main interview, vignettes are used to explore differences in expected response in four common situations.

2.12 Section 3 of this report provides a summary of responses and themes from interviews with reporters and panel chairs, while section 4 highlights key points from the interviews with social work managers completed to date. Interviews with social work managers are not yet complete and no detailed analysis of transcripts has yet been carried out.

Survey of Secure Authorisations

2.13 This has been completed and is reported in section 5.

3. Interim Feedback from Interviews with Reporters and Panel Chairs

3.1 In-depth interviews were conducted with nine reporters and eight panel chairs in eight local authorities, with two of the reporters covering different areas of one of the larger local authorities. Names of potential respondents were given to the research team by the Research Officer for the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA), in the case of reporters and by the Scottish Executive's Education Department, in the case of panel chairs. Interviews were conducted in respondents' own homes, on business premises or in SCRA offices and lasted, on average, one and a half hours.

The Use of Secure Accommodation

Main functions of secure accommodation

3.2 The main functions of secure units for both reporters and panel chairs were protection/safety (both of the young person and the public), a means of holding onto young people at a point of crisis (what one reporter referred to as 'benign containment') and the opportunity to give a young person and their families a 'breathing space' during which to break a downward spiral. The essential elements of secure accommodation, cited by both reporters and panel chairs in order of priority, were: offering a safe, protected and secure environment; education; health; a care package based on an individual assessment; and therapeutic work on emotional/behavioural problems and offending.

3.3 When asked if secure units actually fulfilled these functions currently, the majority felt not, suggesting that availability of places when needed was a major obstacle. Specialist services were also lacking (e.g., drugs advice/rehabilitation, education) as was a flexible and proactive use of existing resources within secure establishments.

Main issues relating to the use of secure accommodation

3.4 The availability of secure accommodation at a time of crisis - as opposed to the number of beds per se - was an issue for the majority of reporters and panel chairs. Many prefaced their concern with the suggestion that 'more beds' might cause net-widening and up-tariffing. However, several thought that a short-term 'holding mechanism' was needed, either nationally or locally, where young people in crisis could be accommodated for a matter of days whilst community or other alternatives were investigated. A second issue for both reporters and panel chairs was the distance of secure units from the young person's home area (especially if young people had to be placed in specialist units in England because of lack of availability in Scotland). A third issue was the question of whether or not young people meet the criteria (see below, under Decision making). Finally, panel chairs in particular noted that Hearings can authorise secure but not implement it - in other words, they may deem it necessary but cannot guarantee that it will happen. Disagreements with social work because of a lack of funding or availability meant that panel members were not confident that authorisation necessarily meant implementation. Some went as far as to suggest that the law should perhaps be changed to enable Hearings not only to authorise but also to enforce decisions relating to the use of secure accommodation.

Decision making

3.5 Reporters see their role in hearing decision-making as purely a logistical one, giving advice on the criteria and obtaining legal representation for young people being considered for secure accommodation. Both reporters and panel chairs felt there were varying levels of inconsistency in decision making between panel members and social workers, with levels of consistency varying between 50-90 per cent of cases. The most inconsistency arose when panel members argued for secure when they deemed the risk too great to maintain the young person in the community, given limited alternatives. On the rare occasion that a social work recommendation for secure was turned down by panel members, the inconsistency arose mainly because of a change of circumstances on the day of the hearing (bearing in mind that social work reports tend to have been written some time before the actual hearing when the young person's circumstances may have been more critical).

3.6 The lack of availability of places influencing a panel's decision not to consider secure accommodation was strongly denied by the majority of both reporters and panel members, since their role was to authorise a warrant, irrespective of social work resources. Safeguarders were not deemed to be highly influential in cases being considered for secure accommodation, with reporters in particular stressing the greater influence of legal representatives rather than safeguarders (the latter of whom were deemed to be influential for younger children with different problems to those arising for young people being considered for secure accommodation).

3.7 The criteria for secure, whilst being quite rigid, were interpreted with discretion by most reporters and panel chairs. This was demonstrated both in the question of whether all young people who meet the criteria will be considered for secure and in the vignette exercise, with all reporters and the majority of panel chairs suggesting that other factors need to be taken into account, irrespective of meeting the formal criteria. These other factors included: changed circumstances or behaviour of the young person; whether or not a young person presented an immediate risk/danger; secure not being in the young person's best interests; alternatives being available in the community; the deliberations of the screening group; a lack of available bed spaces; or the secure environment or its distance from the young person's family being seen as detrimental to the young person's welfare. These caveats were summed up by one reporter as: 'Just meeting the criteria doesn't mean you're an appropriate candidate [for secure]'.

3.8 When asked what alternatives to secure accommodation should offer, both reporters and panel chairs suggested an intensive and proactive form of intervention, either residential or community-based. Specialist foster carers were seen as a necessary development in this regard. Specific services required included education (preferably vocational and tailor-made) and addressing problems such as offending and drug misuse. Such alternatives should also allow for a consistent, stable and safe environment for young people. The majority of respondents felt that earlier intervention was important, as was aftercare support, but that neither of these on their own constituted a strict 'alternative' to secure. A minority of respondents could think of no alternative resources in their area, but the majority thought that what few alternatives were identifiable in their area already had, or once better established could have, a positive impact in reducing the use of secure accommodation. However, the general impression was that there were few such resources currently available and that often secure accommodation (or its alternatives) were 'too little, too late'.

3.9 The majority of respondents implied that there was a 'tariff' of options for young people, which should be tried before resorting to admission to secure units. These started with voluntary supervision, through compulsory measures of care - home supervision, community-based packages of intervention, young people's units and residential schools - with the top rung of the ladder being secure accommodation.

Aftercare Arrangements

3.10 The decision as to whether or not a secure placement should end is dependent on the secure unit staff or social worker referring the matter back to a review hearing and presenting the case for discharge. Reporters were unanimous in stating that the criteria for secure care had to no longer apply if a young person was discharged and that the second most important consideration was whether aftercare arrangements were in place. This latter consideration was the predominant one for panel chairs also. The main aftercare options were returning to where the young person was accommodated prior to entering secure care, usually the family home or young people's unit (deemed, however, not to be an ideal option for most reporters and panel chairs). More favoured options were a close support unit, specialist foster carers or packages provided by social work department throughcare or aftercare teams, including supported accommodation where appropriate.

3.11 The elements which were seen as essential in any aftercare service were: appropriate accommodation, education and employment opportunities, intervention to reduce offending or drug use and developing independent living skills. Both reporters and panel chairs were doubtful that such services were currently in place in their respective local authorities, but reporters were more optimistic that the situation was improving. However, the level of scepticism about services generally, not just in relation to aftercare, was demonstrated in the following recommendations.

3.12 The ideal scenario portrayed in the report 'A Secure Remedy' - of young people being sustained in an open setting but with secure places available if required - had not yet been reached, according to the majority of respondents. The predominant reasons for this were inadequate resources and the lack of secure places. When asked how secure accommodation could be improved, reporters suggested greater availability of places, smaller localised units and better inter-agency working. Panel chairs cited availability of places, increased secure staff levels and training and better on-site educational facilities.

3.13 When asked how alternatives to secure could be improved, reporters wanted more resources put into training (for example, of panel members re. criteria; of social workers re. assessments; of residential staff and in relation to specialisms). They also wanted smaller residential units, earlier intervention and tailored, intensive support for young people. Panel chairs wanted more resources and funding generally, secure unit facilities but in an open setting, intensive support, earlier intervention and the recruitment of more specialist foster carers.

Vignette Exercise

3.14 In the early stages of fieldwork, it became apparent that both reporters and panel chairs felt it inappropriate to ask them certain questions regarding the operation and impact of secure care interventions, since these respondents rarely knew about the work undertaken with individual young people referred (although this in itself is perhaps an issue worthy of discussion in relation to the extent that panels can monitor the progress of placements). Thus, only questions 1, 4, 6 and 7 were asked of these respondents - namely, the likelihood of admission, the likely response by the young person to admission, the likely outcome in three years' time, and expected practice in relation to the local authority in question. All respondents found the exercise difficult to undertake, given its hypothetical nature and the limited information available, and responses varied considerably between individuals. Whilst no obvious issues have emerged from an early and superficial exploration of the vignette exercise, these findings will be presented in depth within the final report.

4. Interim Feedback from Interviews with Social Work Managers and Senior Social Workers

4.1 Interviews have been arranged with social work managers and senior social workers from eight local authorities to discuss issues relating to the use of secure accommodation and alternative provisions, and to identify the processes underpinning decision-making in this area. At the time of writing, interviews had been conducted with four social work managers and one senior social worker. Social work managers included two Heads of Children and Families and Criminal Justice, and two Placement Managers. The remaining interviews have been arranged to fit in with the timetables of respondents. Given that this interim feedback is based on respondents from four local authorities, the issues which are identified should be viewed as preliminary rather than conclusive. At this stage, emerging themes have been highlighted and will be analysed and discussed when all the responses have been collated.

Main functions of secure accommodation

4.2 Social work managers considered the function of secure accommodation as being to provide intensive support for a young person over a short period of time in order to manage the risks that the young person may present to themselves and others within the community. There was a view that secure accommodation did not always meet expectations due to either difficulty in obtaining places for young people who require a secure placement or because the units themselves do not always deliver the intensive care that the young person may require.

4.3 All respondents indicated that they had considerable difficulty in obtaining places in secure accommodation at the time they were needed. This could lead to young people being sustained in the community or open residential units with additional resources put in place. While this could sometimes offset the need for a secure placement, it could also create major difficulties for staff and young people while a place was awaited, particularly if the young person was sustained in a children's unit. Concerns were expressed about the gulf between secure accommodation and children's units, with few real resources in-between for young people either going into or coming out of secure accommodation.

4.4 Despite the procedures local authorities had in place for obtaining placements, it did appear that personal working relationships between local authority personnel and secure units could impact on the ease with which young people could be placed. More populous local authorities in the central belt clearly had smoother access to secure accommodation than more rural local authorities.

4.5 While there was a view that more secure places may be needed (which were locally based) greater emphasis was placed by respondents on the need to use secure units appropriately with the application of strict criteria to ensure places were only being used where absolutely necessary. Respondents considered that a centralised procedure for finding a secure place (central clearing place for vacancies and reserve list) and standard admission form would be helpful.

4.6 Respondents indicated that in reality, there would appear to be very few services which operate as a direct 'alternative' to secure accommodation, but acknowledged that services providing early-interventions and/or after-care provisions were available but still very much in demand.

4.7 In addition, the following issues were noted:

More preventative resources are required.

• Funding for local authorities is required to develop a variety of alternatives (e.g. specialist fostering, group care) and the standardisation of residential childcare.
• Close support units don't always provide alternative to secure
• Some children's units (particularly in private/voluntary sector) will refuse to take particular young people - the young person's situation may then deteriorate until the need for secure accommodation is acknowledged
• Multi-agency working is considered crucial in providing a range of interventions to avoid the need for secure accommodation.

Need for continuum of services, including access to specialist services

• Need for longer term support (semi-security for therapeutic work before placement back in community)
• Need for specialist resources to deal with addiction, mental health, prostitution. Ability of secure units to deal with these issues is variable and community resources are often lacking.
• After-care support, addiction and mental health are key areas requiring additional resources.
• Plans for moving a young person out of secure will depend on the available resources.

Staffing and Interagency collaboration

• Recruitment of fieldwork staff is a major problem for local authorities and, although increased funding has become available, the retention and recruitment of qualified staff is an issue.
• Social work assessments can be skewed by anxieties about risk, accordingly there is a need to get other agencies on board in responding to the needs of young people. Local authorities appear to me moving towards a more multi-agency approach in this respect.

5 Survey of Secure Authorisations

Rationale for the Survey

5.1 During the recruitment phase of the research it became evident that fewer young people than had been anticipated were being sustained in open settings after reaching a point when they had been made subject to or seriously considered for secure authorisation. Though a number of projects were providing 'alternatives to secure', most were either trying to prevent young people reaching a point where secure accommodation was required, or were providing aftercare, sometimes allowing young people to leave the secure unit sooner than would otherwise have been the case.

5.2 Prior information available to the Scottish Executive had indicated that each year about 90 young people were made subject to secure authorisation, but not placed in a secure setting. This group of young people would potentially have formed an appropriate comparison sample, yet they had not been identified in the researchers' contacts with a wide range of local authorities and voluntary organisations. The survey reported here was carried out to explore this apparent inconsistency. Information was obtained on all young people made subject to secure authorisation during the six months from 1st July till 31st December and subsequent placements.

Methods and Quality of Data

5.3 In order to maximise accuracy, the same information was requested from SCRA and from all local authorities. Each were asked to provide brief details of young people made subject to secure authorisation by a children's panel during the period July-December 2003. The return date was 20th February 2004. Initials and dates of birth were provided to allow for cross referencing across the two sets of information. Any discrepancies between SCRA and local authority returns were checked out with one or both agencies until a consistent picture emerged.

5.4 Some of these discrepancies arose from the fact that the SCRA data in most areas included renewals of secure authorisations, even if the placement had started before the study period. Only nine local authorities included information about renewals, so in the interests of consistency, and since the original intention had been to limit the survey to new admissions, these young people (n= 27) were removed from the main analysis.

5.5 As far as could be gleaned from the process of eliciting the data from and checking it with local authorities, only a few authorities had a centralised system for recording all secure authorisations, irrespective of whether a secure placement was made. More usually, requests for this information had to be sent to area teams. A number of authorities indicated that our request for this information had prompted them to develop a system for centralised data collection.

5.6 Local authorities were sent a two page questionnaire requesting brief information on each young person made subject to secure authorisation during the relevant period (see Appendix 1). These were completed as requested by 19 of the 23 local authorities who returned information on young people. The remaining four authorities sent only partial information in a format which presumably corresponded more readily with their own data collation systems. Consequently information on some variables is incomplete. Nine authorities confirmed that no secure authorisations had been made during the survey period and this corresponded with information from SCRA.

5.7 Having checked the accuracy of the data, it was analysed using SPSS.

5.8 This report begins by outlining the distribution by local authority of a) all young people subject to secure authorisation and b) the percentage admitted to secure accommodation. Thereafter, beginning with young people sustained in the community or an open residential setting, the characteristics and circumstances of the two groups are reported separately then compared. Finally some implications for the wider study are briefly considered.

Young People made Subject to Secure Authorisation by Local Authority

5.9 A total of 104 young people, 59 boys and 45 girls, had been made subject to secure authorisation by a children's panel during the study period, of whom 79 had been placed in secure accommodation by the time the survey forms were completed. The remaining 25, i.e. just under a quarter, had remained in the community or in an open residential setting. Table 1 shows the spread of authorisations and numbers admitted to secure accommodation across local authorities:

Table 1: Secure Authorisations by Local Authorities

5.10 During the survey period, at least one secure authorisation had been made in 23 local authorities. In ten of these 23 authorities, at least one young person made subject to secure accommodation had not been placed in a secure setting at the point when the survey return was completed.

5.11 It is beyond the remit of this part of the study to give detailed consideration to differences in thresholds and agency decision making in relation to secure. This is the subject of interviews currently being undertaken with reporter, panel members and agency decision makers. However, since varying levels in the use of secure shape the overall profiles presented here, some comment about key distinctions across authorities is warranted. Two-thirds of all authorisations were made in five authorities, and comparison is limited to these: Dundee, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, West Lothian. Table 1 indicated that, during the survey period, there was variation in the level of implementation of secure authorisations among these five main users of secure services. Whilst Dundee and Falkirk placed all relevant young people in secure, Glasgow placed about three quarters and Edinburgh and West Lothian approximately two thirds.

5.12 These comparisons can only offer a rough guide to different usage of secure accommodation across local authorities, especially as numbers are small and may reflect particular circumstances in the months during which the survey was carried out. More understanding of what lies behind these differences is expected to emerge from the interviews currently being carried out with key decision makers.

Young people made subject to secure authorisation but sustained in an open setting

Characteristics

5.13 A total of 25 young people, 15 males and 10 females, were identified as having been made subject to secure authorisation but sustained in an open setting. Eight were from Edinburgh and five from Glasgow. North Lanarkshire, North Ayrshire, Stirling and West Lothian were each responsible for two, and Aberdeen, Inverclyde, South Ayrshire and West Dunbartonshire for one.

5.14 They ranged in age from 12 to 17 years, with almost a quarter (n=6) aged 12 or 13. The age spread for boys and girls is detailed in Table 2:

5.15 With the exception of September during which only one had been made, the authorisations were evenly spread across the six months of the study period.

The Secure Authorisations

5.16 A warrant had been issued in respect of 20 young people, while in four instances a secure condition had been added to a residential requirement (information on one young person was missing).

5.17 Of the 20 warrants, three had been continued once, two when the first warrant expired and one after a gap of a few weeks. None had been continued more than once. In two instances the secure authorisation attached to a residential supervision requirement was retained (after three months) because this was helping the young person to control his or her behaviour.

5.18 Details of the grounds for the secure authorisation were provided in relation to 23 young people, but these were described very briefly, so only provide a rough guide as to what the concerns were. In one case the young person was described by the social worker as having committed a particularly 'nasty' crime, but social work managers had been clear that he did not meet secure criteria. An additional two young men were offending in the community and this was cited as contributing to the ground for the secure authorisation. In the remaining 20 cases the most common concern was that young people were running away from their current placement and were consequently at risk. In relation to girls, worries typically centred around sexual behaviour and vulnerability. Similar concerns about risk in the community applied to three boys. Violence or disruptive behaviour in their current placement was mentioned as an issue for six boys. Drug or alcohol misuse was mentioned in relation to only three young people, but it is likely that substance misuse is more common and that, in the brief details provided, concerns about this were subsumed under more general references to risk taking behaviour.

5.19 Information on placement following the secure authorisation was available in relation to 22 young people. Most had been accommodated in a form of residential care, either a residential unit (11), residential school (6), or close support unit (2), but two had remained at home and one in foster care. In most instances there had been no change of placement. Based on follow-up contact with social workers we were informed that three of the 22 young people (2 boys from Glasgow and one girl from Stirling) had been admitted to secure accommodation after the survey forms had been returned, in each case by the end of May 2004.

Reasons why no secure placement had been made

5.20 Reasons why no secure placement had been made had been made were given in respect of 22 the young people. These were classified as follows:

5.21 Of the eleven whose situation had improved before a place became available, six were girls and five were boys. They spanned the age range from 12 to 16. Nine did not have a warrant renewed, while in two cases the warrant was renewed once. Thus for most young people the risks had reduced within three weeks. In some instances it was suggested that the impending threat of secure placement helped the young person control their behaviour. Whatever the circumstances, a children's hearing had decided, in most instances within three weeks, that the young person no longer met secure criteria. At the time the survey was undertaken, their current placements were as follows:

5.22 As far as is known, only one of these young people had been admitted to secure accommodation by the end of May 2004.

5.23 For other young people, social work managers had decided that the young person either did not meet secure criteria (3) or that a placement in secure accommodation would not be in the young person's best interests (4). Those who were not thought to meet secure criteria were all boys: one remained in the residential school where he was difficult to manage and two stayed at home. We learned later that the boy sustained in residential school had been admitted to secure accommodation after the end of the survey period. Of the four young people for whom social work staff decided secure placement would not be in their interests, three were male and one female. They ranged in age from 13-15. In each case it was thought that the young person would be vulnerable in secure accommodation and that he or she should be sustained in an open placement with increased support. Two were in a residential school and two in a children's unit.

5.24 For four young people, three 15 year old boys and one 14 year old girl, no placement had been available, but continued to be required. The girl had been admitted to secure by the end of May 2004. As far as we know, one boy remained in a children's unit, one in a residential school, and one went home, then moved to a residential school.

Young People admitted to secure accommodation

5.25 A total of 79 young people, 44 boys and 35 girls, had been admitted to secure accommodation. In terms of age and gender the distribution was as follows:

Table 3: Young People Admitted to Secure Accommodation by Age and Gender

Authorisations and Admissions

5.26 Details of the legal authorisation were not always provided, but based on the information from local authorities and SCRA, it seemed that in just over a quarter of instances a secure condition was added to an existing supervision requirement, with a warrant being issued for the remainder. Where a warrant had been issued, the SCRA information usually indicated that this had been under sections 66 (1)(a) and 66 (2) (b), with a secure condition added.

5.27 A total of 16 young people had been first admitted to secure accommodation on the authority of the chief social work officer. All 16 young people admitted by the administrative route had been placed in a secure unit on the same day as the authorisation was made.

5.28 The remaining 63 young people had been admitted to secure accommodation following a children's panel's decision. Information on the gap between authorisation and placement was available in relation to 53. Thirty-five (66%) had been admitted to secure accommodation on the day the hearing made the authorisation. Of the 18 who were not admitted on the day of the hearing, half (n=9) were admitted within a week, three having been found a place within one day. Five young people had awaited a placement for more than three weeks, one for three months. Of those who had waited over three weeks for a placement, two were from Edinburgh and two from West Lothian. A third from West Lothian had been admitted to a secure unit in England until a Scottish place became available. An additional three young people, two girls and one boy, had been admitted to English units because no Scottish places were available.

5.29 In Table 4, details are summarised of the gap between authorisation and placement for the 69 young people on whom information was available:

Table 4 : Gap between secure authorisation and placement (Information on 69 of 79)

Admitted on the same day [1] 51 (74%)

Admitted within a week 9 (13%)

Admitted within three weeks 4 (6%)

Admitted within 3 weeks- 3 months [2] 5 (7%)

Total 69

5.30 Typically 12-14 young people were admitted to secure accommodation during each of the six months of the calendar year, with a peak of 18 in July and the smallest number (9) in November.

5.31 On 50 young people, some information was provided by social workers on the reasons for the secure placement, though the details were very limited [3]. This indicated that all but five young people were considered to present a risk to themselves, 33 were frequently absconding and 34 were presenting a danger to others. In the vast majority of cases secure accommodation was considered necessary for welfare reasons, even if the young person had also been involved in some offending.

5.32 At the time when the survey was completed, 43 of the young people (55%) were still in secure accommodation, with a further three having been discharged and readmitted. Of the 33 who had returned to the community or an open residential setting, 21 (66%) had had just one placement since being discharged. Of these 21, seven had moved on to a close support unit and seven to a parent or other family member, four were in a residential unit, two in residential school and one in foster care. Only three young people had had more than two placements since leaving. There were indications of most instability among older teenagers moving to hostels or B&B. Otherwise moves had mostly been within the residential sector.

Comparison of characteristics of young people admitted to secure accommodation and those who remained in an open setting.

5.33 Comparison of the characteristics of both subgroups indicated no significant gender bias. Girls accounted for 43% of the young people made subject to authorisations, 44% of admissions and 40% of the group who remained in an open setting.

5.34 There were indications that young people in certain age groups were more or less likely to be admitted, though with the small numbers involved, these are reported as interesting trends, rather than because they have any statistical significance. Not surprisingly, young people aged 11-12 were least likely to be admitted, with only 2 of the 6 made subject to secure authorisation having been placed in a secure setting. This presumably reflects an unwillingness to place younger children in this setting and vigorous efforts to find alternatives. However the situation with 13 year olds was somewhat different, with 92% of this age group, including all girls, being admitted. Although no gender bias was noted over the whole sample, there were indications that among this younger age group, girls at risk were very likely to be admitted to secure. Of girls aged 11-13 made subject to secure authorisation, all but one of thirteen (92%) had been placed in a secure unit. Among boys in the same age group, the proportion admitted was 72% (n= 13 of 18).

5.35 Turning to the older age groups, the trend was to some extent reversed, with 82% of boys and 75% of girls aged 15 and over being admitted to secure accommodation. Age 14 seemed to mark the breakeven point, with the secure authorisation being implemented in relation to approximately two thirds of both males (62%) and females (66%). The significance of this trend and extent to which it is typical will be assessed through wider findings from the study. Details of comparison of the two groups by age and gender are in Table 5

Table 5: Authorisations and Admissions by Age and Gender

5.36 As noted earlier, information provided on the grounds for the secure authorisation was sparse, so no useful comparison between the groups can be made on this basis.

Significance of the survey findings for the main study

5.38 With regard to explaining why it proved difficult to recruit a comparison sample, the survey findings indicate that the reasons were three-fold:

1) numbers involved are lower than had originally been thought;

2) most local authorities did not collate information on young people made subject to secure authorisation but not admitted to secure accommodation, so would not have been able to identify suitable candidates for the comparison sample;

3) most young people made subject to secure authorisations but sustained in the community were not in contact with intensive support services. More usually they were sustained in their existing open residential placement.

5.39 It was beyond the scope of this survey to assess the extent to which young people remained at risk or continued to present a risk while not in a secure placement. However almost half of those not admitted were considered to no longer need a secure place when one became available, which does suggest that it had been possible to reduce the level of risk without recourse to physical security. Vigorous attempts are being made to recruit as many of these young people as possible to the alternative sample for the main study. If this is successful, the final research report will include information on what made it possible to reduce the level of risk and so avoid secure placement.

5.40 Turning to the research's remit to examine decision making processes, thresholds and use of the secure option, the survey has augmented earlier indications that practice differs across authorities. This is being explored further through several dimensions of the study, including review of young people's pathways through service provision, interviews with key decision makers and assessment of cost effectiveness. However, on the basis of information obtained so far, there are indications that three aspects are relevant: attitudes towards the use of secure accommodation, availability of alternative services and organisational arrangements.

6. Concluding Remarks

6.1 The study is on track to develop understanding of several key aspects of the use and effectiveness of secure accommodation. These include: how young people fare following a secure placement, the mechanisms underpinning differing uses of secure accommodation across local authorities, some aspects relating to costs and the role of alternatives.

6.2 At this midway point in the study key themes are beginning to emerge. In the second half existing data will be carefully analysed and supplemented by additional information, notably on the longer-term progress of young people in the main sample. In the final report it is expected that the findings relation to each aspect of the study will be reported both separately and in light of the connections between them.

Appendix 1

The following information is requested on each child/young person made subject to secure authorisation between 1st July and 31st December 2003 (irrespective of whether the young person was subsequently placed in secure accommodation).

Additional comments on the availability or use of secure accommodation for this young person.

In case we need to check anything with you, it would be helpful to have contact details for whoever has completed this form.

Many thanks for your help

Footnotes:

[1] Includes 16 young people initially admitted on authority of chief social work officer
Includes three young people admitted to an English unit because no place was available in Scotland

[2] Includes one young person admitted to an English unit until a place became available in Scotland.

[3] Information on reasons for secure authorisations was only requested from local authorities, not SCRA.