Scottish Government

Review of Young People on Remand in Secure Accommodation

Social Work Research Centre, University of Stirling
(Aileen Barclays, Margaret Malloch, Gill McIvor and Moira Walker)
Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care, University of Strathclyde
(Andrew Kendrick, and Mark Smith)
Glasgow Centre for the Child and Society, University of Glasgow
(Malcolm Hill)

August 2004

This document is also available in pdf format (36k)

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 it 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.

Introduction

This review was requested and funded by the Justice Department. It is a discrete part of the Evaluation of Secure Care Outcomes study, a three year project commissioned by the Education Department. The purpose of the review was to develop understanding of the characteristics of young people remanded to secure accommodation, the circumstances in which they had come to be remanded, the grounds for them being held and average length of stay. Where available, information was also obtained on the kind of service they received while in secure and where they had moved on to when they left.

The review included all young people remanded to secure accommodation during the six month period January - June 2004. It was anticipated that this would involve approximately 15 young people, but the number was in fact 27. Since two young men had been remanded on two separate occasions and another on three, the total number of admissions was 31. Four secure accommodation units were included in the review - Kerelaw in Ayrshire, St Mary's Kenmure in Bishopbriggs, Howdenhall and St Katherine's in Edinburgh and Rossie in Montrose.

The review drew on information known to secure unit staff. Biographical information was obtained from secure unit records, using a modified version of the schedule used in the main study to collate background information. Information was sought on:

• age and gender;
• where the young person was living prior to being remanded;
• reasons for the remand;
• how long the remand lasted;
• previous pattern of offending and involvement with the children's hearing system;
• family composition and circumstances;
• education: schools attended and attainment;
• health: physical and mental health problems;
• previous social work involvement ;
• details of periods looked after away from home;
• whether the young person had previously been detained on an unruly certificate and/or whether there had been consideration of this action instead of remanding to secure on this occasion.

Drawing on experience from previous surveys of the secure population, it was recognised at the planning stage that comprehensive information on all these matters was unlikely to be available from the files held in the secure units. The original plan was to supplement information from files by speaking with secure unit staff and, if necessary, social workers. Whilst secure unit staff were consulted about most young people, it did not prove feasible to contact social workers. This was partly because there were almost twice as many cases as had been anticipated. In addition, since the data was obtained on an anonymous basis, contact arrangements would have been cumbersome and time-consuming. The review was carried out between June and August 2004.

Obtaining Consent / Confidentiality

In light of experience from the main study of secure accommodation, it was acknowledged from the start that the time scale for this survey was too short in which to obtain consent, especially since many of the young people would no longer be resident when the information was collated. Instead, information from records was to be obtained on an anonymous basis.

In the plans for the review it was proposed that confidentiality could be maintained in one of two ways. Either secure unit staff would remove all identifying details before the researcher had access to a file or a member of staff would go through the file in the presence of the researcher, passing on the necessary information without identifying the young people concerned.

These options were discussed with senior secure unit staff at the start of the review. In four units a liaison officer was identified to meet with the researcher and pass on verbally the information required for each young person. Staff in one unit completed the information schedules themselves, then returned them to the researcher. Secure unit staff were therefore the primary sources of information for the survey, with the researcher having no direct access to files.

Quality of Information

As predicted, comprehensive information on background was not available from files, especially in situations where there had been little previous social work involvement. The best information usually came from an up-to-date social background report, but not every file contained one. Initially it had been hoped that secure unit staff might be able to provide supplementary details, but in practice their knowledge of most young people's background was limited, especially if the placement had been short.

As a result, information on the range of topics covered in the review is patchy. Whilst details of biographical characteristics and reasons for the remand were usually available, details of previous life experiences and use of social work services are less complete. Secure units varied in the amount of information they held on young people. The research team is aware that SWSI are currently piloting a data collection form to be completed when each placement ends. Should this be introduced more generally, the information routinely collated on the secure population should become more standardised and comprehensive.

Young People's Characteristics and Current Circumstances

During the review period, 27 young men had been remanded to secure accommodation. Two had been remanded twice and a third three times, so there were 31 remand admissions during the six month review period. No females had been admitted during the survey period. All of the young men were white.

At the time of admission all but four of the young men were aged fifteen or sixteen. Three were fourteen and one had reached seventeen. Details are in Table 1:

Almost half of the young people (n=13 of 27) were from Glasgow, three were from Edinburgh and two from East Ayrshire. The following local authorities were each responsible for one young man: East Dunbartonshire, East Lothian, Inverclyde, Midlothian, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, and West Dunbartonshire. Interestingly, no young people from Dundee or Aberdeen had been admitted on remand.

Information on young people's whereabouts immediately prior to the remand indicated that fourteen had been resident in their parental home, while two had been living with relatives and one was living independently. Of the ten who had been in a form of institutional care immediately prior to the remand, four were transferred from Polmont Young Offender's Institution and three had been in a residential school. Two young men had committed crimes while on leave from a secure unit and one was living in a children's home. The majority (n=17) were therefore not accommodated when admitted to secure accommodation. In this respect the remand population is different from those in secure accommodation on a panel order, most of whom are placed from residential care.

For 15 of the 24 young people on whom information was available, their mother was the main carer. The father was the main carer for three young people and four were cared for by both parents. One young person was cared for by a grand parent and one was in the care of the local authority, subject to a parental responsibilities order. Table 2 outlines the details:

* 3 missing

Remand Placements

The young people had been placed across the five secure sites as follows:

The distribution according to the young person's home local authority was as follows:

The number of remand admissions was not evenly spread over the six months. Just over half of the remands (n=14) had started in March and April, with only 5 during the first two months of the year. Details are in Table 4:

Table 4: Month in which the remand started

Three young men had been placed 'on roll' prior to arriving, one for one day, another for three days and a third young man for 7 days. This meant that the local authority was paying for the bed prior to the young person's admission. The researcher was advised that this usually happened when a young person had absconded, but was subject to remand and would be placed once apprehended by the police. At least one young person had run away while travelling to the secure unit.

At the point when the review information was collected, eleven young men remained on remand and sixteen had been released. Completed remands had lasted between 4 and 132 days. Details are in Table 5.

Table 5: Length of Completed Remands

Of the eleven young people still in the unit when the survey was carried out, three had been admitted during March, April and June and one during May.

The circumstances of the three young people who had spent more than one period on remand varied. The first had spent two separate periods in secure . On the first occasion he was remanded for 9 days then bailed to a relative's address. Sixteen days later he was remanded again for 11 offences including four counts of bail aggravation . He was bailed to his home address after spending 110 days on remand. A second young man was placed the first time for 69 days, then bailed to his home. A second remand was still on-going. The third was placed in the same secure unit on three separate occasions. The first two episodes each lasted four days and the third 15 days. On each occasion he had been bailed to his home on release.

Of the young people who were no longer on remand, nine had been bailed home, three had received a custodial sentence and three had been put on probation. One was bailed to a secure unit closer to home.

Unruly Certificates

There was very little information in the secure unit files about the use of unruly certificates. The liaison member of staff was asked whether additional information was known but not recorded, but this was seldom the case. Information in the files indicated that seven young men had been subject to an unruly certificate, this usually referring to time previously spent in Polmont YOI. One young person had spent 12 days in Polmont prior to being placed in secure.

Reasons for remand

According to the records, most young people had been charged with between two and seven offences. Three had only one recorded offence, while at the other end of the spectrum, three young people had been charged with between eleven and sixteen offences.

The most common offences were breach of bail or bail aggravation, followed by serious assault, breach of the peace, assault & robbery and assault. The least common offences recorded were murder (1), attempted murder (1), fire raising (1) and rape (1). Other recorded offences included attempted robbery, racial aggravation, armed robbery and alleged sexual assault. Motor related crime was common including theft from motor vehicles, stealing cars, driving without licence and insurance. There were suspicions that one young person was dealing drugs. Records indicated that for eleven young men drug use was problematic, while alcohol use was a problem for five, of whom four also used drugs.

Service while on remand

Secure unit staff were asked about the service provided to young people while on remand. They reported that the assessment process was the same as for young people placed on the authority of a Children's Panel. On admission an Essential Information Record was completed, contact details obtained and a full risk assessment carried out. Within the first few days a case conference was held, attended by the placing social worker and any other relevant professionals. These might include a representative from the place of residence at the time of remand e.g. residential school. At a later date a placement meeting was convened, with the family and young person present. Following these meetings, and on completion of the assessment, there may be a referral to other services, for example mental health professionals or the nurse with responsibility for looked after children (LAC nurse).

Each young person remanded to a secure unit is allocated a keyworker /case manager who completes the risk assessment and monitors the young person's progress. This member of staff also has responsibility for ensuring that the young person's primary care needs are addressed, as well as liaising with professionals and family members. Although the keyworker/case manager does meet regularly with the young person, there is usually less planned direct work than is the case with young people who are sentenced or placed by the children's panel. However individual work would be arranged, if a young person requested this kind of support. Some young people are bailed to home after just a few days, which means staff have very little time to get to know them.

All young people had access to education while on remand.

Up to this point in the report, the information is relatively reliable in that details were available for most young people. From this point on it is much more patchy, since some units held little information on the young person's background. The data is therefore reported as an indication of what information unit files held, rather than a reliable profile of the remand population.

Service provision prior to remand

Since information on previous placements was not always available, the data reported here may underestimate use of services prior to the remand. Nine young men had already spent some time in secure accommodation, either on a panel order or on remand. At least twelve had not previously been in secure and the placement history of six was not known.

Thirteen young people were known to have been accommodated in foster care or open residential provision, with an additional four having had only a previous secure placement. In most instances there had only been one placement. Based on the information available, it seemed very few young people had spent a significant part of their life in residential or foster care.

Twenty-one young men were currently subject to a children's panel supervision requirement. Four never had been on supervision and the position with the remaining two was unclear. A third of the young people were known to have been in contact with a specialist social worker of some kind, usually from youth justice, though one was from a community mental health team and another from an addiction service.

At least six young people had been referred to mental health services of some kind, usually for assessment. Another had been assessed at a local child and family centre.

A number of intensive or crisis support services had been offered, for example emergency foster care and Includem. The information in a number of files indicated that the young person had been referred to intensive support schemes, usually run by voluntary agencies, but refused to attend. A residential school placement had been arranged for one young man, but he ran away on the day he was due to visit. Thus the availability of open services did not guarantee that young people would choose or be able to access them. The information available was not comprehensive enough to estimate the proportion of young people to whom this applied.

Social and Family Circumstances

The circumstances of each young person were unique, but broad categories could also be identified. In terms of their social circumstances, a number of young people lived in areas of high social deprivation, where violence and other crimes were common. Gang fighting was a feature of several young people's lives, with some causing considerable trouble in their local community through excessive alcohol use, stealing and vandalism. Some had become targets in their own community due to their anti-social behaviour, resulting in their families being re-housed. Some had also been the victims of crime.

However this profile did not fit all young people on whom background details were available. For some there were significant emotional or mental health difficulties, sometimes related to a specific traumatic experience or rejecting family relationships.

Quite different family circumstances were described. With a number of families, records indicated that the parents did little to dissuade their sons from offending. It was mentioned that at least ten parents had committed offences themselves, while a number were reluctant to co-operate with social work services or school staff. Some records indicated that parents were very supportive of and sympathetic towards their sons, claiming that they did little wrong, but were harassed by the police. Whilst professionals did not view these attitudes as helpful, they did convey a degree of parental acceptance to the young people concerned.

In contrast, other parents were described as rejecting. Some had asked for their son to be accommodated and/or had refused to allow them to return home after a period in care. There was more often reference to excessive anger or psychological difficulties among young people from this kind of background.

Consistent with previous surveys of the secure population [1], some young people on remand were from families where there had not been serious difficulties, either social or emotional.

In general there was evidence of a high level of parental need. Parental addiction or mental health problems were mentioned in over half the records.

Educational background

Fourteen files, that is just over half, contained some information about the young person's educational background. Of that fourteen, only one young person had had an uninterrupted education. All of the others had had difficulties relating to behaviour and/or attendance which had resulted in them being educated outwith mainstream provision or having no schooling at all. Ten were described as challenging or aggressive in school. One young person was thought to have a learning disability.

Health Issues

Recorded information on physical health referred primarily to injuries resulting from accidents or offences. One young man had recently been in a serious car accident and had made a full recovery despite sustaining facial and other injuries. Another had been the victim of stabbing, while one young man had been in very poor physical condition, after a period on the run.

Mental health and emotional difficulties were mentioned in relation to half of the young people. A diverse range of problems were cited, including depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder. Behaviours or attitudes which caused concern included extreme anger and aggression, lack of empathy for others, feelings of rejection and confusion about identity.

Conclusion

The main purpose of the survey was to provide initial information on the numbers and characteristics of young people remanded to secure units in Scotland. It showed that the number was almost twice as high as had been estimated and yielded reliable information on the characteristics of the young people, placing authorities, length of placements and their distribution across secure units.

As has been found in previous studies of the secure population, recording practice varies widely across secure units, with some systematically collating background information and others holding very little. The difficulties were compounded in this study because arrangements to preserve confidentiality meant that researchers relied on secure unit staff to check whether the relevant information was in the file. SWSI plans to develop more standardised information direct from the units should result in more comprehensive information being available in the future.

The diversity of the remand population is evident, both in terms of the seriousness of charges and their family background. It is nevertheless of interest that almost all the young people were subject to a supervision requirement from the children's panel. This highlights that the interface between the children's hearings and adult justice system merits more attention in terms of both practice and research.

Footnotes:

[1] SWSI (2000). Secure Care Survey Report. Unpublished: Scottish Executive.