« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
REFUGES FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND
Acknowledgements
The help of a great many people was involved in producing this report. In particular, we would like to thank the members of the 'Working Group to Review Recommendations on Refuge Provision in Scotland' for all of their help, guidance and advice. Their assistance with arranging access to Women's Aid groups was invaluable in enabling the focus group discussions with women and workers to take place. The members of the Working Group were:
Janette Forman, Women's Support Project (Chair)
Famida Ali, Hemat Gryffe Women's Aid
Kate Arnot, Scottish Women's Aid
Lily Greenan, Eva Project
Claire Houghton, Scottish Women's Aid
Maisie McCrae, CoSLA (East Dunbartonshire Council)
Wladyslaw Mejka, Disabled Persons Housing Service
Ann Paton, North Ayrshire Women's Aid
Janet Robertson, Cairn Housing Association
Jacqueline Small, Glasgow City Council Social Work Department
Jane McCloskey (Secretariat) (till August 2002)
Lorna Belfall, Scottish Executive (Secretariat) (from August 2002)
A particular debt is owed to Claire Houghton, National Children's Rights Worker at Scottish Women's Aid, who co-ordinated and recorded all of the fieldwork with children, and to the children's support workers from local Women's Aid groups across Scotland who conducted much of that fieldwork.
We are grateful to all of the workers within Women's Aid groups in Scotland who took the time to fill in what were demanding and detailed questionnaires for the audit part of the study. Special thanks are due to those Women's Aid workers who participated in the focus groups and/or showed us around their refuge provision. We were also assisted in a great many ways by a range of staff at Scottish Women's Aid.
We would also like to extend our thanks to Sue Thornley, Keith Kintrea, Hector Currie and Tom Mullen who provided advice and comments on specific aspects of the questionnaire or report. Thanks are also due to Jeane Jenkins and Betty Johnstone who finalised the pre-publication presentation of the report.
Above all, we are extremely grateful to all of the women and children who participated in the focus groups and shared their experiences with us. We hope that this report contributes to realising their hopes and preferences for future refuge provision in Scotland.
Executive Summary
Domestic abuse is not a new social problem: what is new is the growing public and political concern it attracts. This research report focuses on one particular intervention intended to assist abused women and their children - refuge accommodation provided by the Women's Aid (WA) network in Scotland. The research aims were to:
- investigate women, children and young people's experiences, preferences and priorities in relation to refuge provision;
- assess the level and standard of refuge accommodation currently provided by WA groups in Scotland; and
- produce an 'audit tool' to be used in future years to assess the level and standard of refuge accommodation in Scotland.
The methods used in the study comprised a literature review; focus groups with women, children and WA workers; and a postal survey of all WA groups in Scotland (a 96% response rate was achieved).
There are 46 WA Groups in Scotland, 39 of which are affiliated to Scottish Women's Aid and seven which are not. WA groups currently provide 115 refuges in Scotland, comprising:
- 58 shared refuges: a flat or house in which families share facilities such as kitchens, living rooms and bathrooms. This is the traditional form of refuge;
- 18 cluster refuges (containing 90 flats): a number of separate flats grouped together in the same building/complex. Almost half of the flats in these clusters are always used as 'single occupancy' accommodation (to accommodate only one family at a time), with the remainder sometimes being shared;
- 39 dispersed flats: individual flats spread across an area. All but nine of these flats are always used as single occupancy accommodation.
In addition, 28 WA groups have plans for 40 new refuges in total, including six new shared refuges, 22 new clusters and 12 new dispersed flats.
Standards within refuge provision vary by type of accommodation. Shared refuges most often had space problems, and were reported as less homely and less well furnished than the other two types of refuge. On the other hand, they were considered least likely to be lonely, and best located with regards to shops, services and schools. The quality of cluster refuges was very mixed: purpose built clusters in particular were likely to feel very secure and to be wheelchair accessible, and all existing cluster refuges offer additional communal facilities, such as children's rooms and on-site WA offices. But cluster refuges could also be large, with problems of bullying most often reported in this type of provision. Dispersed flats were more likely than the other two types of refuge to be used as single occupancy accommodation and to be well furnished and equipped, but they were least likely to act as a deterrent to ex-partners harassing residents.Over half of all shared and cluster refuges have refuge workers based on-site, while just over a third also have on-site children's support workers (with cluster refuges much more likely than shared to have both). Women in dispersed flats are visited far less often by WA workers than those living in shared or cluster refuges without on-site workers.
By far the most popular model of refuge amongst women, children and workers was that of cluster refuges containing single occupancy flats and communal facilities for both women and children. A minority of women and children preferred dispersed flats, and most workers favoured access to some such flats in their area to accommodate those families for whom shared/clustered provision was inappropriate. None of the women or children interviewed actively preferred shared refuges, although a small number of workers have some attachment to this model. This general antipathy towards shared refuges reflects the negative experiences and/or expectations that the great majority of women and children reported on sharing facilities, particularly bathrooms, with other families. However, most appreciated the mutual support and sense of security gained by having other families in a similar position living beside them. This was why a cluster rather than dispersed model of single occupancy accommodation was generally preferred, and why communal facilities were also wanted within these complexes.The other key concern of women and children with regards to the design of refuges was external security, particularly to stop intrusion by ex-partners.
Most women interviewed were very happy with both the practical and emotional support they had received from WA workers, and particularly valued the 'non-judgemental' and 'empowering' approach taken. However, there appeared to be a division between those WA groups which were 'pro-active' in offering support to women refuge residents, and those which took a more 'reactive' approach, with the former more highly praised. Associated with this, women and children preferred refuge workers to be based within the refuge rather than at an off-site office. A high premium was placed on an effective 24-hour emergency service from WA, with more extensive (non-emergency) weekend and evening cover also seen as desirable. The availability of follow-on support was very much welcomed by all women interviewed.
Provision for children has improved considerably in many refuges in recent years, and their experience of refuge was most often reported as extremely positive, although it could be negative where there was tension between the families sharing. Children often wanted greater access to children's support workers, and stressed the importance of having the same worker 'all the way through'. It was considered important for children's support workers to be available for children as soon as they moved into refuge, and to be around on a daily basis. Lack of access to children's rooms when workers were not available was a major source of complaint, and disappointment was expressed at the general absence of weekend/evening cover. Younger children were generally better catered for than older children in refuge, with a separate 'quiet' room for teenagers often highlighted as a key priority for future provision. Young children in particular could become very attached to workers and the playrooms/facilities in refuge, and could find it difficult to move on to mainstream accommodation unless follow-on support was available.
WA groups reported greatest difficulties in accommodating women with drug problems (still using), women with alcohol problems (still using), women with male children over the age of 16, women with serious mental health problems, and asylum seekers. While workers felt that progress had been made in widening access to refuges for some groups in recent years - particularly disabled people and large families - it was acknowledged that women with drug problems in particular continued to get 'a raw deal'. Some workers favoured specialist provision for drug using women, but the (ex-)users that we interviewed seemed unwilling to use this provision, particularly if they had their children with them. Some WA workers also favoured specialist refuges for other vulnerable groups, such as young women, and there was support from many women, and from some workers, for separate refuges for single women and women with children. There was great disquiet amongst some women and teenage boys interviewed in relation to the exclusion of boys aged over 16 from refuge. The needs and preferences of the minority ethnic women interviewed were diverse, with language, religion and immigration status particularly important factors shaping these needs. Complex additional problems, including drug and alcohol dependency, seemed particularly prevalent in urban refuges. In rural and semi-rural areas, the absence of local specialist services and limited public transport were key concerns.
Only one third of WA groups felt that they currently had sufficient workers and other resources to provide women, children and young people staying in refuge with the support that they need. They attached highest priority to additional children's support workers, specialist refuges and higher quality rehousing, with more than half of WA respondents indicating that these were urgently needed in their area.
The following report's key recommendations include:
- national minimum standards should be established for refuge provision in Scotland, with the requisite capital and revenue funding made available to allow their attainment by all WA groups;
- future refuge accommodation should focus on cluster refuges containing single occupancy flats and communal areas, including age-specific children's rooms. These clusters should be purpose built whenever possible, and kept small in order to promote a non-institutional, safe and supportive environment. An 'off-the-peg' design brief for refuge accommodation reflecting this preferred cluster model should be developed, with indicative costs also specified (and updated periodically);
- there should also be dispersed flats provided in each area (with support and security arrangements) to accommodate families for whom any form of clustered/shared provision is inappropriate;
- attempts should be made to end the use of traditional shared refuges altogether as this was not the preference of any of the women or children interviewed. Where facilities continue to be shared, this should be limited to kitchens rather than bathrooms wherever possible, and families should be able to lock the door to their bedrooms in all shared provision;
- all WA groups should be encouraged to move towards a pro-active approach in their support work with women refuge residents, and all shared and cluster refuges should have workers based on-site. Greater access to workers at weekends and evenings should be pursued. Effective emergency response from WA workers on a 24-hour basis should be established in all areas;
- children should have access to children's support workers as soon as possible after entering refuge and these workers should be available every day, at least for a short period. It is important for children to have the opportunity of one-to-one contact with children's support workers, and for there to be scope for other forms of 'depth' work with children such as structured group work. Children's rooms should be designed and equipped as creatively as possible to allow children and young people maximum access to them. Additional provision for teenagers, particularly a separate room away from younger children, should be treated as a priority;
- follow-on support for both women and children leaving refuge should be available in all areas. Wherever possible, the same 'key worker' should stay with a family throughout their contact with WA: this continuity was especially important to children;
- increased partnership and outreach working would enable WA to better meet the needs of women and children with particular or complex needs, such as ethnic minority families and women with alcohol or drug dependencies. Urgent consideration should be given to the needs of teenage boys within refuge to avoid their feeling 'labelled' by the 'no over 16 males' rule.
« Previous | Contents | Next »