The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

REFUGES FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND

Chapter 2: A Profile of Refuges in Scotland

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of refuge provision in Scotland based on the results of the postal survey. As noted in Chapter 1, 44 out of the 46 WA groups in Scotland returned completed questionnaires in time to be included in this analysis (a 96% response rate) 1.

The chapter begins with an overview of WA groups and refuges within Scotland. This is followed by a description of the physical accommodation, facilities and services provided for women and children within refuges. Finally, the chapter describes the future priorities of local WA groups and pending refuge provision.

Central to the analysis in this chapter is the distinction between three key types of refuge identified in the telephone survey:

• shared refuges: a flat or house in which different families share facilities such as kitchens, living rooms and bathrooms. Shared refuges may also contain additional communal facilities, such as children's rooms and on-site WA offices;
• cluster refuges: a number of separate flats grouped together in the same building/complex. The flats may be shared or used to accommodate only one family at a time ('single occupancy'), and, as with shared refuges, clusters may contain additional communal facilities;
• dispersed flats: individual flats spread across an area, usually used as single occupancy accommodation.

It should be noted that these definitions of 'shared', 'cluster' and 'dispersed' refuges may not correspond with the use of these terms within some WA groups: we found that WA groups varied a great deal in how they described similar provision and it was therefore necessary to impose a consistent terminology to collect meaningful data. Where appropriate, the analysis in this chapter is presented by these three accommodation types in order to highlight the differences between them, and to facilitate the development of recommendations for future provision. To enable convenient comparison, the results are often converted into percentages even though the sample size is often small. All percentages are based on the 44 responses received except when groups failed to provide responses to particular questions, when percentages are calculated only from the responses received. One specific point of explanation applies to the cluster sample. The analysis is presented both at the level of cluster refuge (18 in total) and at the level of each cluster flat (90 in total), depending on whether the feature being discussed relates to the refuge building as a whole, or to each individual flat. It is also important to note that the quantitative evidence provided below includes not only 'factual' but also 'perceptual' data, derived from views expressed by WAS local groups, on a range of aspects of provision.

We found some degree of disparity between details provided in the initial telephone survey and in the postal questionnaire, with respondents frequently presenting a more positive image of provision in the latter. Also, as noted above, there seems to be no shared understanding within the WA network of the meaning of some key terms, e.g. 'family space'. These inconsistencies have made some of the data difficult to interpret, and so caution is sometimes required in drawing conclusions based on the statistics presented. One final point to highlight is that the data reported in this chapter refers to responses at the time of survey - some aspects of provision will have changed since the questionnaires were returned because of the ongoing process of development described in Chapter 1.

Overview of WA Groups

The survey investigated the type of area served by WA groups. Almost three-quarters (73%) of WA groups serve town areas and exactly three-quarters serve rural areas (75%), with 25 (57%) serving both types of area. Ten groups (30%) serve city areas only.

Traditionally, a defining feature of WA groups has been their 'collective' structure. However, the survey shows that, while the majority of local groups (36 of the 44) are still managed by a collective, eight groups are not. Six of these eight have employed a manager, one has a co-ordinator, and the remaining one has a management committee. These 'non-collective' WA groups include four which are affiliated to SWA and four which are not.

The number of workers employed by WA groups ranges from one to 24, with most employing between five and eight workers. All groups with a refuge employ general refuge workers, with children's support workers and office-based workers the next most common types of staff (see Table 1). Other workers employed by local WA groups included finance/administrative workers, follow-on/outreach workers, development workers and counsellors. Thirteen groups do not employ any children's support workers, perhaps reflecting the fact that this is the type of post most likely to be funded from time-limited sources (23 out of the 66 funded posts). Finance/administrative workers were least likely to be funded out of time-limited sources.

Table 1: Number and type of paid workers employed by WA Groups

Sample size = 44

Thirty-one WA groups also currently have unpaid workers. In total, there are 126 unpaid WA workers in Scotland. While most groups have four or fewer, one group has 23 unpaid workers. Local groups gain, on average, 14.5 total worker hours per week from unpaid workers. The total number of hours contributed by unpaid workers varies from fewer than 12 hours per week in two-thirds of the groups, to 20 hours or more per week in the remaining ten groups.

With two significant exceptions, WA groups (and their funders) rarely require formal qualifications for workers. For example, only two of the 41 groups with general refuge workers require qualifications for this post. The exceptions are administrative/finance workers and children's support workers. A quarter of the groups with the former type of worker (seven of the 28) require some form of qualification for this post. Examples include SVQs or HNC/D in Bookkeeping or Accounting, or a Business Administration qualification. Almost half of the groups with children's support workers require some type of qualification for the post (14 of the 31). Most often required were SVQs, SNNEB or a relevant HNC or HND (in Childcare or in Working with Children in Residential Accommodation).

Overview of Refuge Provision

In total, the 44 responding WA groups provide 115 refuges across Scotland, comprising 58 shared refuges, 18 clusters (containing 90 flats) and 39 scatter flats (Table 2) (bear in mind that this relates to the definition of these accommodation types outlined at the start of the chapter).

Table 2: Overview of refuge provision in Scotland

Sample size = 44

Just under half the WA groups have one refuge (19) and most have no more than four refuges (33), however one group has 11 refuges. Three groups, East Renfrewshire, Orkney and Shetland, currently have no refuge provision; however both East Renfrewshire and Orkney have refuge accommodation pending (clusters of single-occupancy flats with communal facilities in both cases). A breakdown of provision for individual WA groups is given in Appendix A.

Shared Refuges

The most common, and traditional, type of provision is shared refuges. Thirty WA groups (68%) provide a total of 58 shared refuges, comprising 251 family spaces. Most of these groups (18) have only one shared refuge, although four have four or more, with one having seven.

The range of family spaces available in these shared refuges is between two and 25, although more than half have only three family spaces or fewer (20 have only 2 family spaces while a further 10 have only 3 family spaces). However, nine shared refuges have seven family spaces or more, and in one shared refuge there are 25 family spaces. Shared refuges contain between two and 15 bedrooms, although most (76%) have fewer than five bedrooms, and in just under half (28) there are only two or three bedrooms. However, nine shared refuges have more than seven bedrooms (including one with 12 and another with 15 bedrooms).

Only eight of the 58 shared refuges were purpose built. The purpose built shared refuges have fewer bedrooms on average, with a range between three and eight, whereas in the others it is between two and 15. However, it was a purpose built shared refuge that accommodated the highest number of people at any one time in the last year (32 people; 8 bedrooms).

Cluster Provision

Cluster refuges are provided by 13 of the WA groups (30%). There are 18 clusters in total containing 90 cluster flats, and 178 family spaces. Most groups (10) have only one cluster, but two groups have two clusters, and one group (Glasgow) has four clusters. The number of flats in clusters varies from two to eight, with most clusters containing between four and six flats.

Some of the 18 clusters contain a combination of shared and single occupancy flats, while others contain only single occupancy or only shared flats. Almost half of all cluster flats (42 out of 90; 47%) are reported as always used as single occupancy accommodation. The same number, 42, are described as having only one family space - but ten of these are also reported as sometimes being shared (all have more than 1 bedroom). This discrepancy highlights the confusion surrounding terms such as 'family spaces' and 'single occupancy'.

Around one third (32) of cluster flats have only one bedroom, while the remainder (58) have two or more bedrooms (20 have 3 or more bedrooms). The largest number of bedrooms is four (4 flats have 4 bedrooms, all in Glasgow). Only 25 of the 32 one-bedroom flats are reported as always single occupancy, yet respondents also report that families never share bedrooms with other families. This apparent discrepancy also reveals the need for caution in interpreting this data.

Almost half (8 out of 18) cluster refuges were purpose built (as compared with only 8 out of 58 shared refuges). The eight purpose built clusters contain 45 flats in total, as do the 10 which were not purpose built. However, purpose built cluster flats tend to have fewer bedrooms, and to provide more single occupancy accommodation, than non-purpose built flats. Thus a very high proportion (42 out of 45; 93%) of purpose built flats have only one or two bedrooms compared to 28 of the 45 non purpose built cluster flats (62%). More than three-quarters of the purpose built flats are reported as single occupancy (34; 76%), compared to only eight (18%) of the non-purpose built flats. Women are also reported to be less likely to have to share a bedroom with their children in purpose built cluster flats than in non-purpose built cluster flats (see also Table 4 below).

Dispersed Flats

Ten WA groups (23%) provide between them a total of 39 dispersed flats, containing 51 family spaces in total. These groups have between two and six dispersed flats each, and for two groups this is the only form of refuge accommodation they provide. Twenty-nine of the 39 dispersed flats are reported as providing only one family space, with two having two family spaces and six having three family spaces (there was no response for 2 flats).

Dispersed flats are much more likely to be single occupancy than cluster flats: 30 (77%) are reportedly always used as single occupancy accommodation, as compared with fewer than half (47%) of cluster flats. However, this is not because dispersed flats tend to have fewer bedrooms: only one eighth of dispersed flats have only one bedroom (5), compared to over a third of cluster flats (32).

Size of Refuges and Degree of Sharing

The scale of refuges, and degree to which they involve sharing facilities with other families, are crucial aspects of women and children's experience of refuge life (see Chapter 3). Sixty-two per cent of all refuge accommodation currently involves some element of sharing. This includes all 58 shared refuges, 53 per cent of the 90 cluster flats (48 flats, spread across 11 cluster refuges), and 23 per cent of the 39 dispersed flats (9 flats). The maximum number of people accommodated at any one time over the past year in these shared forms of provision was as follows (see Table 2 above):

• shared refuges - between three and 32 people. Forty per cent of shared refuges accommodated no more than 10 people at a time, while eight shared refuges had accommodated more than 20 people, including one refuge where 32 people had been accommodated (this was in a refuge with 8 bedrooms, where 8 women and 24 children had been staying at the same time);
• cluster refuges (containing shared flats) - between 12 and 30 people. Over 80 per cent of these clusters had accommodated 15 or more people at one time, and exactly half had accommodated more than 20 people at one time (compared to only 14% of shared refuges). A Glasgow cluster with eight shared flats did not reply to this question. (The maximum number of people accommodated at any one time in clusters without shared flats was between 12 and 25 people.);
• dispersed flats (shared) - between three and nine people.

The degree of sharing depends on household type, as well as form of refuge. Around 44 per cent of the cluster and dispersed flats were reported as 'not always used as single occupancy accommodation'. Table 3 reveals that both cluster and dispersed flats in this category are more frequently shared by single women than by families. Sixty-four per cent of such cluster flats are shared by single women at least 'sometimes' compared to only 41 per cent which are shared by families at least 'sometimes'. For dispersed flats, the proportions are more similar, with 78 per cent shared at least sometimes by single women and 67 per cent shared by families at least 'sometimes'. However, once again, the accuracy of this data is open to doubt as a significant minority of respondents reported that dispersed and cluster flats 'not always used as single occupancy accommodation' were 'never' shared by single women or families.

Table 3: Frequency with which single women and families share refuge accommodation (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

The sharing of bedrooms is also affected by household type. While in all types of refuges it was reported that families 'never' share bedrooms with other families, in one shared refuge it was reported that single women 'sometimes' share bedrooms with other single women, and in a further two they 'seldom' do so. There are no cluster refuges or dispersed flats in which it was reported that single women ever share bedrooms with other single women.

Table 4 presents information on how often mothers share bedrooms with their children due to space constraints. Women were reported as 'always' having to share bedrooms with their children in a very high proportion of shared refuges (83%), while in 37 of the 90 cluster flats (41%) mothers and children 'always' or 'often' have to share bedrooms. In contrast, families have to share bedrooms in only four (10%) of the dispersed scatter flats. This is unsurprising as dispersed flats are most likely to have two or three bedrooms and to be used as single occupancy accommodation.

The WA respondents were asked their views on a range of issues related to sharing and the size of refuges. Their responses indicated that 13 per cent of WA refuges (26% of shared; 9% of cluster; and 3% of dispersed) are too small for the number of people usually accommodated in them. Respondents indicated that it was difficult for women to find space to be alone in 17 per cent of refuges (33% of shared; 5% of cluster; 19% of dispersed), with the equivalent figures significantly higher for children/young people (37 per cent of all refuges: 44% of shared, 50% of cluster and 71 % of shared clusters, and 22% of dispersed). Bullying amongst women was felt to be a problem in only eight per cent of refuges (although in 29% of cluster refuges), and amongst children/young people in only six per cent of refuges (13% of cluster refuges).

Table 4: Mothers sharing bedrooms with their children due to space constraints (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

The survey data also indicates that shared refuges are considered by WA workers to have positive features, such as less isolation and loneliness. Thus, while respondents reported that women 'often' felt lonely in 16 per cent of refuges, this included only 3 per cent of shared refuges as compared with 34 per cent of cluster refuges and 25 per cent of dispersed flats.

Legal Framework for Refuge Accommodation

Table 5 demonstrates that local authorities own almost two-thirds (63%) of refuges in Scotland, with one third (33%) owned by Registered Social Landlords, and a further four per cent owned privately. WA groups no longer own any refuges. Refuge ownership differs by type of accommodation, with local authorities owning eight out of ten (81%) shared refuges compared to only three in ten (29%) clusters; the latter are significantly more likely to be owned by Registered Social Landlords (67%). Dispersed flats are fairly evenly split between the two sectors (52% owned by local authorities and 44% owned by Registered Social Landlords).

Table 5: Ownership of refuge buildings (%)

Chapter 1 explained that HMO licences are now required for accommodation shared by a 'specified' number of people from more than two families. Respondents indicated that HMO licences are possessed for 47 per cent of shared refuges, and 45 per cent of cluster refuges. Of the shared refuges without such a licence, 10 have applications pending and 15 do not; there are no pending applications for any of the cluster refuges. There was missing data for 11 of the 58 shared refuges and seven of the 18 cluster refuges (perhaps partly because it is not WA who are responsible for making HMO licence applications). This large amount of missing data, together with the variable numbers accommodated in refuges, makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions on this question. However, it seems likely that at least some refuges are currently being operated unlawfully as they require an HMO licence but do not possess one.

In most refuges (69%), residents were described as 'residential occupiers with an occupancy agreement' (113 refuges), while residents were provided with short assured tenancies in a further 17 per cent of refuges (28 refuges) (Table 6). Other reported tenancy/occupancy arrangements included 'residential occupiers without occupancy agreement' (5 refuges; 3%), Scottish secure tenancies (4 refuges; 2%), and short Scottish secure tenancies (5 refuges; 3%). In nine refuges (5%), some other type of occupancy agreement was reported (described, for example, as residents occupying the refuge as short-term emergency homeless accommodation). The occupancy status of residents differs to some degree by type of accommodation with, for example, short assured tenancies more common in cluster flats (19%) and, especially, in dispersed flats (29%), than in shared refuges (7%). Again, there is a significant amount of missing data for this question (23 cases, including 21 cluster flats, 1 shared refuge, and 1 dispersed refuge).

Table 6: Tenancy status of refuge residents in refuge accommodation (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

It is not clear from this data that WA respondents have a correct appreciation of the legal rights of refuge residents. For example, the respondents who stated that the residents of their shared refuges are given Scottish secure tenancies are surely mistaken as there has to be exclusive occupation of a whole dwelling house to qualify for this type of tenancy (this is possible in the cluster and dispersed refuges, depending on the degree of self-containment). Also, given that virtually all refuges are owned by local authorities and Registered Social Landlords, we would not expect any residents to be given short assured tenancies as social landlords cannot issue this type of tenancy (though this has only been the case for Registered Social Landlords since September 2002). The occupation rights of residents of hostels and other short-term accommodation has long been a hazy area of law, and it is not yet clear whether WA refuges will be brought within the ambit of the new minimum occupancy rights for hostel dwellers due to be issued under Section 7 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (see Fitzpatrick et al, 2002).

Details of Physical Accommodation

Key features of the physical accommodation provided in refuge include security and safety; facilities; the quality of the physical environment; disabled access; and location of refuges.

Security and Safety

External security is of critical importance to women, children and young people resident in refuge (see Chapter 3). The first security feature of interest is the presence of a secure entry system. In total, 71 refuges have a secure entry system (63%), including almost all of the cluster refuges (94%), compared to only 64 per cent of the dispersed flats and 53 per cent of the shared refuges (see Table 7). It is perhaps surprising that only around two-thirds of the dispersed flats have a secure entry system as women and children living there do not have the security of others around them and, furthermore, workers are never based there. On the other hand, the practicalities of installing such a system when you have only one flat in a block of six are complicated.

Table 7 also reveals that 19 out of 112 refuges (17%) have CCTV (8 clusters, 47%; 11 shared refuges, 19%; no dispersed). This is perhaps what might be expected, as CCTV is most feasible where the refuge comprises an entire building, which is most likely for cluster refuges. Furthermore, one might expect purpose built refuges to be most likely to have CCTV and indeed, of the eight clusters with CCTV, six are purpose built. Only one purpose built cluster does not have CCTV. The majority of shared and cluster refuges provide only one point of entry from the street, however 12 shared refuges (21%) and one cluster (6%) have more than one point of entry. It was assumed that there would only be one point of entry for each dispersed flat. Finally, around two-thirds of shared and cluster refuges (67% and 63% respectively) and one third (34%) of dispersed refuges have bedroom or living room windows on the ground floor overlooking the street.

Table 7: Security features provided: by type of refuge accommodation (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

WA workers reported that women residents say they feel safe in virtually all cluster and dispersed refuges and in 91 per cent of shared refuges. Shared refuges also fared less well than the other two types in relation to whether the close/external stairs/path to the refuge feels safe and well lit to women - only 63 per cent of respondents agreed in relation to this type of refuge. In around half of all refuges (49%), the refuge building/security measures were believed to act as a deterrent to ex-partners pursuing or harassing the residents, but this was felt to be true for only 36 per cent of dispersed flats. Finally, in around one in five refuges (18%) respondents reported that residents feel vulnerable in the ground floor accommodation. This includes 27 per cent of dispersed flats.

Respondents were also asked about safety within refuges. All refuges were reported to have smoke alarms/detectors, and fire blankets/extinguishers. Two thirds of dispersed flats and over three-quarters of shared and cluster refuges also undergo regular fire safety inspections from the Fire Brigade. All cluster refuges and dispersed flats have child safety equipment available, while 90 per cent of shared refuges also provide this.

Facilities Provided in Refuges

This section presents details of the facilities provided within refuge accommodation across Scotland. Many of the detailed questions pursued here are derived from National Care Standards or HMO regulations (see Chapter 1).

Table 8: Bedroom facilities: by type of refuge accommodation (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

Table 8 reports on a range of features of bedrooms, with the key points including:

• nine in ten shared refuges (89%) have lockable bedroom doors. In contrast, only seven of the 48 shared cluster flats, and only one of the nine shared dispersed flats, have such lockable bedroom doors (it is only where cluster or dispersed flats are shared that this is a concern);
• only a very small proportion of shared refuges have en-suite facilities, and no cluster or dispersed accommodation offer this;
• in just over half of the shared refuges (55%) televisions are provided in bedrooms, compared to only nine per cent of shared cluster flats , and no shared dispersed flats (as above, it is only where cluster or dispersed flats are shared that this is a concern);
• residents are able to control their bedroom heating in all dispersed flats, in nine out of ten cluster flats (90%), and in over eight out of ten shared refuges (83%) (though, it may be that 'control' was interpreted by respondents in a more limited way than we had intended);
• the number of beds in each bedroom is smaller for dispersed flats (between 1 and 2 beds) than it is for shared or cluster refuges (between 1 and 4 beds).

When asked if the bedrooms in their refuge are large enough to comfortably accommodate the number of people who normally use them, only around one quarter (27%) of WA respondents disagreed. Respondents with shared refuges were most likely to disagree (41%).

Turning to bathrooms, respondents from three-quarters of refuges (78%) agreed that the size and number of bathroom facilities were adequate for the number of people normally using them (97% of dispersed flats; 84% of cluster flats; 57% of shared refuges). Table 9 indicates that the great majority of all refuges provide at least one bath or shower per six people, and that around four in five shared and cluster refuges have at least one toilet for every five people, with all dispersed flats reaching this standard. Lower proportions provide both shower and bath facilities (86% of shared refuges, 74% of cluster flats, and 77% of dispersed flats).

Table 9: Bathroom facilities: by type of refuge accommodation (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

Kitchens in the vast majority of refuges are reported to have adequate facilities in terms of equipment, sinks, cookers, fridges, washing machines and tables for eating at, although standards are reportedly a little lower in shared refuges than in cluster refuges or dispersed flats (see Table 10). Only 31 of 175 responses (18%) report lockable kitchen cupboards; this includes just under a third of shared refuges, three shared cluster flats, and one shared dispersed flat. Four out of five respondents (80%) believe their refuges provide adequate and secure food storage (86% cluster and dispersed refuges, 65% shared refuges), but when the analysis is restricted to shared cluster and shared dispersed flats the proportions drop to 69 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. Seven in ten respondents (70%) felt that there was adequate drying space/facilities in their refuge, with little difference between types of accommodation.

Table 10: Kitchen facilities: by type of refuge accommodation (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

Almost all respondents agree that their refuge's living room provides a pleasant environment, with the lowest proportion (84%) found in shared refuges. Almost all refuges provide televisions in the living rooms, and while most shared refuges also provide videos, only half the cluster flats (50%) and six in ten of the dispersed flats (59%) do so. Living rooms in shared refuges tend to have the greatest number of seating spaces (between 4 and 11).

Storage space, particularly for residents' personal belongings, is another important feature of refuge facilities. Over half of respondents overall (53%), but only 24 per cent of those referring to shared refuges, believe there is adequate and secure storage space for residents' personal belongings. Only 18 per cent of respondents believe there is sufficient storage space for residents' large-scale possessions. However, shared refuge accommodation is more likely (24%) to have sufficient space for large items than cluster or dispersed accommodation (11% and 14% respectively).

Finally, there are a range of additional communal facilities provided in some refuges, as reported in Table 11. Around half of all refuges (49%) have children's rooms (38 shared refuges, all 18 cluster refuges, no dispersed flats). However, it is perhaps more accurate to report that three-quarters of shared and cluster refuges have children's rooms (74%), since we would not expect to find them in dispersed flats. Only 12 of 115 refuges have teenagers' rooms (10%), although again it may be more accurate to say 16 per cent of shared and cluster refuges have such rooms. Cluster refuges are far more likely to have teenagers' rooms if they are purpose built (5 out of the 6 with such rooms are purpose built). The same pattern is not evident amongst purpose built shared refuges.

Table 11: Communal facilities by type of refuge accommodation (%)

Other features of communal facilities are:

• one third of refuges (34%) have an on-site WA office, including all 18 clusters but only 21 of the 58 shared refuges (35%). As expected, none of the dispersed flats has an on-site office. Half of those respondents with an on-site office (50%) believe women 'often' use it to interact and socialise;
• nine of the 18 cluster refuges (50%) have a living/meeting room for communal use by all residents (this question was asked only of clusters because it was assumed that living rooms in shared refuges would - almost by definition - be communal, and that there would be only one living room in dispersed flats). Purpose built clusters are more likely (6 out of 8) to have shared living/meeting room facilities than non-purpose built clusters (3 out of 10). Only three respondents with a communal living/meeting room in their cluster refuge agreed that women 'often' used it to interact and socialise.

Quality of Physical Environment

The study also investigated the quality of the physical environment inside refuges. This relates to a range of issues, including décor, upkeep, furnishings, cleanliness, smoking and general 'feel' of the refuge.

Around 80 per cent of all refuges were reported to have regular redecoration and planned repair and maintenance programmes, although only 72 per cent of shared refuges had a planned repair/maintenance programme. Respondents also indicated that 81 per cent of refuges were well furnished throughout (97% of dispersed flats; 79% of clusters; and 74% of shared refuges).

Residents in all refuges are responsible for cleaning their bedrooms. In all 39 dispersed flats, and in all but one cluster refuge, women are responsible for cleaning their own flats. However, residents were not responsible for cleaning the communal/shared facilities in seven shared refuges (this included three of the WA groups with a manager). Just over half of respondents (53%) felt that cleanliness of the communal/shared areas was 'often' a problem (44% of shared refuges; 31% of cluster refuges; and 7 of the 9 shared dispersed flats).

Table 12 presents details of smoking regulations within refuge accommodation. Of the 173 refuges for which this information was provided, only 11 (6%) do not permit smoking at all. The majority of the remainder (62%) allow smoking anywhere in refuge; 31 (19%) allow residents to smoke only in their own flats (in a cluster) or own bedroom (in a shared flat); 24 (15%) allow smoking anywhere except bedrooms (i.e. shared areas only); and finally seven (4%) allow smoking only in designated smoking areas (e.g. designated smoking living room).

Table 12: Smoking regulations in refuge accommodation (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

Smoking is clearly of particular concern in shared accommodation. Of the 52 shared refuges for which this information was provided, only two did not permit smoking, and very few restricted it to designated smoking areas; all seven of the clusters with shared flats allowed smoking (6 of them anywhere in the refuge); and smoking was allowed in all but one of the nine shared dispersed flats. Clearly, smoking is permitted in the vast majority of shared provision in WA refuges, and many children objected strongly to this (see Chapter 3).

Finally on the physical environment, we asked WA respondents whether refuges had an 'institutional feel': only in 7 per cent of cases was this felt to be the case. Over eight in ten (83%) respondents perceived their refuge accommodation to be 'homely' (but this included only 65% of shared refuges).

Disabled Access

Disabled access is a major concern in refuge design. The key results of the survey on this topic were as follows:

• only 36 of the 113 refuges that responded (32%) have level access or ramped entry to the refuge for wheelchair access (53% of cluster refuges; 30% of shared refuges; 26% of dispersed flats);
• only 28 of 113 refuges (25%) have full ground floor accommodation for wheelchair users (53% of clusters; 21% of shared refuges; and 18% of dispersed flats). Of the seven purpose built cluster refuges that responded six have ramped entry and full ground floor accommodation;
• when asked for their perceptions, only 26 per cent of respondents thought that their refuge could accommodate most people with physical disabilities (although, surprisingly, given the responses above, 57% of dispersed accommodation was perceived to be suitable for most people with disabilities). Only 24 per cent of respondents felt that the corridors and doors throughout their refuge are wide enough for wheelchair use.

Location of Refuge Accommodation

We sought the views of WA respondents on a range of aspects of the location of refuge accommodation, with the results summarised in Table 13:

• just under three quarters of respondents (between 70% and 74%) believed the location of their refuge is satisfactory in relation to safety/quality of neighbourhood, distance to shops, services and schools, and public transport links, with some variation by type of refuge accommodation;
• while 83 per cent of shared refuges are reported as satisfactorily located with regards to shops, services and schools, a significantly lower proportion of respondents said this about cluster and dispersed refuges;
• only 56 per cent of respondents felt that the location of their refuge is satisfactory with regard to anonymity/security of building (80% of clusters; 58% of dispersed flats; and 46% of shared refuges);
• very few respondents feel there is friction between residents and those living nearby (8% of respondents believed there is often friction).

Table 13: Location of refuge: % respondents who agree by refuge type

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

Services for Women

WA groups provide a variety of services apart from refuge accommodation. The services provided most often are individual counselling/emotional support ('often' provided by 98% of groups), practical help with moving into refuge (81% 'often'), and accompanying women to meetings/interviews (81% 'often'). Groups also often provide material help, practical help with moving on from refuge, and help with transport to other agencies. Services provided less often include financial help, interpreter/signing services, and pet fostering services (see Table 14). A third of groups reported that women in their refuges are given key or named workers.

Table 14: Frequency with which WA groups provide the following support (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

We asked a series of questions about when and where WA workers are available to residents. Most (82%) of the 44 groups provide an on-call/emergency response service on a 24-hour basis (this service could be for women living in refuge and/or for women contacting WA seeking refuge or other assistance). However, only 16 of 42 groups indicated that they regularly undertake direct work with refuge residents during evenings/weekends (36%). Only 16 per cent of refuges were reported to have regular worker visits in the evenings/weekends: this included 41 per cent of the 17 clusters (7) for which responses were received, but only 14 per cent of 57 shared refuges (8) and 13 per cent of 39 dispersed flats (5).

Workers are based on-site in 43 shared and cluster refuges in total (53% of shared refuges and 77% of cluster refuges). Of the eight shared refuges which are purpose built, six have workers based in refuge, and two do not. Similarly, of the eight clusters that are purpose built, five have workers based in refuge and two do not (there was 1 missing case). Where workers are based in refuge, they are present on average for approximately 36 hours per week in both cluster and shared provision. The minimum number of hours during which there is staff cover was reported as 10 hours per week, with the maximum reported as 112 (however, this latter figure is almost certainly affected by erroneous reports of the number of staff-hours present in refuge rather than the number of hours per week during which there is cover). On-site refuge staff are provided on a 24-hour basis in only four local WA groups (9%).

For those 70 refuges where workers are not based in the refuge (27 shared, four cluster, and all 39 dispersed refuges), we asked a series of questions about worker contact:

• for all the shared and cluster refuges, and for 23 of the 39 dispersed flats (74%), respondents reported that it was more common for women to receive visits from workers than to visit the off-site office. In all of the shared and cluster refuges, workers rather than women were reported to initiate these visits most often, and this was also reported to be the case in all but two of the 27 dispersed flats for which this question was answered;
• four out of ten refuges without on-site workers (41%) are visited by workers on a daily basis (29), and a further 37 per cent are visited at least two or three times a week (27) (see Table 15). However, one in five refuges (19%) is visited by workers only on a weekly basis, and in two refuges workers visited only monthly or less often;
• visits to women in dispersed refuges are much less frequent than visits to women in shared or cluster provision. Only six of the 39 dispersed flats are visited daily (15%), although all but five per cent of the remainder are visited at least weekly. In contrast, there were daily visits to three-quarters of all the shared and cluster refuges without on-site workers, with the remainder being visited two or three times a week (see Table 15).

Table 15: Frequency with which workers visit refuges without on-site staff: by type of accommodation (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

Finally overall point, we asked whether respondents believed that their group had sufficient workers and other resources to provide women staying in their refuges with the support they need. Only 31 per cent of respondents said that they did (only 5% of those representing cluster refuges).

Services for Children

The services 'often' provided to children and young people are individual counselling/support (69% of refuges), day-time play activities for pre-school children (78%), after-school play activities for school-age children (81%), and liaison with schools, social work, youth organisations, etc. (83%). The services provided least often are weekend play activities and telephone counselling (Table 16).

Table 16: Frequency with which children's support workers provide the following services (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages. There are missing cases partly because not all groups have children's support workers. However, some groups without children's support workers have answered the question because although they don't have children's support workers, they still provide the services to children/young people.

Some details are:

• only 20 of 42 groups provide regular weekend/evening contact for children and young people in refuge (48%). The majority of groups however, 35, have additional provision during the summer holidays (81%). This usually takes the form of play-schemes and excursions;
• cluster refuges are as likely to have children's support workers based on-site as general refuge workers (77% and 76% respectively), but shared refuges are far less likely to have children's support workers based within them (25%) than general refuge workers (53%). Again dispersed refuges were excluded from this analysis. Four of the eight purpose built shared refuges, and five of the eight purpose built clusters, have children's support workers based on-site;
• children and young people receive visits by workers in almost nine out of ten refuges (87%) where no children's support workers are based. All shared and cluster refuges receive such visits and 53 per cent of dispersed refuges do so;
• in 76 per cent of refuges (57), children and young people participate in activities with children's support workers (56% of shared refuges; all the cluster refuges; and 71% of the dispersed flats);
• over half of WA groups (52%) provide children and young people with a named/key worker, as compared with only a third that provide such named workers for women residents. This disparity might partly be explained by the fact that many groups have only one children's support worker.

Some WA groups found it difficult to say whether their children's services have been registered under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 (see Chapter 1), with 10 out of the 44 failing to provide a response to this question. Of those which did respond, nine had registered their services under the new Act (27%), and the children's services in a further two groups remained registered under the Children Act 1989. Of the 25 groups which are not yet registered under the new Act, 15 were expecting to seek this registration and nine were not (1 non-registered group did not answer).

Three-quarters of all refuges provide access to a children's playroom. As noted earlier, there are children's rooms provided in two-thirds of shared refuges (38) and in all 18 cluster refuges; in a further nine shared refuges access to a children's playroom is provided in an off-site WA office (8) or in another refuge (1). As expected, there are no children's playrooms provided within dispersed flats, but access to a playroom is provided in either an off-site WA office (17) or in another refuge (2) for 19 of these flats.

WA groups were asked about the accessibility of their children's rooms (see Table 17). Although 84 refuges have access to a children's room, respondents only provided access information for 73 refuges, comprising 43 shared, 16 cluster and 14 dispersed refuges (11 missing cases). In one-third of these refuges (25; 34%), the playroom was reported as accessible all the time, while in the other two-thirds it is accessible with worker or parental supervision only. The third that reported access to children's playrooms at all times include 21 shared refuges (49%) and four dispersed refuges (29%). Playrooms in cluster provision are never accessible all the time; they are most likely to be accessible only with children's support worker supervision (63%, compared to only 14% of shared refuges and 29% of dispersed refuges). Unfortunately some caution is required when interpreting this data since it displays some likely inconsistencies such as responses that say that children and young people have access to a playroom in an off-site WA office, but they also report that the playroom is accessible to children/young people all the time.

Table 17: Accessibility of children's playroom (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

Young people have access to a teenagers' room in only 28 per cent of refuges (29 refuges) (31% of shared refuges; 39% of cluster refuges; and 18% of dispersed flats). Fewer than half of these 29 refuges have a teenagers' room on-site (41%); this includes all cluster refuges with access to a teenagers' room (six of which are purpose built), and only six of the 17 shared refuges with access to a teenagers' room (two of which are purpose built). In all of the remaining 16 refuges with access to a teenagers' room (59%), it is located in an off-site WA office.

Respondents were asked their perceptions of the adequacy of children's playroom and teenagers' room provision in shared and cluster refuge accommodation (see Table 18). In over 70 per cent of refuges that have access to children's playrooms/teenagers' rooms, they are perceived to be adequate in terms of décor and facilities and toys. However, a far smaller proportion believed that their children's or teenagers' rooms are adequate in number (50%), size (43%) or storage space (39%). There are some key differences between types of refuge accommodation, with 84 per cent of clusters perceived to have an adequate number of children's and teenagers' rooms, compared with only 39 per cent of shared refuges.

Table 18: Adequacy of children's playroom/teenagers' room provision (%)

Note: Missing data is excluded from calculation of percentages

Other facilities for children and young people:

• one-third (34%) of refuges (36) have equipment such as stereos, computers or Playstations, including 40 per cent of shared refuges and 94 per cent of cluster refuges. None of the dispersed refuges' flats have any such equipment;
• books, toys or games are provided for younger children in virtually all the shared and cluster refuges and in 74 per cent of the dispersed refuges;
• almost three-quarters of all 115 refuges have a garden or outside play area (72%), but this includes fewer than half, 19, of the 39 dispersed flats. All the purpose built clusters and shared refuges have a garden. Gardens are adequately fenced or otherwise protected from intruders in most cases.

Overall, in only 56 per cent of shared refuges, and 41 per cent of dispersed flats, respondents believed young children were well catered for. An even lower proportion of refuges were perceived to cater well for older children (only 26%). Finally, 63 per cent of respondents feel that their WA group does not have sufficient workers and other resources to provide children staying in refuge with the support and activities they need. This is especially true of dispersed flats (72%).

Particular Groups

This analysis focuses on groups for whom access to refuge may be limited or difficult. It outlines which groups most frequently approach WA groups seeking refuge, and also which groups are least likely to make an approach. The greatest demand for WA refuge space appears to come from women with alcohol problems (recovering), single women and women with large families, with over 50% of respondents reporting that women from these groups 'often' approach them for accommodation (see Table 19). Significant levels of demand are also reported from women with drug problems (stabilised), women with alcohol problems (still drinking), older women, women with serious mental health problems, and women abused by someone other than a partner. Lesbian women, gypsy traveller women, asylum seekers, women from ethnic minorities, and women whose first language is not English are least often reported as approaching WA for refuge.

Table 19: Frequency with which WA Groups are approached by particular groups for accommodation (%)

WA groups believe they are most equipped to assist women with alcohol problems (recovering), older women, young women, single women, and women with large families (see Table 20). Over 50 per cent of groups say they are 'often' able to provide women from these groups with appropriate refuge accommodation and support. The groups that appear most difficult for WA groups to accommodate are women with drug problems (still using), women with alcohol problems (still drinking), women with male children over the age of 16, women with serious mental health problems, and asylum seekers.

Table 20: Frequency with which WA Groups are able to provide the following groups with appropriate refuge accommodation and support (%)

Priorities and Preferences

This section identifies the key priorities for WA groups across Scotland. Table 21 reveals to what extent WA groups feel they require further provision. Fifty-nine per cent of groups believe that more children's support workers are 'urgently needed' in their area, while 53 per cent highlight more specialist refuges and 52 per cent identify higher quality rehousing. Outreach and follow-on work with children, age-specific children's rooms, and more bedspaces were prioritised by almost half of respondents. On the other hand, longer office opening hours were reported as 'not needed at all' by more than a third of WA groups, and around a fifth reported that they did not need higher physical/space standards in refuges, or better toys/equipment for children under 10.

Table 22 presents WA groups' views on which model of refuge accommodation best meet the needs of the majority of women and children. Almost nine out of ten (87%) opted for some form of cluster accommodation, with over half (55%; 24 groups) selecting the cluster model of single occupancy flats with communal facilities (our qualitative data indicates that this is also by far the most popular model amongst women and children, see Chapter 3). Only 11 per cent of groups identified shared refuges as the model most likely to meet the needs of the majority, with an even smaller proportion (only 2%) opting for dispersed flats.

Table 21: The extent to which WA Groups feel the following are still needed in their area (%)

Table 22: Views of WA on most appropriate model of refuge provision

Pending Refuge Provision

Having examined existing refuge provision in some detail, and reviewed WA groups' priorities for future provision, we now turn to consider pending refuge provision (see Table 23). Twenty-eight WA groups (64%) have plans for 40 new refuges in total, including six shared refuges (15%), 22 clusters (55%) and 12 dispersed flats (30%) (the number of family spaces will be more heavily weighted towards cluster and shared refuges than these proportions indicate because dispersed flats usually only accommodate one family at a time). It is possible that some of this accommodation will be to replace existing refuges, but it is likely that most is additional. Of the 22 new clusters, the majority (13) take the form of single occupancy flats with communal areas, but seven of the clusters will include shared flats and five will have no communal areas. For three groups it was too soon to be sure what type of accommodation would be provided. The majority of new provision will be purpose built (68%), although there are also plans for converting (16%) and using (12%) existing buildings.

Table 23: Number of new refuges of each type that will be provided

Note: Data includes multiple entries

This data provides a relatively limited profile of pending refuge provision, but nevertheless it is interesting to cross-reference it with WA workers' views, described above, and with the qualitative evidence from women, children and workers presented in Chapter 3. This indicates that virtually all women and children dislike sharing accommodation with other families, and that the majority of workers also favour a move towards greater self-containment in refuge provision. Yet, at least 33 per cent of these new refuges will involve some degree of shared living, and this figure is almost certainly an under-estimate because of the 'flexible' manner in which much refuge accommodation is used.

Conclusions

This chapter has provided a detailed profile of refuges in Scotland, based on 44 postal survey responses (a 96% response rate). The key findings were as follows:

• there are 46 WA groups in Scotland, 39 of which are affiliated to SWA and seven which are not. All groups employ paid workers, and 31 also have unpaid workers. Children's support workers are most likely to be funded from time-limited sources, and 13 WA groups have no such workers;
• The 44 respondents currently provide 115 WA refuges, comprising 58 shared refuges, 18 clusters (containing 90 flats) and 39 scatter flats. 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. Sixty-two per cent of all refuge accommodation currently involves some element of sharing, and at least 33 per cent of pending provision will do the same;
• standards within refuge provision vary by type of accommodation;
• shared refuges appear to provide the poorest standards in a number of respects: they are most likely to have space problems; they offer fewer communal facilities than cluster refuges; and they have lower standards with regards to kitchen/bathroom facilities, feel less homely, and are less well furnished than the other two types of refuge. However, workers view shared refuges as less likely to be lonely than the other two forms of accommodation, and they were considered better located with regards to shops, services and schools;
• cluster refuges are very mixed, with some of the best and worst refuge accommodation found in this category. Purpose built clusters in particular are likely to feel safe and secure, to offer communal facilities such as children's rooms, teenagers' rooms and on-site offices, and to be wheelchair accessible. However, cluster refuges could also be very large, and problems with bullying were most often reported in this type of refuge;
• dispersed flats are least likely to act as a deterrent to ex-partners harassing residents, or to offer wheelchair access or gardens/outside play areas. On the other hand, they are most likely to be used as single occupancy accommodation, and women rarely have to share bedrooms with their children in this form of accommodation. In addition, dispersed flats are most likely to be well furnished throughout, and to provide good kitchen and bathroom facilities.
• over half of all shared and cluster refuges have general refuge workers based on-site, while just over a third have children's support workers based within them. Cluster refuges are more likely than shared to have both women's and children's support workers based on-site. Women in dispersed flats are visited far less often by WA workers than those living in shared or cluster refuges without on-site workers
• the services WA provide most often to women residents are individual counselling/emotional support, practical help with moving into the refuge and accompanying women to meetings/interviews. The services most often provided to children and young people are individual counselling/support, play activities, and liaison with schools and other agencies;
• among groups for whom access to refuge may be limited and/or difficult, the greatest demand appears to come from women with alcohol problems (recovering), single women and women with large families. WA groups believe they are most equipped to offer accommodation and support to women with alcohol problems (recovering), older women, young women, single women and women with large families. The women that appear most difficult for WA groups to accommodate are those with drug problems (still using), those with alcohol problems (still using), those with male children over the age of 16, those with serious mental health problems, and asylum seekers;
• in terms of future priorities, over half of all WA groups believe that more children's support workers, more specialist refuges, and higher quality rehousing are urgent requirements. Only a third of respondents believed that their group has sufficient workers and other resources to provide women, children and young people staying in refuge with the support they need;
• the vast majority of respondents believe some form of cluster accommodation best meets the needs of the majority of women and children, with more than half opting for clusters of single occupancy flats with communal facilities also provided. Only 11 per cent of groups chose shared accommodation as the model most likely to meet the needs of the majority, with an even smaller proportion (only 2%) opting for dispersed flats.

Endnote

1. The two WA groups not included in the analysis are Edinburgh WA and East Fife WA. The questionnaires from East Fife WA were lost in the post and the completed questionnaires from Edinburgh WA arrived too late to be included in the analysis. The telephone survey indicated that:

• East Fife has one dispersed flat and one cluster (containing 3 flats) which provide five spaces in total;
• Edinburgh has six shared houses, which provide 15 spaces in total.

« Previous | Contents | Next »