« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
REFUGES FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND
Chapter 6: Particular Groups
Introduction
This chapter considers the position of women for whom access to refuge may be limited and/or difficult. The groups identified by workers and/or women as falling into these categories were:
- disabled women or women with disabled children;
- women with large families;
- women with drug problems;
- women with male children aged over 16;
- women from minority ethnic groups; and
- 'professional' or 'middle class' women.
While workers felt that progress had been made in widening access to refuges for some of these 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' (see also Chapter 2).
We conducted two focus groups with women from minority ethnic backgrounds in the course of the study, and a specific focus group was also held with ex-drug users (see Appendix B). A small number of professional women, women with large families, and women with male children over 16 participated across the various focus group discussions, as did some children from minority ethnic groups. Unfortunately, it did not prove possible to explore the experiences of women or children with disabilities within the confines of this research.
The position of women with drug problems, minority ethnic families, women with male children over 16, and women from professional or 'middle class' backgrounds is explored below. This chapter also considers the question of specialist refuges for specific groups.
Drug Users
Workers generally acknowledged that active drug users, particularly intravenous heroin users, were the most difficult group of women to accommodate (see Chapter 2). As noted in Chapter 3, this was also one of the groups that other women were most anxious to avoid sharing accommodation with. One worker commented:
'Women with addictions get a raw deal as far as refuge goes. It's just that the refuge set up is not conducive to that …there is talk of specialist refuge provision… We do take women if they are on a methadone prescription, if they are maintaining it well. But if the woman is using, then we don't take her. There's too much chaos, and it's not contained in their flat, it spills out to everyone.'
Most WA groups would not accommodate active drug users in their shared provision, but some would place them in their dispersed flats. In fact, this was often seen as a key use of these flats:
'We use them for multiple needs, for people with drug or alcohol problems, people who found it difficult to live in refuge and put in support for extra needs.'
Some workers felt that the solution was specialist provision for drug users, but also recognised the difficulties inherent in this approach:
'It would need to be 24-hour specialist support, with specialist staff.'
'And where would you put a unit like that? It would be targeted and labelled…'
'For a start, it's illegal. If they were using something in the building, it's illegal - the Wintercomfort case.'
The 'Wintercomfort' case relates to two workers in a homelessness day centre in Cambridge who were imprisoned under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 because they 'knowingly permit[ed] their premises to be used for the supply of heroin' ( The Observer, 02/01/2000). Since these convictions, workers in various types of supported accommodation have become (even) more nervous about accommodating active drug users.
There were mixed views amongst the ex-drug users interviewed on the question of specialist refuges for those still using: some were against it: 'I think that would be discrimination', whereas others appeared in favour: 'Aye. You don't want to mix, I wouldn't want my kids in with people doing drugs.' However, this latter comment appeared to be more about keeping active drug users away from other families than about providing appropriate accommodation for them. In fact, none of the ex-drug users we spoke to appeared willing to use such specialist refuge provision themselves, especially if they had their children with them:
'I wouldn't take my weans where people are using drugs. Even if they're an ex-addict on a prescription… Even if you're all together in the same building [cluster], it's no right. And people with nae weans, are completely different from you, you're thinking of your weans all the time, they're your main priority…'
The ex-users were also generally against active drug users being allowed in mainstream refuges, especially if there were children around, and they supported WA's current policy: '…you've got a lot of people in refuge who don't need people with alcohol or drug problems round about them, they need help.' Nevertheless, and somewhat confusingly, they seemed to feel strongly that refuges should 'have more drugs workers', and thought it vital for women who were stabilised/ off drugs to be kept separate from those still using. These women were often very concerned about approaching police or social work services regarding the domestic abuse to which they were subjected in case their children were taken from them - this concern lay behind one woman's repeated question '…are you automatically allocated a social worker when you're in refuge?'
We spoke to very few women with self-identified alcohol problems, although women and children in a range of areas mentioned problems created by drinking in refuges. While illegal drugs were banned from refuges entirely, only 'dangerous' use of alcohol was generally prohibited. Some women and children felt that there should be no alcohol allowed at all, but as one worker said:
'If a woman is sitting in here, if she wants to have a couple of glasses of wine in front of the TV, then that's OK. But we have been caught out with that too… Never mind, they've all been broken. We have to treat them decently, like we would want to be treated ourselves. The women have been abused… it's no Cornton Vale they're in…'
It is important to note that, for some of the women interviewed, particularly those with drug or alcohol problems, domestic violence seemed simply one of a myriad of problems that confronted them, including other forms of violence, involvement in prostitution, long-term consequences of childhood abuse, etc. The challenge these complex problems presented to WA's traditional way of working was acknowledged by a number of workers:
'We promote the idea of women helping women, not have supervision all the time, but I don't know if that would work if there was an addiction going on.'
Minority Ethnic Groups
The first group of minority ethnic women we spoke to comprised mainly women brought up in Britain, but also included two women who had migrated here as adults and spoke little English. All of the women were of south Asian origin, mostly Pakistani. Those brought up in Britain did not express a preference for specialist ethnic minority accommodation: 'I wouldn't be bothered. I didn't know it was for ethnic minority women.' However, none of these women had experienced 'mixed' refuge and, on reflection, some did express some concern about the racism they might encounter there:
'We wouldn't know, we've only been here. I wouldn't know about mixed refuge. I know one girl who was in a mixed refuge, and she found them bitchy, and there was racism…'
On the other hand, the women who spoke little English focused immediately on the language barrier:
'I wouldn't have gone into mainstream [refuge]. I've only been here for two and a half years, there is a language barrier, I wouldn't have anyone to talk to, I wouldn't know anyone.'
'The main thing is our language, it feels very easy and comfortable to speak to others in our language.'
Also, once these same women had raised the issue of their cultural needs, for example in relation to cooking, the others tended to agree:
'For pork, we can't use the same bowls or anything. And dress sense as well. They take the piss out our clothes, say "why are you wearing your nightie?"'
In other respects, the accommodation preferences of the women in this group were very similar to those of most of the other groups: a strong preference for single occupancy accommodation; attraction to the idea of cluster refuges with communal areas; and a preference for kitchens rather than bathrooms to be shared where necessary.
The other group of minority ethnic women interviewed contained a greater mix of ethnic groups and comprised mainly more recent immigrants or asylum seekers/refugees, including women of south Asian, Afro-Caribbean, African, Arabic and Far East origins. For this group, the availability of interpreters, advice on immigration/legal matters, and sensitivity to religious and cultural requirements were very much to the fore. Several made the point that they would find it very difficult to share with families from other backgrounds:
'We couldn't share, it's a different system…Not share with families from different backgrounds, for myself I am Muslim, and I teach my children my way, I couldn't share.'
However, even in this group there were those who said they were not bothered if refuges were 'mixed' or specialist. One woman pointed out that refuges aimed at particular (especially small) minority ethnic groups may compromise residents' confidentiality or anonymity:
'No I wouldn't want specialist... if I shared with Arabic women, then my partner's family would find out I was here.'
The women in this second group were very concerned about the location of follow-on accommodation, and often appeared to fear racial harassment more than threats from ex-partners. This was married to a constant emphasis on providing a good future for their children: when asked what would make somewhere good or bad to stay in, the group strongly agreed with one woman who responded '…the neighbours, especially for children.'
None of the women interviewed in either focus group appeared to think the cultural/religious background of the workers mattered:
'Not at all. As far as there is an understanding of the effect of what you're going through, it wouldn't matter if the person is white.'
However, there were reports from some minority ethnic women about the unhelpfulness of mainstream WA workers they had approached, with some forming the impression that these non-specialist services were restricted to 'white' women only:
'I saw other Women's Aid [groups] but I thought that they were just for white women. Was told they only deal with Scottish people. This one was the only one I know that deals with ethnic minorities.'
'I went to [X] Women's Aid, they weren't very helpful. I couldn't speak English, they weren't helpful, they didn't even tell me about Y [an ethnic minority refuge].'
As noted in Chapter 2, most WA groups reported that they were 'often' or 'sometimes' able to provide women from ethnic minorities, and those whose first language is not English, with appropriate accommodation and support, but a much smaller number felt able to provide for the needs of asylum seekers (presumably because of the restrictions on the use of public funds to support these women and their children).
Professional/Middle Class Women
Professional women were identified by several women interviewees as likely to find it especially stigmatising to access refuge:
'There's more of a stigma for professional people. It's not that Women's Aid wouldn't believe them, it's the whole thing that you're going to bring on your family, everyone. It's hard enough for normal people…'
However, some workers pointed out that such women, if they have access to a good income of their own, may have other accommodation options which mean they don't have to use refuge:
'But do they [professional women] find it hard to access or do they have a different way out? My guess is that they could go and get a flat. It's when you don't have the resources, you don't have the choices.'
'It's easier for professional women, they have cash so can get themselves private accommodation. They've got money, so they've got a choice.'
As noted above, we spoke directly to only a small number of professional/middle class women in the course of this study. It may be that some in this group would welcome the support offered by WA, but stigma and, perhaps, the cost of refuge (if you are paying your own rent) deters them from using this accommodation. Nevertheless, a general point made by some WA workers may be particularly relevant here:
'…there are some women who do do it without Women's Aid. They can do it. It's just self-choice, different people…'
Women with Male Children over 16
As discussed in Chapter 5, some teenage boys objected strongly to the exclusion of male children over 16 from refuge. One focus group of women also expressed great disquiet in relation to this rule:
'It's your kid, at the end of the day, they'll always be your wean, it doesn't mean they're gonna turn into their da.'
'I was really unhappy with it. He's not rowdy, he's quiet… It was cos of my son that I stayed with my partner for longer.'
Some WA groups dealt with this issue by allowing young men over 16 in dispersed flats but not in shared refuges.
Specialist Refuges
There was some support amongst those WA workers interviewed for specialist refuges to accommodate women with high support needs (and the questionnaire survey indicated that over half of WA groups felt that specialist refuges were 'urgently needed' in their area (see Chapter 2). The case of women with drug dependencies was discussed above. Some workers also felt that such specialist provision may be appropriate for other groups, such as women with mental health problems, and young women with little experience of living independently. In these instances it was felt that the 'self-help' approach of WA was unlikely to be effective:
'… young women who are coming in without the skills to look after a house, or kids. They need space for a wee bit of guidance on how to keep a home, budget, cooking, parenting…I think it should be a more specialised service. I think it needs specialist accommodation. If you are working with someone in a communal area, then that highlights to everybody that this person is getting help. Some are OK with that, but some are not OK with being seen to be not coping.' (refuge worker)
In addition, there was support from many women, and from some workers, for separate refuges for single women and for women with dependent children:
'A refuge should be kept for women with children or for single women, a separate one. You've got to have a family atmosphere in these places for the kids.' (woman resident)
'You have to separate them. Women with children, single women… People with children shouldn't be in places with young people or people without children. Because kids are innocent and would be exposed to people full of it all the time.' (woman refuge resident)
The concerns of women seemed mainly to be linked to the desire to avoid children being exposed to drug taking, violence, etc (although women involved in such activities may of course have children themselves). On the other hand, workers sometimes felt that older single women in particular may find it difficult to cope with being in refuge with lots of young children running around:
'For the older women, they are more set in their ways, privacy is more important. Older woman have their pride, and communal living is a disaster, imagine with kids running about…' (refuge worker)
Conclusions
The key messages emerging from this chapter are that:
- the groups identified by workers and/or women as having difficult/limited access to refuges were: disabled women or women with disabled children; women with large families; women with drug problems; women with male children aged over 16; women from minority ethnic groups; and 'professional' or 'middle class' women;
- 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';
- most WA groups would not accommodate active drug users in shared refuges, but many would accommodate them in dispersed flats. Some workers favoured specialist provision with 24-hour support for drug users, but the ex-users whom we interviewed seemed unwilling to use this provision, particularly if they had their children with them;
- the needs and preferences of the minority ethnic women interviewed were diverse, with language, religion and immigration status particularly important factors shaping these needs. Not all of these women appeared to favour specialist provision, but others were clear that they would find it difficult to share accommodation with families from different cultural/religious backgrounds. Minority ethnic women were often very concerned about the location of follow-on accommodation, and some appeared to fear racial harassment more than threats from ex-partners. Some gave accounts of the unhelpfulness of mainstream WA services;
- professional women were identified by several women interviewees as likely to find it especially stigmatising to access refuge, but workers pointed out that such women may have other accommodation options which mean they don't have to use refuge;
- there was great disquiet amongst teenage boys and some women interviewed in relation to the exclusion of young men aged over 16 from refuges. Some groups use dispersed flats to accommodate families with male children over 16;
- there was some support amongst WA workers for specialist refuges to accommodate women with high support needs. There was also support from many women, and from some workers, for separate refuges for single women and women with dependent children.
« Previous | Contents | Next »