The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

REFUGES FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND

Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations

Key Findings

Overview of Refuge Accommodation

There are 46 WA Groups in Scotland, 39 of which are affiliated to SWA and seven which are not. The 44 survey responses indicated that 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;
• 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, 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 cluster refuges and 12 new dispersed flats. Almost two-thirds of current refuge provision involves some degree of shared living, and at least one third of this pending provision will do the same.

Standards within refuge provision vary considerably 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.

Accommodation Preferences

By far the most popular model of refuge amongst women, children and workers was that of clusters of single occupancy flats with additional communal facilities also provided. 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 refuges were inappropriate. No women or children interviewed actively preferred shared refuges, although a small number of workers seemed to have some attachment to this traditional model.

This general antipathy towards shared refuges reflects the negative experiences that the great majority of women and children reported on sharing facilities, particularly bathrooms, with other families. Most friction in shared refuges related to 'different standards' in relation to cleanliness and care of children, but more serious complaints about violence, intimidation and drug/alcohol misuse were also made, especially in deprived urban areas. However, most women and children 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 women interviewed who had not stayed in refuge overwhelmingly identified sharing with other families as what had deterred them. Several said that they would have used dispersed refuge flats if they had known this accommodation was available. Some women found comfort in sharing a bedroom with their children while in refuge, whereas others emphasised the importance of separate bedrooms (particularly for older and male children). Children were generally very unhappy about sharing a bedroom with their mothers, though some were more relaxed about sharing with a sibling.

The other main concern of women and children with regards to the design of refuges was external security, particularly to stop intrusion by ex-partners. Again, there were sharp contrasts in how secure refuges were felt to be, with cluster refuges seen by both women and children as having key advantages in this respect by keeping 'your own door off the street'.

Services for Women and Children in Refuge

The services provided most often to women refuge residents are individual counselling/emotional support, practical help with moving into refuge, and accompanied meetings/interviews. Just over half of shared refuges, and more than three-quarters of cluster refuges, have refuge workers based within them, with women in dispersed flats visited much less often by WA workers than those living in shared or cluster refuges without on-site workers. Regular weekend/evening work with residents is undertaken in only a minority of refuges.

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, WA groups seemed divided between those which took a 'pro-active' approach in offering support to women residents, and those which took a more 'reactive' approach, with the former far more highly praised. Associated with this, women and children preferred workers to be based within the refuge rather than at an off-site office. Women were often surprised when they first moved into refuge that WA staff were only available (at most) during office hours, but there was only limited support for 24-hour staffing of refuges, with workers generally against this. Women were anxious, however, that there should be an adequate 24-hour emergency service from WA, which was not available in at least two of the areas we visited. More extensive (non-emergency) weekend and evening cover was seen as desirable by most women interviewed. The availability of follow-on support was very much welcomed by all those who commented.

Thirty-one WA groups in Scotland currently have children's support workers (13 do not). While three-quarters of cluster refuges have children's support workers based within them, this is true of only a quarter of shared refuges. The services most often provided to children and young people in refuge are individual counselling/support, play activities, and liaison with schools and other agencies. Provision for children has improved considerably in many refuges in recent years, and their experience of refuge was often reported as extremely positive because of the safety, support and stimulation they enjoyed there. But living in refuge could also be a negative experience for children where there was tension between the families sharing, and disruption to schooling and friendship networks could be particularly painful for teenagers. Conflict between children in refuge was highlighted less often by children than by adults: their main complaint was of boredom if there was no one else their age in refuge. Children and young people often objected strongly to smoking in shared refuge provision, but this was almost universally allowed.

Children very often wanted greater access to children's support workers, and stressed the importance of having the same worker 'all the way through'. The work undertaken by children's support workers was also generally praised by women, with the only complaint being that it didn't go into enough 'depth' sometimes. It was considered important that children's support workers be available for children as soon as they move into refuge, and be around on a daily basis. Lack of access to children's rooms when children's support workers were not available was a major source of complaint, and the lack of weekend/evening cover was viewed as particularly problematic. It was generally felt that younger children were better catered for in refuge than older children, with a separate 'quiet' room for teenagers often highlighted as key priority for future provision. Children also wanted separate activities, and in some cases separate workers, for different age groups. 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.

Particular Groups

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 whom 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. Complex additional problems, including drug and alcohol dependency, appeared particularly prevalent in urban refuges. In rural and semi-rural areas, the absence of local specialist services and limited public transport were key concerns.

The needs and preferences of the minority ethnic women interviewed were diverse, with language, religion and immigration status particularly important factors shaping these needs. Professional women were identified by several focus groups of women as likely to find it especially stigmatising to access refuge, but some 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 some women and teenage boys interviewed about the exclusion of boys aged over 16 from refuge.

Priorities for Future Provision

Only one third of WA groups reported that they had sufficient workers and other resources to provide women, children and young people staying in refuge with the support they need. The WA respondents attached the highest priority to additional children's support workers, more specialist refuges and higher quality rehousing, with more than half indicating that these were 'urgently needed' in their area.

In the focus groups there was a mixed response with regards to whether more workers or more/better buildings should be prioritised in future refuge provision, but one woman interviewee summed up a lot of the feelings of others:

'If it's a communal refuge, then the workers are more important. If it's self-contained accommodation, then the building or a better area is more important.'

In relation to whether women or children's support workers should be prioritised, women generally felt that if mothers were properly supported, their children would have less need of children's support workers, although some women felt that support for children should be the top priority. As noted above, children wanted more time with children's support workers, and stressed the importance of separate rooms and activities for different age groups. They also prioritised toys, trips, outside play areas, games and electronic equipment, depending on their age. Children's support workers felt that additional worker hours for children should be prioritised, with the same worker/child ratio established as for women/refuge workers.

Recommendations

The recommendations are of two types: first, we present substantive recommendations on future refuge provision and services; second, we present methodological recommendations on future auditing of refuge provision.

Recommendations on Refuges and Services

The recommendations below reflect the priorities and preferences of women, children and young people identified in the course of the research. They represent the ideal to strive for in relation to refuge provision, rather than an expectation on our part that they are all capable of immediate implementation for every part of Scotland.

General

• The pronounced variation in the level and quality of service offered in refuges across Scotland indicates the need for national minimum standards. A co-ordinated programme of training, monitoring and evaluation is required to ensure that these minimum standards are adhered to across the whole network of provision.
• Significant increases in funding will be required to allow attainment of appropriate minimum standards by all WA groups in Scotland, with revenue funding just as crucial as capital investment.
• Supportive national and local policy frameworks, for example in relation to Housing Benefit and Supporting People, are required to enable positive developments in refuge provision to take place.
• Local authorities should consider whether their current refuge provision, and their domestic abuse and homelessness strategies, require review in the light of the findings of this research.
• Increased joint working with other agencies would enable WA to better meet the needs of families with particular or complex needs, such as ethnic minority families and women with alcohol or drug dependencies. The extent of such joint working varies considerably across the country at present. Successful joint working will require flexible attitudes and working practices on the part of both WA and their statutory and voluntary sector partners in local areas.
• An increased capacity on the part of WA to offer outreach support would enable a greater number of abused women and children living outwith refuge to have access to the specialist services that WA can provide. This would be of benefit to those who are unable to gain access to refuge provision because of excess demand for places; to those who do not wish to live in refuge but would appreciate support from WA; and to those whose circumstances mean they cannot be accommodated in the available refuge provision (e.g. women with drug problems). This type of outreach support is already provided by some WA groups, but resource constraints mean that it is severely restricted.

Accommodation

• Future refuge accommodation should focus on 'cluster' provision which fulfils the following specifications:

- the flats provided in such clusters should always be used as single occupancy accommodation. Unless this recommendation is adhered to, all of the advantages of this recommended model are lost;

- communal areas for both women and children should be provided in all clusters, including age-specific children's rooms. The communal areas for women must be carefully designed to maximise informal interaction, e.g. they should have staff offices or children's rooms adjacent to them, or be located in a main corridor area so that women will 'bump into' each other 'naturally'. Without such carefully designed communal spaces, women and children in self-contained cluster flats risk losing the mutual support that is so central to the benefits of refuge;

- these clusters should be kept small in order to promote a non-institutional, safe and supportive environment (this point is especially important in deprived urban areas, and mirrors developments in the homelessness field where it is increasingly recognised that large-scale hostels feel threatening and unsupportive, Glasgow Review Team, 2000). Restricting the size of refuges would also help to hold numbers of children down to a reasonable level, and would make informal interaction in the communal areas (particularly between women) much more likely;

- purpose built rather than converted buildings should be used for refuges wherever possible, as they are far more able to accommodate the design and security features recommended in this report.

• There should also be dispersed flats provided in each area (with support and security arrangements) for those families for whom even the cluster model feels too intensive, and for those groups who cannot be accommodated in shared/communal settings. The resource-intensive nature of supporting families in such dispersed flats should be recognised.
• Attempts should be made to end the use of traditional shared refuges entirely as this was not the preference of any of those interviewed. Similarly, cluster refuges with shared flats and/or which lack communal facilities are not recommended as they cannot provide the key benefits of 'privacy plus contact' which was so important to both women and children. Indeed, some of the poorest experiences of refuge in our study related to large clusters of shared flats.
• Where facilities continue to be shared, this should be limited to kitchens rather than bathrooms wherever possible. En-suite facilities should therefore be provided as a matter of priority in all refuges, especially for families with children. Lockable cupboards should be provided in all shared kitchens. Families should always be able to lock the door to their bedrooms in shared provision.
• Security measures must be treated as a top priority in all refuges. Refuges not only have to be secure from external intrusion, but also to feel that way (so, for example, closes and paths to the refuge door should be well lit).
• An urgent review of smoking policies within refuges is required to take account of the interests of children (and non-smoking adults).
• An 'off-the-peg' design brief for refuge accommodation reflecting the preferred model outlined above should be developed, with indicative costs also specified and updated periodically. Such a brief could be developed in consultation with the architects and other professionals involved in recent, high quality refuge developments, and would be of great assistance to other refuge groups seeking to enhance provision. Such a model brief is made feasible by the high level of consensus identified in this research in relation to women and children's preferences for refuge accommodation.

Services for Women and Children in Refuge

• All WA groups should be encouraged to move towards a 'pro-active' approach in supporting women refuge residents.
• All shared and cluster refuges should have workers based on-site.
• Greater access to workers at weekends and evenings, particularly children's support workers, should be established.
• 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 that children have the opportunity of one-to-one contact with children's support workers, and that there is 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 for maximum access, e.g. lockable cupboards should be provided for breakables/valuables so that the room can still be used when staff are not available.
• Additional provision for teenagers, including a separate room away from younger children, should be treated as a priority. Wherever possible, separate activities as well as rooms should be provided for different age groups, and consideration should be given to the provision of different workers for different age groups in the larger WA groups.
• 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. In fact, WA may wish to review this rule in the light of a shift towards more self-contained refuge accommodation.
• Move-on support for both women and children leaving refuge should be treated as a priority, and wherever possible the same 'key worker' should stay with a family throughout their contact with WA: this continuity was especially important to children. Responding to this recommendation will pose a challenge to WA's established ways of working because most groups currently have separate refuge and follow-on workers.

Particular Groups

• Consideration should be given to the establishment of separate refuges for families and single women, as this was an option heavily supported by many of those interviewed. However, a shift away from shared to cluster refuges may make this less of an issue.
• While there was support amongst some workers for specialist refuges for active drug users, such a model held little attraction for the (ex)drug users we interviewed. There must also be serious concern about placing women with children in projects with a concentration of active drug users. While placing these women in dispersed flats is the most realistic option currently available to WA groups, partnership working with agencies in the drugs or homelessness field may enable innovative residential services to be developed, particularly for single women. WA could also seek to develop further its outreach work to drugs and homelessness projects.
• Specialist, highly supported refuges for other vulnerable women, such as young women, was also supported by many workers. It should be recognised, however, that such specialised facilities, if established, are likely to be concentrated in urban areas. Again joint working with other agencies and an outreach approach on the part of WA may help to meet the needs of these groups.
• Not all women from ethnic minority backgrounds will want to access specialist provision, so every WA group should be equipped as far as possible to assist ethnic minority families, including those whose first language is not English. Interpreter services are very expensive and require additional, dedicated resources, but partnership working with other agencies may enable multi-lingual services to be provided in a cost-efficient manner. The needs of minority ethic women and children facing domestic abuse is a topic that would merit further, targeted research.
• Further (quantitative) research should be conducted on the additional support requirements of women in refuges. If a spatially uneven pattern of need is established, the funding of refuges should reflect this to enable higher support ratios to be established in those areas with concentrations of women with additional problems. Small(er) refuges with on-site offices and a pro-active approach by workers would also assist in making refuges in these areas feel safer.
• The refuge needs of disabled women and children requires specific, targeted research designed to take account of the full range of physical, sensory and learning disabilities.

Recommendations on Future Auditing of Provision

An adaptation of National Care Standards to be appropriate to refuge and other WA services, together with a regular inspection regime, is probably the best way forward in ensuring consistent implementation of minimum refuge standards. In addition to routine inspections, periodic audits of refuge provision will also be required. It is crucial that WA groups across Scotland develop a common vocabulary in order to facilitate such periodic audits: the absence of standardised information/descriptions of refuge accommodation posed a major obstacle in taking forward the quantitative aspects of this research, and undermined the quality of some of the statistical data obtained.

In such periodic audits, conducted perhaps every three years, we would recommend the following approach.

First, the quantitative data collected in this study should be used as a 'baseline' against which to assess progress (taking account of the limitations of this data as outlined in this report). This data has been loaded onto an SPSS database and has been made available to SWA for future updating.

Second, prior to any future audit a brief telephone survey should be carried out of all WA groups in Scotland, similar to that carried out in this study. This has two key benefits: it enables the provision in each area to be clarified in broad terms so that appropriate detailed questionnaires can be sent to that group; and it provides an opportunity for workers to be informed about the research so that questionnaires are not sent out 'cold'. This approach almost certainly contributed to the very high response rate achieved in this study.

Third, the key stage of the audit should be detailed questionnaires circulated to all WA groups in Scotland. We would suggest that the four questionnaires developed for this research project (see Appendices G, H, I and J) should be used as the basis for these subsequent audits to maximise comparability with the baseline data generated in this study. However, these questionnaires should be adapted insofar as necessary in each periodic audit to reflect changes in provision revealed by the telephone survey. As always with questionnaire surveys, follow-up calls to clarify responses and to chase non-respondents would be required.

Fourth, this quantitative data should be supplemented with qualitative data in each periodic audit to give a deeper sense of how the experiences, priorities and preferences of women, children and workers have shifted over time (as provision, hopefully, improves). Focus groups have worked well in this study as the main qualitative research tool, but other approaches, such as individual interviews with adults and innovative approaches with children, could also be pursued.

Together, these quantitative and qualitative data gathering exercises would give both depth and breadth to periodic audits of refuge provision.

The initial brief for this study envisaged visits to a selected number of refuges to investigate whether the questionnaire responses matched reality. This was rejected as a method because, while such visits would undoubtedly have added value to the study, no sensible criteria could be defined to determine which refuges to visit. Visiting all refuges in Scotland was simply not realistic within the confines of this study nor, would we suggest, is it likely to be in any future, one-off research study. That is why systematic inspections, which involve periodic visits to all refuges on a rolling programme basis, are so important (see above).

Finally, there is also a crucial role for independent, in-depth evaluations of particular aspects of WA's work in order to assess whether such work achieves its aims and can demonstrate appropriate outcomes. There is now a lot of work in the homelessness field, for example, which explores the measurement of the sort of 'soft' outcomes most relevant to WA work, e.g. increased self-esteem and confidence, improved social functioning, etc. Evaluations are particularly useful when they include a 'comparative' element, so that the relative effectiveness of different approaches can be assessed, and where they are 'pluralistic', so that the perspectives of all of the relevant 'stakeholders' (women, children, workers, funders, regulators and partner agencies) are taken into account. Evaluating 'what works' in a systematic, rigorous way would help WA to improve its future service to women and children.

« Previous | Contents | Next »