The Scottish Government

Listen

Commissioned by the Scottish Executive from the Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre for Scotland

ISBN 0 7559 1087 7 (Web only publication)

This document is also available in pdf format (264k)

1. Section 102 of the Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004 ¹ provides for the Scottish courts to impose parenting orders (' POs'), these being introduced on a national basis via a three year pilot. As the pilot will focus upon systems and practices for the operation of POs, a draft document containing advice and guidance ('the Guidance') was put to consultation by the Scottish Executive in December 2004, with responses requested by 4 March 2005. The Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre for Scotland was commissioned ² to analyse the consultation responses, and this report details the findings of that analysis.

General summary

• 66 individual responses were received, mostly from agencies/organisations
• 15 responses made it clear they supported parenting orders
• 49 responses provided comments on the Guidance
• 17 responses were content with the Guidance and 4 were generally content
• 27 responses gave some positive comments on the Guidance including:
• its emphasis on the importance of voluntary engagement with parents
• consensus that POs should only be used as a 'last resort'
• the focus of the Guidance being child-centred
• agreement with the need to engage all fathers
• the value of consulting parents over local needs and services
• 10 responses sought clarification of certain aspects of POs, including the relationship between POs and other legislation/compulsory orders
• 39 responses gave suggestions for the Guidance; e.g., clarity over what should constitute counselling and guidance, and the provision of consistent information to parents
• 42 responses made general comments on POs, including concern about their impact on scarce resources and their impact on families

Responses to the Consultation

2. Sixty six ³ responses were received to the consultation. The majority of responses (80%) came from organisations, with a further 15% coming from departments within organisations (e.g., a social work department within a local authority). Of the remaining 3 responses, 2 were from individuals. The highest proportion of responses (35%) came from local authorities, either from the authority as a whole (18 responses) or from a particular department within an authority (5 responses); each of these responses came from a different local authority.

3. Only 16 respondents explicitly expressed an opinion about parenting orders and 15 were supportive. Three quarters (49) of those who responded to the consultation provided comments on the draft Guidance. Half of these (24) explicitly gave an opinion on the Guidance; 17 were content and a further 4 were generally content but had some qualifications. Three respondents were not happy with the Guidance.

4. While some of the returns were lengthy, not all of the comments provided therein related directly to the draft Guidance document and so some details of the responses have been omitted from this analysis ⁴. Nevertheless, it was possible to identify a number of recurring themes in the responses and it is these that are focussed upon here. In addition, individual cases where strong views were expressed are also included. Given the nature of responses, the findings in this report are presented qualitatively for the most part, though quantitative data is used where possible.

5. It became clear, in examining the information returned in the consultation, that responses fell into three categories, often within the same document. These could be loosely described as:

• Comments relating directly to the content and substance of the Guidance document
• Suggestions as to inclusions, improvements etc. that did not relate directly to the content and substance of the Guidance document
• Other, more general comments relating to the operation of POs overall

Findings will therefore be presented under each of these headings.

Comments on the Guidance

6. As is common in consultations of this type, the majority of comments returned related to points where clarification of existing content or inclusion of additional information would be welcomed. Positive comments were returned on a number of occasions (27 or 41% of responses), the majority of which were from LAs, as were expressions of agreement with certain content of the Guidance. Positive comments included that the Guidance was: "clear and concise"; "comprehensive"; "of good quality" and "thorough". It was also commented in one response from an organisation that, with the inclusion of guidance for the police, the Guidance document would be "as near to a complete guide, as is possible in a document of this type, on the whole subject of parenting orders". That the operation of POs is to be independently evaluated was also generally welcomed.

7. There were, however, a number of negative comments also expressed. For example, one respondent (an organisation) felt that the Guidance fell "short of the usual standard of English in Scottish Executive documents" and that it missed "what should be a core value and ethos - the welfare of children - and instead focuses on criminality and anti-social behaviour". Another return on behalf of an organisation expressed the view that the Guidance was "badly written, controversial and lacking in substance".

8. With regard to themes over which agreement was expressed, the most common of these was the emphasis throughout the Guidance that engaging parents on a voluntary basis was more effective than compulsion, and that POs should only be used as a 'last resort'. In addition, many respondents welcomed that the focus of the Guidance was centred on the child, and emphasised the importance of this. Further aspects of the Guidance that were welcomed by respondents were:

• Recognition of the need to engage fathers, resident or otherwise, when providing parenting support
• Recognition of the value of consulting parents with regard to local needs and services
• Emphasis on the need for assessments to relate to individual circumstances, taking into account factors such as medical conditions that may impact upon behaviour and recognising that different lifestyle choices do not necessarily correlate to 'poor parenting'.

9. Respondents consistently drew attention to a number of areas in the Guidance where more in-depth information, or increased clarity, would be welcomed. The most common of these requested a clearer statement regarding the relationship of POs to existing legislation, this being highlighted by 10 of those respondents who provided direct comments on the Guidance. For example, one respondent requested that the final version of the Guidance should: "clearly articulate the relationship [of POs] to the primary legislation framework of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995", with 2 further respondents citing the "no order principle" in relation to this. Another respondent stated that further guidance would be welcomed regarding "how best to fit parenting orders within the framework of integrated children's services and youth justice strategy".

10. Related to this point were a number of requests for clarity with regard to the assessment criteria required to apply for an order, including the need to take into account existing orders or interventions that may already be in place. Some respondents suggested that a flow chart detailing the application process could usefully be included in the Guidance, while others felt that providing examples of what constituted a high quality assessment would be of value.

11. Further aspects of the Guidance where respondents would welcome increased clarity were:

• With regard to medical factors that may impact on behaviour, a number of respondents enquired if this issue related to the child as well the parent, particularly with regard to conditions such as ADHD and autism spectrum disorders. If such conditions should be taken into account, these respondents felt that a clear statement of this in the Guidance would be useful.
• A number of respondents stated that clarification of certain terms/phrases used in the Guidance would be welcomed. The most common of these was clarification of the term 'parent' in the context of, for example, foster families. One respondent also felt that the definition of 'parent' as set out in the Antisocial Behaviour Act was applied inconsistently in the Guidance. Other phrases commonly highlighted as requiring clarification were "wilful refusal" (to engage with services), and "lack of capacity"/"deficient" (in terms of parenting ability). Clarification of the legal terms used in the Guidance, such as "sisting", would also be welcomed.
• Clarity regarding whether a PO could be applied for in respect of two children in the same family, or in fact with regard to two parents, would be welcomed by a number of respondents. If it were indeed possible to apply for POs in this context, a number of respondents felt that further guidance on how to administer different orders within the same family (e.g., one on welfare grounds and the other on anti-social behaviour grounds) would be useful. With regard to the wider family, clarity would also be welcomed as to what extent other family members, such as siblings, should be involved in services such as family therapy.
• Further clarity of breach proceedings would be welcomed by a number of respondents, as would further emphasis on the impact that court proceedings may have on a child and the support available in these circumstances. With regard to the criminal aspect of breach proceedings, additional information on the role of police and procedures they may have to follow would also be welcomed, as would clarity about the legal process in general (e.g. entitlement to apply for legal aid when contesting an order).

Suggestions for the Guidance

12. A total of 39 respondents submitted general suggestions for the Guidance. One such suggestion was that providing more information on what constitutes counselling and guidance would be a useful addition. Related to this, there was a general concern expressed that the minimum of 6 or 7 sessions of guidance/counselling recommended in the Guidance may be taken as prescriptive, and some respondents felt that this would be insufficient.

13. Suggestions were also put forward regarding the provision of information to parents and families on POs, with a common proposal being that the Scottish Executive should take the lead on this to ensure that the information provided, perhaps in the form of leaflets, was consistent across all local authority areas. This was felt to be particularly relevant with regard to the legal/breach aspects of Orders. Also relevant in this context were suggestions regarding the timescales within which applications should be made, services be provided and breach proceedings be undertaken, with the proposal that these should be stated explicitly to ensure consistent application.

14. Defining a minimum age for when POs could be applied for with regard to anti-social behaviour was proposed as a useful addition to the Guidance, with one respondent suggesting that 8 and over should be the age stated.

15. It was suggested that the issue of voluntary interventions be clarified, in the sense that parents may have wanted help that was not available in their area. This was regarded as particularly important for the assessment process. In addition, it was suggested that a statement be included in the Guidance that low applications for Orders in a particular area may be indicative of existing services being particularly effective in that area, rather than implying that POs were not being utilised to their full capacity.

General comments related to the Guidance

16. Two-thirds of responses (42) included general comments on parenting orders, these mainly taking the form of various concerns about their implementation. While such comments go beyond the remit of the consultation, those that were regularly expressed are included here.

17. Almost half of the concerns expressed (20) were in relation to the impact POs would have on existing resources within local authorities, particularly the burden that POs might place on already over-worked and understaffed social work departments. Further to this, concern was expressed that the availability of resources and services would not be consistent across all LAs, particularly specialist resources such as psychological services, nor would there be consistent standards for these specialist providers. This was summed up by one respondent in the statement that, in the introduction of PO's, there seemed to be "an inherent assumption that universal or targeted 'parenting support' services [were] fully funded and accessible to agencies on a voluntary or compulsory basis".

18. Fifteen of those providing general opinions on POs were concerned about the level of funding being provided to implement PO services, stating that it was inadequate and on-going consultation on this throughout the pilot would be welcomed. Timescales were also a concern for nine of these fifteen respondents, both with regard to the implementation of POs and within the PO process itself, e.g. the delays that could occur through, for example, applications for legal aid and obtaining relevant information from other parties, and the subsequent impact of this on the family.

19. A number of concerns were expressed regarding the impact that POs and breach proceedings might have on the child and on siblings, as well as the wider family. Concerns were also raised regarding the potential dual role of the responsible officer, with one respondent stating "Workers cannot be expected to manage a supervision order on a child and a Parenting Order at the same time - who is their primary client?". In addition, eleven of those providing general comments were concerned that the threat of possibly having to inform the police of breaches may have a negative impact on the relationship between the responsible officer and the family, and therefore be detrimental to the operation of an Order. One respondent also raised the question of "What happens if the parenting order [fails]" and the problematic behaviour does not change, while another was concerned that "Children who have no respect for their parents may make [Orders] unworkable", and that the use of POs in these circumstances may mask deficiencies in LA measures in relation to such children.

Conclusion

20. It would seem fair to conclude that, overall, respondents to the consultation felt that the draft Guidance for parenting orders was acceptable in both format and content. Some useful suggestions were put forward regarding potential additions to the Guidance, along with points where increased clarity would be welcomed. There were also a number of concerns expressed around parenting orders in general, particularly with regard to resources and funding. It is expected that the independent evaluation being conducted throughout the pilot period will further report on issues around the Guidance should any arise.

Annex 1: List of respondents to the consultation

Footnotes

1. Section 102 of the Act came into force on 4 April 2005

2. The Centre was commissioned on 15 March 2005 and asked to report no later than 25 April 2005.

3. One respondent information sheet, without accompanying comments, was also returned; this is not included in the analysis here. A full list of respondents can be found at Annex 1

4. Points relating to typographical errors and the like are not addressed here, although they have been drawn to the attention of the Scottish Executive. In addition, comments relating directly to the principle of parenting orders are only included in the analysis where a recurring pattern of responses could be identified.