Scottish Government

CHAPTER 4: DECISION-MAKING AND PLACEMENT AVAILABILITY

1. INTRODUCTION

4.1.1 Decision-making in relation to secure accommodation emerged as a dynamic process which took place in three key sites, that is within Social Work Services, at children's hearings and within secure units. The decisions centred around two key dimensions: determining the needs and best interests of young people and deciding who had priority to the secure placements available.

4.1.2 This chapter aims to highlight key elements of the decision-making process and the relationship between them. It draws further on interviews with key stakeholders, including key points from the vignette exercise. Relevant findings are also included from the survey of placements for young people made subject to secure authorisation by a children's hearing. The chapter begins by examining how the decision is made that a young person requires a secure placement, then goes on to look at questions of availability and prioritising which young people should be admitted.

4.1.3 Decisions about whether or not a young person should be made subject to secure authorisation were usually made in two stages. The usual arrangement was for social work staff to decide that a secure placement was required, then ask a children's hearing to issue the relevant authorisation, either prior to placement or within 72 hours of an emergency placement having been authorised by the chief social work officer. Unless a place was obtained before authorisation, one had to be found in order for the warrant to be implemented. For this to happen, one of the secure units had to decide that a particular young person should be prioritised and offered a place.

2. DECIDING WHETHER A SECURE PLACEMENT SHOULD BE SOUGHT

Social Work staff and other professionals

4.2.1 Decision-making procedures for the use of secure accommodation varied slightly between different local authorities but always required the involvement of the Heads of Service and the secure unit. Increasingly it was considered important to involve other professionals such as education staff and psychologists in decision- making meetings. Where such practice existed, this was viewed as placing responsibility for keeping the young person safe with the 'whole authority' and so shifting pressure from social work staff.

4.2.2 Social work departments varied as to the detail of decision-making procedures, but in all local authorities the decision that secure authorisation was needed was made first by a front-line worker and supervisor, then reviewed by a senior manager. In interviews with both first line and senior managers it was evident that the decision to apply for secure authorisation was often reached at the end of a process through which a range of alternative options had been tried. Though the same principles seemed to apply generally, details of procedure and approach differed across local authorities.

4.2.3 Varied kinds of very pro-active approach were described in three of the eight authorities in which managers were interviewed. For instances, a first line manager gave the following account of typical practice in his own team:

We obviously know what the Intensive Support projects are in our area….We use our Resource Screening Group which sits on a weekly basis within the team to access the intensive community support. We can manufacture resources, we can use our initiative, our imagination, because we have sessional staff whom we tap into. We can also tap into a drug project based in the team.

There are dozens of young people who would probably come very close to fitting the secure criteria for secure accommodation and I think that is where we use our experience and expertise, our ability to manage risk with the resources we have got. That is where we would use our resource screening group and argue a fairly strong case and we would say 'Yes, the person is beginning to meet the criteria but I think we want to explore these other avenues now. We believe the risk is manageable.' And this is where, you know you do rely on the hairs on your neck standing up. You do rely on your stomach. That sounds very trite, but I think that type of experience does come into play. And what I have usually found is that where a social worker and senior are sitting discussing a case with each other and the concerns are on-going, we usually reach that point about the same time. ' We have really taken this as far as we can, we are becoming quite worried now. Right let's move on to the next stage.' But in between times you are looking at the Resource Screening Group backing you up in terms of accessing resources that are maybe going to cost money. But you are arguing that it's cheaper than placing in security and it's better than a child being locked up. ( S.W. manager 10)

4.2.4 The same respondent went on to explain that this way of working might continue during the period between seeking secure authorisation and a place becoming available. On occasion, he said, young people responded well enough to avoid taking up the place once it was offered. This kind of practice lends support to the view that the point at which a young person requires security emerges out of the experience of using resources to try and keep young people safe in the community, rather than a more static or objective assessment of risk.

4.2.5 Practising in this way required a reasonable range of alternative resources and organisational structures through which these could be flexibly accessed and funded. It also required that staff were experienced and knowledgeable enough to assess and manage risk safely. This decision-making practice corresponds with a high emphasis on avoiding restrictions on young people's liberty, so that secure accommodation was viewed as only warranted when all other options had been tried.

4.2.6 In other authorities, whilst secure accommodation was still considered a 'last resort', it was also described as a potentially useful part of the care plan. The differences between this point of view and the first one were subtle, but seemed to hinge on whether a placement in secure accommodation could be expected to produce benefits, over and above those associated with keeping the young person safe, which could not be offered anywhere else. The following quotation is from a manager who described an equally dynamic process, but with less emphasis on proactively trying a range of alternative resources and underpinned by an expectation that the secure placement would be of benefit in itself:

'A lot of the kids that go into secure accommodation come from our own residential units…. people have been trying to work with some quite challenging behaviour and difficulties. And sometime, rightly or wrongly staff would see children going into secure not as an alternative, but as a helpful option. Like a girl for instance who goes missing all the time. There has been a lot of sexual stuff, she has been raped or whatever.. so it [secure placement] would be part of the plan to try and settle the thing down, with the expectation that the child would then go back to the unit they were in. (S.W. manager 7)

4.2.7 Within the last example it might be argued that the secure accommodation option was considered beneficial when the level of risk became higher than unit staff felt they could manage. A manager in another authority claimed that residential schools' unwillingness to manage risk, especially in relation to young people who used drugs, could put pressure on local authorities to take the view that the risk had to be managed in secure accommodation. Correspondingly, another manager whose local authority directly managed a residential school talked of having the authority to decide that a school could continue to work safely with a young person rather than accept the staff's view that a secure placement was needed. With independent schools, there had to be more negotiation of what schools could or should tolerate.

4.2.8 From a range of perspectives it emerged that in most instances the decision that a young person merited secure authorisation was reached by professionals when it was decided that the current level of risk could not be safely managed within the resources available. Thus thresholds were not absolute or objectively determined, but rather negotiated through the relationship between the young person's behaviour and perceived needs and perceptions of what could be managed in available resources.

Children's Hearings

4.2.9 Decision-making within a children's hearing was necessarily very different from that which took place by professionals, as the hearing deciding about secure accommodation is normally a single event rather than an on-going process, and panel members have to make their decision on the basis of the information presented to them on the day. Panel chairs, reporters and social work managers were asked whether social workers and panel members were generally in agreement about whether a secure placement was required. Virtually all said that there was agreement in most cases. Some panel chairs said they were keen to respect the professional judgement of social work colleagues and one said that in their authority an agreement had been reached that social work services would always implement secure authorisations. The panel chair thought that, with this assurance, panel members thought very carefully before going against a recommendation, but also acknowledged that the number of secure admissions in the authority had significantly increased. Other panel chairs emphasised that they made the decision based on the best interests of the child rather than the social worker's recommendation and it was acknowledged that differences of opinion did occur in a minority of cases. When differences did arise it was more usual for the panel members to opt for secure authorisation against the social workers' recommendation rather than be reluctant to agree a request for authorisation.

4.2.10 Asked for reasons for difference of opinion arising, a number of panel chairs attributed this to panel members being unconvinced that the measures put in place by social work staff were sufficient to keep the young person safe. A number took the view that social work services were motivated by keeping down costs, whereas panel members would advocate for what was in the best interests of the young person. Some panel chairs spoke positively about the potential benefits of a secure placement, so in arguing that a secure placement was required, they saw themselves as advocates for young people rather than punitive. Others pointed out that the situations could be very fluid, changing on a day to day basis, so that by the time a family came to a hearing, the situation may have changed from the one on which the recommendation was based.

4.2.11 Most social work managers also acknowledged that there were times when panel members opted for secure authorisation, but social workers thought it was unnecessary. Three reasons were offered: panel members' reluctance to work with as high a level of risk as social work staff felt they could manage; unrealistically positive expectations of the benefits of secure accommodation and a tendency to threaten secure accommodation if the young person did not comply with previous requirements and then feel bound to raise the tariff:

They have a different view about the level of risk, that's one issue. And the other issue is whether they feel that attempts to address that would be better served by secure. I think some panel members have an unrealistic view of secure accommodation. And I think there is also a problem for some of them in accepting a youngster's failure to respond to previous decisions. So they get caught in this tariff situation ' if you don't improve you will come back here and something else will happen' And lots of these kids can't keep to that kind of contract. ( S.W. manager 9)

Sometimes you get an over reaction ' I want this child locked up' and we are saying 'oh wait a minute, though this is the plan. We know there is a risk here, but we are trying to manage that. The care plan is working, it might be slow, we want to think about it, but we don't want to lock this child up'.

(S.W. manager 10)

4.2.12 Neither reporters nor social work managers thought that cost considerations would stop a local authority from requesting secure authorisation if it was required. Indeed in one local authority managers were authorised to spend up to the cost of a secure placement on putting together an alternative package. Some of the managers knew that panel members believed cost considerations came into play, but insisted that this did not apply if the need for physical security was clear.

3. RESPONSES TO THE VIGNETTES

4.3.1 Another perspective on decision-making was obtained by asking respondents how they would expect to respond in situations described in four vignettes. The vignettes were completed by social work managers, panel members and reporters, so they offered some insight into whether differences in threshold could be identified within different professional groups. The vignettes were fictitious, but drew on the kinds of circumstances encountered by young people who took part in the study. They are reproduced in full Appendix 1. Key questions put to the respondents were:

• how likely is it that the young person would be admitted to secure accommodation?
• what considerations would be taken into account in making that decision ?
• how would you expect the young person to respond in secure accommodation?
• what outcome would you expect for the young person in the longer term?

4.3.2 Social work managers readily engaged with the scenarios depicted in these vignettes, so discussing them offered a useful window on how the myriad of relevant considerations might be taken into account and prioritised. Some panel chairs had a similar capacity to identify and weigh up competing influences on their decisions and think realistically about what the consequences might be. Others found it much more difficult to deal with the hypothetical nature of the exercise, to weigh up a range of considerations and thought that it was impossible to predict how young people were likely to respond. As a number pointed out, individual panel members were not often asked to consider whether secure authorisation was required. Reporters' responses also varied, but as some pointed out, it was not part of their role to make these decisions.

Vignette 1 : Julie

4.3.3 Julie was a 14 year old who had recently been admitted to residential accommodation at her mother's request. She had been going missing at times, staying away from school and using drugs. Her parents had separated and she had been living with her mother since she was eight, but still had contact with her father and his new family. After moving into the residential unit her problems had escalated, in particular going missing more often. On one occasion she had been found unconscious and when taken to hospital was under the influence of drugs.

Likelihood of admission

4.3.4 Of the 18 responses on Julie, all but four said it was probable or possible that Julie would be placed in a secure setting. The exceptions were two panel members who thought she should be admitted to secure accommodation and one panel member and social work manager who thought she should not be admitted.

Considerations taken into account

4.3.5 The considerations which would make it more likely that she would be admitted were worries about her safety. Several people suggested that, as a female, she was vulnerable to sexual exploitation, so that she would be more likely to be placed in secure accommodation than a boy in the same circumstances. One social work manager pointed out that this is potentially a 'life and death situation', so that panel members would be likely to want to reduce the risk, though the social work care plan would not be to opt for secure after just one incident. However most panel chair respondents were also reluctant to move to a secure placement unless the behaviour was repeated or it became evident that she had become embroiled in a criminal network which it would be difficult to break from. So secure would not be merited by a one-off incident, but only once it became clear that the risks which resulted in her admission could not be managed in an open setting. Were she to be found unconscious again, it was thought that admission to secure accommodation would be a much more likely follow-up.

Young person's likely response to secure placement

4.3.5 Reasons given for not placing the young person in a secure setting also centred round a view that the experience would be distressing and would not facilitate the work which needed to be done to keep her safe in the longer term. The main need identified was to find out what difficulties underpinned the change in her behaviour. Was it peer pressure or were there more fundamental difficulties relating to her family circumstances and relationships? There was a view that the secure environment would not be conducive to undertaking this work, partly because Julie would be anxious and overwhelmed. Some social work managers believed that it was unrealistic to think that this kind of work would be prioritised in a secure setting, a more likely experience being that she would go through the placement without any real work having been done. It was suggested that she needed to feel personally cared for, so that foster care would potentially be a better option.

4.3.6 A number of social work managers and panel members wanted to move her back out of residential accommodation, rather than into a more restrictive environment. Getting her mother on board was viewed as key to potentially rebuilding the positives in her life.

Longer-term prognosis

4.3.7 There was a general view that the long-term prognosis would be better if the young person remained in a community setting. The key was to support her to build on the positives and there was hope this might be possible because she had known stable relationships and her earlier life had been relatively problem-free. However she was, as one respondent put it, 'sailing close to the wind' and could easily become a candidate for secure placement.

4.3.8 Most responses across local authorities and respondent groups encapsulated the tensions as outlined above. There were however subtle differences in how people discussed the examples. Some spoke with an urgency and energetic commitment about what would need to be done to help get this young woman back on track. Others took a less proactive stance which was more about waiting to see how events would unfold and whether the young person would be willing to engage.

Vignette 2: Tom

4.3.9 Tom was a thirteen-year old boy whose mother died from a drug overdose when he was four. Thereafter he had been in a number of foster placements which did not work out, largely because of his aggressive behaviour. He had spent the last two years in a children's unit where he gets on well with his female key workers who takes a lot of interest in him. He attends a residential school on a day basis and with some fellow pupils has recently been involved in a number of serious offences. These include mugging an old woman, stealing a car (in which Tom was a passenger), vandalising a bus and assaulting a 15 year old boy whose injuries required hospital treatment.

Likelihood of admission

4.3.10 Two panel chairs and one reporter thought Tom should be admitted, two panel chairs and three social work managers thought he should not be admitted and the other respondents thought it was possible, but could probably be avoided at this stage.

Considerations taken into account

4.3.11 Respondents approached Tom's situation in two quite different ways. All social work managers, some panel chairs and a reporter considered the impact on Tom of being removed to secure accommodation. They readily acknowledged that there were some very positive elements in his current situation, notably reasonable continuity in the residential unit and a meaningful relationship with his key worker, and were concerned about disrupting these. In contrast, some panel chairs focused primarily on changing the circumstances which were promoting the offending, so wanted his placement at the school to be reviewed or thought that a move to a secure placement might be beneficial. A few respondents mentioned that, in view of his age, an alternative should be sought if at all possible.

4.3.12 All respondents acknowledged that the offences had been serious and that, if they continued, secure accommodation would be likely. One panel chair took the view that the seriousness of the injuries to the young man who had been assaulted would influence whether Tom should be placed in secure accommodation.

4.3.13 Whatever their point of view, virtually all respondents pointed out that Tom needed help with the many issues which had made his life difficult. Those who favoured secure accommodation thought this might provide an opportunity to offer this help, others emphasised the need to boost community supports. A few social work managers also suggested that he might respond to a restorative justice approach and some additional input from a Youth Justice Team.

Young person's likely response to secure placement

4.3.14 Only two panel chairs thought that Tom might respond well to the structure of a secure placement and that this might provide an opportunity to sort out his many difficulties. However these respondents also acknowledged that this would depend on skilled help being offered and that this might not be available during the secure placement.

4.3.15 Others were concerned that Tom would be influenced by others more involved in crime and/or that his anger at being locked up would result in a lot of aggressive behaviour and so potentially take him deeper into the system.

Longer term prognosis

4.3.16 The majority agreed that the prognosis would be better if Tom was not admitted to secure accommodation, because admission would threaten the modest opportunities he currently had for establishing meaningful relationships and some continuity. The priority for social work managers and a number of panel chairs was to build on these, whilst also helping him address painful aspects of his earlier life and face up to the consequences of offending.

4.3.17 Less positively, one panel chair took the view that 'his life had been mapped out for him since he was four' and there was a more general acknowledgement his situation could easily 'slide out of control'. Most respondents emphasised that this was a critical stage and that decisions taken and help offered now would significantly shape Tom's future.

Vignette 3: John

4.3.18 John was a fifteen year old who was due to appear at a hearing, having been charged with six car related offences, including driving a stolen car when under the influence of drugs. Several members of his family had a history of offending and John himself had first been referred to the reporter for shoplifting when aged ten. He had been on supervision since the age of 12 and recently took part in a group work programme addressing attitudes to offending. He was an active group member, but says he plans to continue to commit crimes. He has been excluded from school for disruptive behaviour, but is bright and particularly talented at art.

Likelihood of admission

4.3.19 Panel chairs were equally divided on whether John would be admitted to secure accommodation or not, as were reporters, though they were also concerned with whether the case would have be dealt with by the Procurator Fiscal. None of the social work managers thought John should be placed in secure accommodation.

Considerations taken into account

4.3.20 The seriousness of the offences and potential for future harm were the main considerations which prompted respondents to view secure accommodation as an appropriate option. Fears that admission to secure accommodation would be unhelpful or have negative effect were the basis of arguments against. One panel chair thought that he was a 'lost cause', so resources would probably not be spent on him. Another thought that there would have to be more volatility in his life and risk to himself for secure authorisation to be considered. Thus for different panel members, the seriousness of the offences, likelihood of the placement being effective and level of risk to self were the key considerations which came to mind in making their decision.

Young person's likely response to secure placement

4.3.21 With the exception of one panel chair, no respondents thought John would benefit from being admitted to secure accommodation. The consensus was that he would view it as a sentence and work his way through it without being affected. Admission to secure accommodation was viewed as unhelpful because it would confirm his view of himself as a criminal.

Longer term prospects 4.3.22 Because John was bright, most respondents thought there was hope for him if someone could reach through his 'bravado' and get him interested in a life other than crime. A car crime project to promote an interest in car mechanics was suggested by both panel chairs and social work managers, with only one reporter commenting on the possibility of building on his artistic and creative potential. Addressing John's and his family's attitudes to crime was viewed as important, but challenging. Some of respondents emphasised that work with John should be based on his particular experience, attitudes and options, rather than relying on a standard programme. There was a consensus that this kind of work could not be done in a secure setting. Should it prove not possible to engage with John in the near future, there were fears that his prediction that he would remain a criminal might prove correct.

Vignette 4: Jane

4.3.23 Jane was 15 years old. Her early life had been very unsettled, with a history of parental substance misuse and neglect. Her sister had disclosed sexual abuse. Jane had been accommodated for ten years in a number of foster placements, having been with her current carers for three years. Recently she has been self-harming and spending days away from school. She has started to see a psychologist, but sometimes misses appointments. Her foster carers are worried that they cannot manage this level of risk.

Likelihood of admission

4.3.24 Only one panel chair thought that Jane would be admitted to secure accommodation, with another four respondents thinking it was probable or possible. All the others thought admission to secure would be unlikely unless the situation deteriorated.

Considerations taken into account

4.3.25 The potential for self-harm was the reason why some people thought a secure admission might be required. It was considered important to know where she went when she missed school, since that might indicate that the level of risk was greater than suggested in the account provided. However most respondents thought that with increased support to herself and carers, the situation could be safely managed in an open setting. The priority was to find ways of identifying and addressing the causes of the self-harm, which a number of respondents considered attributable to previous abuse or trauma.

Young person's likely response to the secure placement

4.3.26 Most respondents suspected that Jane's mental health would deteriorate in a secure placement and that the impact would be negative. No-one thought that Jane would be likely to address personal and traumatic issues in secure accommodation, and one panel member pointed out that a patient and supportive approach was called for, rather than trying to force her to face difficult issues. However another panel member thought that admission to secure accommodation might help Jane get the intensive mental health resources she needed.

Longer term prospects

4.3.27 A number of respondents felt they did not know enough about what was causing Jane's difficulties to predict how she would fare in the future. However, the predominant view was that if her foster placement could be sustained and appropriate help provided to deal with the self-harming, her future would not be too bleak.

4.3.28 The discussions prompted by these vignettes provided insight into how respondents approached decision-making, weighing up competing considerations and according each a relative value. For most informants this involved balancing the need for safety against the perceived drawbacks of an admission to secure accommodation. The exercise revealed greater diversity of opinion among panel members than social work managers. However in a number of instances, panel members were more thoughtful and prepared to work with risk than the social work mangers expected them to be.

4 AVAILABILITY AND ACCESS TO SECURE PLACEMENTS

4.4.1 In most interviews with social work managers and panel members, it was acknowledged that secure places could be difficult to access. However, while this highlighted the demand on existing places, managers were reluctant to argue in favour of an extension of the number of secure places in existence. It was noted that if more places were created, then more young people would be admitted to security: "if you keep increasing places, you will keep filling the beds" and "more beds will be filled because they are there". Some panel chairs took the same view if there were a 200 bed unit to open tomorrow, it would be filled within a month and I don't think that's the way to go". The implication was that demand for places rises to fit with supply, rather than vice versa.

4.4.2 However others were inclined to think that more beds were in fact needed:

" Well I think you need more places because at the moment it's extremely difficult. Young people have to be really far down the line, they have to be behaving in a way that's totally out of control before they get there"
(Panel chair 1)

I think we need more places because at the moment there are children who meet the criteria, but can't get a place because places are full.
(Panel chair 4)

4.4.3 One panel chair differentiated between 'secure accommodation' in which he thought there were already plenty of places and 'accommodation with security' by which he meant small well staffed units which were not necessarily locked, but could hold children who were self-harming or running away and help address their difficulties. He thought the latter needed to be increased. Among social work managers there was a similar view that smaller, local provision needed to be augmented

"I think there is a need for local places. Whether there is a need for more places is another matter altogether". (S.W. manager 5)

"I think we need to have more smaller close residential units that can be used on a short-term basis to avoid the crisis escalating to when it's one continuous crisis you know. If we can deal with crises quickly, I think we could avoid it so I think we need good staff in small residential units which can be used in emergency and crisis situations. (S.W. manager 8)

4.4.4 There was a strong consensus that it was difficult to access secure places at the point when they were needed, though views differed on how this situation should be remedied. Refining the system through which places were accessed was one proposal.

Accessing Secure Placements

4.4.5. One of the main issues for managers and panel members was that they had little or no control over the process through which placements were allocated. Either a central manager or individual social workers were required to phone around units to check whether and when a place might be available. They had no idea what other young people were competing for the places, so had no idea of what priority would be accorded to the young person they needed to place. This lack of control and transparency made it seem an ineffective way of allocating expensive placements for very vulnerable young people, so some respondents wanted a more centralised system. One respondent stated:

"It is a lottery. (…)I do find it quite ridiculous that in this day and age we are still doing a kind of phone round of secures if we have got a kid who we think is a priority in terms of safety, security, that we have got to phone places and then fax off reports or what have you. There should be some sort of system within Scotland prioritising Scotland's most vulnerable young people. I am not saying that our child should take priority, but someone should have a view as to whether a child in Paisley or Glasgow is a priority case. It is an absolute lottery". ( SW manager 5)

4.4.6 Unit managers interviewed indicated that a range of considerations were taken into account when deciding which young person should take priority. Whilst the assessed level of risk was a key consideration, staff also had to consider how the young person would fit with the current resident group.

4.4.7 Access to places was affected by the geographical position of authorities and the closeness of their relationship with secure establishments. Local authorities outwith the central belt talked about experiencing greatest difficulty in obtaining secure places. Managers who indicated that they generally managed to secure a place when required noted that this was often due to good working relationships between staff in their authority and the secure units. It was suggested that these could be based on the credibility of referring social work teams and shared agendas between workers in the community and secure units in terms of defining 'appropriate' referrals and levels of risk. One respondent acknowledged:

" I think often if you have had a good relationship with a unit they will try harder to assist you or they will give you some notion of when a placement might become available and they will perhaps earmark that for you. But I think that relies on a bit of goodwill, personal relationships, professional relationships…but it is not a terribly easy system, you know".
( SW manager 6)

4.4.8 It was suggested that there was a need for consistency in access to secure places and that the Scottish Executive should have greater responsibility for inspecting the decision-making process in relation to admissions.

4.4.9 In local authorities which had their own secure provision, the situation was very different. Though the same system of competing for beds might apply among social workers, the allocation of available resources was controlled by managers within the same authority. Social workers could be told when a place was likely to be available, and what priority their young person had in relation to others. Thus the prioritisation process was more transparent. No local authority was completely self-sufficient, but the three which had their own provision had much more control over the use of secure accommodation. In addition to being able to prioritise young people waiting for places, local authority managers could decide to move towards discharging a particular young person in order to free up a space.

4.4.10 There were some indications that having some control over the use of secure accommodation influenced how it was used. The authority where most young people were placed in its own secure provision was the only one in which nearly all staff, whatever their role, talked about using secure as a positive option within the care plan for certain young people. How their access to secure accommodation impacted on differences in practice among local authorities will be discussed in more detail at the end of this chapter.

5. KEY FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY OF YOUNG PEOPLE MADE SUBJECT TO SECURE AUTHORISATION

4.5.1 It is clear that in interviews with key stakeholders, there was a strong message that it was difficult to access secure places when they were needed. Yet the research team had found it very difficult to identify young people who had not gone into secure accommodation after being seriously considered for or made subject to secure authorisation. In order to clarify what had happened to young people after an authorisation had been made, the study incorporated a survey of placements of young people made subject to secure authorisation during a 6-month period. The findings were reported in detail in an interim report submitted in June 2004.

4.5.2 Information was obtained on all young people made subject to secure authorisation during a 6-month period and subsequent placements. Information was requested from the Scottish Children's Reporters Administration ( SCRA) and from all local authorities, each being asked to provide brief details of young people made subject to secure authorisation by a children's hearing between July and December 2003. The return date was 20 ^th February 2004. Initials and dates of birth were provided to allow for cross-referencing across the two sets of information. Any discrepancies between SCRA and local authority returns were checked out with one or both agencies until a consistent picture emerged.

4.5.3 A total of 104 young people, 59 boys and 45 girls, had been made subject to secure authorisation by a children's hearing during the study period, of whom 79 had been placed in secure accommodation by the time the survey forms were completed. The remaining 25, i.e. just under a quarter, had remained in the community or in an open residential setting. During the survey period, at least one secure authorisation had been made in 23 local authorities. In ten of these 23 authorities, at least one young person made subject to secure accommodation had not been placed in a secure setting at the point by the time the survey return was completed. With the exception of September during which only one had been made, the authorisations had been evenly spread across the six months of the study period.

Young People not Admitted to Secure Accommodation

4.5.4 The 25 young people who had not been admitted to secure accommodation ranged in age from 12 to 17 years, with almost a quarter (n=6) aged 12 or 13.

The Secure Authorisations

4.5.5 A warrant had been issued in respect of 20 young people, while in four instances a secure condition had been added to a residential requirement (information on one young person was missing).

4.5.6 Of the 20 warrants, three had been continued once, two when the first warrant expired and one after a gap of a few weeks. None had been continued more than once. In two instances the secure authorisation attached to a residential supervision requirement was retained (after three months) because this was helping the young person to control his or her behaviour.

4.5.7 Details of the grounds for the secure authorisation were provided in relation to 23 young people, but these were described very briefly, so only provide a rough guide as to what the concerns were. In one case the young person was described by the social worker as having committed a particularly 'nasty' crime, but social work managers had been clear that he did not meet secure criteria. An additional two young men were offending in the community and this was cited as contributing to the grounds for the secure authorisation. In the remaining 20 cases the most common concern was that young people were running away from their current placement and were consequently at risk. In relation to girls, worries typically centred around sexual behaviour and vulnerability. Similar concerns about risk in the community applied to three boys. Violence or disruptive behaviour in their current placement was mentioned as an issue for six boys. Drug or alcohol misuse was mentioned in relation to only three young people, but it is likely that substance misuse was more common and that, in the brief details provided, concerns about this were subsumed under more general references to risk taking behaviour.

Placement following secure authorisation

4.5.8 Information on placement following the secure authorisation was available in relation to 22 young people. Most had been accommodated in a form of residential care, either a residential unit (11), residential school (6), or close support unit (2), but two had remained at home and one in foster care. In most instances there had been no change of placement. Based on follow-up contact with social workers, we were informed that three of the 22 young people had been admitted to secure accommodation after the survey forms had been returned, in each case by the end of May 2004.

Reasons why no secure placement had been made

4.5.9 Reasons why no secure placement had been made had been made were given in respect of 22 young people. These were classified as follows:

4.5.10 Thus in most cases the placement did not proceed because a vacancy could not be identified (15 out of 22). In the majority of these instances the situation was said to have improved, suggesting that the unplanned alternative arrangements had been at least partly effective.

4.5.11 Of the eleven whose situation had improved before a place became available, six were girls and five were boys. They spanned the age range from 12 to 16. Nine did not have a warrant renewed, while in two cases the warrant was renewed once. Thus for most young people the risks had reduced within three weeks. In some instances it was suggested that the impending threat of secure placement helped the young person control their behaviour. Whatever the circumstances, a children's hearing had decided, in most instances within three weeks, that the young person no longer met secure criteria. At the time the survey was undertaken, their current placements were Residential Unit (7); Close support (2) Residential school (2).

4.5.12 For other young people, social work managers had decided that the young person either did not meet secure criteria (3) or that a placement in secure accommodation would not be in the young person's best interests (4). Those who were not thought to meet secure criteria were all boys: one remained in the residential school where he was difficult to manage and two stayed at home. We learned later that the boy sustained in residential school had been admitted to secure accommodation after the end of the survey period. Of the four young people for whom social work staff decided secure placement would not be in their interests, three were male and one female. They ranged in age from 13-15. In each case it was thought that the young person would be vulnerable in secure accommodation and that he or she should be sustained in an open placement with increased support. Two were in a residential school and two in a children's unit.

4.5.13 For four young people, three 15 year old boys and one 14 year old girl, no placement had been available, but continued to be required. The girl had been admitted to secure accommodation by the end of May 2004. As far as we know, one boy remained in a children's unit, one in a residential school, and one went home.

Young People admitted to secure accommodation

4.5.14 A total of 79 young people, 44 boys and 35 girls, had been admitted to secure accommodation. The age range was 11-17, with a third aged 13 or younger.

Authorisations and Admissions

4.5.15 On the basis of information provided from local authorities and SCRA, it seemed that in just over a quarter of instances a secure condition was added to an existing supervision requirement, with a warrant being issued for the remainder. Where a warrant had been issued, the SCRA information usually indicated that this had been under sections 66 (1)(a) and 66 (2) (b), with a secure condition added.

4.5.16 A total of 16 young people had been first admitted to secure accommodation on the authority of the chief social work officer. The administrative route had been used in five local authorities, but half taking place in one authority. It seemed that this route was used in circumstances where the secure screening group had already agreed that secure placement was warranted, with administrative authorisation being sought when a place became available. No information was available on the time gap between the screening group decision and the young person's admission. All 16 young people admitted by the administrative route had been placed in a secure unit on the same day as the authorisation was made.

4.5.17 The remaining 63 young people had been admitted to secure accommodation following a children's panel's decision. Information on the gap between authorisation and placement was available in relation to 53. Thirty-five (66%) had been admitted to secure accommodation on the day the hearing made the authorisation. Of the 18 who were not admitted on the day of the hearing, half (n=9) were admitted within a week, three having been found a place within one day. Five young people had awaited a placement for more than three weeks, one for three months. Four young people had been admitted to English units because no Scottish places were available. Three had remained there for as long as the secure placement had been required, and one returned to Scotland when a place became available.

4.5.18 In Table 1, details are summarised of the gap between authorisation and placement for the 69 young people on whom information was available:

Table 1 : Gap between secure authorisation and placement (Information on 69 of 79)

4.5.19 At the time when the survey was completed (2-8 months after the admission) 43 of the young people (55%) were still in secure accommodation, with a further three having been discharged and readmitted.

Comparison of characteristics of young people admitted to secure accommodation and those who remained in an open setting.

4.5.20 Comparison of the characteristics of both sub-groups indicated no significant gender bias. Girls accounted for 43% of the young people made subject to authorisations, 44% of admissions and 40% of the group who remained in an open setting.

4.5.21 There were indications that young people in certain age groups were more or less likely to be admitted, though with the small numbers involved, these are reported as interesting trends, rather than because they have any statistical significance. Not surprisingly, young people aged 11-12 were least likely to be admitted, with only 2 of the 6 made subject to secure authorisation having been placed in a secure setting. This presumably reflects an unwillingness to place younger children in this setting and vigorous efforts to find alternatives. However the situation with 13 year olds was somewhat different, with 92% of this age group, including all girls, being admitted. Although no gender bias was noted over the whole sample, there were indications that among this younger age group, girls at risk were very likely to be admitted to secure accommodation. Of girls aged 11-13 made subject to secure authorisation, all but one of thirteen (92%) had been placed in a secure unit. Among boys in the same age group, the proportion admitted was 72% (n= 13 of 18).

4.5.22 Turning to the older age groups, the trend was to some extent reversed, with 82% of boys and 75% of girls aged 15 and over being admitted to secure accommodation. Age 14 seemed to mark the breakeven point, with the secure authorisation being implemented in relation to approximately two thirds of both males (62%) and females (66%). Details of comparison of the two groups by age and gender are in Table 2:

Table 2: Authorisations and Admissions by Age and Gender

Implications of the survey findings

4.5.23 The survey findings indicated that the number of young people made subject to secure authorisation and not placed there were lower than the 90 per year which had been estimated at the time when this research began.

4.5.24 In addition it was evident that most young people made subject to secure authorisations but sustained in the community were not in contact with intensive support services. More usually they were sustained in their existing open residential placement.

4.5.25 It was beyond the scope of this survey to assess the extent to which young people remained at risk or continued to present a risk while not in a secure placement. However almost half of those not admitted were considered to no longer need a secure place when one became available, which does suggest that it had been possible to reduce the level of risk without recourse to physical security. Had a place been available within three weeks, eleven young people who had been sustained in an open setting would have been placed in secure accommodation. Of those placed in secure accommodation, over half were still in placement when the survey was completed two-eight months later.

4.5.26 In terms of the issues raised in interviews with key stakeholders, the results of this survey lend support to the view that there is no absolute standard against which it can be judged whether a young person meets secure criteria or not. Whilst there are evidently some young people who require physical security because they are in serious danger or present a serious risk to others, there is also a significant group for whom the decision about whether they require secure accommodation or not rests on the capacity of other resources to adequately support them and manage the risk they present. In interviews with stakeholders some social work managers described the incremental ways in which they tried to support young people and 'run with the risk', until it became evident that the risks remained unacceptably high, even when all available resources had been tried. Thus boosting workers' capacity to assess and manage risk will be a means of enabling some young people to remain in an open setting.

4.5.27 The results of the survey are also consistent with requests made by stakeholders for an increase in locally based high support residential units which could cope with young people putting themselves at some level of risk.

6. DIFFERENCES ACROSS LOCAL AUTHORITIES

4.6.1 Taking into account views expressed by social work managers in interviews, the findings of the survey of secure authorisations and the research team's experience in recruiting young people to the study, it became very clear that decision-making in relation to secure accommodation and the role it played in relation to other service provision differed across local authorities. Four features were identified as strongly influencing how secure accommodation was used: a) ease of access to places; b) the availability of alternative resources which offer intensive support; c) views about the role of secure accommodation; d) practice in and attitudes towards risk management. These influences are not isolated variables, but rather interact to shape how secure accommodation comes to be viewed and used in any authority.

4.6.2 On the basis of the stakeholder interviews and information about patterns of admission, four different local authority approaches were identified:

1. Ready access to secure accommodation, coupled with relatively low access to alternatives and a belief that, though a last resort, secure accommodation can be a positive option;
2. Ready access to secure accommodation, coupled with well developed alternatives and a strong reluctance to place in secure accommodation;
3. Difficulty in accessing secure accommodation, coupled with a strong reluctance to place in secure accommodation and emphasis on developing open and community-based alternatives;
4. Medium difficulty in accessing secure accommodation, with a moderate willingness to use it and moderate commitment to developing alternatives.

4.6.3 In this context, 'alternatives' include access to open residential provision which can manage young people with challenging behaviour.

4.6.4 Interviews with front-line staff and managers indicated that decisions about the use of secure accommodation were taken very seriously, but approached differently depending on the considerations outlined above.

4.6.5 Whilst all the authorities which took part in the study could be allocated to one or other of the four categories, our primary consideration concerns the differences between the first two approaches, since these characterised the two city authorities who were key contributors to the study. Throughout the rest of the report these will be referred to as city authority A (approach 1) and B (approach 2).

4.6.6 The distinctive use of secure accommodation in city authority A proved particularly relevant to this study, because young people from that authority formed a disproportionately high proportion of the secure sample. This can be attributed in part to a higher level of recruitment in that authority's units than any other, but the use of secure accommodation within the authority was also relatively high. Where particular trends or outcomes are affected by this bias, attention is drawn to this throughout subsequent chapters.

4.6.7 However it would be wrong to think that, apart from city authority A, a 'standard' or 'typical' use of secure accommodation can be identified. Because the use of secure accommodation was shaped by the considerations outlined above, distinctive trends could be identified in each authority. Attention is being drawn to city authorities A and B because of their significant role in this study.

7. SUMMARY POINTS

4.7.1 From the range of evidence presented in this chapter it is evident that decisions about which young people go into secure accommodation result from much more than an objective assessment of the young person's needs and current level of risk.

4.7.2 In interviews with stakeholders some social work managers described the incremental ways in which they tried to support young people and 'run with the risk', until it became evident that the risks remained unacceptably high, even when all available resources had been tried. Thus boosting workers' capacity to assess and manage risk can be expected to be a means of enabling some young people to remain in an open setting.

4.7.3 Learning to manage risk in an open setting had often been prompted by necessity, i.e. when no beds were available. Yet 'resorting to' alternatives in these circumstances was viewed in a negative light, whilst 'choosing' alternatives shortly before secure authorisation was considered necessary was applauded. The findings in this chapter did not support this distinction since some of the arrangements prompted by necessity had worked well.

4.7.4 A survey of young people made subject to secure authorisation over a 6-month period indicated the number not admitted to secure accommodation was lower than previous estimates. Most not admitted had been sustained in an open residential placement and did not have their secure warrant renewed. Of those who were admitted to secure accommodation, almost three quarters were admitted on the day the authorisation was made and 87% within a week.

4.7.5 Differences in their use of secure accommodation were identified across local authorities, reflecting the following: a) ease of access to places; b) the availability of alternative resources which offer intensive support; c) views about the role of secure accommodation; d) practice in and attitudes towards risk management. Taking these four considerations into account, four local authority approaches were identified:

1. Ready access to secure accommodation, coupled with relatively low access to alternatives and a belief that, though a last resort, secure accommodation can be a positive option;
2. Ready access to secure accommodation, coupled with well-developed alternatives and a strong reluctance to place in secure accommodation;
3. Difficulty in accessing secure accommodation, coupled with a strong reluctance to place in secure accommodation and emphasis on developing open and community-based alternatives;
4. Medium difficulty in accessing secure accommodation, with a moderate willingness to use it and moderate commitment to developing alternatives.