« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
4. KERELAW RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL AND SECURE UNIT
The School
4.1 Kerelaw was situated in Stevenston, 28 miles from Glasgow, near the north Ayrshire coast. It opened in 1970, becoming a "List D" School shortly afterwards under Scottish Office Circular SW/11 of 1972. Initially, Kerelaw had residential accommodation for 72 boys, mainly between the ages of 13 and 16. In 1983 a closed, Secure Unit designed for a maximum of 18 young people in mixed sex accommodation was added and took in its first occupants in 1985. This was extended in 1988 to cater for 24 young people - 16 boys and 8 girls.
4.2 Like other List D schools, Kerelaw was initially funded jointly by central and local government. In 1983 the Fides Report into List D schools recommended that funding responsibility should transfer fully to local authorities and this was effected by 1986. From then until 1996, when it was taken over by Glasgow City Council, Kerelaw was the responsibility of Strathclyde Regional Council. In its early years almost all pupils came from Strathclyde Region, although it did admit pupils from elsewhere from time to time. Later, Kerelaw enrolled up to 12 day pupils. By 1996, when Glasgow City Council took over, the capacity of the Open School was 26 residential places for boys and 24 for girls aged between 13 and 17, along with 12 day pupils and the 24 residential places in the Secure Unit, making it Scotland's largest residential school at that time.
4.3 Although operating on a single site under the management of one Principal, Kerelaw had after 1983 two seemingly distinct operations: the Open School and the Secure Unit. The Open School comprised 4 units - Baird, Millerston, Wilson and Fleming; the Secure Unit 3 - Stuart, Bruce and Wallace.
4.4 All units in the Open School were of a similar design with bedrooms upstairs and living and recreational facilities on the ground floor. Each unit had kitchen, laundry and dining facilities and one or two adjoining flats generally used for throughcare. For some time after Kerelaw opened, young people in the Open School were required to share rooms, although this was phased out gradually to enable all to have individual rooms. Initially, the Secure Unit accommodation was mixed, with both boys and girls in each of the units. However, after 1998 it was reorganised to provide single-sex accommodation for girls in Stuart unit and boys in the others.
The residents
4.5 Young people were usually placed at Kerelaw under a Supervision Requirement from a Children's Hearing. Others were remanded or placed by the Scottish Executive following sentencing by the Court. Many had been accommodated previously. In 1997 Kerelaw was described as offering short- and longer-term placements to a wide range of young people with problems, with referrals being responded to on the basis of need within the terms of Glasgow City Council's Joint User Agreement with other former Strathclyde Region local authorities. At that time, average admissions for a year ran at 100 or more, with 40% of these being crisis situations.
Education
4.6 In 1997 all young people at Kerelaw had access to education in English, Maths and Science - all of which were compulsory in the Open School and available up to Standard Grade. Other subjects offered in the Open School were Home Economics, Physical Education, History, Geography, Craft and Design, Art and Design and Keyboard Skills. Young people in the Secure Unit had access to Life Skills, Modern Studies and Religious Education. Attendance at school was compulsory for all residents of school age and all of those in the Secure Unit regardless of age. Each resident had a key teacher. Class sizes were small, with a maximum of 4 per class in the Secure Unit and 6 in the Open School.
Specialist interventions
4.7 In addition to residential care and education, Kerelaw provided young people with a variety of specialist interventions from full-time and visiting specialists. These included forensic psychiatry, forensic psychology, educational psychology, addiction care and counselling. Young people had access to General Practitioners and a practice nurse at the local health centre in Stevenston.
Purpose
4.8 A 1997 statement of Kerelaw's functions and objectives provides information on the Open School, the Secure Unit and on education. The "Values and Philosophy" of the Open School were described thus:
Whilst the principles of Skinner2form the backdrop other core values and themes have been consciously promoted to achieve a more thriving and productive atmosphere within the centre:
- Purposeful involvement with young people at every level
- Positive approach to care planning and individualised packages of support
- Collaboration within and outwith the centre
- Delegation and accountability to unit level
- Partnership within and between units and disciplines and with young people (with listening and tuning into feelings becoming more central to addressing problem behaviour)
- Flexibility and responsiveness in the face of changing needs and situations
- Professional pride and achievement supported by a knowledge base and supervision
- Awareness of the role of residential care within a wider spectrum of resources and skills
- Gender consciousness and anti discriminatory practice
- Regular and frequent contact with young people's families and/or localised support systems
- Ownership and responsibility of the caring task at every level
- Child protection and safe caring at the level of the individual and group
4.9 Each of the units produced a development plan within an overall management plan for the Open School, with key themes of diversity in the education programme, offence related work, employment, throughcare, child protection and staff development. The Secure Unit shared the overall aims and objectives of the Open School, but was described as providing long- and short-term care for highly disturbed and dangerous young people. Security was based on the principle that the creation of a positive treatment regime would reduce the likelihood of planned attacks on security. Kerelaw said it aimed to cultivate in its Secure Unit staff an attitude to security that was unobtrusive, but thorough, watchful and careful at all times.
4.10 In 2001, information about Kerelaw provided to young people and their carers stated:
We aim to provide high quality residential care with education
We try to minimise the difficulties of our clients and build on their strengths
We aim to reintroduce our clients into society with acceptable lifestyles
4.11 By 2003, Kerelaw had produced a Mission Statement covering the Open School and Secure Unit:
Kerelaw School and Secure Unit provide structured programmes of social education for young women/men who require either a placement in a residential school or placement in a secure care setting and have gone through the relevant processes for admission.
All young people are recognised as individuals who have potential. We aim to maximise the potential of individuals and enable them to take up their full citizenship upon discharge. Working together with young people, their parent(s), carer(s), case-holder and significant others, we aim to provide opportunities for young people to address their problems and to receive appropriate specialist support in order to internalise the learning.
The ethos of the School and Secure Unit is one of working positively with young people through the development of constructive and reparative relationships. Focused and targeted programmes of work can only take place within the context of stability and trust. We aim to build trust as our first priority in order to be able to make a positive difference to the lives of the young people in our care.
Kerelaw School and Secure Unit is committed to making the environment as safe as possible for young people. We recognise that there is a problem with bullying across society and this is a particular problem in institutional living. We are committed to ensuring that anti-bullying strategies have a high profile and that adults take a lead in promoting a positive culture at the same time as dealing proactively with incidents.
We strive to create a culture and atmosphere where young people feel valued and have the opportunity to work through their present difficulties and are encouraged to plan for their future needs with the full support and encouragement of the staff group.
Profile
4.12 The Inquiry had some difficulty sourcing accurate and comprehensive data from Glasgow City Council on the profile of Kerelaw. We received incomplete records of those who were resident at Kerelaw during the period covered by the Inquiry and historic records of staffing that largely predated 1996. We made use of what data we had, together with published statistics on residential care in Scotland, to put Kerelaw in context. To that end we focused on 2000 - the mid-point of the Inquiry period - to describe the profile of Kerelaw. We appreciate this picture is incomplete, and that there were trends and potentially significant changes both earlier and later in the period.
Residential care in Scotland in 2000
4.13 Scottish Executive statistics 3 show that in Scotland at 31 March 2000 there were 205 residential establishments for young people, including children's homes, hostels, homes for children with disabilities and residential schools (including secure accommodation), providing 2,273 places and employing 4,220 staff. Across this broad range, the average establishment size was 11 places - roughly equivalent to one of Kerelaw's 7 units - with an average of 1.9 staff to every place. Around 13% of all establishments, residential places and their staff in Scotland were provided in the Glasgow City Council area, while the population of 10 to 20-year olds in Glasgow represented only 11% of Scotland's total in the April 2001 census. 4 This difference may be explained in part by the fact that at 31 March 2000 Glasgow City Council was looking after 19 children per 1,000 5 population aged 0 to 17 compared with the national average of 10 per 1,000. This gives some insight into the scale of the task facing the Council's Social Work Services.
4.14 Of the 205 residential establishments in 2000, there were 32 residential schools providing 1,037 places, including secure places, for young people. This figure remained relatively static over the period up to 2004. Five of these residential establishments were local authority-run, accounting for 145 places in 2000, although by 2004 there were only 102 places in local authority-run residential schools, with 935 in places provided in the private/voluntary sector. In 2000, Kerelaw's 74 places made up just over 7% of Scotland's total provision of residential school places for children of all ages and 51% of Scotland's total local authority-run residential school and secure unit places.
Young people in care in 2000
4.15 On 31 March 2000, 1,973 young people were accommodated in all types of residential accommodation and about two-thirds of accommodated children (1325) were boys. Two-thirds were in the 11 to 15 age group and nearly a quarter (459) were aged 16 or over. Seventy five percent of young people discharged from all residential accommodation during 1999-00 were there for less than one month and 12% for between 1 and 6 months. A further 5% of young people were accommodated for between 6 months and one year and the remaining 8% were accommodated for more than a year. Around half of these young people (911) were accommodated in residential schools and secure units with occupancy rates of 97% and 86% in local authority-run and privately/voluntarily run schools respectively, and throughput in local authority-run schools averaging around 3 times the throughput in others (2.5 admissions per place compared with 0.7). These data suggest that the management challenge of introducing new residents while maintaining a stable environment in residential schools was substantially greater for local authority places, half of which were at Kerelaw.
4.16 In 2000-01, Scotland's secure estate comprised 94 places. This figure remained static through to 2004, having risen from 86 places between 1999 and 2000. In 2000-01 there were 218 admissions and 212 discharges from secure places in Scotland. Average occupancy was 90% of capacity, with a range of 79% to 99%. At that time, Kerelaw's 24 beds made up around a quarter of Scotland's secure provision for young people. This contribution fell to 20 beds for 2004-5 and to zero when the Kerelaw Secure Unit closed in March 2006. Overall provision was maintained by the addition of single-bed spaces in other units during 2004-05 and the opening of St Phillips, with 24 beds, in March 2006.
Young people placed at Kerelaw
4.17 The young people placed at Kerelaw had social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. As a result, many had problems with drug and/or alcohol use. Many had been involved in offending. Their education had often been disrupted, sometimes due to frequent moves of house as a result of family breakdown, and sometimes due to their having been excluded from school. From the files we read and the people we spoke to, the Inquiry formed the impression that the young people placed at Kerelaw came from backgrounds characterised by adversity and/or abuse.
4.18 Young people often came to Kerelaw following a crisis in another care placement, as we note at paragraph 12.22. This usually followed episodes of challenging behaviour, such as aggression and violence towards staff or other young people, drug or alcohol misuse, or offending. Many of the young people self harmed. We heard from one mental health professional of the overwhelming mental health needs of the young people at Kerelaw.
4.19 The files seen by the Inquiry suggest that most of the young people placed at Kerelaw had some contact with their families. They had regular home leave. However, there were some who had no ongoing contact with their birth families and for them Kerelaw was home. We heard from staff that, in recognition of this, they tried very hard to make weekends different for this group. Indeed, some staff suggested that the increase in young people being admitted on a respite basis (see paragraph 12.25), was particularly disruptive and unfair to the group of young people who lived at Kerelaw.
4.20 Fieldwork files sampled showed that most of the young people had lengthy backgrounds of social work involvement. Many had been subject to supervision requirements as young children and some had been on the child protection register. There were examples of family breakdown, bereavement and parental substance misuse.
4.21 In summary, the young people placed at Kerelaw had usually been involved with social work services from a young age due to family problems. They had often suffered abuse and already been in other care placements. As a result, they presented with complex difficulties and would have been a challenging group to care for. With such large numbers it would have been extremely difficult to ensure they were offered the individual care they needed.
Residential school staffing in 2000
4.22 On 31 March 2000, there were 1,870 staff in residential schools with the majority (1,611) working in the private/voluntary sector and the other 259 in local authority establishments, giving an overall staff to residential place ratio of 1.8:1 This is slightly lower than the overall average staffing ratio in residential care (1.86:1), as may be expected in these generally larger establishments. Between 2000 and 2004, the ratio of staff to places in residential schools increased substantially, so that in March 2004 there were 2,608 staff for 1,037 places - an average of 2.5 staff for each place overall, with 2.2 staff for each local authority place and 2.5 staff for each private/voluntary provided place.
4.23 According to figures provided by Glasgow City Council, in 2000 Kerelaw had a budgeted establishment of 109 residential staff comprising 37 Secure Unit staff, 37 Open School staff, 24 night staff, 2 day unit staff, 3 managers and 6 administration staff. Of these, 100 posts were established and the remaining 9 were temporary. In addition, there were 19 teaching staff divided between the Open School and Secure Unit, giving an overall staff to residential place ratio of 1.7:1, which was not atypical of residential schools at the time, despite Kerelaw's more challenging resident population.
4.24 Each of the units in the Secure Unit was staffed by a unit manager, a deputy unit manager and 10 residential workers. Of these 36 staff, 13 were female, including the unit manager and 5 residential workers in Stuart - the girls unit. There were 4 male and 2 female night staff across the Secure Unit. In each of the Open School units there was a unit manager, a deputy unit manager and 7 residential workers. Of the two girls units, Wilson unit was staffed by a male unit manager and 8 female staff and Baird unit by a female unit manager with 2 male and 6 female staff. Each had 1 male and 3 female night staff. Of the two boys units, Fleming unit had a male unit manager and 7 of the other 8 staff were also male, while Millerston had a female unit manager supported by 6 male and 2 female staff. Fleming unit had 3 male and one female night staff and Millerston had 2 male and 2 female night staff. Taking into account the day unit staff and additional staff (2 male, 2 female) the overall ratio of male to female residential staff across Kerelaw when the budget was reported in 2000 was 45:55, although in unit and senior management positions men predominated.
Management structure and accountabilities
4.25 In 1996, when Glasgow City Council became responsible for Kerelaw, its senior management structure was a Principal/Headmaster, a Deputy Head in charge of the Open School, sometimes referred to as Deputy (Social Work), a Deputy Head in charge of the Secure Unit - also sometimes referred to as Deputy (Social Work) - and a Deputy responsible for Education across both the Open School and the Secure Unit. For the purposes of this report and for ease of reference, we shall call the members of this senior management team ( SMT), the Principal, the Deputy (Open School), the Deputy (Secure Unit), and the Deputy (Education).
4.26 Within Kerelaw the 3 Deputy Heads reported to the Principal. The Deputy Head (Open School) had as direct reports 4 unit managers, while the Deputy (Secure Unit) had 3. From May 2003 an additional Deputy (Education) was appointed to the Open School. We were told that Administrative staff reported, sometimes via the Deputy (Open School), to the Principal.
External management
4.27 Following local government reorganisation in 1996, external management responsibility initially fell to the Manager of Glasgow City Council's North West District. Following the abolition by the Council of the district structure, it was taken over by the Head of Children and Families in the Social Work Department, who for the purposes of this report we shall refer to as Head of Service.
4.28 The Head of Service reported to a Depute Director, who in turn reported to the Director of Social Work. There was therefore a management line from the Director of Social Work to the Principal of Kerelaw. In practice, day-to-day external management was delegated to the level below Head of Service, and this was problematic, particularly in later years. There was in principle also a professional connection between education staff and the Education Department in the Council, but we were told that the Deputy (Education) had no separate reporting line up to senior education officials in the Department.
Inspection and regulation
4.29 A number of different bodies were responsible for inspecting Kerelaw School and Secure Unit in the period between 1996 and its final closure in 2006. These were: HMIE, SEHD, SWSI, and North Ayrshire Council Registration and Inspection Unit. From 2002 the Care Commission took over inspection responsibilities from North Ayrshire Council.
4.30 The Secure Unit and the Open School were subject to different inspection processes due to their different functions. When Kerelaw was managed by Strathclyde Regional Council, the Council's Registration and Inspection Unit carried out the monitoring and inspection of both the Open School and the Secure Unit. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland had to approve the secure accommodation, and was advised by SWSI, which inspected secure services for this purpose under the Secure Accommodation (Scotland) Regulations 1983. HMIE were responsible for inspecting the education provision in both the Open School and Secure Unit.
« Previous | Contents | Next »