Introduction to Aberlour - A Scottish Charity for Scotland’s Children
Since it was first established over 130 years ago Aberlour Child Care Trust has developed a reputation for providing quality community and residential care and support services for vulnerable and disadvantaged children, young people and families. In the last year, we have worked intensively with over 1200 children and offered informal advice and support to a further 5000 children and young people through 46 services across Scotland. Our services currently offer:
• Intensive support to severely disabled children and young people, many of whom have profound communication and behavioural difficulties
• Residential and outreach support to families affected by drugs and alcohol
• A range of community and family centre based services to promote and enhance positive parenting, play, early learning and social skills with vulnerable families and young children
• Residential care and community programmes for children and young people with social, educational, emotional and behavioural difficulties
• Drop-in advice, information and counselling services for teenage children and young adults on issues affecting them, including sexual health
• An outreach service that assists in preventative, crisis and ongoing support to children and young people who have or are in danger of running away from home
• A refuge for children who have runaway from home. It offers them a safe haven from the streets, space for time to think and support from our staff in the outreach service
As well as providing services, Aberlour is committed to influencing Scottish policy and practice to create positive changes that benefit children, young people and families. Being members of many national and local working groups, coalitions and alliances enables us to do this and also ensure that our voice, and that of our service users, is heard. We are also committed to commissioning research and evaluation which can aid our understanding of how to provide effective help to those who need it. Last year Aberlour led two significant Think Tank working groups which resulted in influential published reports; one called “Have We Got Our Priorities Right?” which focuses on children living with parental substance use and the second report “A Matter of Substance?” which looks at the differences between alcohol and drugs and the impact each have on children.
Basis of this submission
The children, young people and families we work with have a range of often very complex problems and needs. Many are referred to our services by other agencies notably Social Work, Education and Health while others are not in receipt of any supports from statutory agencies. Preparing reports for and attending Children’s Hearing to support children and young people is a routine task for many of our staff as is working with other agencies through, for example, sharing information, undertaking assessments and providing services for children and families. The Draft Children’s Services (Scotland) Bill is therefore of significant importance to us and we welcome the opportunity to respond to the questions posed and comment where appropriate.
Part 1: The Draft Bill
Q1. Do you think that the concept of well-being in relation to the duties on agencies set out in sections 1 and 2 of the draft Bill is helpful?
YES
The concept of well-being is particularly appropriate in the context of the Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) as it will clearly indicate to relevant agencies that they have a duty to all children and not just those where there are welfare concerns (i.e. care and neglect). As an overarching principle a duty in respect of well-being is therefore welcomed. Although clarification of the term ‘well-being’ in Section 1(4) is helpful, we believe there will need to be further guidance as such a term will be open to interpretation.
Clarification will be required in respect of the importance of the welfare principle which is key to other legislation, notably the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (CSA). If well-being is to be the key concept will this not have implications for the CSA?
A desired intention of the proposal will lead to more agencies having regard to the well-being of children and a requirement on them to respond will, in itself, have resource implications.
Q2 Do you feel that the duties on agencies proposed in sections 1 and 2 of the draft Bill will ensure that all relevant agencies can and will act so that children get the help they need when they need it?
YES - IF….. see comments
Placing a ‘duty’ on agencies may reinforce existing guidance and also support the application of a common assessment framework. However, a major obstacle to agencies currently assessing and meeting children’s needs is the resources available to either individual agencies and to two or more agencies collaboratively. While legislation may help, there will need to be appropriate resources to enable agencies to act and meet children’s needs.
Q3 In your view, do the proposals in sections 2(5) and 5 of the draft Bill for recording agency decisions and actions and for a multi-agency action plan provide enough of a framework to deliver effective planning across agencies for the child and their family?
YES - with proviso of comments below being taken into account
• Further work is required in respect of the process of identifying the lead professional and agreeing the appropriate level of authority for that role. Proposals imply that this role would not automatically rest with the statutory social work services. There are occasions when it could be highly appropriate for a professional within a voluntary organisation, or from another statutory agency to take on the lead role. There would need to be clear levels of authority to match this level of responsibility.
• While section 3 refers to the each agency ascertaining the views of children, there needs to be more explicit emphasis on their views being a part of any plan.
• It is not clear from the Bill what the relationship is between
the proposed joint plan and plans for the hearing, child protection plans and LAC care plans.
Q4 It is the intention that the proposals in sections 4 and 5 of the draft Bill for collaboration of agencies will provide a robust but simple framework for agencies to work together locally. In your opinion, do you think that the framework will enable this to happen?
NO - there are a number of other factors to consider.
Although the purpose is clear, legislation in itself will not bring about effective collaboration. Any legislation that is about co-operation and collaboration needs to be supported/re-enforced through cultural change and a willingness among all agencies to be prepared to share information and resources. This requires an understanding and appreciation of the different knowledge and skills that other agencies can offer, as well as a willingness by some agencies to give up lead responsibility and resources when appropriate. Much will also depend on structures and mechanisms at local levels enabling and supporting collaboration, including multi-agency training.
Q5 Are you content with the definition of relevant agencies (including parts of the voluntary sector) in section 7?
Overall YES but further detail is required.
What characteristics should make an agency a relevant agency?
The definition needs to be broad enough to include the wide range of agencies who work directly or indirectly with or for children and young people; this will include voluntary agencies.
We are very disappointed that there is no mention within Part 1 of the draft bill about the role of parents and relevant persons such as kinship carers and family members. While it may not be appropriate to include them in section 7, their views, responsibilities and role needs to be highlighted in relation to assessment, planning and service provision.
If the designated person/lead professional is to be someone who knows the family and child well, has a good oversight of the range of unmet needs and the services required, it is possible for that person to be from a voluntary agency. Therefore such an agency will need to be a ‘relevant’ one.
If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, should your organisation be included within the definition of relevant agencies?
YES
Q6 With regards to section 11, do you agree that the Principal Reporter should not be a member of the Administration (the Board) of the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration?
YES
Q7 The new power in section 12 for the Principal Reporter to appoint a representative if certain criteria are met is meant to safeguard the rights of those children who need such representation. Are you content with the introduction of this new power?
We do believe that there are some circumstances when children and young people should be offered an independent person to advocate and represent them. However, we have some concerns if this role was always filled by a legal representative who may not have the time or skills to get to know the child. The Big Words and Big Tables report should be used to inform the development of advocacy within the hearings system.
Q8 In section 12 the criteria for legal representation is expanded to include the appointment of a legal representative where a Children’s Hearing is likely to make a movement restriction condition. Are you content with the introduction of this new criteria?
YES – though we have some concerns that the Hearings’ focus on the best interest of the child could be lost in legal arguments. Would there be any specific training that lawyers would have to undertake before representing children in a Hearing? This may assist in ensuring that children are represented sensitively and appropriately within a Hearing.
Q9 Section 14 introduces new provision to withhold information about the child where disclosure would be significantly against the child’s interests. Are you content with this new provision?
YES
This is a positive step forward and will offer some reassurance to children and young people however there will need to be clear guidance as to who decides which information should or should not be disclosed. Training will also be required for panel members.
It will be important to ensure that the legitimate flow of information is not restricted and the new provision is used appropriately – and not by family members to fuel disputes e.g. between parents.
Q1O Are you content with the proposals in section 15 of the draft Bill to change the grounds for referral to the reporter and the Children’s Hearing to reflect the needs of a child and the need for compulsion?
YES
Q 11 The relevant situations in section 15 are intended to improve on the existing conditions in section 52(2) of the 1995 Act and to address possible gaps such as self-harm by a child and exposure to domestic abuse. Do you feel that the relevant situations are appropriate?
YES
Q12 In your opinion, do the provisions in section 16 of the draft Bill to expedite the establishment of the situational condition where the relevant person accepts the condition but the child has not understood or is not able to understand provide adequate and appropriate protection for the rights of the child?
YES
Do you have any additional comments on these changes?
This will have the advantage of avoiding delays which are not in the best interests of the child
Q13 In your opinion, do you feel that the proposals in section 17 for interim supervision requirements provide an appropriate additional option to a Children’s Hearing when they are unable to dispose of a case?
YES
Do you have any additional comments on interim supervision requirements?
This provision will help bridge the time delay gap that so often happens between the Hearing System and the Court processes and ensure the child receives a service. There may however be Human Rights Act implications if the grounds are not established – it is not clear how this will be resolved.
Q14 In relation to section 18, it is intended that any agency which is taking, or is expected to take, action in accordance with a supervision requirement should have a duty to take such action. It is also intended that a Children’s Hearing may impose specific duties on an agency. A formal enforcement process will apply to breach of duties as is currently the case in relation to duties imposed on a local authority.
The provisions in relation to duties set out in section 18, together with existing duties of a local authority, are intended to adequately and appropriately provide for duties to act in relation to a child subject to a supervision requirement. Do you think that they do so?
NO - Not necessarily
While the intention behind section 18, to ensure children and young people receive the help and services they need is one that we can support, there are difficulties in enforcing duties without discussion with the relevant agencies. Any duty on any agency to deliver a service or meet a requirement needs to be within the remit and resources of that agency. Similarly, the willingness of a child/family to engage will affect an agency’s ability to meet any requirement imposed through a hearing.
Q15 In relation to section 20 on warrants, it is intended that section 66 will apply where there is an application to the sheriff under section 65. It is intended that section 69 will apply where the situational condition is accepted/established (and there is no current section 65 application). Section 45 and section 63 will continue to apply in their own particular circumstances. Further refinement to ensure this effect is intended. In your opinion or in the opinion of your organisation, will such an approach simplify warrant procedures?
We do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable to answer this question
Part 2: Issues for Consideration
Q16 The consultation document sets out a number of proposed changes to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 arising from the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004. Are you content with these proposals?
YES
Q17 For the small group of young people who continue to pose a risk to themselves or others, and who cannot or will not engage with services who are working to change their behaviour, we wish to explore further options to compel them to change their behaviour. To secure continued support and intervention for young people involved in offending we would like to hear your opinions on:
• How we can best ensure that children’s services continue to support young people who offend to cease offending and make a successful transition into positive adulthood?
The backgrounds of many young persistent offenders are all too familiar and feature welfare concerns from an early age. It is therefore important that there is much more support available to families and children before crisis stage. Early intervention is the starting point.
There are evaluated services which demonstrate that comprehensive packages of support that address deeds and needs, can make a difference to young people’s behaviour. A key factor in any of these programmes is the relationship between young person and staff providing the service – this cannot be underestimated and any service development which aims to effect a change in offending behaviour needs to take this into account. The support of these services and others that reduce risk factors and enhance protective factor, needs to come from a strategic approach across local authority areas.
Too many young people are taken out of the Hearing system at the age of 16 – all too often to come back into the adult criminal justice system. There needs to be more support available to this age group – again from a range of agencies such as youth services as well as training and employment agencies.
• How we could formalise systems to ensure that this happens?
Legislation will not compel a change in behaviour by young people, but having a sense of belonging, a stake in society and something positive worth holding on to is more likely to encourage young people to desist from offending.
• How we might respond to the concerns of our communities in the best way to deal with the problem of persistent offending by young people?
There needs to be recognition that, as with child protection, it is not the sole responsibility of one agency to address the deeds and needs of young offenders. There are examples of effective multi-agency strategies and approaches which are making a difference, but they need to be supported politically and financially. We have had too much short-term funding for new initiatives when the real need is for investment in core services which addresses both the risks and protective factors associated with offending.
While many concerns by communities appear appropriately justified, they are unfortunately fuelled by negative media coverage of young people and very reactive responses from politicians. Engaging the communities in dialogue with young people takes a lot of resources and energy and needs to done sensitively. Investing in training, recruiting and supporting youth and community workers who can work alongside police and other agencies is required if communities are to be helped to identify solutions.
• What, if any, legislative requirements do you believe would be required to deliver this?
See above – Anti-social behaviour legislation has not made a significant difference. Attitudinal and culture changes cannot be legislated for.
Q18 The Scottish Executive is committed to promoting and supporting the rights of children and to reflecting the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in the development of policy and legislation. To ensure that we are effectively promoting and supporting the rights of children we would like your views on the following:
• The Bill as drafted is intended to improve children’s rights in Scotland. Do you feel it will do so effectively?
A number of measures will clearly be an improvement on the current situation e.g. regarding confidentiality, but much will depend on how the legislation is implemented
• Should we also consider a general duty on agencies working to meet the needs of children to also promote and support the rights of children?
The UNCRC should underpin practice as well as policy and legislation and therefore all agencies should be promoting and supporting the rights of children.
Ql9 The Scottish Executive is committed to equality of opportunity for all regardless of race, religion or belief, disability, sexual orientation, age or gender, language, social origin or political opinion. Do you have any views on whether anything in the draft Bill will have a differential impact on equality communities?
NO
Q20 We would be grateful for views on what further legislative provision for information sharing beyond that proposed in the Protection for Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill may be necessary to deliver the Getting it right for every child agenda.
We hope that the Code of Practice for sharing information will be sufficient to guide agencies but would suggest that this needs to be monitored by the Scottish Executive. Effective information sharing is a key element of the HMIE Child Protection Inspections and good practice will be highlighted through these as will any shortcomings on behalf of agencies.
Q21 Would amending the definition of a child ‘in need’ in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 be helpful to the aims of Getting it right for every child without causing unwanted consequences?
NO
There may be difficulties at times between agencies in sharing and agreeing thresholds, however the definition of children ‘in need’ is generally understood and would still have meaning and application within the context of Getting it right for every child.
Q22 We would be grateful for informed comment on any or all of the matters discussed in the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment including views on any matters arising from the draft Bill which may (in your view) have cost implications.
There is reference to potential cost implications and we would like to highlight that these will affect voluntary agencies as well as statutory agencies. A substantial proportion of voluntary agency income is from local authorities who commission/provide fees for services and there is always difficulties in securing additional funds for the training and implementation of new legislation and associated developments.
Q23 We are interested in any other views you have on both the content of the draft Bill consultation and on ways which we could make this type of exercise more accessible to a wider range of people in the future.
The Bill is clearly just one part of the GIRFEC programme and to many practitioners and front line managers it is difficult to get the time to keep up to speed with all the developments around the programme and in particular the potential implications for practice in the voluntary sector. It would be very helpful if the Executive could issue a regular newsletter and host regular seminars for this purpose.