|
"Imagine
there's no future"
The
care and education of vulnerable girls
and young women
|
|
Community
Services Scrutiny Panel
The City of Edinburgh Council
UNISON City of Edinburgh Branch Response
|
November 2001
- SUMMARY
UNISON City of Edinburgh Branch welcomes
the opportunity to comment on this report.
The branch welcomes the principles behind
the commissioning of this report and recognises
that this is an area that requires study.
We welcome some of the evidenced conclusions
in the report but we are concerned that
its overall impact and credibility is
affected by a number of issues. These
need further attention to arrive at a
true and substantiated assessment of the
situation facing vulnerable girls and
young women in Edinburgh which carries
sufficient credibility to underpin future
strategy.
UNISON regrets to say that it believes
the report in its current form is fundamentally
flawed and must not be used as a basis
for planning future services. UNISON
feels that, to evidence this view, it
is important to make a detailed and unfortunately
lengthy response. The areas that give
us particular concern are as follows:
- The consultation exercise involved
eleven practitioners from nine organisations.
While information was taken from Council
Departments, there is no recorded consultation
with practitioners in the Council's
own Social Work, Education and Housing
Departments. This is surprising given
that these practitioners deal with the
vast majority of vulnerable girls and
young women in Edinburgh. For example,
Social Work Children & Families
Teams dealt with almost 9,000 referrals
in the year 2000 regarding children
under 16.
- It is especially concerning that conclusions
are drawn about the role of Young Peoples
Centres and Secure Units without taking
any evidence from staff in these units
or apparently from any substantial sample
of residents.
- The report fails to demonstrate an
understanding of the different roles
of YPCs and residential schools and
wrongly suggests they may be interchangeable
as resources.
- In addressing issues of choice of
access to female staff and gender attitudes,
the report fails to recognise that around
86% of Council social workers are women
and that both Childrens Rights Officers
are women.
- The report has failed to recognise,
address or evaluate current inter-agency
working, eg Pupil Support Groups, Inter-Agency
Assessments, Edinburgh and Lothians
Child Protection arrangements, other
co-ordination systems and integrated
assessment procedures. As such it seeks
to re-invent the wheel in some areas.
- The report appears to start from a
position of greater voluntary sector
involvement in the provision of core
services without developing a rationale
for this. It ignores statutory requirements
in dealing with under 16's and makes
no detailed reference to the principles
of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
in terms of the role and responsibility
of the local authority. This has major
implications for accountability, rights
of young people and the ability to maintain
a coherent and consistent service across
the city.
- It makes assumptions about the role
of the Voluntary Sector and does not
take cognisance of the fact that, in
many circumstances, specific projects
have quotas and selection procedures
whereas the Council Departments have
to provide a demand-led service, ie
they need to attempt to provide a service
to everyone who refers.
- The report suggests that a number
of functions should be initiated or
transferred to various organisations
with different structures, remits and
funding arrangements. This would create
even more fragmented service provision
and hinder strategic planning - working
against the principles that the report
specifically promotes.
- The report does not fully address
the destabilising effects of short-term
or specific funding. This can lead to
inferior pay and conditions and less
job security - a significant issue when
there are recruitment problems in Social
Work.
- The report often fails to distinguish
between empirical evidence and anecdotal
evidence. In some sections the weight
of evidence is discarded in favour of
a single comment by a contributor. This
undermines the legitimacy of certain
findings and recommendations. In some
areas, the report is selective in its
evidence and conclusions and fails to
address the range and complexity of
issues involved. In many areas the report
arrives at generalised conclusions which,
while in some cases valid, are not specific
to vulnerable girls or young women.
Top
- INTRODUCTION
UNISON City of Edinburgh Council (Local
Government & Related Sectors) Branch
represents around 10,000 members working
for The City of Edinburgh Council, joint
boards, the voluntary and community sector
and related bodies. Many of these members
are professionals and practitioners in
the key areas mentioned in the report,
ie Social Work, Education, Housing and
the Voluntary Sector. Most of our members
are of course also citizens of Edinburgh
and the issues raised in the report will
have implications for some of their families.
Top
- CHAPTER 1
- Post 16 Services (Throughcare and
Aftercare)
The recognition that there will
be young people over 16 who need to
re-access services having previously
left care is an important one. The system
is not resourced to allow young people
of both genders to make 'mistakes' and
return to start again.
- This must be seen in light of the
average age of leaving the family
home in Scotland which we understand
to be somewhere between 21 and 23.
In most cases this will be a gradual
process with returns home for a range
of reasons over time. The care system
as its stands cannot accommodate this.
- There needs to be a recognition
that young people are coming into
local authority care in their mid
teens, often with a long history of
issues which affect their wellbeing
and which have formed their view of
the world. Many, if not most, see
their 16th birthday as
a magical time when they can do whatever
they want and break free from family,
care, school etc. In this context
it is often very difficult to engage
the young person in work related to
a planned move to independence.
- Mental Health
- While it is true that there is
a strong association between 'psychosocial
adversity, poverty, social exclusion
and increased prevalence of mental
health problems', the situation is
more complex. A cause and effect model
should not be assumed. Issues like
social drift where various mental
health and other issues can themselves
be the cause of poverty and social
exclusion also need to be recognised.
- The report rightly recognises that
young people with mental health problems
are difficult to engage and follow-up
via adolescent mental health services.
We welcome the identification that
a centralised resource may 'inadvertently
perpetuate social exclusion'. This
is compounded in Young Peoples Centres
where peer opinions, issues of stigma
and just the general problems of a
chaotic lifestyle make it very difficult
for young people, even with support,
to attend clinics.
- UNISON would welcome consideration
of a more flexible outreach service
and we acknowledge this has funding
implications.
Top
- CHAPTER 3 - PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Finding No 1:
Anecdotally, UNISON would consider that
there is some substance in the 'postcode
lottery' argument but little real evidence
is led to support this. The report does
not fully address the issue of how decisions
are made as to where voluntary sector
projects are based.
Finding No 2:
Again this may well be the case but no
coherent evidence is led. However, it
would be sensible to have gender inequality
as an element to be addressed in strategic
planning.
Finding No. 3:
- UNISON has no doubt that there are
societal stereotypical views about women
and sexuality. However the concept of
stereotyping in sexual behaviour in social
work services is not based on any coherent
evidence we can see in the report. Indeed
it seems to be based on a generalised
statement by only one witness.
- The report advances no evidence for
its assertion that females are treated
differently within social work services
and advances no evidence that, if they
are, this is due to 'stereotyping'. It
advances no evidence or example as to
whether girls or young women are treated
more 'negatively or harshly' than young
men regarding sexual behaviour.
- This is a complex area that warrants
a more detailed examination. The agencies
dealing with young women are charged with
a protective role as well as a supportive
role. If, for example, a young woman under
16 is suspected of being at risk sexually
(perhaps suspicions of being involved
in prostitution as can be the case with
young women who have absconded) the agencies
concerned would be seen as irresponsible
if they did not try to take protective
measures. UNISON has no evidence of young
women in this situation being treated
'harshly'. This might be concluded from
a childrens hearing imposing a secure
order on a young woman thought to be at
risk, but the alternative of not seeking
to protect the young person would be unacceptable
to the law, the Council, parents and the
public.
- At any given time, there are a number
of young women under the age of 16 who
are reported missing. There are very serious
and genuine concerns about some of these
young women which are based on knowledge
and evidence of their vulnerability. This
is not stereotyping, it is real evidenced
risk to the individual young person.
- UNISON acknowledges that the situation
is different for boys and that some of
the same risks (the most obvious of pregnancy)
do not apply. However, boys can be just
as vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
They can also harm others due to their
sexual behaviour. Boys in these situations
are subject to the same risk assessment
as young women. In addition, they may
face the additional issue of criminal
charges for 'consenting' sexual activity.
In the latter case UNISON accepts that
'consenting' can be a difficult concept
which is not always easy to differentiate
from 'collusive or manipulative'. Nevertheless
the law and practice within YPC's and
elsewhere is very clear on the need to
protect young women and lay the balance
of practice on ensuring their protection.
To draw any conclusions from this part
of the report would require considerable
extra research.
Joint Working
Finding No. 4:
-
The relationship between
the Voluntary Sector and local authorities
is oversimplified. While it is the case
that there is competition for funding,
it is UNISON's view that the voluntary
sector is often preferred because of the
ability to short-term fund and avoid commitment
to a long term service. UNISON also has
concerns as to how need is identified
and consequently how resources are targeted.
-
However, it is important
to note that many voluntary sector organisations
are wholly or majority funded by local
authorities to provide a specific service
via, for example, block purchase or service
level agreements. UNISON's view is that
it is in these areas that joint-working
occurs most effectively. It works especially
well when voluntary organisations develop
specialist or innovative services that
can eventually be mainstreamed.
-
However, we still have
concerns that an unhealthy competitive
scenario seems to be developing with bidding
for core services. This is bound to affect
joint working. Such competition also affects
the overall ability of the Council to
plan strategically and in the long term.
It also affects the overall direct accountability
of services to the Council and ultimately
to the public.
-
A multitude of different
organisations with different structures,
remits and funding arrangements also creates
fragmented service provision and hinders
strategic planning - working against the
principles that the report specifically
promotes.
-
The most serious danger
is that specific criteria for some projects
can and does mean that the local authority
becomes a catch-all for those who fall
through the net rather than a one door
entry point to maximise the specialisms
of a range of in-house and voluntary sector
provision.
Finding No. 5:
-
The major issue in terms
of definitions of an 'adult' comes from
legislation. The Children (Scotland) Act
1995 has at least three different definitions
for different purposes. However, UNISON
can see no evidence to state that the
voluntary sector is not funded to deal
with under 16s. Barnardos, NCH and Edinburgh
Family Service Unit are just three projects
thus funded. UNISON assumes that the report
is referring to self-referral of people
under 16 with no local authority involvement.
This is not a funding issue but a legal
issue in terms of the responsibility placed
on local authorities by the Children (Scotland)
Act. This does bring problems in dealing
with issues like Supervision Orders and
other legal orders.
-
It is UNISON's experience
that, even before the changes in the legislation,
many voluntary sector organisations were
unwilling to take on a statutory or legally
protective role for children and would
require that the local authority (which
was often funding them in the first place)
also provided a member of staff to oversee
the 'statutory' bit.
-
Many of our members have
found this artificial designation of roles
causes duplication of resources but also
promotes a false view that the voluntary
sector 'helps' while the statutory agency
'controls'. There is no situation where
any agency could legitimately ignore issues
of protection or could hold information
that a child is being abused and not act
on that to protect that child and other
children.
Finding No 6:
-
This section is very
broad ranging but UNISON welcomes the
finding that a 'many door entry to a family
of professionals' would be desirable.
Again, however, the situation is more
complex.
-
For example, the report
makes no mention of existing co-ordination
systems, for example Pupil Support Groups,
Inter Agency Assessments and the key co-ordination
role of Childrens Centres with their direct
access to resources like Occupational
Therapy and Speech Therapy. While these
relate to young children, they also relate
to young women who are mothers and this
group put the ready access to such services
at the top of their lists in a recent
Best Value consultation. This co-ordinated
approach is not always successful with
differing agencies showing differing commitment
to it, but it is an area that should have
been addressed and should have been identified
for further development.
-
Specialisms are increasing
both between agencies and within agencies.
This has the advantage of being able to
develop practice and resources in a more
targeted way. It has the disadvantage
of removing the natural one-door approach
that used to exist (eg generic social
work services). There is a need to develop
different models for different purposes.
-
For example in the 1980's
the West Lothian District of Lothian Region
created a central referral point for under
fives in response to a survey that discovered
one child was receiving services from
nine different agencies. All of the local
agencies for under-5's subscribed to this
and no matter where the referral was made,
it was channeled into the central pool.
A range of professionals and agencies
were then able to co-ordinate a package
of supports for a particular child.
-
Such joint working between
a range of health and local authority
services would be welcome for all young
people and would allow the report's aim
of the young person being able to stick
with their 'entry point' and accessing
co-ordinated services from there.
-
While UNISON would support
multi-agency teams in some circumstances,
and in particular the area of mental health
requires further examination, we believe
that the evidence would not support this
approach in all circumstances. For example,
there is now a growing body of evidence
that joint police/ social work child protection
teams do not deliver all that was expected
and that, in many circumstances, work
is more effective through the kind of
joint protocol operating in Edinburgh.
-
UNISON's view is that
there do not have to be joint agency teams
based together to deliver effective joint
agency working. Each agency necessarily
works from a different principle and value
base. These different principles act as
effective checks and balances in the interests
of service users. The danger arises in
joint-agency teams that the 'ethos' of
one or another agency can dominate at
the expense of others.
Identifying hidden needs
and meeting those needs
UNISON believes there
is considerable evidence to support the
view that a lack of resources for early
intervention can lead to escalation and
the need for more extreme forms of intervention.
The Childrens Services Plan and an analysis
of the types of cases allocated to children
and families social workers confirms that
current resources can only manage to allocate
'statutory' cases - and even then many remain
unallocated. As such, cases are allocated
on a priority basis and that tends to work
against being able to intervene pre-emptively
or on a preventative basis.Finding No.
7:
-
UNISON agrees that there
is a need to look at ways of helping young
people, and young women in particular,
feel in control of their information and
thereby making it more easy for them to
disclose sexual abuse. This is an area
that requires further research to identify
clearly (not just anecdotally) what systems
work best in allowing young women to feel
comfortable in disclosing abuse.
-
However, the comments
from Penumbra do not address a number
of important issues. Not least of these
is that it would be wrong to suggest or
allow a young person to believe that they
have total control over what happens to
the information they give. For example,
there may be other children involved.
Very often in cases of disclosure of historical
abuse, the alleged abuser has continuing
access to children.
-
A survey by Childline
in the early 1990's discovered a majority
of young people found social workers helpful
and protective when they disclosed abuse.
The problem came when they perhaps had
to leave home and when other processes
(legal, case conferences etc) took over.
At this stage some felt guilt and a lack
of control over the huge ramifications.
There is clearly more work to do in helping
young people through that process and
ensuring they feel in control of as much
as they can.
-
However, it would again
be irresponsible to suggest to anyone
under or over 16 that they can have absolute
control over the situation. Adults cannot
allow a child to exercise the choice to
return to an abusive situation. Professionals
cannot allow an adult to refuse to have
their information used where other young
people may be at risk.
Finding No 8:UNISON
agrees that services are not expanding to
meet the need for follow-up to disclosures
of abuse. We believe this is exemplified
in a number of pieces of research including
the Childline survey referred to above.
Finding No 9:
-
UNISON agrees that young
women should have the choice to work with
female staff. UNISON membership in Social
Work Centres is about 86% women and we
assume this largely reflects the ratio
of women to men in the workforce. As such
there should be no major issues in having
access to female staff. In addition the
Childrens Rights Officers are women. Choice
is important and the use of the term 'availability'
is important in the report. UNISON would
caution against stereotyping young women
in assuming they will always wish to work
with woman. We suspect that the finding
that 'girls and young women expressed
a preference for working with female professionals'
is the case, but again no explicit evidence
is presented to support this.
-
UNISON is aware of young
women who have actively chosen to disclose
to male workers with whom they have trusting
relationships. Especially in residential
care, there is a need to present different
male role models that may have been the
experience of the girls or young women
concerned.
Finding No. 10:
- The report leads no evidence for its
assertion that 'young people from minority
ethnic communities … can experience discrimination'
when accessing mainstream services.
- While UNISON would accept (especially
in light of the McPherson Report) that
most agencies are institutionally racist
to some extent, there has been no attempt
in the report to actually report on the
experiences of any young people so that
particular issues can be addressed.
- UNISON accepts that there is an inadequacy
of training for social work staff. However
it should also be acknowledged that a
key - if not the major element of current
social work training is anti-discriminatory
practice.
- UNISON acknowledges that the lack of
significant numbers of black workers does
affect the image of a service and will
affect how it is seen by minority ethnic
communities. UNISON believes that this
is not unique to mainstream services,
as seems to be suggested in the report.
- The sweeping statement that 'young people
from ethnic minority communities have
no reason to trust agencies' is not evidenced
and needs further exploration.
- UNISON believes that staff working
with young people are keenly aware of
race issues and are often in the front
line of confronting racist attitudes with
young white people. We believe that staff
do practice in an anti-discriminatory
way. The experience of Childrens Centre
use, for example, is that ethnic minority
families who use the service are satisfied
with it.
- However we recognise that more work
has to be done organisationally to break
down assumptions and images that may deter
the black community from approaching mainstream
services.
Top
5. OPERATIONAL
Finding No. 11:
- UNISON accepts this finding and would
refer to the considerable work done in
Young Peoples Centres to address the negative
attitudes of boys and young men.
- UNISON would have preferred if the
study had actually looked at the work
in YPCs and had offered some recognition
of the difficult job staff have in addressing
these issues on a day to day basis.
Finding No 12:
- Given that the report quotes little
more than anecdotal evidence, UNISON believes
it is justified to note that the experience
of our members is that the majority of
referrals from girls and young women disclosing
abuse come via schools.
- This is not to say that there is no
need to look at making the process simpler
and more accessible. Again anecdotally,
many girls disclose abuse to friends who
then refer to teaching staff. When the
issue is opened up in this way, girls
and young women then do go on to disclose
in more detail to teaching, social work
and police staff.
- The report only fleetingly refers to
the fundamental issue in any 'buddy' scheme
of peers. That is the responsibility placed
on the young person who is the 'buddy'.
Again there is a danger of giving false
expectations to a young person, and as
the law stands (notwithstanding the expectations
of society and the Council) it would be
not be possible for a 'buddy' to fail
to act on a disclosure of abuse, especially
if there were ongoing risks. 'Buddies'
like anyone else would need to be honest
with young people about what they could
and could not keep confidential.
- In addition, there is considerable evidence
that young people respond to consistency
and honesty irrespective of the age group
of the person. There is also evidence
that young people can find adults closer
to their age more difficult to communicate
with if that person does not accept that
only a very few years age difference can
be a huge cultural gap.
Residential Schools
Finding No 13:
UNISON agrees that distance
residential school placements may have detrimental
effects in some circumstances. However they
can also have positive effects in giving
the young person respite from problematic
relationship and environmental factors and
UNISON believes its members would be able
to identify a significant number of girls
and young women in this situation. UNISON
acknowledges that the quality of the school
is fundamental to this.
Secure Units:
Finding No 14:
- Caution is needed in drawing conclusions
from conflicting evidence. The report
notes some research shows a risk of girls
and young women being abused in secure
accommodation, but also that girls and
young women have said they feel safe in
the secure unit.
- UNISON believes there is a more fundamental
issue to be addressed and that is the
delineation between offending and non-offending
behaviour. Girls and young women are bullied
by other girls and young women and these
are problems YPC and secure unit staff
have to address all the time. UNISON would
like the report to have consulted YPC
and Secure Unit staff to seek their views
on managing resident groups who are in
units for widely different reasons and
who present widely differing needs for
control and protection.
- It is not automatic that girls and young
women would necessarily feel safer if
accommodated separately. While UNISON
recognises that many more boys and young
men have been involved in offending and
abusive behaviour that girls and young
women, it does not mean that some girls
and young women do not present risks to
others. UNISON would suggest that the
level of risk to others is a more relevant
yardstick rather than gender.
Young Peoples Centres
Finding No 15:
- Mental Health issues, in particular
depression, are a constant concern to
YPC staff. As mentioned earlier, it can
be very difficult to get young people
to attend appointments at the YPU or other
clinics. This is not surprising given
the nature of depression and the crises
and chaos that many young people experience
which leads to them being accommodated.
- UNISON believes these difficulties indicate
a need for an outreach service whereby
young people can, at least initially,
be visited and seen where they are staying
or at least in close proximity.
Finding No 16:
There is a significant misunderstanding
of the role of YPCs and Residential Schools.
They are not interchangeable and one should
not substitute for the other. Where YPCs
are used inappropriately is when girls or
young women are placed there because there
is no available residential school.
The availability of a female only YPC
would have, and should have, no effect on
residential school places. If it did, it
would be a misuse of the YPC place which
cannot and should not substitute for the
assessed need for residential schooling.
Finding No 17:
- UNISON welcomes the recognition of the
problems of putting large groups of young
people with severe behavioural problems
together in the same accommodation. It
also welcomes the recognition that such
young people may not manage foster care.
- UNISON welcomes the concept of 'Multidimensional
Treatment Foster Care' and in particular
the concept of the availability of a specialist
multidisciplinary support service.
- While not identical, the report may
have sought to build on the current specialist
foster care initiatives and from the Minto
Street project, both of which contain
some elements.
- However, difficulties in recruiting
foster parents would have to be recognised
as a major issue and issues like payment,
training and support systems would have
to be examined in detail.
Findings No 18, 19 and
20:
- UNISON is concerned at the conclusions
drawn from the evidence of Barnardos and
Penumbra in this section. Barnardos 16+,
funded by the Council, has considerable
experience and is funded (unlike the local
authority) to a level where there is a
high staff/client ratio. The project is
also able to select the young people it
works with, while the Council has an overall
responsibility to all young people it
looks after.
- While it is true that young people may
have had many workers, they will certainly
have a key worker who is responsible for
helping them move on to independence.
Within the local authority, typical practice
would be to select the worker that the
young person best engages with, eg residential
worker, practice team worker or support
worker.
- It is the experience of local authority
social workers that many young people
moving on to independence prefer to distance
themselves from all systems, not just
the care system, and this is what causes
so many breakdowns. The availability of
support and services does not ensure that
the young person will choose to use them.
In fact a recurring theme of some support
agencies is that the young person must
be 'motivated' before they will be accepted
and this is demonstrated in the application
forms and assessment process. It has to
be recognised that the local authority
does not have a choice in rationing its
service in this way.
- As mentioned in 3.1.2 above, " There
needs to be a recognition that young people
are coming into local authority care in
their mid teens, often with a long history
of issues which affect their wellbeing
and which have formed their view of the
world. Many, if not most, see their 16th
birthday as a magical time when they can
do whatever they want and break free from
family, care, school etc. In this context
it is often very difficult to engage the
young person in work related to a planned
move to independence."
- As mentioned in 3.1.1, " This must be
seen in light of the average age of leaving
the family home in Scotland which we understand
to be somewhere between 21 and 23. In
most cases this will be a gradual process
with returns home for a range of reasons
over time. The care system as its stands
cannot accommodate this."
- UNISON agrees that continuity of
care is essential but argues that we also
have to recognise that young people will
exercise choices of their own. There should
be provision for young people to make
'mistakes' and come back into the system
to be cared for again and not forced into
independence. UN Findings 19 and 20 address
this issue and we would support research
into whether young women would benefit
from gender-specific supported accommodation.
- Lack of resources at YPC level and
at Supported Accommodation level contribute
to some of the difficulties young people
encounter, even if they do engage with
a plan to move to independence.
- UNISON believes the report should have
addressed the state benefits system discrimination
against young people going on to further
education.
Finding No 21:
- UNISON queries the evidence of a lack
of care plans for young people who leave
the care system. Current systems require
that care plans are in place for all accommodated
children and young people and documentation
has to be completed at reviews which must
be held at least every six months. Social
Work Departmental procedures require that
throughcare is addressed at reviews. Reviews
are chaired by independent chairpersons
whose role it is to ensure a care plan
is in place.
- It may be the case that a care plan
is in place but the resources are not
available to carry it out. This is a different
issue from there being no care plan. If
the report is to lay such a serious accusation
of staff not following policy and legislative
requirements, it should have backed it
up with real rather than 'anecdotal' evidence.
Findings No 22 and 23:
- It is unclear as to what the report
understands the assessment process to
be and it offers no clarification as to
what it means. The report makes no mention
of the Inter-Agency Assessment process
or inter-agency Pupil Support Groups.
As such it is difficult to see which elements
of assessment it considers to be failing.
- UNISON believes there will be delays
in assessments due to resource shortages
but that some level of assessment will
always have been made to at least determine
priorities.
- There are problems when a range of resources,
projects and initiatives are run by separate
entities. Even if a comprehensive local
authority assessment has been undertaken,
each of these resources will typically
insist on their own separate assessment
as regards their criteria etc. This problem
would be further compounded by the report's
apparent preference for division of existing
resources amongst a range of organisations.
- UNISON agrees that more co-ordination
is required in assessments and across
agencies. The local authority could take
a lead role in this but it would require
the input and co-operation of a range
of agencies prepared to participate. The
experience of local authority social workers
is that it is difficult to secure a willingness
from agencies to regularly attend existing
forums like Child protection Case Conferences
and so the problems should not be underestimated.
- Specifically, UNISON feels that there
were considerable benefits in the previous
system of 21 day or 6 week inter-agency
assessments commissioned by the Childrens
Hearing system under the Social Work (Scotland)
Act 1968 and would wish a similar system
to be considered.
- UNISON regrets the experience of the
young woman whose attempts to disclose
abuse were not heard. We would want to
know the details of why a female worker
was not available to her and would be
very surprised if that option were not
available within current practice. We
have outlined above that by pure chance
she would have been 86% more likely to
have seen a woman social worker than a
man.
Finding No 24:
UNISON agrees that funding
arrangements for the statutory and voluntary
sectors do not permit efficiency or joint
working. UNISON would further note that
the Council has to spend some 80% over GAE
on childrens services while still facing
a serious shortfall in resources. There
is nothing to be gained from competition
between the sectors for funding. There are
also serious problems with short term and
ring-fenced funding which fails to give
long term commitments to services.
Finding No 25:
UNISON strongly agrees
that resources and technology have not been
made available to the Social Work Department
to invest in and maintain effective management
information. UNISON would ask the Scrutiny
Panel to note the resulting huge commitment
on staff time on gathering statistics and
would ask that care is taken on assessing
the need and relevance of requests for such
information.
Top
UNISON welcomes the included
examples of best practice and we have already
commented positively on Multidimensional
Treatment Foster Care. We are however astonished
that no mention is made of any local authority
service and we believe this reflects the
fact that the report has concentrated on
voluntary sector services while failing
to fully examine the existing in house or
partnership provision which provides services
for the vast majority of young people in
need in the city.
UNISON is concerned that the City of Edinburgh
Council does not publicise enough some of
the innovative services it has developed.
To find these going without mention in a
report on vulnerable girls and young women
in Edinburgh further compounds that. Some
examples the report may have wished to examine
include:
Social Work Department
Edinburgh Family Support Service: Providing
outreach support in family's homes or by
spending time with vulnerable young people
as part of a planned programme or as an
emergency support at times of crisis. Includes
a residential service and is provided 24
hours a day. Has considerable experience
of working with vulnerable girls and young
women.
Social Work Department Specialist Fostering
Scheme: Only now coming on line but
providing a service identified in the report.
Working Together (old Youth
Strategy)
Around 35 FTE permanent Social
Work Department posts city wide currently
employed in this strategy to work with vulnerable
young people. UNISON is particularly disappointed
that this significant initiative with considerable
experience of working with girls and young
women was not directly consulted.
Social Work Department Young Peoples
Centre Outreach Work: Support for young
people to try to maintain them at home or
continuing outreach support for young people
moving to independence.
Social Work Department Close Support
Units: Largely unique to Edinburgh,
a system that attempts to quickly move young
people out of secure units into an open
environment with more intensive supports
than can be offered in a YPC.
Panmure House young womens group
which has run for the last six years. (Social
Work and Education)
Panmure House Secondary
School Support and evening groupwork
service: School and centre based plus outreach
groupwork and individual work with secondary
school children to help maintain them at
home and in mainstream school or to identify
appropriate resources. Also Panmure House
Primary School Support Service.
Education Department 'Feeling
Yes, Feeling No" programme: This regularly
facilitates disclosures of sexual abuse
by girls to teaching staff and other professionals.
Pupil Support Groups:
School based inter-agency assessment initiative.
Social Work Department Childrens Centres:
Again largely unique to Edinburgh. Includes
the regular service to parents and children,
to children with special needs, outreach
to predominantly young mothers and the weekend
service at Stenhouse.
The Social Work Department Supported
Accommodation Teams: Providing support,
preparation and practical help for the majority
of young people who move on from being accommodated.
They work with a range of problems including
supporting young people with mental health
problems.
Social Work Department partnership with
Cauvin House and Portland Street: Considerable
success in helping young people move on
to independent living with counselling and
a host of practical supports.
Joint Social Work and Police Protocol
for Disclosure of Historic Abuse: A
system developed to help and support in
the main young women who, as adults, disclose
abuse which occurred when they were children.
Social Work Childrens
Rights Officers: Providing independent
advocacy and support for accommodated children.
Automatically see all young people on admission
to secure unit. Both postholders are women.
PYCP, Woods Project, NE
Working Together Team and similar projects
providing a range of groups, mixed and single
gender, individual counselling, outreach
supports etc.
The Housing Department
has specific officers to assist and support
16-18 year olds.
These are merely a selection
of a range of imaginative services. The
report mentions that involvement in the
selected projects is voluntary on the part
of the young person. This is the case with
most of the above services. It must be noted,
however, that despite the fact that there
may be a supervision order, young people
can only be worked with really effectively
if they engage voluntarily. They regularly
do even in the context of the secure unit.
Indeed many girls and young women express
an initial relief at being 'secured'.
Top
-
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS
Because of the issues UNISON
has with the findings which underpin the recommendations,
our detailed comments have been focussed on
the findings. Our comments on the recommendations
will therefore refer back to our analysis
of the findings.
Recommendation 1 (Finding
No 1)
UNISON is not opposed to a mapping exercise
but questions the evidence that would warrant
the time and resources required to be diverted
to such an exercise. If undertaken, such an
exercise should include the analysis of need
and decision-making process for the siting
of non local authority services too. It should
also take into account the need to match assessed
need in a particular locality with the available
resources and should take into account the
work of Social Inclusion Partnerships.
Recommendation 2 (Finding
No 2)
It would be sensible to have
gender inequality as an element to be addressed
in strategic planning. However UNISON would
oppose resources being diverted to address
the general 'issues raised in this report'
because of our view that the report is flawed.
Recommendation 3 (Finding
No 3)
UNISON would note again that
86% of social work practice team staff are
women and that the majority of residential
workers are women. While UNISON has no objection
to gender awareness training, it opposes the
implied criticism of social work staff especially
since the report does not evidence its assertions.
Recommendation 4 (Finding
No 4 and 24)
Please see our detailed comments
under Findings 4 and 5. The relationship with
the voluntary sector is more complicated than
the report outlines. The issue cannot be divorced
from the underfunding of the Social Work Department
in particular. UNISON would strongly oppose
any dilution of local authority funding or
direct service provision, although it would
support more secure funding for voluntary
sector projects to avoid them being seen as
an easy option for short term funding. A number
of systems are in place which do much of what
the report recommends. These should be examined
first.
Recommendation 5 (Finding No 5)
The report is unclear in its
understanding of legislation regarding under-16s
and UNISON does not accept the 'difficulties'
mentioned have been explained or evidenced.
As such we believe it would be impossible
for the chief executive to make such a case.
Recommendation 6 (Finding
No 6)
See our detailed comments under
Finding No 6. The recommendation is based
on a misunderstanding of the legislation and
does not address responsibilities for child
protection adequately. The case has not been
made for additional voluntary sector involvement
as an entry point for statutory services and
the issues involved in this have not been
examined at all in the report.
Recommendation 7 (Finding
No 7)
UNISON believes there is a need
to continuously look at more accessible ways
for children to disclose abuse. It believes,
however, that this is a role for the Edinburgh
and Lothians Child Protection Committee
which suprisingly has not been consulted.
The examples and direction offered by the
report display lack of knowledge of the current
situation, over-simplify and would duplicate
existing work.
Recommendation 8 (Finding
No 8)
UNISON supports the need to
identify additional funding for post-disclosure
support services.
Recommendation 9 (Finding
No 9)
UNISON supports a young woman's
right to choose to speak to a female worker.
However with 86% women in the relevant social
work posts, and both Childrens Rights Officers
are women, it does not see that any specific
additional work needs to be done to ensure
this choice. Nevertheless it would not oppose
specific additional procedures being developed.
Recommendation 10 (Finding
No 10)
While UNISON has considerable
difficulties with the evidence base behind
the report's finding, it would support relevant
training on cultural issues.
Recommendation 11 (Finding
No 11)
UNISON believes existing work
has not been recognised by the report.
Recommendation 12 (Finding
No 12)
See our detailed response to
Finding 12. The 'buddy' system is fraught
with problems and could place inappropriate
responsibilities on young people, especially
in relation to disclosures of abuse.
Recommendation 13 (Finding
No 13)
UNISON opposes any further
reduction in out of council placements unless
suitable alternatives are firstly put in place.
UNISON is astonished that such a recommendation
should be made within the current serious
crisis in resources which leads to young people
being inappropriately placed as opposed to
being placed in residential schools assessed
as best meeting their needs.
The report is extremely muddled
on this issue (see comments under 1.3, Finding
13 and Finding 16) and confuses the different
roles of YPCs and residential schools. It
fails to acknowledge the positive outcomes
of many residential school placements. The
report ignores the need for special school
provision (residential and day) for girls
in Edinburgh.
Recommendation 14 (Finding
No 14)
See detailed comments on Finding
14. The report itself refers to young women
feeling safe in the secure unit. UNISON would
prefer a more in depth analysis of the benefits
of gender separation and separation on the
basis of need, risks to others and therapy
required.
Recommendation 15 (Finding
No 15)
UNISON would support more community
based mental health services and in particular
outreach from the YPU to Young Peoples Centres.
Recommendation 16 (Finding
No 16)
UNISON is not opposed in principle
but cannot support the recommendation if based
on the report's misunderstanding of the role
of YPCs vis a vis residential schools in Finding
No 16.
Recommendation 17 (Finding No 17)
UNISON would support such a
therapeutic foster care service, or the expansion
and adaptation of existing services.
Recommendation 18 (Finding
No 18)
UNISON supports the concept
of a 'key person' for young people. The appointment
of a key person already exists in most circumstances
and should be agreed in partnership with the
young person. The report does not address
accountability and childrens rights issues
which would have to be considered in the appointment
of a key person in some circumstances from
a non-statutory agency. We make detailed comments
under Findings 18, 19 and 20 which question
the evidence and assumptions presented by
the report and we list current practices that
the report seems unaware of.
Recommendation 19 (Finding
No 19)
UNISON supports the need for
contingency services for young people aged
16+ but believes it should address care as
well as housing. See detailed comments on
Finding No 19.
Recommendation 20 (Finding
No 20)
UNISON believes the issue of
failed tenancies requires urgent attention.
However to focus on the failed tenancy misses
the issues and resources that need to be addressed
prior to a tenancy being attained. Preparation
and systems to allow young people to make
mistakes need to be addressed on an inter-agency
basis. See detailed response to Finding No
20.
Recommendation 21 (Finding
No 21)
UNISON believes that current
systems to ensure that care plans exist are
sufficient and that no case has been made
to warrant resources being diverted.
Recommendation 22 (Finding
No 22 and 23)
The report is extremely unclear
what it means by assessment and UNISON has
made a very detailed response under the relevant
findings.
- UNISON would support a single multi-agency
assessment for children and young people,
although the report seems to be unaware
of the current work on a standardised
assessment process. UNISON would oppose
the inappropriate use of comprehensive
assessments for young people referring
on relatively minor matters. The assessment
must fit the situation and not gather
personal information unnecessarily and
not disseminate it unnecessarily around
a range of organisations. Young people
have a right to privacy.
- UNISON cannot see how enabling the voluntary
sector to undertake assessments would
improve the situation and we believe this
reflects the report's confusion about
assessments. Part of the current problem
is the wish or need of organisations to
do their own additional assessment in
relation to referrals. This needs further
explanation.
- No amount of monitoring the time from
receipt of a referral to undertaking an
assessment will address the sole cause
of the problem - insufficient staff resources.
Currently time is wasted assessing firstly
on the basis of priority for a full assessment
to manage waiting lists, unallocated cases
etc.
Recommendation 23 (Finding
No 25)
UNISON strongly supports the
need for better systems and technology for
the gathering and assessment of information
to assist planning and to evaluate performance.
Currently the lack of investment in such systems
results in enormous time commitments from
staff to gather often basic information. Considerable
planning and investment is needed and the
problem will not be solved by a 'halfway house'.
Top
UNISON has wished to be constructive
in its comments on a report that addresses
the fundamental issue of gender and equality
in the provision of services for vulnerable
girls and young women in Edinburgh.
We are aware that we have been
negative in many areas. This has stemmed from
the report appearing to start from a set of
assumptions, in some cases stereotypical,
about the 'statutory' sector, rather than
examining all the available evidence and consulting
the staff who deliver services to the majority
of the young people concerned.
We regret that the report has
not looked in greater depth at practice issues
and best practice within the Council and as
such our members have felt ignored, undervalued
and to an extent the victims of unwarranted
and un-evidenced criticism at a time when
they are having to strive hard to maintain
high standards of practice in the face of
a very difficult resource situation. This
is especially true of the unevidenced allegation
that vulnerable girls and young women are
subject to more harsh treatment on sexual
issues due to stereotypical views.
UNISON also believes that crucial
short term funding issues that lead to uncertainty
in the voluntary sector with the resultant
effects on staff conditions have not been
adequately addressed.
We hope that the positive aspects
of the report can be taken forward but we
have unfortunately concluded that the report
is flawed and cannot as a whole provide a
basis for future strategic planning.
Top
9. Further Information:
For further information please
contact
John Stevenson
Branch Secretary
UNISON City of Edinburgh
Local Government & Related Sectors Branch
23 George IV Bridge
Edinburgh
EH1 1EN
Tel 0131 220 5655
Email secretary@unison-edinburgh.org.uk